From Public School, to church, to the movies and the major media and elections themselves, the American public is induced to believe that the Judges of America are men of integrity beyond reproach.
So with all of those credentials and long years of propaganda and censorship one faces a mighty steep mountain of indoctrination, propaganda and goodwill in exposing the true nature of Minnesota and the Country's Judiciary.
With the Judiciary's reputation for integrity and honesty firmly embedded in the minds of WE THE PEOPLE, what standing do I have to challenge their reputations. In my estimate, what ever I might say would be easily dismissed, for what is my word to the word of these prestigious Judges.
To overcome this handicap, I will use the American Legal Systems own words to expose the true nature of their character.
Let us begin with the words of former FBI director J Edgar Hoover:
"The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists.''
Whatever could the former director of the FBI, with all of the domestic intelligence information at his disposal, have meant by such a statement? I leave it to the reader to reach their own conclusion.
Next, I am going to use the words of Judges themselves. Judges have a strange little way of reaching conclusions allegedly using case law and jurisprudence. This effectively means they theoretically use the findings of previous judges to base their decision on the current case. Most of these rulings are reduced to short citations of a single sentence or a paragraph along with the case caption and where it is publicized (When judges do bad things and don't follow the law, they just don't publish their rulings - You see the secret is, Judges just censor from the general public most of the bad, unjust things they do.)
I recently had cause to research various rulings on immunity for Judges and State Governments. And I was astonished and devastated to learn the liberties they had taken and leaps of logic they had used to write the rules in their favor.
Using their own words, the first case I will cite is Wiggins v Hess (1976, CA8 Mo) 531 F2d 920 and Harley v Oliver (1976, CA9 Ark) 539 F2d 1143
"Judicial immunity applies even when judge acts maliciously and corruptly; judge loses his immunity from liability for damages in violation of 42 USCS &1983 ONLY if he acts in clear absence of jurisdiction."
To begin with, 42 USCS &1983 is "Civil action for deprivation of Rights". For example, but not limited to, your 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th amendment rights.
We are all familiar with the axiom that "Power Corrupts and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely" This citation is virtually the equivalent of absolute power. Even if you can prove a judge acted corruptly and maliciously, they are immune from any damages they inflict on anybody.
Do any of you, my rank and file citizens, think this is a just rule of law? Can any code of laws so totally devoid of morality result in justice? Those readers who have followed me for the past couple of years, have repeatedly heard me urge them to learn to play chess, so they can learn to think a "few moves ahead"
Can such a Case Law president be anything other than the Judiciary thinking a few moves ahead to allow them to fix court cases and not be held accountable? This appears to be a case of a rule written in premeditation of screwing future litigants by fixing cases. Our judges appear to have decided they want to be able to "fix" cases but have absolute immunity from the consequences. Does this sound like justice to you? Myself, I find this to be evil, but I leave to you the reader to be the final judge in determining if judges who wrote such an opinion in their own words are evil. Further, are those persons in the legal system who fail to vigorously repeal such precedents as evil as those who originated the evil case law...
Another opinion in case law "in their own words" that I believe justifies our USA Legal System as being labeled "evil":
Holloway v Walker (1985, CA5 Tex) 765 F2d 517
"Judges absolute immunity from suit under 42 USCS & 1983 for actions take under jurisdiction is not avoided by allegation that the acts are performed pursuant to bribe or conspiracy."
In other words, even if the Judge rendered a decision against you to fulfill a bribe or as part of a conspiracy, they are immune. To me, that sounds like premeditation to fix cases and avoid the consequences. To me, that sound like evil, not justice. But I leave it to the reader to determine whether this opinion in their own words represents justice or evil.
Still not convinced that these 2 examples of case law are evil? To drive the point home, people are in jail because a judge acted maliciously and corruptly and there is no punishment of the judge because they are immune. For example, those freed on DNA evidence cannot sue the judge that "railroaded them" even if the judge acted maliciously, corruptly or acted as part of a conspiracy or took a bribe... Evil is as Evil does and this is evil in the Judiciaries own words.
THE GREAT BETRAYAL OF 1890 - THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL REINTERPRETATION OF THE 11TH AMENDMENT
The 11th Amendment says:
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.
