Former US Supreme Court Judges says the darnedest things. This writer has stewed on a comment made by former Judge Sandra Day O’Connor at the end of July 2012 and just can no longer keep himself from responding to her tripe.
In the past year, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has issued 2 or more highly questionable rulings. The first being the unlimited campaign contributions (aka Corporations are people too) and the second being Obamacare.
About a month after the infamous Supreme Court Obamacare Ruling Former US Supreme Court Judge Sandra Day O’Connor asserted in various snobbish/elitist legal news venues that persons who criticize the Supreme Court’s rulings just need to be educated. In particular, she indicated rank and file Americans who question SCOTUS need to be educated in civics and the role of the judiciary.
The inference being that WE THE PEOPLE are a bunch of uneducated hicks unable to understand the basis of SCOTUS rulings and fundamental right and wrong. (These are the least “high brow” reporting of Ms. O’Connor’s comments that I can find http://goo.gl/e6zpC http://goo.gl/WXn5F ) Quoting from the first article:
Sandra Day O’Connor Wants You To Be Educated Before You Speak
Sandra Day O’Connor, former Supreme Court Justice, is tired of all the negative Nancys throwing shade at Chief Justice John Roberts, whose decision to uphold the health care reform act got a lot of people talking. After he was called a “traitor” to the court, O’Connor stepped up in his defense, citing a lack of misinformation as the reason for the backlash.
“It’s unfortunate because I think comments like that demonstrate only too well a lack of understanding some of our citizens have about the role of the judicial branch,” she said…..
Before anything else is said, this writer states he never accused US Supreme Court Chief Justice John “Humpty Dumpty” Roberts of being a traitor to the Court. Humpty Dumpty (http://goo.gl/pQFlN Chapter 6) Roberts is a traitor to the Constitution and the Vision the Founding Father’s had for this Country. That vision including maximum individual liberty and maximum individual self-sufficiency. Liberty and tyranny is a Zero Sum game. Every gain in authority by the government must necessarily result in the loss of liberty for the individual. All SCOTUS has done with these recent rulings is reduce the liberty of the individual.
That having been said, this author must ask, what civics “education” does Ms. O’Connor mean?
- Does she mean the propaganda laden indoctrination in civics for young folks?... with the false representation that the US Judicial System makes careful decisions using the Rule of Law properly applied to the freely admitted, relevant facts in evidence? And that, therefore, the decisions of any Court, but especially the US Supreme Court are beyond questioning? Or,
- Does she mean the carefully guarded secret that the US Judiciary doesn’t make decisions pursuant to the Rule of Law, but in reality has reverted to the Divine Right of Kings http://goo.gl/Widfa and will ruthlessly crush any citizen that dares to criticize or expose the corrupt judiciary for what it really is?
Former Supreme Court Justice O’Connor, can you please elaborate on what you mean?
Ms. O’Connor, WE THE PEOPLE are not stupid. Even an uneducated person can usually deduce for themselves when they are being cheated, lied to, “handled” and treated with duplicity. The Internet is blowing the lid off the dirty little secrets of the US Judiciary. WE THE PEOPLE are campaign notes on our experiences with the US judiciary. At the moment, most rank and file American’s do not know how corrupt the judiciary is, and a large portion of those who do, have seen what you do to the leaders of Judicial TAR (Transparency, Accountability and Reform) and are afraid to speak up for fear of similar Government retaliation. This article will more properly inform rank and file Americans of “What’s going on?”(http://goo.gl/67DTH)
In this article we are going to cover the US Judiciaries corrupt rulings and actions in the following areas:
- 11th Amendment;
- Property Rights and the Divine Right of Kings;
- Unlimited Corporate Campaign Contributions
- Minnesota and the 1st Amendment Right to Petition
- Article 1 Section 8 of the Minnesota Constitution
- MN Appellate Court Case A10-1205 MN Lawyers not required to treat clients ethically;
- Unconstitutional Reprisal and Punishment of Minnesota Citizens seeking Minnesota Judicial TAR/ FRAP 35/40 Motion
Using the fictional hillbilly characters of Mavis, Amos and Sandy, this writer will meet and exceed the evidentiary standard of Clear and Convincing in establishing that SCOTUS and the US Judiciary have blatantly abandoned the Rule of Law, engaged in Simulated Litigation and blatantly just ignored the plain meaning of words.
(Suggestion to the reader - Please read the following, imagining Mavis, Amos and Sandy speaking with a hillbilly drawl while “Dueling Banjos” [The theme song from Deliverance (nominated for Best Picture 1973)] plays in the background http://goo.gl/q5bF6 )
The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.
