Site Meter

Court Insider Exposes Judicial Treachery #630-632

November 16, 201268 Comments

As a former long-time newsman and writer for the Los Angeles Times for 25 years, Allan Parachini served for eight years as the Public Information Officer for the Los Angeles Superior Court. He was there during the incredible persecution of Dr. Richard Fine, who served eighteen months in solitary coercive confinement. In this preview of parts one and two of this three-part interview, he explains why the judges did everything they could to destroy Dr. Fine.

PART 1 & 2 PREVIEW

Loading Preview Court Insider Exposes Judicial Treachery...

;

Part 3 PREVIEW

In this second interview, Alan Parachini was retired in his home. Full Disclosure had filed a request to get a copy of the contract between the County and the Los Angeles Superior Court Judges. Allan had seen this contract that specified an agreement between the two parties that established that each of them would receive the same generous benefits package. Allan explains how the Judges work hard to “keep the public out” of their business.

Loading Preview Court Insider Exposes Judicial Treachery...

;

;

To see this entire program, please join us as a FULL DISCLOSURE INSIDER!

68 comments to “Court Insider Exposes Judicial Treachery #630-632”

  1. Diane | December 4, 2012 | Permalink Reply

    Ah

    LOS ANGELES . One of the most repulsive , corrupt , smelly and shameful city in the United States! At least you have an abundance of toilet bushes!

    To bad no one uses them!
    EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!

    • Dan az | February 13, 2013 | Permalink Reply

      There is one person that has fired and disbarred about 4000 lawyers and about 1500 judges and his name is David Wynn Miller.You people really should contact him.You can find him on you tube and his web site just type in his name.I really hate to see this continue on the path that it is on.Please contact this man you will not be sorry.

  2. Ronald E. Pierce | December 4, 2012 | Permalink Reply

    It’s about time there was some follow up on the Fine case. Was starting to think FDN wasn’t going to cover it ever again.

    • Right Might | December 4, 2012 | Permalink Reply

      It probably took this long to find someone brave enough to risk the wrath of the greedy, corrupt judges.

    • Pat Hamer | December 6, 2012 | Permalink Reply

      Ahh a fellow skeptic, hope FDN is paying attention! They could be a good source of activism but appear self serving to LA only. This is enfluence peddling for “Justus” in LA it seems.

  3. Diane Chavez | December 4, 2012 | Permalink Reply

    It is unbelievable that the once wonderful Los Angeles I was born into has became a cesspool I no longer recognize.

    I am so glad I moved away!

  4. joebanana | December 4, 2012 | Permalink Reply

    The sad part is, nothing will be done to put an end to the madness, and epic corruption. As an example, the fraudulent president that just made the voting public look like humungous fools, AGAIN. Nobody knows what his real name is, he has three alias’s, he posted a forged B/C, actually two. he uses a SSN not issued to him, and every suit filed challenging his eligibility has been dismissed. If the law wont investigate this national security threat, they wont do anything about crooked judges. There is no “rule of law”, just men who make up the law as they see fit.

  5. Right Might | December 4, 2012 | Permalink Reply

    At last, confirmation of what we knew all along!. Perhaps now is a good time to remind viewers that, in addition to what was revealed in the videos, the reason the L.A. County Supervisors are involved in this deal is because the County Charter states that their salaries are to match whatever the judges get. So giving the judges these extra payments, now an additional $57,000 per year above and beyond their legal, State-paid salaries of $178,000 per year plus $30,000+ per year in benefits, means the Supervisors get the same amounts… all of it an illegal use of County taxpayer funds. It also means that Los Angeles County and its Supervisors never lose when they are sued and a jury is kept from deciding the outcome of the case because the Supervisors control the judges by controlling the bonus payments. A recap of this sordid story, which began as a criminal conspiracy in the late 1980s between Mike Antonovich and Ronald M. George, who was the Presiding Judge of the L.A. County Superior Court when the payments first began, can be seen here: https://sites.google.com/site/freerichardfine/Home/best-courts-money-could-buy Readers can also review the story as it unfolded by looking through Full Disclosure Network’s historical video series or viewing the blog created by supporters to attempt to free Dr. Fine when he was held at the County Jail under the order of Judge David P. Yaffe. The blog, Right Trumps Might, can be found at this link: http://righttrumpsmight.blogspot.com/

  6. Pat Hamer | December 4, 2012 | Permalink Reply

    Mr. Fine is another example of how so called civil right activist, miss the point, falling into the fallacy that swatting a mosquito is their solution for redressing abuse of power.

    It is good that there are web sites like Full Disclosure. It is bad that these web sites violate principles of logical syllogism. Mr. Fines dilemma is portrayed from a minor premise, that, according to the speaker, Alan Parachini, in this video acknowledges as the “judiciary violating state law and procedure until an appellate court reverses their decisions, which are non other than willful malicious corruption and violation of criminal statute 18 usc 242, RICO violations, among many other crimes. Leslie Dutton begs the question, “what possible justification were the judges using to protect these illegal payments.”

    They boil the story down to, “Mr. Fine was a Political Prisoner…not about contempt for non disclosure, but getting back at him…” aka retaliatory vindictive animus.

    Its as if, the full disclosure network has no clue of the existence of the Constitutional Supremacy Clause that grants all officials the same “sovereign rights” originated under theological dogma from the post dark ages, used by rulers thought to be placed their by God under the divinity of despotism our Declaration cited as a cause of action, that created “tyranny” which they stated in the Declaration as a “right inestimable for them and formidable for tyrants only.” This right of tyrants, is a perversion of the genus and species of logic passed of as common law jus cogens used today. Used—according to this 230 year old declaration, creates futile objection or First Amendment Redress by “Judicial Tyranny and Mock Trials (see Declaration of Independance) to skew the justice we think is deserving of our constitution to its citizens. This overt act of contempt proceedings by the courts in their “mock trials” by “judicial tyrants.” Through another means of logical perversion of genus and species of terms, equivocation, “abuse of discretion,” though criminal for non judicial officials (18 USC 242) , has been redefined as “reversible abuse of discretion.” Amazingly, 18 USC 242 says “abuse of power is criminal.” But through the magic wand of the courts, simply change the word power to discretion, (in reality has no affect on the meaning as they are synonym) and our courts are converted into Organized Criminals who preserve their “Sovereign” power in order to further preserve this right by destroying in modern day inquisitions citizens of the world who can recognize this betrayal of mankind by its leaders. What Mr. Fine did, was none other than what was done by Galileo, who pointed out that Copernicus had proven that so called religious oracle of God, forced upon society untruth that the earth was the center of the universe. Galileo was imprisoned for life, as he did not have a network like that of Leslie Dutton. The punishment was light, as inquisitions for layman were usually so obscene, that the “doctrine of immunity” laced as “divine sovereign liberty,” was used to justify official abuse of drowning the accused to prove their innocence, among other holocaust events used to silence objection to abuse of power.

    My point is that today’s events, where we see criminal acts by judges and government officials go ignored by “turning a blind eye,” are not at all different from what Copernicus and Galileo objected to 1500 years ago. However, their stories were equivocated to great leaders of science, and not as the civil and human right activist.

    Today we see Mrs. Dutton, and Mr. Parachini, blaming some judge for exercising his constitutional right to act as a “Sovereign.” Yet they quote some lame California Constitution law that says that is the violation. It may be, but Alden v. Maine, stated that we, “the supreme court refuse to believe that officials will violate the supreme law of the land…,” thus, “we must have faith that officials will obey the laws, therefore they cannot be held liable for violating the constitutions.” This was in 1999 where 5 against 4 Supreme Court Justices said that the constitution created sovereignty for officials to be allowed to commit human right abuses, simply because the constitution itself was formed and founded on the states right to be “Sovereign.” However, if you look up the origin and definition, outside of Blacks law book, their reinterpretation of the word 400 years after the French coined it only to describe a King or Queen, who had “absolute power.”

    Even though in 1793, eye witness and an author of the Constitution stated in Chisholm v. Georgia, “to the constitution the word sovereign was totally unknown.” In fact he, pointed out the obvious that the revolution was sparked by “sovereign” which is a word used to describe individuals who have absolute power over “subjects” of sovereigns. But in 1999, 5 of the Neo Nazi Justices, decided how simple it was to make themselves kings, simply because society and US democracy refuse to acknowledge what sovereign means, or mostly, that most citizens do not know it exists. They believe officials are “equal” under the 14th amendment and the theory of equality among humans to have citizens stripped of absolute power to serve as officials running the states business. This is far from the truth. The 11th amendment to the constitution is a path of paper trails that reveal this, but you have to walk the trail and pick up each document along the way which explains and enforces what I have just stated.

    Another conundrum we find in the Doctrine of Immunity they claim is “common law” or “jus cogens” practice, is the overt perversion of the genus species of logic James Wilson spoke of as a Supreme Court Justice in Chisholm v. Georgia which ruled that USA was a democracy, and not a sovereignty. Of course, history shows that 2 days later, the 11th amendment was drafted “anonymously” and ratified in 1795, with the same affect of ending the bill of rights as inalienable rights, subject to judicial discretion weighing on the side of corruption in state power. The conundrum pops up from the common law origin of the “doctrine of immunity.” Bartolus of Sassoforatus in the 14th century, 700 years ago, said that state immunity was because of “par en parem non habit imperium,” or that “an equal cannot rule over an equal.” If today’s legal theory uses common law as justification and legal basis for state immunity which only purpose is to protect those who violate human rights (see Jurgan Brohm, “State Immunity and the violation of human rights) then in the USA because citizens under the 14th amendment are to be treated “equal,” the fact is due to this immunity, state citizens are allowed to be excused from liability, where private citizens are liable for the same abuses.

    Oh yes, officials can be indicted, but one must look at sociological factors to explain why that rarely happens. FBI, and DOJ officials reside in local counties. They can put 20 years in with the federal government, retire and move into state or county bureaucracy, and put another 20 years in that group, and collect multiple retirements, like my father did. But if they have been in the community prosecuting corrupt officials, they will be black balled. This is speculation, but it is reasonably a factor. We victims of whistle blower retaliation know on the front lines, that officials ignore criminal acts of other officials. This paints a very bleak picture.

    So Leslie, to answer your question, “what possible justification were the judges using to protect these illegal payments,” we see that the US Constitution gives them justification, as interpreted by the Alden court in 1999. We see that in Bogan v. Scott-Harris US 1998 the same court a year earlier stated regarding official corruption allegations, that “even if corrupt, he can be indicted, but the law will not tolerate a citizen redress…” They said
    “this fact was well known and long standing.” I don’t know why you don’t know this “long standing well known” fact. If you would learn it, then maybe your efforts will stop being futile swatting mosquitoes when you can lead a path to drain the bloody pond of corruption. Bogan actually articulated that they overturned the first amendment right for meaningful redress. Citizens are not barred from the court for redress, they are brought before magistrates and judges who attempt to find ways to contempt them when shock sets in for realizing that everything they were taught about justice was a lie!