The original constitution was ratified in 1788. The Bill of Rights (the First 10 amendments) became effective in December of 1791. The 11th Amendment, passed in 1795, says ONLY that Citizens of another state and Citizens or subjects of a foreign state cannot sue a State of the United States in Federal Court: It says nothing about the actual citizens of any state not being able to sue their own state in Federal Court.
Please note this was 7 years after the original constitution and 4 years after the Bill of Rights became effective. Almost all of the framers of the Constitution were still around. What better group of people to understand what was intended when the constitution and bill of rights were ratified? And that same understanding is imbedded in the 11th amendment that they drafted and ratified, just a few years later, in 1795?
If they wanted to exclude everyone from being able to sue any state they would have written:
"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 ANYONE."
and not used the language
"By Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."
Clearly the intent of the persons who drafted and ratified the 11th Amendment was to allow the citizens of any state to sue their state in Federal Court. This is consistent with the Founding Fathers belief in checks, balances, transparency and accountability.
"The fundamental understanding our US Founding Fathers had in drafting our constitution, is People under Natural Law have free will, and are not virtuous by nature. Therefore, governments must be constructed in anticipation of the nature of man. Acting on this knowledge, our Founding Fathers built into our Government and Constitution, various checks and balances.
Amongst these checks and balances were transparency and accountability."
(First Principles http://bit.ly/kKjsKe )
Sovereign immunity is diametrically opposed to the Founding Fathers fundamental philosophy of checks, balances, transparency and accountability that they laid out in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The came the Unconstitutional betrayal of WE THE PEOPLE nearly 100 years later in 1890. In Hans v Louisiana 134 US 1 the Supreme Court found that the 11th amendment "reflects a broader principal of Sovereign immunity".
Excuse me. Words mean things. Effectively the Supreme Court amended the constitution without going through the proper procedure. The drafters and ratifiers of the 11th Amendment said what they meant and took many more words to say so than if they had intended to make the States immune from ANYONE.
And yet again about another 100 years later, in 1999 WE THE PEOPLE were betrayed yet again. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a five Justice majority, stated in Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706(1999):
"[S]overeign immunity derives not from the Eleventh Amendment but from the structure of the original Constitution itself...."
What did they say? If Sovereign immunity derives from the structure of the Constitution itself, then why was it necessary to draft and ratify an 11th amendment? Wouldn't Sovereign immunity in the structure of the Constitution itself already provide Sovereign immunity against Citizens of foreign States and Citizens and Subjects of Foreign Countries? And therefore, there would be no need for the 11th Amendment? Or, if the 11th Amendment was just a clarification, they would have simply said "States have sovereign immunity from everyone" and not bothered to use all the extra words to ensure the understanding that only "citizens of foreign states and citizens and subjects of foreign countries" could not sue individual states.
As we have seen from the case law of
1) Wiggins v Hess (1976, CA8 Mo) 531 F2d 920 and Harley v Oliver (1976, CA9 Ark) 539 F2d 1143 Judicial Immunity from deliberately malicious and corrupt actions to screw citizens;
2) Holloway v Walker (1985, CA5 Tex) 765 F2d 517 Judicial Immunity from deliberate actions to screw citizens for a bribe or as part of a criminal conspiracy
3) The Unconstitutional and fraudulent reinterpretation of the 11th Amendment allows all states to ignore the Rights of their Citizens with no recourse from the citizens...
And all of this evil is in the Legal Systems own words. And in using "their own words" I believe I have successful breached the reputation of credibility and integrity that the USA Legal system previously enjoyed.
SHAME ON THE AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEM FOR BETRAYING WE THE PEOPLE AND ALL THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE DIED ESTABLISHING AND MAINTAINING OUR GREAT AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONALLY LIMITED REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC
The question is; "Where are our State and Federal Legislatures in exercising their constitutional duties of acting as a check and balance on the Judiciary?"
If you are moved to passionate anger over betrayal of Constitution and Bill of Rights, contact your Federal and State Senate and House members today and demand they address this issue. Demand they immediately draft legislation that reflects the intent of the Founding Fathers. Perhaps verbiage as simple as:
No States, State officials nor Judge shall have Sovereign Immunity from their own Citizens..