Mavis: Hey Amos, did you know that in 1890, about a hundred years after the 11th Amendment thingy was adopted in 1795, the US Supreme Court said that the folks that writ that there Amendment actually meant that no folks could sue any state?
Amos: I shor’ didn’t. My read of that 11th Amendment thingy was that if you were a lived in a state, you could sue the state you lived in.
Mavis: Well in 1999, almost 200 years after that there 11th Amendment thingy was ratified, the US Supreme Court philosophized over the 11th amendment again, and was even more certain and restrictive in its ruling that no folks can sue a state?
Amos: That just don’t make no sense… The 11th Amendment thingy was ratified 6 years after the Constitution in 1789 (and the Bill of Rights in 1791. ) That would mean that at least some of dem dare folks that writ and ratified the Constitution and Bill of Rights were around for the writing and ratification of the 11th Amendment. Those folks did a 1st rate job with the Constitution, why would they mess up expressin themselves in the 11th Amendment thingy so badly?
Sandy: Amos, you forget yourself. The US Supreme Court is beyond reproach. We all can’t forget our place and begin criticizing the great and powerful SCOTUS. They tell us all that they is infal, infali, infaliable… infallible and honorable, so they must be.
Mavis: But if the folks that writ the 11th Amendment thingy meant no one could sue a state instead of just certain folks couldn’t sue a state, why didn’t them that writ it just put a period behind the 2nd “United States”, and just leave off those last words – “by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.”?
Amos and Mavis in chorus say: Judge Sandra Day-O’Connor, can you riddle us why them folks that writ the 11th Amendment didn’t just put that period in and leave the other words off, if they meant that no folks can sue a state? We’ll wait a spell so as you have time to ponder your answer.
Sandy: You two don’t know your place. How dare you pair of uneducated dullards question those educated judges with all their law learnin.
Mavis: I don’t recall a Supreme Court Ruling being amongst dem dare methods authorized in the Constitution to Amend the Constitution? Doesn’t that have to be done by the Congress or 2/3’s vote of the states or some such way?
Amos and Mavis: Judge Sandra Day O’Connor: Can you splain to how that Amending process that occurred with the 11th Amendment is Constitutional? In the mean time, we suggest Ms. O’Connor and other folks read Don Mashak’s article ;bout the 11th Amendment thingy here http://goo.gl/XeOYV
Sandy: You two just don’t understand role of the judicial branch elsewise you wouldn’t be quizzing dem dare judges like this.
How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain
meaning of words!
Property Rights and the Divine Right of Kings
Mavis: Amos, did you know that at one time the Kings owned all the land and no one could be on or use any land without the King’s (or his representatives) say so. (http://goo.gl/X7rCa | http://goo.gl/VPhbC )
Amos: Mavis, have you been edgumacating (educating) yourself on that internetty thingy?
Mavis: Well, heck fire Amos, I have. Before something called the enlightenment (1650-1800AD) , the Gov’ment (Kings) owned all the land and doled it out to their other noble dudes in exchange for taxes, soldiers and political support.
Amos: Mavis, stop it… dat dare is a lot of information and my head is like to explode. According to Judge Sandra Day O’Connor, us dumb hicks cant only learn so much before we hurt ourselves. Dat’s why we just got to believe what them folks edgumacted in the law.
Mavis: Amos, just hush yerself… What ever information is too much will just ooze our yer ears… your head will not explode…. Don’t go believin all that stuff them dare Judges say… A lot of it ain’t so.
Amos: But they be always called yer honor. How can them dare judge folks lie and be deceitful if they are honorable?
Sandy: Now yer talkin some sense there Amos.
Mavis: Amos, hush now and let me learn ya on them private property rights.
Mavis: Don’t make me lace your lips together with possum hide… Zip it, but I mean that in a nice way…
Amos: Shor’ nuff Mavis (makes lip zipping motion)
Sandy” (Just rolls her eyes)
Mavis: Before that there Enlightenment thingy the Gov’ment and Kings and such acted like they had the “Divine Right of Kings”. As kings and such, they said they were in right directly in contact with God. As such, no earthly being had the right to question the king’s decisions.
Amos: makes strange muttering noises….
Mavis: On the 4th line of that there Declaration of Independence you see reference to the “Laws of Nature”. (http://goo.gl/0f1MQ ) This is different from the laws of nature than our kinfolk might be familiar with. According to the folks of this here Enlightenment, this “Natural Law” was a set of preexisting rights that every person innately had, was born with and could not be revoked (except as punishment for crimes) .These fella’s said Natural Law Rights always existed, that they were just settin them to paper and affirming them in various writings of the Enlightenment. Sich as the “unalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” set forth in the Declaration of Independence 2nd paragraph lines 2-3
Sandy: That don’t sound right. Should them there edgumacted legal folks have the say so on who has rights and who don’t?