    My prayer to the people is that they become aware of this reality I speak of and stop attacking the wrong enemy. It isn’t local corruption, they are told they have this right by the supreme court who rely upon the 11th amendment and Alden v. Maine to protect the US government officials who choose to be corrupt from US citizens who object to corruption that has damaged their lives.

    • andy | December 5, 2012 | Permalink Reply

      Not sure I get you on this one. Are you saying that Corrupt County Administrators eg Judges
      are immune due to State and Federal mandate as afforded by the US Constitution?

      • Leslie Dutton | December 5, 2012 | Permalink Reply

        No that was not the intention. The retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution for Judges and County officials was approved by the State Legislature and signed by the Governor in 2009 but there remains a question as to whether or not they had the authority to change the Constitution without voter approval. This issue promises to create problems in the future as there is $350 million dollars paid out without the authority of law.

      • Pat Hamer | December 5, 2012 | Permalink Reply

        What I am saying is that due to the immunity from liability, this benefit has transferred into the criminal side, which should be prosecuting these judges under various statutes such as 18 USC 242, 243, RICO and others. See Orange County Sheriff Mike Carona, who is actually in prison for similar abuse of power, “influence peddling and witness tampering/intimidation.” http://www.latimes.com/news/local/orange/la-me-carona-sg,0,139287.storygallery. Now his attorney’s will probable get him released, by doing more “influence peddling with your corrupt LA judges, http://articles.latimes.com/2012/nov/17/local/la-me-1117-carona-20121117

        Enforcement of criminal abuse of power seems to be jurisdictional. Furthermore, it seems to be levied against officials who have probably been “too big for their britches” in the eyes of other officials, perhaps Corona wasn’t a “team player” enough, and was punished by these officials. So we see, it isn’t possible to prosecute officials, like Judge Yaffe court, but the Yaffe court was favored over Corona and allowed to step down instead of being placed in prison. Where is the equality? One must ask, why is he not also in prison for using the courts to punish critics, which is a violation of judicial canon, proving that he possibly maliciously prosecuted Fine, who had successfully sued him. How can a judge who you have sued, be free from bias? Impossible! This was a vendetta with vindictive animus on the part of the court; hence Fine was freed without proving any crime by him. He is an innocent victim of state tyranny.

        The reason you don’t “get me on this one…” is common among those who have not looked at the constitutional coup that was done when the 11th amendment was ratified in 1795. I think prior to the last few decades, officials where generally shy from treading into the grey area of human right abuse that is equivocated in the USA as civil right abuse, which sounds less damaging than human right abuse. Since 1795, officials had sparingly used this “sovereign right to abuse without liability.” Since 1999 Alden v. Maine and other cases probably earlier, the Supreme Court has stated to officials, we will not hold you liable for ignoring Article VI of the Constitution. The unwritten law seems to grant inferences that they also will not be held criminally liable, unless they are not team players aiding in the strengthening of sovereign power, which solely for millennia is used to justify government abuse, or what was then “despotism.”

        This right was easily enforced on pre 20th century humans who were uneducated, and without resources to educate themselves. Whereby the educated received an unfeterred benefit from liability for overly exploiting citizen’s which was the source of many empires built by so called “blue bloods.” Sovereignty is the source of power, and it cannot belong in a democracy. If there ever was a holy grail, this is it! The proper word that we should use in our democracy is “autonomy, not sovereignty.” We have no divinely appointed officials, supposedly due to separation of church and state. However the “church of the Sovereigns,” if you will for lack of a better phrase, is not separated from USA. However, from 1776 until 1795, that church was utterly destroyed, until it was again ratified by the 11th amendment by perverting the rational use of diplomatic immunity among autonomous or nations that by decree are sovereign. The 11th amendment is purely based upon religious dogma from the dark ages, because the “stari decisis” implication is that of “diplomatic Immunity,” which keeps our world from isolation, and harms very few individual citizens worldwide.

        Thus, officials today, since Alden, mimic the FRENZY of the 1849 gold rush where officials typically bared by conscience or principle have abandoned the principle of inalienable rights and over-step this for profit by silencing individuals with state punishment for whistle blowing, even though they still leave the statements that we have a right to “redress” in the first amendment. It is clearly stated by the Supreme Court that we do not have a constitutional right to redress. What other parts of the Constitution are now mere poetry?

        This whistle blowing interferes with an officials ability to make profits or protect their cronies, simply by making “ad hoc decisions” that unconstitutionally deprive the rights of individuals. The Ninth Circuit in 2 separate cases, Kaahumanu v. City of Maui 2005 and Norse v. Santa Cruz 2009 ruled that “ad hoc” decisions by officials abrogates immunity! However, like Alan Parachini has pointed out, the lower courts do not have to comply unless the appellate court orders them too, which is very rare that the lower court decisions get appealed. Losing a lower court can bankrupt an individual, they don’t postpone judgments or damages you have to pay, unless you can afford to bond around it, which is unlikely, as you have no money now! Judges can operate a criminal enterprise without any deterrence. Even if you can appeal, it has no deterring influence as it does not remove the benefit from that the judge or official the judge is insulating from the balance of justice. In addition, the odds are in there favor, appellate courts are obscenely expensive, and are the elements of “irrational arbitrary discrimination,” according to the same court, is a “cause of murder, stalking, harassment and violence, at the hands of officials and district courts,” see Macias v. Ihde 9th 2000, (upheld in 2010). Who in their right mind, wants to go through that, and by the end of a corrupt district court, the average person is no longer “in their right mind.”

        In El Dorado County, this “cause of murder” an actual murder weapon was used to silence a critic of a local DA Vern Pierson. This critic, John O’Sullivan, sued Pierson, who was DA and refused to enforce laws to stop stalking and violence by a “retired sheriff Zimmerman” (aka a crony colleague) who was allowed, through inaction, by Pierson to shoot O’Sullivan in the back. Zimmerman is now in prison for life, but he successfully ended the suit against Pierson. “Its good to be the King,” according to Mel Brooks interpretation of King Luis the XIV, who eventually lost his head. Stating Pierson followed the elements of “arbitrary descrimation” that the 9th circuit stated was a “cause of murder,” without other incidences would be speculative. However, my wife and I were vandalized, stalked and threatened with murder by a man claiming influence power with Vern Pierson, D.A, and again, Pierson ignored our valid video taped evidence and panoply of witnesses showing that we were in reasonable fear of safety, from a man released, apparently to “murder or stalk or intimidate us” from a 1/4 million dollar bail protecting society by the DA’s predecessor, Gary Lacy. Pierson, again through inaction to protect us, denied us similar protection other non critic citizens get from vandals and stalkers, and by this authorized a mentally ill man to murder us if he so desired. We had to move and maintain 2 residences, otherwise we would face the same as O’Sullivan, RIP. So while you guys in LA whine about a little incarceration for your abuse victims, El Dorado County Officials in old “Hang Town” Placerville, are murdering those who complain against them under the Macias v. Ihde elements, MANIFEST AS A MURDER WEAPON, that are the “cause of murder” for victims of violence, who are disgruntled about arbitrary willful inaction that violates the 14th amendment equal access to justice.

        If you want to see the typical view of an official who is basically a Nazi Stalinist in attitude, who disdains liberty, see the Ninth Circuit Argument by Santa Cruz Defense attorney, who stated to the court, regardless “that I have forgot the basis for filing an appeal…” he wanted the court to roll with him on this, apparently, it seemed he thought the court was part of his good ole boy network and wouldn’t require any basis, which is typical of corrupt district courts. http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_video.php?pk_vid=0000005940 “We will not let you engage in double speak, and rewrite the first amendment. This as an amazing case and precedent, but only Santa Cruz and Maui are privy to the damages that would occur to the tax payers if they proceed to make “ad hoc” abuse of power, “even in legislative capacity.” All other 9th circuit counties in the US, will not comply. Maui and Santa Cruz have been served notice that “failure to adequately train” is the consequence for more damages. Unfortunately, the districts will ignore this without any deterrence whatsoever. I have correspondence form Maui “corporate city attorney” advising the city counsel, how to get around this “loop hole.” They are no worried, as the now the futility, if ever another case was appealed. So the lesson here is that the appellate courts state the contrary, presenting a good appearance of our justice system, but there really is no compliance by the lower courts in matters of state liability.

        Santa Cruz attorney, was so adamant on arresting silent protestors that he appealed to the supreme court in 2011. They rejected this absurd appeal without hearing it.

        So, in an attempt to sway critics or skeptics from ad hominem attack on my research, I am pointing to facts in history of recent court cases, especially Alden v. Maine U.S. 1999, Bogan v. Scott-Harris 1998, and the 11th amendment that reinstated religious Dogma to assert on a society. This dogmatic counter-revolution reinstated this “inestimable to them and formidable right of tyrants (declaration of Independence) over-turning the effects of the revolution that temporarily created an end to dogmatic right to abuse, a paradigm shift first mentioned by Copernicus. The revolution only ended the right to abuse citizen’s from 1776 until 1795 when the 11th amendment was ratified, which reinstated the same abuses as declared in the Declaration.

        If you fail to see what is wrong with this picture, I accurately trace from historical documents, that is a problem that has somehow escaped scrutiny of some very wise men. Contrarily, this argument has fallen on deaf ears from very great and wise professors of law, 4 of the Supreme Court Justices contrary to the Kennedy/Scalia court (Alden dissent) and many individuals, such as dean of law at UC Irvine, Erwin Chemerinsky, http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/profile_e_chemerinsky.html SEE

        http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2235&context=llr&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dalden%2520v.%2520maine%2520defendants%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D2%26ved%3D0CE4QFjAB%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigitalcommons.lmu.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D2235%2526context%253Dllr%26ei%3D8g4PUNSfA-fmiwLXzYHQBQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNGGGQKWI0leW9WoffElcmmSkS1YoA#search=%22alden%20v.%20maine%20defendants%22

        On the other hand, there is the “over-deterrence theory” that is used to justify immunity and counter the argument I make. However, there are no examples in world history where society’s who ignored the fallacy claim they make using the “over-deterrence theory” has failed; or where a burden of society has been created. As it stands now, most citizens are not aware they cannot “MEANINGFULLY” sue officials who violate constitutional rights, and the burden created allows the courts to open for the purpose of profiting Bar Association members, when it would be more financially benificial to the state to just close the clerks doors to civil right abuse victims. But that would sound the alarm. Instead, they pretend that “disgruntled citizen’s with possible mental problems related to “conspiracy theories” are burdening tax payers. An argument that sells well to the ignorant and easily influenced democracy of buffoons in our system that vote. After all the stigma is, hey they had their day in court and lost, so it must have been a frivolous suit. Yet immunity defense clearly is known as “so what your honor, even if what the plaintiff says is true, we are immune,” see (Bogan, supra)

        The over-deterrence theory is a red hearing fallacy! It is a very weak non existing theory that is being used where what it claims, is actually being done anyway, only that lawyers, members of the BAR, are profiting by receiving the constitutional “redress” benefits that belong to human right abuse victims, such as individuals like Richard I Fine, myself, and others such as El Dorado County victim Penny Arnold.