And/or perhaps more politically feasible and expedient
No States, State officials nor Judge shall have Sovereign Immunity when allegations of malicious or corrupt behavior, allegations conspiracy or bribery are involved.
You can contact your elected official by following this link --> Tell My Politician http://tellmypolitician.com
Now if you are really motivated (and I don't know what will motivate you if this enlightment doesn't) please stop wasting your time going to rallies that the political parties just use to generate sound bites for the news.
GO TO REAL EVENTS WHERE YOU CAN REALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE. If you are from Minnesota, Please attend one or more of the following. (If you are not from Minnesota, Please find or force same or similar events in your own State and at the Federal level)
1) Today On Tuesday, May 10 at 10:15 AM in the Minnesota State Office Building Room 500S they will be hearing HF 1666, which is an amendment to the State Constitution to take away your right to vote for Minnesota State Judges in meaningful, contested elections. WE NEED PEOPLE THERE TO ATTEND AND SPEAK AGAINST THIS BILL. Clearly, we don’t want judges that have made and/or refuse to oppose such horrendous case law ask show by the examples to be COMPLETELY UNACCOUTABLE TO THE VOTERS
2) UPDATED Also, Rory Koch, the Committee Administrator, has indicated that there will be a hearing on an alternative judicial elections bill, HF 1474 on Thursday afternoon, May 12 in the State Office Building, but that he doesn't yet know the Time or Room number. UPDATED TIME AND ROOM NUMBER 115:PM IN ROOM 5 (FIVE) Ground Level This is the Bill that Diane Anderson is the Chief Author on. As soon as I know the time and location and I will update this article. WE NEED PEOPLE THERE TO ATTEND AND SPEAK FOR THIS BILL.
3) UPDATE THIS HEARING HAS BEEN POSTPONED AND NOT RESET YET June 20, 2011 in re Don Mashak vs the State of MN, MN Supreme Court et. al. 11-CV-00473 -- 316 M Robert St St. Paul MN at 1:30pm. The State of Minnesota has brought a motion to dismiss based on Sovereign Immunity. The State of Minnesota will not even acknowledge that for 6 years it has denied WE THE PEOPLE's Constitutional 1st Amendment Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances. PLEASE ATTEND TO SHOW YOUR SUPPORT FOR RESTORATION OF THE RULE OF LAW AS OPPOSED TO MIGHT MAKES RIGHT, HOW MUCH JUSTICE CAN YOU AFFORD AND THE WHIM OF JUDGES.
Finally, in closing I want to mention that for 2 years I have tried to ask the Minnesota Supreme Court for Comment. I went to various public forums and, not only was I refused the opportunity to ask questions, I was threatened with arrest. I wrote and called the Supreme Court of Minnesota Several times and was refused the opportunity to interview them. I specifically wrote to Former MN Supreme Court Cheif Judge Eric Magnuson and he either had one of his flunkeys tell me he would not respond or simply did not respond.
This begs the question, "What do they have to hide" Using the same judicial principal they use on WE THE PEOPLE, it is fair for WE THE PEOPLE to interpret their refusal to answer as indicative that their truthful answer would have been adverse to their legal position. In any case, I tried to vet this information. The language is straight-forward. I don't want to hear anybody in the legal profession whining about how I, a non lawyer, got it wrong. Words mean things and the meaning of the words I have cited is clear on its face.
(Be aware that it is a favorite strategy of Politicians to change room locations.. If this happens, ask at the information desk or call the MN House and ask the new location.)
This concludes Part 1 of this three part series.
In Part 2, we will examine further how the American Judiciary and Government in general has subverted the Constitution and your Bill of Rights. In the remainder of the series we will also examine
State and Federal Legislatures
Citizen Grand Juries
County Attorneys
Minnesota Board of Judicial Standards
Minnesota Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board
Again, most of it will be in their own words.
Finally, I write these articles with the same intent of 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
Click here to read: LEGAL EVIL? In their own words Part 1 of 3 - Revised and Updated to include Proposed Legislation Language sent to my MN US Representative, Michele Bachmann
Click here to read:Legal Evil? In their own words - Part 2 of 3 - A Republic if you Can hold it
Comments