Mavis: No, according to that there Declaration of Independence, all us folks are created equal… Some such Judges might have more book learnin than we-uns, but they can never be more equal than us-ins.
Amos: (looks puzzled)
Mavis: Dem dare Private Property Rights are one of the Rights of the Individual Affirmed by Natural Law….( http://goo.gl/sGHGD )
Sandy: All that Natural Law stuff and Constitution does is makes it harder for the Gov’ment to take care of the uneducated masses of folks.
Amos: lipped sealed muttering (and pointing to his head and making motions like it is about to explode)
Mavis: Amos, stop it… I said you head would not explode… Excess information will just ooze from your ears and I see no oozing…
Amos: (just shrugs and rolls his eyes.)
Sandy: I’m partial to agree with you Amos, this private Property Rights is just plain hogwash.
Mavis: Private Property Right is considered the foundation right that makes all the other Natural Law Rights Possible. A person owning and havin total control of everything they own and everything that they make, be causin all the other Natural Law Rights to be possible.
Amos: (feigns falling asleep and snapping back awake)
Mavis: (smiling at Amos’s antics - Chortles) No oozing yet Amos. Having just gained their independence from that there King George of England, the Founding Fathers were very adamant about Private Property Rights instead of the Government owning everything. That is why them there Founder Folks writ into the Bill of Rights so harshly about imminent domain. They spelled out the terms and for what that their imminent domain could occur.
Sandy: Them there Bill of Rights is just another old document that gets in the way of the government ruling the ignorant masses.
Mavis: (Rolls his eyes at Sandy) The Founders realized that growth and expansion meant that sometimes property would have to be taken from private owners for the public good. This public good being things like roads, bridges, fortresses, and post offices. This imminent domain thingy action to be used very sparingly and in strict compliance with various conditions.
Amos: (pointing to the fake zipper on his mouth indicating he was to speak)
Mavis: Yes Amos, I am stepping off my soap box now…
Amos: But what about that there City of Richfield Minnesota forcing a private owner to give up his land so they could resell it to Best Buy? And what about them other similar type Gov’ment cases that Don Mashak talks about here http://bit.ly/rZvrXM What happened to them folks private property rights?
Mavis: Amos…. That there be more clear and convincing evidence of great and powerful OZ SCOTUS acting like they had the Divine Right of Kings rather than according to the Rule of Law. Isn’t taking property from one person and giving it to another person just like the Kings being able to determine who got to be upon and use any land?
Sandy: It is not the Divine Right of Kings. Gov’ment just knows more than us ignorant folks and should not have to abide by them old time ideas like Natural Law, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights or the Rule of Law.
Mavis: Sandy, shor’ly you can’t be serious. Takin’ folks’s land like this is plain fact provin that Judges act just like politicians and selling their opinions and rulings to the highest bidder and such. Don Mashak talks about this all the time. In determining that Government can take property from one private property owner and give it to another, the great and powerful OZ SCOTUS did not properly apply the Rule of Law to the non-machinated, freely admitted facts in evidence. SCOTUS ignored Natural Law, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the fundamental vision the Founder’s had for this country.
Amos: So Mavis, now you are a’sayin Government officials can take campaign contributions, bribes or other consideration and steal private property from one private party at bargain basement prices and give it to another private property owner. And that other private party likely paid a bribe or such to get that to happen?
Mavis: Does any other folks see any problems arising from that such dealings? This is why Don Mashak calls these rulings allowing the government to take property from one private party and give it to another private party “Divine Right of Kings masquerading as Judicial Case Law” http://bit.ly/rZvrXM
Sandy: (Just shakes head in frustrated denial and rolls her eyes)
UNLIMITED POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS BY CORPORATIONS
CORPORATIONS ARE PEOPLE TOO
Amos: Weren’t them there early corporations just supposed to be 10-20 partnerships to build canals and roads and such?
Mavis: Yer soundin right smart now, Amos…. And no oozing from the ears yet…
Amos: I needs to thank ya Mavis, for informacating me… I be startin’ to doubt some of the stuff Former US Justice Sandra Day-O’Connor says… From what I have dun saw on the 11th amendment and property rights, that Ms O’Connor don’t seem to know beans. And that great and powerful OZ SCOTUS, don’t seem to be so great nor honorable either, more like for sale to the highest bidder... I am starting to understand why Don Mashak calls them there judges the “Black Robed Mafia”.