        Both Penny, and Myself have got Judge James Wagoner admonished by the California Counsel on Judicial Performance. James Wagoner engaged in wire fraud, abuse of power and I alleged RICO in the complaint to the http://www.cjp.ca.gov. They found our claim valid, and doled out punishment, very light punishment. Wagoner should be in prison with Mike Carona. Go figure, I have stated why I think our fellow Americans in the justice departments have abandoned their duty for favoritism from high ranking officials who don’t want to be scrutinized by law enforcement. I speak from experience and vast research into the origins and path of the history of the “doctrine of immunity.” It is not necessary! It only creates inequality in citizenship. Those lucky enough to get public service jobs are immunity from liability for every day business, while private citizens in business are held liable, yet business does not fail! It is the condoning of corruption by creating Constitutional amendments that create a frenzy among officials to push the envelope of civil right abuse, under the stigma, “if I don’t do it, someone else will, so why not benefit!” Repeal the 11th amendment and bar sovereign rights of immunity, and our country will turn around; this has never been done on planet earth, and is the last frontier for freedom by removing a defense to corruption which has become so misconstrued and it now cultivates further corruption.

        • legalbear | December 6, 2012 | Permalink Reply

          I like your comments here. I think viable solutions start with a realistic assessment of the problem and you’ve done a great job of that from my view.

          I’m a big proponent of using a martial arts principle in the fight; that being, use your opponents momentum against him. Football fans can see this principle in action in zone blocking schemes. Let your opponent develope some momentum in a particular direction because it is easier to block a muscle bound opponent in the direction he already wants to go. While you block the opponent in the direction he is already headed a hole opens up and that is where the runningback runs. One cut and he is off to the races.

          I’ve done some 42 USC § 1983 suits and lost every time. One quote that keeps coming out is from Malley v. Briggs, 475 US 335 (1986), “…qualified immunity defense has evolved, it provides ample protection to all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Id. @ 341. Oh, the defense attorneys love the quote. Their almost universal assertion in defense of the governmental clients summarized is, ‘My client is not plainly incompetent and he did not knowingly violate the law.’

          The momentum in the comment is the direction the high powered (muscular) defense attorney is headed already. We can spoil the whole thing by getting to the official ahead of time and turning them into incompetents and making their violations “knowing”.

          If we want to assert our right not to incriminate we give them a little memorandum based on Malloy v Hogan. If we want to assert right to be secure in our papers they get a memorandum on Boyd v. United States, etc. We can help our fellowman by letting our notice to them be known publicly so they can’t lie about violating the law unknowingly.

          If we suspect a traffic stop may be the source of what FrogFarmer calls the IMOC (Initial Moment of Contact or Confrontation) we should carry a memorandum in the car respecting the rights we intend to assert making the seizing cops assertion that he violated our rights unknowingly untenable. The memorandum should quote Malley v. Briggs and state in bold, large print that its purpose is to destroy qualified immunity. They all know about that wonderful qualified immunity.

          When dealing with a judge our first appearance should include the presentation of a credible waiver of judicial immunity with an accompanying memorandum as to the purpose to establish as a reality the equality described and discussed in the Declaration of Independence, which by the way is the Supreme Law of the Land having been codified in Statutes at Large, as well as establish inalienable rights pre 11th Amendment. Tell the judge, ‘Without a waiver from you, I don’t consent to you being my judge.’ Under equal protection under the laws, why should the private citizen be subjected to the disruptions to his life of court proceedings any more than a judge? Why isn’t my life as important as the judge’s? My contention; it is!

          • Pat Hamer | December 6, 2012 | Permalink

            Thanks for reading. Yes, Monell liability has dealt with this qualified immunity, and then they run with respondeat superior liability defense. The best thing is to sue the individual without naming the county, if you can show that their act was ad hoc, and not affecting all citizen rights equally, see bogan v. Scott-Harris 1998, explained well in Norse v. Santa Cruz 9th 2009. This abrogates immunity, but getting the lower courts to punish their associates in their jurisdiction is the problem. We filed a complaint prior to section 1983 with the state judicial counsel, and they affirmed by punishing Judge James Wagoner, that he acted outside and in excess of his jurisdiction, by threatening to arrest my wife and I with a letter, to retaliate and intimidate us, a witnesses who filed a grand jury complaint.

            So figuring that the state found our case to have merit, we filed the suit. The Judge refused to answer the complaint. We filed for default judgment, the magistrate ignored it, and our objections, in spite of rule 8, among other, where failing to respond to pleadings or objections creates admits the allegations.

            Should have been a prima facie case, but the Magistrate for 3 years simply fundamentally misconstrued our claim by rewriting it with a counterfeit claim, and we could do nothing but appeal. The county settled with us when we filed the appeal. Crooked SOB’s they are. Criminals! We never got to have our case heard or responded to, even though we paid all the appropriate fees. This magistrate is not afraid to have criminal fraud on his resume in dealing with civil right cases that he fixes. He has a pattern of conduct, where one individual was murdered, and he allows the stalking and murder to occur against citizens who he wishes to silence their first amendment right. See the John O’Sullivan case. We are dealing with sociopaths who have the same callousness as Nazis who would shoot, Gas, or torture a Jew in Nazi Germany, all to preserve their pensions and obscene tax based retirement schemes.

          • legalbear | December 7, 2012 | Permalink

            Tell the judge, ‘Without a waiver from you, I don’t consent to you being my judge.’

            I’m finding out more and more that the necessity of our “consent” is a well kept secret. They don’t want us to know about our right as a sovereign to withhold our consent. If you are in court on a quasi-criminal or criminal matter everytime they ask you for your signature they are asking for your consent. They try to give you the feeling that you MUST sign the document hoping that you won’t figure out what the Supreme Court said:

            “We set up government by consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent. Authority here is to be controlled by public opinion, not public opinion by authority.” West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 US 624, 641 – Supreme Court 1943 http://bit.ly/VOwbPu

            In the above case, the coercion was a state law that threatened incarceration!

            Here is a search of the Supreme Court on consent coerced: http://bit.ly/TOwWGK

            One case said about a coerced search: “Where there is coercion, there is no consent.”

          • Pat Hamer | December 7, 2012 | Permalink

            The problem their is, judicial discretion abuse. Denying your consent can be contempt under a corrupt judges discretion and you will be sentenced to jail. Sure you possibly can be set free in time, but you will never receive “redress” or ever be vindicated.

            As far as using “sovereign” to describe a citizens autonomy, I have no idea where that derives from, other the the misinterpretation and equivocation of the word. It derives from 14th Centruy France and was used only to describe a despot who was sovereign “to reign,” as a king from folk etymology. Or also it is a gold coin in England.

            I think what the so called sovereign citizens have done is disregard logic and word meaning and mistake sovereign for inalienable perhaps or autonomous. Hitler considered himself as that, and other sociopaths.

            Human’s must live together, and yes they have independence from abuse of power only. But to claim citizens are sovereign, is a modern day “folk etymology” that should be avoided.

            Webster says that “1 sovereign” is “obsolete,” and I agree, along with Copernicus and Galileo. Galileo, as you recall, was imprisoned for life for challenging “sovereignty.”

      • Paul Decourcey | December 5, 2012 | Permalink Reply

        We The People have more power than any judge in this country. They are all working under us and have an Oath of Office that we the people can use to end their careers and sue them for $250,000.00 for each rights violation committed against us..

        42 USC § 1985 – Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights

        (3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges
        If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.

        • Pat Hamer | December 5, 2012 | Permalink Reply

          Well, Its on the books, I tried it, and the case was settled on appeal, but it cost more than the benefit and it only affects individuals who seek redress. It does nothing to protect those who have not the resources for 42 USC 242. That is a myth!

          Better would be 18 USC 241, 242, criminal prosecution, which would send a message to officials to “tread lightlty.”

          18 USC 241
          If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

          If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

          They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

          If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

          If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

          They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

          18 USC 242
          Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

          Why does not the FBI, DOJ, AG, Local Sheriff, uphold these laws. Citizens forced to 42 USC 1985, or 1983 are told once they are in front of the judge that the official is immune due to the US constitution, (Alden v. Maine US. 1999).

          Your so called “Oath of Office” is a common fallacy among most citizens, a false invalid belief. The “Oath of Office” is to uphold the Constitution, which according to the Supreme Court, (Alden v. Maine), officials are not liable, nor can they violate the “supreme law of the land” (art. VI) and be held liable. Mentioning the Tort Claims act, may convince some idiots, which is common by supporters of immunity, is of no meaningful remedy.

          I’ve heard that argument many times, but until those who use it, wake up and smell the real coffee, our democracy does not know where the basis for corruption exists. It is in the 11th. Amendment, and Alden v. Maine Contradicts eyewitness of the authors of the Constitution itself in Supreme Court Opinion, stating contrary to the eyewitness, claiming hearsay opinion that “Sovereign Rights of immunity come from the constitution itself,” even though the word, according to author James Wilson, was left out on purpose, (Chisholm v. Georgia U.S. 1793).

          • legalbear | December 7, 2012 | Permalink

            I do not like the references in this thread similar to this:

            “our democracy does not know where the basis for corruption exists”

            In In re Duncan, 139 US 449 – Supreme Court 1891 the Court said:

            “By the Constitution, a republican form of government is guaranteed to every State in the Union, and the distinguishing feature of that form is the right of the people to choose their own officers for governmental administration, and pass their own laws in virtue of the legislative power reposed in representative bodies, whose legitimate acts may be said to be those of the people themselves; but, while the people are thus the source of political power, their governments, National and State, have been limited by written constitutions, and they have themselves thereby set bounds to their own power, as against the sudden impulses of mere majorities.” Id. @ 461

            To mention the word democracy is to reference the “sudden impulses of mere majorities” which to my way of thinking is the source of the problem. The majorities, as well as the judges, have forgotten that their “sudden impulses” are “limited by written constitutions, and they have themselves thereby set bounds to their own power”.

          • Pat Hamer | December 7, 2012 | Permalink

            re: quoting you; “I do not like the references in this thread similar to this:

            “our democracy does not know where the basis for corruption exists”

            Forgive me, not used to writing to individuals with such focus. Yes, I think we are still on the same page. I have never met anyone who is aware of the source. The “SOURCE,” I mean an actual amendment passed the number 10 that ended the bill of rights as an inalienable right. So when I use the word democracy, I mean the majority who vote, had no say or lesson or knowledge that they have been barred from the bill rights once to have been “inalienable.”

            So in that sense, the do not know, there is a legal basis to justify illegal corruption, and most in our democracy do not know it exists. The good thing, back to your martial art analogy, is that once they know, the momentum is in place to sling shot this right of defense out of our court system and bye bye cronyism for the first time in history!