Sandy: Amos, How dare you say that? Them there Supreme Court Justices themselves tell us that they be good, honorable folks. You should just trust them.
Mavis: (Ignores Sandy) Amos, I see you been paying attention…
Amos: This law stuff is only hard to understand when them there judges and lawyers tries to clutter it all up with them Latin words and such.
Mavis: Back to unlimited Campaign Contributions by Corporations…
Amos: Oooh! Oooh! If them there corporations have been around since the founding of the country, why didn’t previous Supreme Courts recognize the legality and properness of unlimited campaign contributions? Why is it that only 236 years after the Declaration of Independence that the Supreme Court determined that Corporations could make unlimited campaign contributions? Were previous courts concerned about the inherent problems and unfairness this would cause? Why is this question only now being addressed in 2012AD? Stinks to high heaven to me. It seems to me that SCOTUS was just looking for a payday? Seems to me that if SCOTUS would mislead, deceive and betray WE THE PEOPLE on the 11th Amendment and Property Rights so clearly and boldly, they would have no problem selling WE THE PEOPLE out on unlimited corporate campaign contributions.
Mavis: Wow Amos, you be speakin’ them high falutin thoughts and words like you weren’t as uneducated as former Justice O’Connor says we are?
Sandy: Look, the judges say they make their decisions according to the Rule of Law. Until you can prove otherwise, you just need to accept what they say and be quiet.
Mavis: Sandy, can I have some of whatever you are smoking? Amos, you make good points, but you have exhausted me…. Let’s invite Ms. Sandra Day-O’Connor to illuminate us dull bulbs… Ms. O’Connor, if you would please explain why it took 200 plus years to figure out that Corporations were people and unlimited contributions was Constitutional?
MINNESOTA AND THE 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES
Mavis: Before we al forge head long into the 1st Amendment of the Federal Constitution thingy, could we take a quick look at Article 1 Section 8 (Bill of Rights) of the Minnesota Constitution?
Sandy: Why don’t you just shut yo mouth already Mavis; Its obvious you don’t know what you are talking about.
Amos: Mavis, as long as my ears aren’t oozing, I be up for it.
Mavis: So here is Article 1, Section 8 of the Minnesota Constitution:
Sec. 8. Redress of injuries or wrongs.
Every person is entitled to a certain remedy in the laws for all injuries or wrongs which he may receive to his person, property or character, and to obtain justice freely and without purchase, completely and without denial, promptly and without delay, conformable to the laws. http://goo.gl/dCAIG
Amos: Don’t they be chargin a fee of more than $300 to file a lawsuit and a $100 to file some thingy called a motion in Minnesota State Courts?
Mavis: Sho’ enuff.
Amos: But it says freely and without purchase, What part of the picture show did I miss?
Mavis: I am thinking the same Amos. Sandy, you gots any ideaers?
Amos: Ooh! Ooh! Maybe “freely and without purchase” are really Latin words that happen to look like English words but mean totally different things in Latin?
Mavis and Amos: Ms O’Connor, you got some splainin to do…
Minnesota Appellate Case A10-1205 Fabian et al v Vollkommer
Amos: Mavis, please tell me the story about how Minnesota Lawyers are not required to represent their clients in an ethical matter?
Mavis: You all pretty much said all there is to be said. An elected Township Board member by the name of Paul Vollkommer was required by law to tell the Minnesota State Auditor’s office that the Township was mis-appropriating money. The State Auditor said they did not have the power of enforcement, the County attorney would not sue and the State Attorney General would do nothing so Mr. Vollkommer sued the Township personally on behalf of the tax payers and for wrongful termination because they fired him from the fire department for whistleblowing.
Amos: What be that there whistleblowing?
Sandy: That when the Government or the folks you work for fires you for reporting there wrongdoins and such to law enforcement.
Mavis: Right Sandy, And at a crucial point in the litigation, his own attorney sent him a bill for about $30,000. Mr. Vollkommer wrote back to dispute some of the bill. (The law firm had split and his attorney was charging him for a new intern to learn the case, because the old intern went with the other half of the firm. Mr. Vollkommer did not feel he should have to pay $10,000 to bring a new person up to speed, as it was not his fault the old intern was no longer with his attorney) Mr. Vollkommer was willing to pay the undisputed portion immediately, and discuss the remaining $10,000.00 later)
Sandy: He was a fool for spending his own money on behalf of the taxpayers.
avis: (Giving the evil eye to Sandy) The lawyer just immediately quit, at a this crucial time in the litigation.
Mavis: In the clandestine, unpublished a10-1205 ruling against Mr. Vollkommer on the $10,000.00, the Appellate Court ruled the Minnesota Lawyers don’t have to treat their clients ethically. Some of the language was words to the effect:
…the Minnesota Code of Professional Conduct is not an implied covenant of a legal services contract between a Minnesota Lawyer and their clients….
The Minnesota Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal.
Sandy: Yer just making this all up… No one is going to pay thousands of dollars to attorneys that don’t have to treat them ethically. No way the courts made a ruling where lawyers could just betray your trust. And just no way, the legislature would not immediately act to correct such a rulin’.
Mavis: Sandy, look it up yourself. Minnesota Appellate Case A10-1205 Call the Appellate Court Clerk of Courts and tell them you want to see it.
Amos: Woe to all that must rely on a public pretender.
Mavis: Anyone who be hiring a Minnesota Lawyer under such secret rules shor’ enuf be a fool. Ms. O’Connor, we all be waiting for you to splain dis here mess to us.
1st Amendment Right to Petition
Congress shall make no law…abridging the right… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances (without fear of reprisal or punishment).
Amos: I be lost.
Mavis: Amos, since 2005 folks in the state of Minnesota been seekin’ to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances regarding the Minnesota State Judiciary. Them there folks just wanted a hearing in which they could give evidence and testimony of corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary.
Sandy: (Indignant) You be full of muskrat juice.
Mavis: (Staring at Sandy) For coming on nye 8 years now the Minnesota House and Senate Judiciary Committees have refused to have a hearing dedicated to hearing testimony and receiving evidence of Minnesota Judicial corruption. 8 friggin years.
Sandy: You Sidewinder, You be making crap up again.
Mavis: Ain’t so. If you read Don Mashak’s blogs, you will see he has been documenting these here things for years. And they gots videos to.
Sandy: Ain’t no way the Minnesota Legislature folks would let this go on 8 years.
Mavis: Not only have they done did it, they have unlawfully and unconstitutionally retaliated against and punished some of the folks they figured was leaders of the Minnesota Judicial TAR (Transparency, Accountability and Reform) movement.
Amos and Sandy: Who?
Mavis: Don Mashak for one. They done fixed a case against him in which he was suing a former employee for embezzling money, theft of real and intellectual property, etc.
Sandy: Who and How did they fix the case against him?
Mavis: Let me start by saying that he spent more than $20,000 on attorneys over 2 years and got no depositions, no compelled discovery and was not allowed to amend his complaint. His own attorney, the Court and the Defense engaged in Simulated litigation and Fact Shaping to prevent Don Mashak from entering evidence on the record.
Sandy: Give me 3 examples.
Mavis: 1) The Judge set a Discovery and Dispositive Motion Deadline and then for 3 months refused all physical and/or telephonic hearings to address Discovery issues or any motions. The first hearing she would set was 10 days after the Deadline. How is that fair?
Sandy: Ain’t no way you-ins can prove that?
Mavis: It’s in the Court Record.
Amos: Wow, that really happened… $20,000.00 and the Government screwed him by not letting make dem dare motion thingys before dem deadlines?
Sandy: I am not impressed…. And number 2
Mavis: Don Mashak’s own attorney took a large quantify of certain documents that Don Mashak asked him to file on the official court record, out of the Client file before returning them to Don Mashak. When Don Mashak went to retrieve copies of the missing files from the Court file, almost the same Identical documents were missing from the Court file. The Court denied that the documents ever existed in the file. Don Mashak needed these documents to file an appeal. The Court did not admit to the existence of the documents until Don Mashak went to law enforcement to file a complaint. Suddenly the documents appeared, but too late for the appeal.
Sandy: More stuff you are making up.
Mavis: Don Mashak says “Go check the Court Records”. Ask them what was the large quantity of documents they mailed to him just after the appeal deadline went by. Go check with law enforcement and ask to see the records of the event.
Amos: Wowsie, Wowsers! And the third proof?
Mavis: Don Mashak says that his attorney, Lee Wolfgram, told him after the judge had stripped him of all his recording devices, that they (meaning the court, defense and he) had purposely fixed the case. The point in doing so in his words to the effect, “reduce you to the appearance of a bumbling eccentric) for pushing Minnesota Judicial TAR. Don Mashak won far less than he should have because the his own attorney, the Court and the Defense were following Government instructions to punish him and discredit him? Ain’t no way I be using a Minnesota Court… I be taken matters into my own hands in Minnesota.