          • legalbear | December 8, 2012 | Permalink

            “It does nothing to protect those who have not the resources for 42 USC 242. That is a myth!”

            You mean 42 USC § 1983?

          • Pat Hamer | December 8, 2012 | Permalink

            Yes 1983, thanks for correcting. But we should not have to sue civily for criminal acts, when the Supreme Court requires a rational basis for inaction, or alleged arbitrary abuse of power. Officials simply state, “we have discretion.” Yes, but only if it is rational, and not arbitrary, and there are no witnesses or victims. see Enquist v. Oregan 2008 US. “Arbitrary denial of 14th amendment equal access to law enforcement services given to similarly situated individuals.” “rational basis for inaction is required, and not protected by discretion fallacy.”

          • Pat Hamer | December 8, 2012 | Permalink

            18 USC 241 and 242, is the criminal charge that should be levied against these bastards.

    • legalbear | December 6, 2012 | Permalink Reply

      Couple more examples of using your opponents momentum against them:

      File a suit against Los Angeles County alleging bribery and payoffs to the judges right into the very courts the county is bribing. It’s very difficult for them to sit on a case where their own name is in the complaint no matter how corrupt they are.

      It is possible for a lower court to be in contempt of a higher court. When the lower court rules contrary to a higher court’s precedent file a original proceeding petition into the higher court asking them to issue a show cause order to the lower court to show cause why they should not be held in contempt. I’ve done this with success.

      The highest profile case I am aware of this happening involved the court down South, possibly Georgia, that refused to remove the 10 Commandments from the wall of his court even though he was ordered to by a federal court. The federal trial court was motioned to hold the state court judge in contempt.

      • Pat Hamer | December 6, 2012 | Permalink Reply

        The neat thing about this overt acquiescence of these officials to bolster this immunity travesty, is that it is written down policy. None of our schools teach this part of US history, thus nobody really knows that there is a law that allows and encourages and cultivates corruption.

        If they did, I think they would find candidates who would run on this platform to end the doctrine of immunity for the first time in world history. It truly is the last frontier of tyranny left on earth, and we see the basis and solution for a simple end by just following the use of logic and the rules that govern it.

        So yes, in a sense, their own momentum is there, they just don’t advertise it. But the fact is, “State Immunity” is enthymeme to protecting government officials when they violate human rights. See Jurgen Brohm “State Immunity and the Violation of Human Rights.” Nazi’s used this to get their power, and in 1999 Alden v. Maine US said that this Nazi, and right used by the inquisitors in the post dark ages, is alleged by them to be the major premise of the constitution.

        Not in my USA! If so, I want out! This is the source of corruption, we can end it through media, but I surely don’t have the resources yet to get the word out! We need a producer of Documentary to codify these facts and teach society the truth about state immunity.

    • Martin Walters | December 7, 2012 | Permalink Reply

      OMG. Astonishing, but expected. Placerville hmm? I moved from Sacramento 10 years ago, after fighting the county DA in the child support division, to find out where my payments were going. It took 6 months just to find an attorney willing to fight the DA. Long story short. They weren’t about to let the cat out of the bag. In reality, they simply stole it from my kids while keeping me and my wife at bay by divide and conquer. In the end, even my attorney, who they threatened to disbar, was astonished at the depth of corruption and threats against him..and me. On the final day, after court, I asked my attorney…”They’re just legal thieves aren’t they?” He shrugged…hung his head…and said..yes. That was it for me. I moved out of the despicable state of California in 6 weeks. 10 years and a million hours of searching the net, and digging to discover the depth of corruption in this country and I find your post and this site. I’m done. I can now honestly say…this country is lost. There is only one way to fight these bastards now. You know it. I know it. It’s only a matter of time till it happens too.

      But thanks for your insights into the depth and legal history of this depraved and perverse legal system. Now I understand. In reality…the only “rule of law”..is theirs. Fortunately, I still have the Second Amendment. And I AIM to use it.

      • Pat Hamer | December 8, 2012 | Permalink Reply

        I encourage you that their is one last hope. It is to pick up where Copernicus left off. He created some momentum with those who have intellectual resources. Consequently, if you understand the rules of logic, you could consider that his purpose was equivocated from his intent to expose the dogma of the sovereign blue bloods, which is the basis for today’s civil right intolerance for citizens who object to prima facie abuse of power that is covered up 99.99999% of the time. The retaliation by theocracy for his science was the minor premise. The Major Premise was question authority, and the conclusion was fraud by dogma, which is the source of “sovereign immunity” today. After all, any 5th grader knows sovereignty is royal power, not autonomy which is independence.

        My purpose in putting this historical timeline together, ends rational skepticism, which typically comes from those who profit from “sovereign immunity,” typically any bureaucrat who it benefits, or willfully ignorant misguided individuals who do not know how to parse the rhetoric that they refuse to substantiate. For instance, there is no example in world history where the “over-deterrence” theory, if abandoned, would destroy a nation; which is the modern day basis for the Supreme Court to uphold it, as punishment in purgatory no longer holds water. Neither should this. Monty Python has been using humor for many years to show the mental state of the majority of democracies proletariat through comic analogy, contrasting dark age citizens of the world, enslaved to exploitation by “sovereigns,” which so called modern society, still succumb to dogma, by simple unsubstantiated rhetoric designed to deceive, yet pointed out 2500 years ago by Aristotle teaching fallacy, and how to discover them, to end this deception by Governments or unscrupulous lawyers.

        So, I find very few people who read my historical outline on the subject of the “doctrine of immunity” created out of religious dogma to justify obscene inquisition and murder, actually realize that this is an accurate display. Nevertheless, the conclusion of my premises reveal a simple solution never considered, unfortunately for freedom; outside of revolution, as you say. Simply because we stop genocide, and obscene torture and capitol punishment of public burning of live humans, the same elements of abuse of power still exist. Those who are opposing my ideas regarding state immunity are the “SS” foot soldiers rewarded with state money to abuse us. State Immunity, which is enthymeme to the only purpose of “shielding” officials when they are called to violate human right. When the profits of someone in control of state power are affected negatively, i.e., all bureaucrats, political action committees and special interest need sovereign immunity to allow their appointees to circumvent the rule of law, and this is the Holy Grail for them. One might reconsider secret societies such as the Free Mason’s legacy Knights of Templar secrecy surrounding a so called Holy Grail. If anything, sovereign immunities elusive nature is that secret and so guarded. It is so astounding that such an open law is so unknown to the masses. Individual citizens aligned with ending their right to abuse of power have been excluded from the constitution by the 11th amendment, and more recently by Alden v. Maine U.S. 1999, yet no one in media noticed, and isn’t that there job to inform a nation, of a coup to democracy? I’m ashamed to have been part of this deception, and do nothing!

        Finally we see a solution, and it is not “a” solution but the only rational solution that can be reversed legally, without rewriting the constitution. Remove one amendment, the 11th, and add another one reiterating James Wilson, eye witness and author to the fact that, “to the constitution the word sovereign is totally unknown (Chisholm v. Georgia US 1793). This would remove hearsay testimony from the 5 neo Nazi’s under Kennedy / Scalia tyrants who violated rule of law on its face by excluding witness testimony over inference and hearsay; inspite of the four minority who had the truth that was already upheld in the Supreme Court. How can citizens stand by, or not even know, that 5 tyrants reversed the Constution of the United States from the popular inference that our Constitution protects poeple from “corrupt” tyranny, to a Constitution that protects “sovereign” tyrants from its “subservient subjects” (Bogan v. Scott-Harris US 1999 and Alden).

        World Nations or society have never existed without a “doctrine of immunity.” But there is no example that shows it is essential for society to function, other than the proper form in “diplomatic immunity,” rationally explained as essential. USA has not diplomats between states that would be affected. On the contrary, there are many examples that show public commerce, is no different that private commerce, when it comes to corrupt interstate commerce. Imprisoning corrupt private business men does not end state commerce through frivolous lawsuits. Neither will imprisoning a panoply of corrupt officials. Even the failure of entire industries, mortgage or corporate. In fact, these failures show the corruption in lack of enforcing the commerce clause do to the lack of deterrence created by immunizing corrupt officials is the sole problem, but nobody, except myself and a handful of others has publicly considered this. Is it not rational to think that corruption allowed in Government will harm our economy? Show me any main stream journalism that would even consider this? Are they all brain dead? It seems they are at least hypnotized or drugged [facetiousness added]? Nevertheless, law suits exist against public employee and the state, because citizens don’t know they cannot sue, so that “over-deterrence” argument is baseless and without support in the record, because they said “law suits” would end or deter people from desiring to be in power. Contrarily, the real truth is that we know non other than potential criminals and sociopaths will be deterred from public service, and our economy would actually start to bloom into the most utopian society that ever existed! A society founded on real truth and justice not on pretending we are that! USA is not a just society; the facts are not hid, just the failure to report these facts to the electorate.

        What must be done? I know you believe, it is not possible for “logic to prevail.” I agree, only because citizens have never been made aware of what I teach through my research. You seemingly agree stating, “But thanks for your insights into the depth and legal history of this depraved and perverse legal system. Now I understand. In reality…the only “rule of law”..is theirs.”

        I hear that a lot from those who have focus to muddle through internet writings. Unfortunately I was not a journalist major, so my communication in this type of media is not superb.
        So what needs to be done? The public needs to have an opportunity to learn this history regarding elements (“State Immunity and the Violation of Human Right” Jurgen Brohm) in world government that naturally, by nature, de-claw and make democracy a harmless pipe dream appear to be reality. State Immunity is “absolute power,” everything we are taught that dictatorships, tyrants, and mass murderers, Hitler, Poll Pot, Stalin, among others did to us. There are those reading this with the resources to expose this for the first time on a national level. It really is the only sane solution! The revolution was already fought, we just underestimated those with resources waiting to create the first most diabolically brilliant coup on mankind to them believe they live in a democracy without most of the “good people” being aware of the immunity that ended it.

        Those of you who want to skew violence, let’s put together a group, and get the resources for filming a documentary on the evils of the doctrine of immunity. Nobody really knows how bad it exists, and the government does not hide the supreme court cases that destroyed our bill of rights with it. Only because current press and producers do not know it themselves. The carrot in this is revisiting the pioneers who first proclaimed it, Copernicus and Galileo, among others, and for the Second time in History [first time was 1776 until it ended in 1795 ratification of 11th amendment] we can put an end to legalized abuse of power in a nations constitution! Now that’s freedom! “Let freedom ring” MLK Jr. Contact me at [email protected]
        http://www.the11thamendment.com

  7. andy | December 5, 2012 | Permalink Reply

    Simply put. Read and maker sure you understand Romans 13 in the bible.

    The authorities today are most certainly in violation of “their” “power”. Police, and politicians included.

    Much blood is on their hands. Their day of reckoning is already in the process.

    Watch and remain hopeful. The helper is on HIS way!

    For those who don’t know anything about this remember what the bible says. Isaiah 9:6 READ IT!

    • Pat Hamer | December 6, 2012 | Permalink Reply

      I like Luke 19:13 where he says not to sit on your hands, but “Occupy till I come.”

  8. Tom Lowe | December 5, 2012 | Permalink Reply

    These LA County judges and Supervisors are all part of the same large group of white collar criminals who approved the MERS fraud. They all fully deserve to be sent to Camp FEMA, never to return. When things finally break down as a direct result of their habitual perfidy, I predict that they will be among the first to be rudely disposed of by the common population.

  9. Pat Hamer | December 5, 2012 | Permalink Reply

    for historical data on this see http://www.the11thamendment.com

  10. Fred | December 5, 2012 | Permalink Reply

    If all of these crimes are being committed in the public eye, why are there no citizen’s arrests?

    Please, everyone, read up on your state’s citizen’s arrest statutes (and caselaw if you can find any).

    • Pat Hamer | December 6, 2012 | Permalink Reply

      Because once you inter into their real to file a complaint, they can arrest you and punish you under their jursidictional power and right to abuse discretion without fear of punitive deterrence. Read Macias v. Ihde about how officials “fundementall misconstrue” true allegations by victims, and how the officials fix and fabiricate the story to make the victim appear to be the trouble maker. This happens all the time, the Macias court called this tactic a “cause of murder, stalking, and violence” committed by officials who use their power to misconstrue true allegations of vicitms who cause the official trouble for not doing their job!

      This doesn’t happen everywhere, I suppose, but it is spreading to most jurisdictions now. It is out of hand. That is why people are now more afraid of police and officials than criminals.

      Ironically, in 2004 the Supreme Court US stated tha citizens have no constitutional right for protection against murderers or madmen or private violence, even if they had a restraining order.

      But why is it that they have a right to ignore the law under Alden v. Maine U.S. 1999 and not be liable for disobeying article VI of the constitution. This is breeding lawlessnes in our law enforcement and their surpervisors, it must end!

  11. Fergus | December 5, 2012 | Permalink Reply

    The common law access to power for redress against corruption, malfeasance, abuse of power, etc. in offices or anywhere, really, is the Grand Jury. Look into the history of that body for the origin of all the rest of the rot.

    • Pat Hamer | December 6, 2012 | Permalink Reply

      In 2007 I filed a grand Jury complaint in El Dorado County. Judge James Wagoner, without knowing who I was, or a court docket allowing him jurisdiction, send a state seal letter to my wife and I telling us that if we did not drop or contact with an active open case we filed, GJ07-007 he would arrest my wife, myself, probably my dogs that were shot, who knows what else he would have done. This is criminal for him to do that, but noboday would arrest him in our jurisdiction or even file our report.

      The cjp.ca admonished him in 2009 for this complaint alleging wire fraud, witness tampering, witness intimidation, threat of kidnapping us for exercising legal write to file complaints, threatening to steal our finances, etc. all RICO violations! In 2010, undaunted, this tryant scum bag judge James Wagoner did arrest Penny Arnold, only for being an outspoken political activist, similar to our redress retaliaion. He served a year punishment, and the same http://www.cjp.ca.gov found that Wagoner had no legal right to arrest her for anything, that she did nothing wrong. The federal civil court, after she sued, punished her with a sanction for the crime commited by James Wagoner. So don’t tell me your fairtale about Grand Jury rights! They are all fixed appointed people they approve of! They are the same sould that allowed Nazis’ to extinguish the Jews

  12. Victim of LA courts | December 6, 2012 | Permalink Reply

    AMERICA MUST KNOW what our judges are doing. Fact is in every state and city Lawyers and judges are legally stealing. They have twisted our legal system into a BUSINESS based on greed and profit NOT JUSTICE. I thank Richard Fine for helping so many people to get involved. See uglyjudge.com and avivakbobb.com for more horror stories on BAD JUDGES and our broken legal system. If you’re a victim or have been victimized by a judge or lawyer find other victims and get support by joining Facebook (its free) More suggestions for getting help are at http://www.uglyjudge.com/what-you-can-do/

    • Pat Hamer | December 6, 2012 | Permalink Reply

      I to encourage people to look at the source of the problem and not the victims as a solution. We victims must set aside our losses, and join together and educate society on the what laws exist that allow corruption in our system, and let them decide. For the last 2 centuries, democracy has been excluded from decisions that are concerned with immunity laws, and this ends any democray! If we cannot redress our grievances due to government abuse, then why did we have a revolution in the first place? We have no representation in 2012 to redress our grievances, and this statement is supported by the US Supreme Court in 1998 Bogan v.Scott-Harris, regardles if you can read the contrary in the first amendment itself.

      Its not the document that establishes the law and action or inaction, it is the Supreme Courts “opinions.”

  13. Pat Hamer | December 6, 2012 | Permalink Reply

    I guess to finish this up, I am bewildered, that an “insider” is revealing something as if the historical events that create the “LEGAL BASIS” for corruption in our government is hid on the “INSIDE.”

    FDN report is featuring an individual that confirms what we already know by stating, “yeah I was on inside and yes they are corrupt,” which is overstating the obvious. The solution lies in each individual understanding the best way to determine truth, so that justice can be had. This is through basic understanding of logic, possibly understanding the theory behind syllogism, the first few chapters in a college philosophy course. Major premise, minor premise, and conclusion, is necessary according to Aristotle and his 2500 year fan base. So what I did, was identify what the major premise was, that causes all the minor premise activism to end what has happened to Mr. Fine for instance.

    What I find among most journalist / Activists, is they are not obeying these laws of logic, but relying on “journalism” tactics, creating “band wagon” audiences through marketing gimmicks, ethos, pathos, etc, where they generate sensationalism. For instance FDN believes they need to fix LA county judges. Yet these judges are only following the Supreme Law of the Land (Alden v. Maine, etc.) and acting within it. For instance, they already replaced Yaffe, I believe, but nothing has changed. Also they claim that the cause of action was the “violation of state constitution,” or “misappropriating tax dollars.” What is FDN suggesting their audience do? My opinion of what they have done is to limit their scope to LA, as if that is the source of the problem (wasting resources on a minor premise, a strategy proven for failure, see Sun Tzu, “Art of War.”

    The source of abuse of power lies in some loop hole in a statute that allows corruption, or corruption solely based upon corrupt individuals. Is that not a correct place to start looking? Because I have pointed to laws and constitutional amendments that, not just suggest, but mandate, “even if corrupt, the law will not tolerate a citizens redress….” legally ended the First Amendment right, see Bogan v. Scott-Harris 1998 U.S., it would seem that this is the pond that allows the mosquitoes to perpetuate. Nobody knows this, because most blogs like FDN refuses to acknowledge it exists. Revealing this outrages individuals, which would spark a bloodless intellectual revolution. Au contrair mon ami; but because media ignores it the audience, so called “democracy” has no clue it exists, thus nothing in our democracy becomes a democracy, so instead we are decreed the court appointed “sovereignty of “Alden v. Maine,” absent democratic awareness.

    In other words, Alden v. Maine and the 11th Amendment, and the dogmatic fallacy of jus cogens sovereignty (sovereign immunity), are the major premise that solidify the conclusion, that turning a blind eye to corruption (the over-deterrence theory) is a necessary requirement for government not to fail. This is illogical, implausible, and without basis in the record* of the Declaration of Independence, and overtly absent in the Constitution itself (Chisholm v. Georgia U.S. 1793). So the Major premise is a law that allows corruption to cultivate. Does this explain why our country, and the world is in such turmoil, solely to preserve the wealth by unjust immunity of those who assume risk or have a desire to skew justice if they over exploit by abuse of power? We all assume risk, giving public citizens a pass is a Utopian Nazi totalitarian inestimable right! The minor premises are the benefits officials are now entitled to, and if the benefit to an official harms a citizen, the conclusion is there is no “redress of grievance;” and thus the Constitution itself is proven to be a baseless document, and all the citizens, are not the beneficiaries, but only those employed by the state, federal and local governments are protected by the constitution, unless by decree or the discretion of the judiciary, which, by the way, makes the word “inalienable” of no consequence. This is an inequality that the intent and 14th amendment ironically and contradictory create the invalidity of immunity res ipsa loquitur.

    So, activists are left with the task to reverse the conclusion, if we all believe the contrary that the constitution is to protect people from oppressive government. Because as it stands, Alden v. Maine 1999, says that the constitution was formed to protect officials from the people they abuse, and there is no other reality, because the Supreme Court is “supreme.” So what is FDN, a voice with above average resources, doing? They are pointing to some minor premises that caused Mr. Fine some pain, without identifying the cause of action. What a waste of resources. But then the longer people support this endeavor, those who failed to learn “syllogism,” it will appear that something is being done. This same strategy is repeated across the land with all activism that is objecting to abuse of power.

    So what text exist that teach us strategy? Perhaps the simplest is “The Art of War” by Sun Tzu. His philosophy is spot on with Aristotle’s syllogism. He stated that, “2. Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting,” (Chapter III Attack by stratagem). How do you do that? You have to stop throwing away resources to those who ignore strategy, unkindly put, the inept (willfully stubborn) who somehow lead activism. You must find those who are capable of leadership, who know where the enemy really resides. Cluster bombing is only a form of terrorism, which is what abuse of power is.. Sun Said, in the same Chapter, “3. the next best is to prevent the junction of the enemy’s forces….” (the 11th. Amendment and Case law that bars redress is a mere “injunction” that if implausible can be over-ruled see FRCP, among others.) The coup de gras, to kind a phrase, is the “MAJOR PREMISE,” THE ONLY ONE, THERE IS NO OTHER FRONT LINE, is stated at sentence 7, “With his forces intact he will dispute the MASTERY OF THE EMPIRE (the major premise, emphasis added), and thus, without losing a man, his triumph will be complete. This is the method of attacking by stratagem.”

    Okay FDN, get on the front lines! At least take a stab at it! Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it!

    *nor is there is an example in world history to support this as a failure of governments

    • Richard M. | December 11, 2012 | Permalink Reply

      1. You are absolutely correct that the 11th Amendment must be eliminated because it empowers individuals (gov employees) with abuseable power for which there is effectively no recourse. Without eliminating this basic wellspring, corruption will continue increasing because people with power will tend to benefit from abusing it and if unaccountable, can not be stopped.

      2. Unfortunately, I see no way to convince any significant percentage of the populace of the above. Education and the general media is thoroughly controlled and the internet probably will be soon. Even if the info was widely available, the populace is being systematically dumbed down by various techniques and is more concerned with meaningless drivel. Finally, conformity to the status quo is being enforced by ever increasing control over people through use of databases which are rapidly getting to the point where troublemaking “subversives” can be easily identified and “punished” economically with bad “credit” ratings, diminished employment/housing opportunities, adverse government regulatory/police attention etc. Finally, it goes without saying that a “subversive” who ends up in court, either in a criminal or civil case, will lose and likely face worse consequences than if he was a typical loser.