Amos: Is it true that JDSupra.com closed Don Mashak’s long term account right after he filed his Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 35/40 Motion and Brief?
Mavis: Yes, and they refuse to give an explanation to this day. Don Mashak says it proves how explosively that FRAP 35/40 motion blows the lid off Judicial Corruption.
Amos: And Don Mashak’s Tweeter dealy too?
Mavis: Yes, twitter closed his account for about 2 weeks but then reopened it after a massive campaign by Don Mashak’s followers?
Sandy: Yer saying Don Mashak’s own attorney admitted that he, the judge and the defense fixed his case against him?
Mavis: Yes, Well you can see Don Mashak’s FRAP 35/40 Motion here http://scr.bi/O3jWge and decide for yourself if he got justice. He won the case but only got a fraction of the $20,000 he spent on lawyers pursuing the case.
Amos: I don’t like reading, How about a movin picture show?
Mavis: You all can see Don Mashak’s Lawless America Congressional Testimony here http://youtu.be/vspgok4oaFs
Sandy: Ain’t commentin’. You done showed me enough questionable conduct and rulings of the Courts to make me want to wait for Judge Sandra Day O’Connor’s response. I need to here from her before I decide whether or not the US Supreme Court Delivers Justice or not. If the US Supreme Court be really this corrupt, I don’t knows if I will ever sleep peacefully at night again.
Amos: Justice, this here legal river don’t go to no justice… You lost, you done taken a wrong turn… http://goo.gl/uR2eP Sounds like the US Judiciary wants Don Mashak and the rest of us uneducated rubes to squeal like a pig.
Mavis, Amos and Sandy: (In unison) Judge Sandra Day O’Connor, Please tell us how Citizens are denied their 1st Amendment Right to Petition, must hire attorneys who don’t have to treat them ethically and then can punish the perceived leaders of the folks who see to exercise their 1st Amendment Right to Petition?
Mavis, Amos and Sandy: (In unison) Judge Sandra Day O’Connor, Please look at Don Mashak’s FRAP 35/40 Motions and brief’s and tell us how the Courts can let this travesty of injustice continue?
Mavis, Amos and Sandy: (In unison) Judge Sandra Day O’Connor, Or you all telling us we all uneducated hicks just need more “Civics Education” to understand?
Mavis: (clears throat)
Amos: Oooh! Oooh! Why can I find healthcare in the Bill of Rights?
Amos: (cuts off Mavis?) Oooh! Oooh! Why isn’t healthcare in any of the lists of Natural Law Rights from the Enlightenment?
Mavis: (irritated) Amos, if you…
Amos: (cuts Mavis off again) Oooh!, Oooh! Why isn’t healthcare in the Declaration of Independence… you know… certain unalienable rights like life, liberty, healthcare and the pursuit of happiness?
Mavis: (loudly) Amos, are you done yet?
Amos: (nods yes)
Mavis: Those are all good points.
Amos: (Beams at Mavis’s approval)
Mavis: Let me speak to this from two main points of view. The first being the Founder’s vision for a country filled with self-sufficient individuals free to pursue their own destiny in seeking happiness. From them there Founders’ perspective, the government shouldn’t be a forcin’ individuals to pay for anything. Freedom to them meant the freedom to make both good and bad choices, and accept the reward and/or consequences. If a person should choose to go to the bar instead of the doctor, it was their choice to make…. And the consequences were theirs to suffer… But regardless, the individual was free to pursue what ever lawful choices that they felt would lead to their greatest happiness. And part of this is about property rights, too. Your money is your property, and the Founder’s believed your Gov’ment had no business telling you how to spend it.
Amos: If there is no oozing from my ears yet, what is your second point of view.
Mavis: Death. At the beginning of our country, Death was a much more frequent experience in life. Diseases and lack of proper sanitation led to a high child mortality rate. Disease, Dueling, gunfights and bushwhacking were regular occurrences. Without an understanding of bacteria, even the smallest cuts and wounds could be fatal. Starvation and freezing to death were real possibilities.
Amos: I think that last part would sound better if you set it to harmonic music….
Mavis: To the Founding Father’s death and health were not rights, they were a crap shoot because rich or poor, frontiersman or city slicker there was no guarantee that ill health and/or death would be visited upon an individual sooner rather than later.
Sandy: (just sighs)
Mavis: The point is that death was common place and everyone recognized it as a fact of life. You could risk it all going out and pioneering and frontier homesteading or play it safe, stay in the city and work for the livery stable, the local goods shop, etc. More Risk - Death or possible fortune by homesteading on the frontier. Or Less risk, less possibility or death and less possibility of great reward staying in the established cities. Either way, each person was free to pursue their vision of happiness and accept the consequence and/or fortunes of the vision they pursued.