      3. I commend you on your persistence, optimism and incredibly thorough research and analysis. My only suggestion is that you minimize your historical references. No matter how fascinating and germane you find the correlations, the material is already very difficult for most of us to follow and unnecessary historical background tends to add distraction.

      4. FDN should also be commended (and supported) for their continued coverage of the issue of corruption in the courts. Because none of society’s problems can be resolved while criminals can run amok, this is basically THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR regarding this county’s rapid decline.

      Also, getting Allan Parachini was a great achievement and probably does more for FDN’s credibility than any of their other interviewees and in this regard, I don’t think his insider status as the court’s public face was stressed enough.

      Speaking of FDN, it would be very nice to see updates on their various court corruption stories such as Richard Fine, their small claims case etc..

  14. legalbear | December 7, 2012 | Permalink Reply

    ” If we cannot redress our grievances due to government abuse, then why did we have a revolution in the first place?”

    My thought: An entire civil war culminated in “due process” and “equal protection” being imposed upon the states and these judges collectively treat it sooooooo lightly. It seems they need to be reminded that:

    “In a government of laws,” said Mr. Justice Brandeis, “existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means—to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal—would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face.” 277 U. S., at 485. (Dissenting opinion.) Elkins v. United States, 364 US 206, 223 – Supreme Court 1960

    And that:

    “But there is another consideration— the IMPERATIVE of JUDICIAL INTEGRITY.” Elkins, @ 222.

  15. legalbear | December 7, 2012 | Permalink Reply

    It seems to me that we should be also reminding each and every court we come in contact with the following:

    “There is no more sacred duty of a court than, in a case properly before it, to maintain unimpaired those securities for the personal rights of the individual which have received for ages the sanction of the jurist and the statesman; and in such cases no narrow or illiberal construction should be given to the words of the fundamental law in which they are embodied.” ex parte Lange, 85 US 163, 178 (1873).

    • legalbear | December 7, 2012 | Permalink Reply

      It seems to me that we should be also reminding each and every court we come in contact with the following:

      “The Constitution of a State is stable and permanent, not to be worked upon by the temper of the times, nor to rise and fall with the tide of events; notwithstanding the competition of opposing interests, and the violence of contending parties, it remains firm and immoveable, as a mountain amidst the strife of storms, or a rock in the ocean amidst the raging of the waves. I take it to be a clear position; that if a legislative act oppugns a constitutional principle, the former must give way, and be rejected on the score of repugnance. I hold it to be a position equally clear and found, that, in such case, it will be the duty of the Court to adhere to the Constitution, and to declare the act null and void. The Constitution is the basis of legislative authority; it lies at the foundation of all law, and is a rule and commission by which both Legislators and Judges are to proceed. It is an important principle, which, in the discussion of questions of the present kind, ought never to be lost sight of, that the Judiciary in this country is not a subordinate, but co-ordinate, branch of the government.” Vanhorne v. Dorrance, 2 U.S. 304, 309 (1795).

    • Pat Hamer | December 7, 2012 | Permalink Reply

      Well, what I learned in study of philosophical logic, was that informing the courts, who are corrupt, is a minor premise, and will not bring a favorable conclusion. Also Sun Tzu in Art of War, stated, “With his forces intact he will dispute the MASTERY OF THE EMPIRE (the major premise, emphasis added), and thus, without losing a man, his triumph will be complete. This is the method of attacking by stratagem.”

      So informing a non “mastery of the empire” is what all of our activists are doing now, and nothing ever changes. Those who ended slavery and the prohibition knew what to do, and then that knowledge of stratagem died with them. We must revive it and simply repeal the 11th amendment and amend the constitution to “eye witness” testimoney that is already in the court record in 1793. Opinion of sovereignty has no basis in the record, and cannot survive appeal.

      The courts are an act of Futility as far as civil right reform goes.

    • Pat Hamer | December 7, 2012 | Permalink Reply

      I agree, but the 3rd branch has been hewn from the tree, and makes it up as they go now.

  16. Martin Walters | December 7, 2012 | Permalink Reply

    quote: “Those who ended slavery and the prohibition knew what to do, ” unquote. Yeah, they loaded weapons. Ultimately, that’s is exactly what they had to do in the revolution too…load weapons to kill the British. Cause tyranny NEVER is constrained by logic. Only guns.

    And that …IS what we are headed for. “We the people”..will NEVER be allowed to “repeal the 11th amendment “. Like a friend of mine says…give me a gun…and I STILL get to vote…so to speak. Unfortunately, it appears you don’t really know what’s going on in other areas of this fight. Department of Homeland Security just purchased over 5 million bullets and body bags. And they didn’t do that for drill. Now tell me…they’ll listen to you. not.

    • Pat Hamer | December 8, 2012 | Permalink Reply

      One can hope that through the mass infliction of internet media, Logic can finally prevail. It is a shame that it has never been able to. But Taking up guns, has been made antiquated by the US mimicking Soviet style KGB restraining citizens who object to abuse of power, and the Soviets, Instead of openly banning free speech, learn to mimmick US policy of inserting mere poetry and calling it a constitution to cause those who openly express anti totalitiarian thought to come out believing they are free from retaliation.

      Quite an interesting observation on the word acquiesce.

    • Pat Hamer | December 8, 2012 | Permalink Reply

      You quoted “Yeah, they loaded weapons. Ultimately, that’s is exactly what they had to do in the revolution too…” Actually, more accurate they repealed slavery with the 13th amendment, the slave owners picked up the guns, and alcohol enthusiasts repealed prohibitions constitutional amendment with a simple amendment, again, Melvin Purvice and his agents had a blast shooting and killing mobsters who protested the amendment to end alcohol enthusiasm.

      If we repeal the 11th amendment, and abuse of power continues, there is no longer any 11th amendment defense, once Alden v. Maine is amended by congress, the same way the reversed Chisholm v. Georgia 1793, in the soverigns bloodless coup to reverse the revolution which is inarguably the result of this 11th amendment.

  17. legalbear | December 8, 2012 | Permalink Reply

    “why are there no citizen’s arrests?”

    I did some initial research on this. I found this quote:

    “The United States Supreme Court, however, has ruled that, while one must look to state law to find the authority for a state peace officer OR A PRIVATE PERSON TO ARREST SOMEONE WHO HAS COMMITTED A FEDERAL FELONY in the State of New York, this does not mean that such authority can only be invoked where the federal felony is exactly reflected in an identical state criminal statute; rather, it is only necessary that the federal crime be of the same standard or class of offense, here, for example a felony and that the state procedure authorize arrests for felonies by peace officers of the state OR BY PRIVATE PERSONS MAKING A “CITIZEN’S ARREST.” The possible penalty for violation of the Munitions Control Act is two years of imprisonment, so that it fits both the New York state and federal definitions of felony.

    THE LEADING SUPREME COURT CASES ON THIS SUBJECT ARE, in chronological order, United States v. DiRe, supra, and United States v. Watson, supra.” United States v. Swarovski, 557 F. 2d 40, 48 – Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 1977 http://bit.ly/126u0KH

    With this case as the lead in to further research, what I propose is filing a declaratory judgment petition into a court of general jurisdiction asking the court: 1. When I see or know about a judge committing a crime is there any legal reason I cannot effect a citizen’s arrest on that judge? 2. Once I arrest the judge, should I allow that judge to set his own bail? 3. Should I allow that judge’s colleagues to set his bail? 4. While I await a decision respecting bail, can I keep the judge in my basement? 5. What should I do if law enforcement refuses to assist me in effecting the arrest for purely political reasons? 6. When a judge violates the law can we just skip due process and move right to sentencing?

    Can you see I am just trying to come up with hard questions and put the court on the horns of a dilemna. Help me out here!

  18. legalbear | December 8, 2012 | Permalink Reply

    More thoughts on declaratory judgment RE CITIZEN’S ARRESTS OF JUDGES:

    Please issue an order to the sheriff or US Marshals to give me the same access to the sallyport as law enforcement and order them to teach me how to fill out the proper paperwork at the jail following an arrest; especially when I inform them that I have arrested a judge.

    Order the marshals or sheriff’s deputies to treat arrested judges EXACTLY the same as other arrestees; fingerprints, iris scans, and overnight stays pending first appearance in court.

  19. Jeannie Dunn | December 8, 2012 | Permalink Reply

    Time for a Revolution. When the people fear the Government there is TYRANNY: When the Government fears the people there is LIBERTY: The Tree of LIBERTY must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of PATRIOTS and TYRANTS. Thomas Jefferson I read these post and it really is upsetting,knowing that our whole GOVERNMENT is infected with tyransects who want Political power,Military Power,Economic Power,Scientific Power,Cultural Power and Religious Power enforced with absolute control of the American People.Sadly these things have been going on for some time and many are clueless. I have spent a lot of Book and Computer time copying and learning the Agendas of Bilder Bergers, illumnati,Trilateral Commission and the Counsel on Foreign Relations it is scary how much to see their Agendas are showing up in our Presidents Proposals. There is nothing but corruption in every Branch of our Government created by Greed and Power. Clint Eastwood said it right, One day we will realize that Barack Obama’s Presidency was the biggest FRAUD ever perpetrated on the American People.It’s no secret that Obama ran and still associates with the Chicago Commitee To Defend the Bill of Rights,a long time Communist Party of the USA,hiding themselves behind our Bill of Rights.It’s also not a secret that his Chicago House on 5406 Greenwood Ave 11706 is the residence of one Harrison J Bounel who is suppose to be one of Michele Obama’s relatives, but listed as spouse.Her SS# is associated or belongs to a 91 year old South Texas women. Mr’Obama use to have a SS# that belonged to a dead man from 1890,but now he has a SS # that is associated with a non existent person. The House also is under Northern Trust because neither of them could get a loan,with taxes being paid by Obama’s CPA Harvey Wineberg, he use to be Obama”s adviser to US Dept of Treasure.There also is a warehouse at 123 Washington Ave in Bayshore Long Island NY listed as commerical property to Mr and Mrs Obama as of 2009.I would like to know what that is for. There is so much information that keeps surfacing,that shows clearly paths of corruption.We have a Chicago Thug in office who I still do not believe is a American citizen,the house by the way use to be owned by Tony Rizzco until there were to many questions being brought up about that corrupt dirt bag.I really do not understand how our CIA-FBI-Homeland Security feel justified in all these cover ups and continue to covered up this so corrupt Evil Entity. Who is bringing America to it’s knees.Why? So while we all still keep these posts filled with how we as Americans feel and know things are not right in every branch including but not limiting to our Judicial Branch,what do we do? Seriously this is our America, that I no longer know.I remember reading what was holding the NWO from taking place, and it was specific as to 2 things, 1, America was the only country not ready,and 2 the dollar had to collapse.These 2 things would usher in the NWO and of course having the DICTATOR in office.I really truly believe that we will no longer see the America we once new. I hope I am wrong,and one thing for sure about me is,I do not have a problem if I am wrong. Obama is a False everything a Fraud and the whole Government and United Nations/World let this happen. So it is no surprise that we all are feeling the effects of Obama,and our Government,it’s just nothing we have ever had to face.I just pray that we do not have to use our 2nd amendment rights.If we do then so be it. God Bless America

    • Pat Hamer | December 9, 2012 | Permalink Reply

      We are so indoctrinated in the 2 party system, quoting the names of the opposing party, such as Obama, etc…

      Yet if those of you who blame abuse of power on the other party, look at the Kennedy Scalia Court. I was a former Republican, and I am not a Democrat. This insane behavior of repeating failure over and over by changing who controls the right to abuse power has to end, and it needs to start with those who are thinking this bad citizen policy will help. I will not.

      We have all been so hurt and victimized by official acts that are overtly contrary to written rule of law, and nothing is being done to deter or punish these officials. These officials are only relying on the “over-deterrence theory” that they sell, but only when asked by individuals, usually plaintiffs suing defendants, and Judges remind plaintiff, “in spite of the First Amendment Right to redress…we have decided that it no longer is valid, because we have worked hard for or jobs, and you shouldn’t be able to fire us for our negligence and corruption.” Of course I’m paraphrasing Bogan v. Scott-Harris who stated, “even if we are corrupt…the law will not tolerate a citizen redress…” They said this was “long standing and well known.”

      Today’s revolution need only be a bloodless revolution, via an intellectual exodus from enabling Republicans, or Democrats, or Independents from controlling the influence of abuse of power under the 11th amendment and Alden v. Maine “sovereign right to abuse.” This removes the legal defense, and the inference by law enforcement that criminal charges also be ignored. Then we can cull the government of the sociopaths who have learned where crime pays.

  20. Pat Hamer | December 9, 2012 | Permalink Reply

    Kennedy and Scalia have ended the right of a citizen to redress a grievance in the civil courts, redress = “make right the losses.”

    I am a former Republican, and if you learn what they are doing with immunity, Prosecutors can now frame innocent citizens for death penalty cases and not be held liable, see Thompson v. Connick for Christ sake!

    Bogan v. Scott-Harris they 5 tyrant Neo Nazis said that corruption has not right of redress, and the US citizen victims must suffer the losses without any remedy. I think that is what King George III said, is it not?

    Read Dean of Law UC Irvine Erwin Chemerinsky http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2235&context=llr&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dalden%2520v.%2520maine%2520defendants%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D2%26ved%3D0CE4QFjAB%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigitalcommons.lmu.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D2235%2526context%253Dllr%26ei%3D8g4PUNSfA-fmiwLXzYHQBQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNGGGQKWI0leW9WoffElcmmSkS1YoA#search=%22alden%20v.%20maine%20defendants%22

  21. Ronald E. Pierce | December 11, 2012 | Permalink Reply

    Wow. So much discussion. I just wish it would stay on topic. (i.e., who is this guy’s replacement? What is his or her stated “policy” regarding public information? Would the PJ of the superior court care to comment about this exposure? What SPECIFIC public information was DENIED in order to “KEEP THEM OUT!” ???

    What exactly did this guy hear about Richard Fine behind the scenes? Inquiring minds want to know. LASC is a rat nest and someone needs to stick a camera in there and film the scurrying….

  22. Ronald E. Pierce | December 13, 2012 | Permalink Reply

    I concur on all points.

  23. Ronald E. Pierce | December 17, 2012 | Permalink Reply

    Anybody try sending a public records request to the “new” Public Information Officer yet?

  24. Ronald E. Pierce | December 19, 2012 | Permalink Reply

    How sad this article generated more discussion about the 11th Amendment than anything else. My people are enslaved for lack of focus.

  25. Bill Otinger | December 22, 2012 | Permalink Reply

    CONSTITUTION is SUPREME LAW of the LAND any one, US Supreme Court Justice, Policeman, SOLDIER etc that “”VIOLATES”"it is a “”TRAITOR”"”"HERO”"”Mai Lai Massaacare in Vietnam was LT THOMPSON, he flew in with his Helicopter and Announced to the DRUGGED Soldiers that SHOT 500 Women & Children you shoot one more Person , I will Open Fire on you with these MACHIGUNS .

    Mai Lai Massacare like Jim Jones MURDER of 900 Was a CIA Operations see video at MarsBoy683,

    Some Soldiers will Half to “”"SHOOT”"other Soldiers to Protect the American People.

    Many Soldiers are DRUGGED to the Point they CAnnot THINK, However a TRAITOR IS a TRAITOR, any Judge that Fails to HONOR CONSTITUTION is a “”"TRAITOR”"”

    They add Extra High Dose of BRAIN Neuro Toxins to the Food, Water & Soft Drinks Prepared for Soldiers, see 30 video at wwwFLUORIDEALERTorg and MSG dr russell blaylock excitotoxins video

    see video SSSS WAVES GWEN HAARP its Star Wars Weapons

    A Policeman that does not HONOR his OATH to Up HOLD the CONSTiTUTION is a :::TRAITOR”"”

    Their is No APPEAL for TREASON during a time of WAR,

    During a time of WAR, the Penality for TREASON is DEATH,

    Find out Who the REAL ENEMY IS, when they Declare Martial Law, be Ready to Go after them in their UNDERGROUND Cities,

    HERE in this VIDEO are SOLDIERS that REFUSED to TAKE WEAPONS from UNITED STATES CITIZENS they OBEYED their OATH to UpHold the CONSTITUTION

    http://youtu.be/uLaKsbM0x3g

    , http://youtu.be/8RkOqE8ZiE4, American Dollar has lost 96% of its value since Rothschilds, Vatican Bank & other “”BLACK NOBiLITY”"started Printing our MONEY they are EVIL they Has President Wilson BRIBED & BLACKMAILED , In Return He Singed the EVIL Federal Reserve Act, and He got us into WW1 they got the Land of IsRAEL so they would have A Military Presence to Protect thier Oil & Diamond Business etc Its a”"”"VIOLATION”"of our United States Constitution for them to Print our MONEY they have STOLE TRILLIONS and given us WAR and Recessions and DEPRESSIONS

    NWO Monsters are Also using STAR WARS WEAPONS on Americans, see Video SSSS WAVES GWEN HAARP

  26. Certified Copies | December 23, 2012 | Permalink Reply

    Why couldn’t you get a certified copy of the U.S. Constitution. The hand written version by the founding fathers. Get a certified copy of your state Constitution. Certified copies of Judge’s and persecutor’s oaths file them into your case and watch them sweat. I would also agree with the other person who would file under 18 U.S.C.242. Go after them criminal wise as you can still sue under 18 U.S.C. As for the other person that is worried about Martial Law, this country has been under Martial Law since 1860 when Lincoln declared it under the beginning of the Civil War. He was killed before he had a chance to remove it. This country has been under Martial Law for the last 152 years.

  27. Pat Hamer | December 29, 2012 | Permalink Reply

    It boils down to one issue according to the Supreme Court, which must, at least create a controversy that biased judges can over-look abuse of discretion, such as in Alden v. Maine 1999 to us “common law” stari decisis as a means to formulate us policy under an appearance of democracy.

    Ironically, they chose the old common law of allowing “sovereigns” who could legally but arbitrarily cut off the heads of wives, or steal property under assumed divine right for the good of the kingdom, and the approval of the Church and God.

    The problem is with the definition and meaning of Sovereign[ty]. No where is the misuse of the noun or adjective sovereign associated with a democracy, other than the U.S. Supreme court in the last decade, see Ohio Law Journal law Professor Steve G. Gey “The Myth of Sovereignty” http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/students/groups/oslj/files/2012/03/63.6.gey_.pdf

    But first look at, for instance, United Kingdom’s official web site of British Monarchy, where we derive our so called common law from. It contradicts, in one sentence, our supreme court “grand delusion” they made for themselves and other officials as a reward for silence. This website answers the question, “What is Constitutional Monarchy?” It’s simple answer is, “As a constitutional monarch, the Sovereign must remain politically neutral.” “…the Sovereign…” is enthymeme, and commonly known to all, as the heir of the divinely appointed blood line of rulers appointed under the impression, that God himself appointed this bloodline as “Supreme Beings” trusted to rule by the will of the Christian God.” I personally will not argue the fallacy or validity of this system, but it shows that it does not belong as elements of the U.S. Government coming from our Supreme Court, but that is what Alden v. Maine had to use in order to grant immunity for corrupt officials (from Bogan v. Scott-Harris 1998), due to the 11th amendment argument in conflict with eye witness James Wilson. Wilson stated in Chisholm that the authors agreed to leave “sovereignty” from the Constitution, because “it is a perversion of the genus species…” of logical syllogism (Chisholm v. Georgia 1793). This shocking news caused congress to immediately anonymously write the 11th amendment 2 days later. It took 3 more years for representatives to overcome shame of reinstating the cause of action that started the revolution and ratify it as the 11th amendment. The Sovereigns that the supreme court made for themselves, is hardly “…politically nuetral…”

    How is this history not widely known, even though it is written right out in the open and not hid? Here is what professor Gey stated as a plausible reason, “It is now apparent that the United States is in the midst of a constitutional revolution. For the most part, it is a quiet revolution. The issues around which the revolution is being fought are so esoteric that anyone not possessing an unnaturally strong interest in the structural aspects of constitutional law will have a difficult time staying awake long enough to understand the details of what is happening. In short, during the last ten years a narrow but steadfast five-member majority of the Supreme Court has used a broad conception of state sovereignty to expand the power of state government (and simultaneously to restrict he power of the federal government) in virtually every area in which the two governments operate.”

    So until victims of this abuse stop attacking policy in the lower courts and jurisdictions by futile complaints, this will continue. Most people are AWOL from the front lines of battle, which is the 11th amendment and Alden v. Maine, among others, but these are the “Mastery of Empire,” Sun Tzu said would cause victory without the lose of any troops.

  28. STOP COURT CORRUPTION | December 30, 2012 | Permalink Reply

    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=563157673710138&set=p.563157673710138&type=1&theater THE 11TH CIRCUIT IS THE MOST CORRUPT COURT SYSTEM IN AMERICA!