Amos: That reminds me, do you remember that time we all got drunk and went cow tipping?
Mavis: (Intensely) Amos, focus…
Amos: I was just going to say, that was fun but not very rewarding.
Mavis: Sandy, you are being kinda of quiet.
Sandy: I just ain’t wantin’ to believe this stuff to be true. I wants to believe that our Courts are filled with basically good folks but… Some of your proofs are just so darn simple and straight forward,… like to be being forced to rethink everything about our gov’ment… OH!, Just leave me alone already…
Amos: Sandy ole gal, I ain’t wantin’ to believe either, but neither do I wants the Courts and the Gov’ment to be a flim flamming me. Lets all just turn the subject back to more cow tippin.
Mavis: AMOS! The point is that the Founder’s viewed health and death as a matter of chance. Some of that chance could be controlled, but much of it could not… But no one, regardless of status, could be guaranteed not to suffer bad health or early death. With such uncertainty in everyday life surrounding them, the Founder’s done did commit to believin the individuals Right to the Pursuit of Happiness and the individual’s right to make the decisions for themselves would lead to each individual’s maximum happiness.
Sandy: Mavis, shor’ nuf hate to admit it, but the more and more you talk, the less you sound like a uneducated hick and the more Sandra Day-O’Connor sounds like she needs an education in reality.
Mavis: Don’t say it…. Let’s give Ms. O’Connor the opportunity to explain why she thinks those of us that criticize SCOTUS need to be educated before we speak.
Amos: My kid wrote down that the definition of “Taxes” was “penalties” on an English Test and his-in teacher marked it wrong. But SCOTUS Chief Justice Roberts said that taxes = penalties. Whose right, my kid’s English Teacher or Chief Justice Roberts?
Mavis: I would have to say, your kid’s English teacher and refer you back to the discussion on the 11th Amendment for another example of SCOTUS twistin’ the plain meaning of words.
Amos: Don Mashak calls SCOTUS Chief Justice Roberts “Humpty Dumpty” What does that mean?
Mavis: Humpty Dumpty was a character from Lewis Carroll’s “Through the
Looking Glass” The character refused to be ruled by words. What ever words he spoke meant what ever he meant them to mean, regardless of what their standard definition was. It is a dig on “taxes = penalties”.
Amos: Don Mashak says that as gun control is not about guns, it is about Control… So is healthcare not about healthcare but about Government Control. What does he mean by this?
Mavis: He means that when the government is the sole executor of healthcare, their will be rationing… And the first persons to have their healthcare rationed away will be the voices of political dissent. And if rationing away their own healthcare, does not properly shut them up, then perhaps rationing away their spouses cancer treatment, their parents hip transplant and their kids asthma treatment will knock them back into compliance.
Amos: Wow, I wonder what Judge Sandra Day-O’Connor will have to say about that…
Mavis: It sounds to me that the problem is not really about rank and file citizens being uneducated.
Amos: You spect that maybe SCOTUS won’t even be able to understand our hillbilly English? Maybe the problem is we uneducated hillbillies ain’t smart enough to under stand them high falutin words dem dare Supreme Court judges write in?
Mavis: No, Don Mashak says there is a dynamic occurring similar to when the printing press spurred the 1st Enlightenment. Don Mashak says the internet is spurring a 2nd Enlightenment of mankind. Rank and file Americans have access to more information, ideas and opinions than just the propaganda the Government and major media puts out.
Amos: I feel my ears starting to ooze from too much information again..
Sandy: Your fine Amos, I don’t see any ooze from your ears… But I see you have some steam under your collar like me.
Amos: Just makes me madder than a shaved polar bear to have them high society folks call me uneducated because I see through their flim flam words to make wrongs appear to be “justice”. I don’t likes to be made out to be stupid.
Mavis: Don Mashak says Former Judge Sandra Day-O’Conner and the rest of the politicians have not adapted to the advent of the internet. In the past, the government and judicial branches misrepresentations could be hidden with omission and/or propaganda by a cooperative major media. Just look at the information we-uns have picked up on the internet from Don Mashak. Unless Judge Sandra Day O’Connor can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Don Mashak is wrong on his evidences and proofs, it appears he has laid bare departures the US Judiciaries’ from the Rule of Law and other injustices, as well as the duplicity of the US Supreme Court covering 200 or more years.
Amos: Even to common folks like me it appears the problem is not our lack of education but really, the Supreme Courts and US Judiciaries’ lack of integrity and honor.
EPILOGUE FROM THE WRITER
In his final moments on this earth, Libya’s Gaddafi incredulously asked his captors and tormentors, “What have I ever done to you?”
Former Judge Sandra Day-O’Connor, your inferences that anyone that criticizes SCOTUS is an uneducated rube are as ignorant and pathetic as those just quoted words of Gaddafi.
Former US Supreme Court Judge Sandra Day O’Connor; so that you never have to ask anyone else, “What have I ever done to you ?” let me educate you. By discrediting and marginalizing those who would criticize SCOTUS, you are aiding and abetting the continuance of repression, suppression and oppression it forces upon WE THE PEOPLE.
Dissent is the highest form of Patriotism – Thomas Jefferson
By making your statements in support of this obviously corrupt SCOTUS and US Judiciary, you are delaying and/or preventing peaceful political reform.
This writer challenges you to address each of the points he has put forward in challenging the honor and integrity of SCOTUS and alleging the duplicity of the entire US Judiciary. Further, since you don’t consider rank and file Americans your intellectual equals, please also respond to Thomas Jefferson’s criticisms of the US Judiciary Found here http://goo.gl/T8bFA. And if you cannot concisely and unequivocally demonstrate that this writer’s criticisms of SCOTUS are unfounded and the result of this country bumpkins lack of education, this writer advises you thusly:
“Shut up, enjoy your retirement and hope those future would be revolutionaries forget you name, your support of our oppression, your duplicity and your torments before actual revolution erupts.”
In those videos of the oppressive tyrant Gaddafi’s last minutes on earth, this writer does not think the education level of his captors made their actions any more nor any less legitimate and effective.
“At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account.” (Letter to A. Coray, October 31, 1823) [This and other quotes of Jefferson critical of the Judiciary here http://goo.gl/T8bFA]
Thomas Jefferson – Founder and Father of the Declaration of Independence
While Judges hold themselves up to be honorable, this writer asserts that judges are just politicians wearing black robes. Like politicians who sell their votes for campaign contributions, bribes and other consideration, so do also Judges sell their opinions and rulings for campaign contributions, bribes and other consideration. Ergo, Judges are no less corrupt than other elected officials. And, therefore, WE THE PEOPLE are entitled to criticize them.
Finally Judge O’Connor, turn around is fair play. This writer invokes a judicial principle commonly applied to litigants. If you fail to respond, your failure to respond may be considered evidence that your truthful responses would be detrimental to your legal position. Based on your own legal doctrines, should you fail to respond and/or fail to fully and meaningfully respond, all Americans reading this document may presume all within it to be true.
Former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, you entered the public discourse by saying those of us who criticized SCOTUS were uneducated.
This writer has challenged you to put up or shut up.
WE THE PEOPLE are intelligent Sovereign Citizens. You do not get to pass judgment upon us in the public arena without responding to the evidence we set forth in the public arena to the contrary.
Former Supreme Court Judge Sandra Day O’Connor, you dare to tell WE THE PEOPLE that you think we should be educated before we speak?...
HEY SCOTUS, WE THE PEOPLE WANT YOU TO BE EDUCATED BEFORE YOU SPEAK AND REFORMED AND HONORABLE BEFORE YOU MAKE ANY MORE RULINGS!
More plainly and in the language of us allegedly uneducated rank and file Americans:
“Stop peeing on our heads and telling us it is raining.”
Those were my thoughts.
Thank you, my fellow citizens, for taking your valuable time to read and reflect upon what is written here.
Please join with me in mutually pledging to each other and our fellow citizens our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor to our mutual endeavors of restoring liberty and economic opportunity to WE THE PEOPLE as our Founding Fathers envisioned and intended. [Last Paragraph, Declaration of Independence http://bit.ly/ruPE7z ]
This article is written with the same intentions as Thomas Paine http://ushistory.org/paine. I seek no leadership role. I seek only to help the American People find their own way using their own “Common Sense” http://amzn.to/kbRuar
Keep Fighting the Good Fight!
Lawless America #LawlessAmerica
Justice in Minnesota #JIM
Bring Home the Politicians #BHTP
Get out of our House #GOOOH
Critical Thinking Notice - This author advises you as no politician would dare. Exercise Critical Thinking (http://bit.ly/ubI6ve) in determining the truthfulness of anything you read or hear. Do not passively accept nor believe anything anyone tells you, including this author... unless and until you verify it yourself with sources you trust and could actively defend your perspective to anyone who might debate you to the contrary of your perspective.