  29. Pat Hamer | December 31, 2012 | Permalink Reply

    FDN wants to do documentarys on issues that will have no change on policy surrounding government corruption. http://www.fulldisclosure.net/2012/08/usa-vs-corruption/?utm_source=Emailbrain&utm_medium=email&utm_term=NewsletterLink&utm_campaign=12-31-12-DocuLetter&utm_content=

    I was sensored there, I’ll tryy here

    Hey Joe, “crime syndicate” is a fact. Look at RICO stats. Jeff Grail has a great website and has a focus on govt corruption in his elements, which is rare for state officials to do. http://www.ricoact.com

    I think people with “assets and financial resources” to produce documentary have been educated in the use of logic taught in classical philosophy. Any financier, would notice that FDN is local, and majors on minor premises of corruption, failing to identify in their media, what Sun Tzu stated would cause victory without loss of troops. This is what he called the “Master of the Empire.” They are openly wasting resources on blaming the “president, prosecutors, elections, court corruption, expensive high school (roflmao), propaganda, corruption in paradise (a repeat of all the above.). Each one of these claims are minor premises, describing agencies that can abuse power, have been given authority to do so under Alden v. Maine. Each occur as a direct result of abuse of power by fundamentally misconstruing common law, centered around the “doctrine of immunity.” Alden arose from the 11th amendment which was so perverted in the use of logic, it could no longer remain a “straight faced” opinion. Even Alden merely delays the awareness of the absurdity of “sovereigns” governing the USA with “absolute power, made palatable by cloaking it in “electoral democracy,” which is absurd when we can chose “sovereigns” as our term limited dictatorial tyrants. Thus creating the Major premise with a conclusion that corruption will not be harmful to US policy, simply so they don’t loose their assets for abusing power. The solution, before all others would make sense that ending this “right of tyrants only,” (Dec. of Ind.), is not that far from fruition, but only if people knew the links that had to be removed, and they do not, and FDN’s 20 years of wasting time shows this.

    Dean of law at UC Irvine Erwin Chemerinsky wrote an article calling this “sovereignty” a “hypocrisy,” http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2235&context=llr&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dalden%2520v.%2520maine%2520defendants%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D2%26ved%3D0CE4QFjAB%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigitalcommons.lmu.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D2235%2526context%253Dllr%26ei%3D8g4PUNSfA-fmiwLXzYHQBQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNGGGQKWI0leW9WoffElcmmSkS1YoA#search=%22alden%20v.%20maine%20defendants%22

    When I read the article, I had already done research to see if there was a rational basis, that the government could use to ignore “rule of law.” I discovered that it was the perverting of logical syllogism and equivocating words and terms into meanings that are not supported by definition from its original, and even modern definition. I explain this at http://www.the11thamendment.com. Even though we view judicial decree that is contrary to our belief in what the constitution is, as “corrupt.” They simply equivocate criminal abuse of power 18 USC 242, to what they deem non criminal “abuse of discretion,” which in reality is criminal “abuse of power, especially when you can show that common law was ignored. If there was some form of deterrence, which there is none, other than judicial counsel complaints (judging judges by crony judges) the bias exists to cover up their colleagues making decisions to further strengthen the right to abuse under Alden’s, “sovereign power.”

    I always wondered why other seemingly educated and intelligent persons could not grasp this, in fact, I considered that I might even be caught in some major flaw in my logic, that I could not overcome, which I believe vehemently is to ignore the minor issues, and focus on attacking the laws that allow corruption, i.e. 11th amendment, Alden, etc. I could be wrong, but this should be the first thing to do. But as you see, FDN claims “20 years” as pioneers shedding light on corruption, yet they ignore the simple reality, that if a law allows corruption, attacking corrupt officials who are protected by the law is futility. I have been perplexed, why I never saw this before, and perplexed further by pointing this out, only a minority of persons seem to be able to make the connection. Other than the lame “over-deterrence theory,” I have not had anyone able to point out the flaw.

    My question of “why” was answered appropriately by another attorney professor in the Ohio State Law Journal Steven G. Gey. Professor Gey, my presumption that fallacy abusive misleading rhetoric, such as the fallacy of equivocation was the culprit, allowing a perverted form of a good law, i.e. “diplomatic immunity,” derived from the 14th century (see Bartolus “par en parem non habet imperium.”) to slip into our paradigm, thus upsetting the shift of justice, making injustice a reality, I believe temporary awaiting an intellectual revolution and renaissance. Until you people think like me, we are going to suffer as much abuse as possible, instead of minimal abuse with “sovereign immunity.” In Gey’s article, “The Myth of State Sovereignty,” http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/students/groups/oslj/files/2012/03/63.6.gey_.pdf gey stated that, paramount and foremost, in the introduction 1st paragraph,

    “It is now apparent that the United States is in the midst of a constitutional revolution. For the most part, it is a quiet revolution. The issues around which the revolution is being fought are so esoteric that anyone not possessing an unnaturally strong interest in the structural aspects of constitutional law will have a difficult time staying awake long enough to understand the details of what is happening.”

    Sovereignty, in reality is a myth, a form of dogma, being forced on society, first pointed out by Copernicus, and Galileo. The paradigm shift was actually equivocated to natural science instead of the intended political and social science. The paradigm shift intended, will occur by ending dogmatic form of government responsible for birthing “sovereignty” allowing government to exploit humans by violating human rights and justice through religious dogma that justified by immunity for “Gods earthly emissaries.” Separation of church and state, also means removing religious dogma, such as immunity. Evil doers in government are supposed to be “equal” under the 14th amendment, but we see that is a fallacy also. It takes years of studying legal theory that connects the dots. One is the Rational basis theory. Enquist v. Oregan 2008 states that “rational basis” is required for acts that may be declared unconstitutional, or inaction that may discriminate by denying what other “similarly situated individuals” have received (violation of 14th amendment for govt service discrimination).

    So all perceived acts of corruption that causes citizens or classes of citizens damages, are immune under the 11th amendment, (that basis set aside by Alden stating the Constitution did not need the 11th amendment in the first place, “sovereignty is the rule of law” and sovereigns can do anything).

    So what we witness in USA is that attacking officials in civil court who abuse you is punitive similar to criminal punishment but cloaked under “sanctions, contempt, among other.” If you are in a very corrupt jurisdiction, and you try to rectify injustice, no matter if it is res ipsa loquitur, prima facie, 100 witnesses, don’t matter, federal magistrates are funneled these “state case” and they “fundamentally misconstrue” the facts using “Mock Trial” (without a jury or rights to subpoena), and create an illusion to the public of “they had their day in court and failed.”

    So FDN and 99.9% of activist news, that pretend they want to fix corruption, cannot get people like us who know the truth to support their futile idiotic motion pictures featuring disgruntled victims, as if “the people” would cause fear in officials if they were made aware that the “government was corrupt.” The marketing strategy I see, is that “victims,” will fund their own stories and do the leg work providing an income stream for their lame activism. People already know officials are corrupt, and they don’t care, because they don’t know the solution. The good news is laid before us with elemental connections that are easily followed. The cases exist and the record supports overt corruption in the files of today’s decisions. Once we end immunity, the evidence is just waiting to prosecute Yaffe’s and others. But only if you follow what I have laid out, will we ever see change. I didn’t come up with the idea, I just have not given up or died like others behind me! We must attack the “Mastery of the Empire” that cultivates Corruption in US politics, and that is the “doctrine of immunity.” There is no historical basis to show that “abandoning this doctrine would destroy our way of government.” The quote has become their only accepted basis to justify this tyranny the Declaration called “a right inestimable to them only, and formidable for tyrants.

  30. Hope | February 5, 2013 | Permalink Reply

    In the UK which is run by the City of London Private Bar Guilds, children in huge numbers are being kidnapped for the money to make fostering/forced adoptions agencies rich.

    How can we put a stop to this evil vile trade in humans and get all of the children stolen by the state back ?

    The money system in our counties seem to be very well hidden and people have known for quite sometime that in these secret closed family court hearings the state & county are all working together to traffic children.

  31. [...] 632 [...]

  32. […] I. SUMMARY Judicial Officers may indeed merit pay increases. The current supplemental judicial payments are not the way to do it. The current payment system is unconstitutional, violates the California Code of Civil Procedure, and ignores the biases that arise from the county payments. The payments directly by the Superior Courts may even be illegal.  Respondents, through the Court Counsel, are fixated on “absolute judicial immunity”. In spite of the copious legal references supporting immunity, they never address why Section 5 of SBX2 11 legislation was needed or why it was needed so hastily. How was the authorization of payments stated any differently in SBX2 11 than in the Lockyer-Isenberg statute? For Respondents, Lockyer-Isenberg was only a little bit unconstitutional “per se”, just like a “little bit” pregnant. The Standard of Review for this case is NOT an abuse of discretion. Plaintiff’s  loss of multiple constitutional guarantees requires a STRICT SCRUTINY standard of review by judges who, at a minimum, have never taken the “supplemental judicial benefits”. Thomas Trent Lewis took $250,718 of unconstitutional monies from Los Angeles County and participated in tax fraud by not paying federal or state taxes on that money. Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, 167 Cal.App.4th 630 (2008) held the payments unconstitutional, stripping him of judicial immunity. The Commission on Judicial Performance has determined SBX2 11 to be unconstitutional, the payments illegal, thus denying LEWIS the Legislature’s intended retroactive immunity, itself unconstitutional. The related cases in E058417 include three Justices of the Appellate Court because they took county payments while serving in the Superior Court. California’s legislature, Supreme Court and Attorney General must address this issue immediately to preclude a Federal Court from overseeing the dismantling of the largest judicial corruption case in the United States.  The former spokesman for the judges of the Los Angeles Superior Court stated that the majority of the Judges see the judicial payments as an entitlement1. They have no appreciation or sensitivity to the fact they are essentially being paid twice for the same work. It was clear that the judge’s financial self interest is so tied up in those benefit payments, that no judge can rule on the propriety of those benefits. Consequently, there is the appearance of a code of silence by the judges on this issue.  Accordingly, the judgment entered in favor of Judge Lewis should be DENIED. II. JUDICIAL BIASES ARE NOT ARGUED JUST DISMISSED Respondent’s’ approach to discussing Plaintiffs’ contention of bias, bribes and fraud is to simply dismiss them as having “no basis in fact or law”, page 7, first paragraph, last line. To the contrary, in the related case E058417 Judge O’Brien overruled this portion of Respondents’ Demurrer and stated, “ the allegations upon which plaintiff relies are clearly stated, and, although unsound, are not uncertain, vague or ambiguous” [E058417 appendix AA-337].  The biases and the appearance of fraud were also so apparent that Respondent’s counsel in the underlying divorce case even requested Judge Lewis’s recusal (AA-403) and shortly thereafter ceased representing Respondent.  In Locatelli’s case, Judge Shaller’s first day on the case was the day of the hearing on the Demurrer. Judge Shaller was a puppet-stuckee following a succession of case transfers and unofficial recusals among judges—Kuhl to Buckley (AA-335) to One judge apparently remarked that if the payments were terminated, “there go my Hollywood Bowl tickets”. Media coverage by Full Disclosure ® “The News Behind The News” © 2012, AAW/Full Disclosure Network ®; “Court Insider Exposes Judicial Treachery #630-632”; Release Date:  November 16, 2012 http://www.fulldisclosure.net/2012/11/court-insider-exposes-judicial-treachery/ […]

Leave a Reply

s2Member®
Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE