Site Meter

FDN Fights Court Over First Amendment Violations

March 7, 20147 Comments

Full Disclosure® presents a 12 minute video report featuring Paul Orfanedes, Judicial Watch attorney and the 30 minute audio of the Oral Arguments (link below) held at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena, California  on March 4, 2014.  This involves the First Amendment Case entitled (Leslie Dutton  et.al. vs David Wesley) whereby the Los Angeles Superior Court officials refused the requests of Ms. Dutton and the Full Disclosure Network® who sought access to use the empty court room in Department 86 to film a closing scene in their Documentary Film entitled “The Cost of Courage and Court Corruption” Here are some of the Court Documents:  • Appellants’ Opening Brief    • Appellee (Court’s)Answering Brief 

“UPDATE JUDICIAL WATCH VICTORY: FDN LAWSUIT MOVES FORWARD”

Here is the link to listen to the audio of the entire hearing:

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2014/03/04/12-56162.wma

7 comments to “FDN Fights Court Over First Amendment Violations”

  1. chilled writer | March 10, 2014 | Permalink Reply

    What I see on display is one example of many of the arbitrary government acts that prevent “equally” the use of public access. What I do not see on display here is any mention of the existence of THE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY issue crated by the Eleventh Amendment that allows the government to use courts to obstruct the bill of rights, which is equivalent to legalized obstruction of justice. So the image portrayed by civil right cases is that the government is violating rights without the right to do so! This is a 200 year old fallacy that I have recognized. The constitution protects corrupt government from good people solely because of the Eleventh Amendment’s equivocation allowing the implausible inference that corruption is necessary in our government. Most people I have had discussions with believe our constitution protects, or should protect, the people from bad government. This is, according to the Supreme Court is not true, corruption in government is necessary, see Bogan v. Scott-Harris U.S. 1998, (search the word “corrupt”). The good news is that a solution presents itself.

    Because awareness of the latter paragraph is not portrayed by civil right activists properly, or if at all, people are misled and believe that they have a constitutional right under the bill of rights to exercise those freedoms. However, because any official act that bars obvious obstructions (such as what is presented here, i.e. “denial of FDN to use the court room after hours to film”) is allowed because of the immunity clause: in other words corruption is cultivated instead of being deterred, but this reveals the process of tangible elements that eventually create “emergence phenomenon” to correct itself when or if it finally becomes apparent to more than just a handful of observant humans. Consequently, rights, in reality, come at a high price tag, they are not protected unless you take the offenders to court, but unfortunately in the same fashion that is articulated in the Declaration of Independence, which was the abusive cause of action that redressing grievances is “repeated injury,” [the offensive] right “inestimable for them and formidable to tyrants only.” So if there was a revolution, what changed? Nothing did, except that our officials have legalized immunity, where the agents of the crown relied solely on corruption, as they had no immunity in post 1776, see Blackstone Chronicles, 1769-65, among others sources. Human Right violations are not as complicated as the lawyer[s] have made it out to be. But “complication” is billable by the hour, how nice for them! In other words, using the analogy, the former Soviets who cow towed to abuse of power saved money and jail time by keeping their mouths shut. American citizens, with false confidence, enter federal courts with pride and faith, only to come out at the other end ruined as human beings financially and emotionally. No wonder the soviets “took down that wall.” Now they can do it legally and palatably like corrupt officials in the United States mimic injustice-justice the way we see here in L.A.. Recognizing the diabolical brilliance of corruption in a free country starts today right here, but only for those who have an ear that can hear and parse reality. Two hundred years of substantial denial or lack of awareness reveal the dilemma that perpetuates this myth of liberty and justice for all.

    So in essence, free speech under our constitution is a brilliant diabolical myth that allows arbitrary government officials to identify and target those who object to abuse of power, but only to those who are deceived by the mechanics of what it takes to exercise the right of free speech. Otherwise, keep your mouth shut if you have been abused by power, suffer the consequences of the constitutional protection officials have to destroy dissent under the Eleventh Amendment! God forbid Assange or Snowden leak out the simple solution created by repealing this amendment!

    For those of you who still think that you can win the battle when the deck is stacked, keep on encouraging others to ruin their lives. But if this helps: think of Rosa Parks. Rosa wanted to sit on the front seat of the buss because she perceived herself as a human being. FDN wants the right to film a documentary scene in court rooms because they perceive themselves as equal humans where schools or Hollywood are allowed to use courtrooms after hours to illustrate their “viewpoints.” Like Rosa parks, the real issue wasn’t skin color, but abuse of power which is the major categorical premise where skin color falls under particular animus that corrupt arbitrary officials or bigots love to reach. Officials never want to cast light upon their right to abuse power. Instead they pretend that the issue was prejudice. But in reality, the Eleventh Amendment encourages prejudice by granting immunity for the prejudice acts regardless of “viewpoint” or “class-based animus.” This has been an affective trick to equivocate abuse of power rights under law, so that it seems like just a few rogue officials do not like a particular group. Thus, each case pretends to address rights. But the fact is the Eleventh Amendment legalizes abuse of power, no matter how proponents paint the amendment.

    FDN, similarly objects not to the courts disdain of their “viewpoint,” but in reality they object to abuse of power under the color of law. Naturally, because immunity causes would-be good people to take advantage of laws that make them above the law, that they would otherwise not do! Sometimes it is for profit, but mostly it is due to smug power, solely to punish those who think they are “equal.” Yet this reality is hard for lawmakers to give up. Ironically, activists who object to abuse of power, instead of attacking the law, attack corrupt officials who merely obey this law of immunity. Abuse of power under the color of law is criminal. It’s like letting thieves steel something from you and then they use immunity as a defense for them to keep what they stole. But yet, not one mention of immunity has been made by this attorney or the moderator. Do they not know about the Eleventh Amendment and Alden v. Maine’s perversion of democracy? Nevertheless, American officials should have been trained that misconstruing facts as the illegal basis to deny First and Fourteenth amendment rights, and that it is corruption. However, corruption that can be corrected by removing immunity laws. Immunity is not like the 10 commandments set in stone. Yet I find most citizens do not know that the Eleventh Amendment even exists, so they attack individuals who obey that law, which is a futile attempt. So according to this attorney, “the courts . . . are exaggerating factual arguments . . .” No they are not, they are committing perjury, outright lying and forging complaint allegations to replace FDN’s complaint! The defense attorney’s for the county don’t even have to be there! The Judge will defeat the FDN complaint regardless of the merits because he has immunity, and FDN is revealing the courts improprieties. There is nothing you can do or say that will cause them to change, unless the Ninth Circuit is in the limelight.
    The Judges actually have to rule that FDN people are not equal to other human’s in order to deny FDN equal use of the courts. Other humans have already used the courts outside of court hours for similar purposes without filing suit. This is because the so-called fair judges have granted them human rights, but deny those same human rights = “rights to be human” to FDN and all other people that object to abuse of power, whom court officials loath with evil passion. If it can be shown, “BUT FOR,” the viewpoint of FDN, they are denied access, then they have a claim. The only other reason would be because they are family pets, or non-human’s who want access to the courts. For instance, according to the attorney, Dr. Dobson whose religious rights are in the same amendment as free speech, his teaching’s were arbitrarily barred of public rooms after hours, by what the courts apparently considered non-human beings for following religion. Hatred of FDN by judges in L.A. who successfully lobbied to make past criminal acts they did legal retroactive (i.e. sbx 211), is the same hatred the KKK officials in power used to obstruct justice against blacks who also objected to abuse of power. Remember that blacks were only considered 3/5’s of a human vote. And that 3/5’s was a compromise from zero human! Nothing has changed! Academia restricts the instruction of immunity for obvious reasons! Until the American people are “educated” with non-brain-washing exploitation, public officials will be allowed to act using KKK type of loathing of other humans, as long as they let all colors loath with them! Essentially, if you can’t beat them join them! The major change under the civil rights act is that nonwhite judges are now allowed to participate in the same hatred as the sympathetic to KKK judges did. It is remarkable how this has turned, but without any comment. Human rights in the USA are never modified to protect the people. No discrimination does not mean no abuse of power! It means you have immunity so just don’t draw attention by no longer singling out groups. Now nonwhite groups can abuse power as equally as former KKK influenced officials. Although we rarely see non-white officials in the corruption limelight! The better thing would be to end abuse of power as a legal right under the Eleventh Amendment! Well that was until Alden v. Maine U.S. 1999, explained shortly.

    I imagine that the attorney argued that “BUT FOR” the viewpoint of FDN, the court probably would allowed FDN to use the courts. Like the Attorney said, they used “gross misstatements” and “mischaracterized” their various reasons! Yet what this is, in essence, is that the courts in collusion with the defense attorney’s made “factual arguments,” exaggerated,” and produced “facts that were not before the courts,” according to Orfenedes. Orfenedes is being kind. After all, he has to represent FDN, but in a way that he himself doesn’t end up in jail. So if you really can’t fight the courts, I guess the point is that FDN will be able to advertise who much the U.S.A. really sux! Paying a lawyer to do this seems like a flush of the toilet for a small fortune in U.S. courts today. But it is a capitalist nation and somebody has to be the lawyer. What the court has done is an element of corruption that exists in most of the civil right cases I have studied. The courts who act arbitrarily to abuse discretion generally restate a counterfeit claim (LEGALISED FRAUD) that FDN or other cases that accuse officials of “arbitrary discrimination.” If you write a pleading and put in other supporting facts and predicate issues that support the real claim, the courts focus on these and ignore the real claim, pretending that the plaintiff failed to state the claim. Then they ignore objections by doing the same thing to objections. It’s a fallacy called a red herring, which Aristotle identified as common deception used 2500 years ago. I think that complaints have to be reduced to one sentence in order to overcome this. Then later, if you can overcome dismissal with the “SMOKING GUN” prima facie claim, amend the complaint one sentence at a time! Otherwise these crooked judges will have your bacon!
    Nevertheless, because Aristotle is not essential education, our electorate does not easily recognize this fallacy, or that it even exists. But the civil l courts (I have personal experience [settled on appeal $$$ and grey hair later]) will take a meritorious claim, and they will openly rewrite the plaintiffs claim to a non-actionable claim (which, once done, remains as evidence in most cases, so the proof is in the pudding). The objections are typically ignored or stricken from the record, but Rule 8 makes this a reversible good thing, if you ignore financial reason and logic! So now the plaintiff has to cough up another 5 figures to go to appellate courts, thus a “good thing” really isn’t feasible!. Norse v. Santa Cruz is a great case to study. “Ad Hoc” discrimination abrogates immunity! SCUTUS rejected Santa Cruz’s attempt to over-turn abrogated immunity. The defense attorney in the 9th em banc panel makes a total fool of himself! You got to see it it’s classic! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5jnna3wffc Read the opinion for the “ad hoc” and Kaahumanu case and the U.S. Bogan v. Scott-Harris use of precedence. It is a Ninth Cir. 2010 case. Also Engquist v. Oregon destroys the “class” animus misconstrued bar to civil rights, by stating, “its not classes that are protected, but individuals.”

    Until people are taught by academia from K through PhD about the Eleventh Amendment that is now replaced by Alden v. Maine U.S. 1999, USA civil/human rights are a laughing joke! Other nations are aware of this. But U.S. citizens generally don’t even know what the Eleventh Amendment is. I too was unaware so I can’t be too smug about it! Reading the text cannot reveal what it is without following the paper trail that defines it. Regardless, on its face it is a law that bars a citizen from suing another state, under diplomatic immunity jus cogens, which really doesn’t apply logically. Yet that is, according to Justice James Wilson (1793 Chisholm v. Georgia), the improper use is “a perversion of the genus species of logical terms.” The first amendment says “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the people’s rights . . . to redress . . .” Yet that is exactly what congress did! They ignored the first amendment, but then the “people” didn’t have the internet to hear about it. Today, they just ignore it. Thus, if our government can ignore the constitution immediately after it was written, then it was a joke in the first place. Unfortunately, U.S. citizens will be viewed as a laughing stock sometime in the future when sociology becomes aware of this reality. Attribute the darkness to the dark ages we still live in and of course “change blindness” and “cognitive dissonance.”

    This news should be an emergent phenomenon. People, aside from myself, and at least 2 deans of law at major Universities should not be the only persons to recognize this conundrum (Chemerinsky and Brohmer). What this study reveals is that, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, Alden v. Maine 1999, “Sovereignty,” a form of church and state dogma, is the same dogma used to justify inquisitions and Witch burnings and other human right violations in the past. Ironically, “sovereignty” is being used as stari decisis precedence to obstruct the objection to Human Right violations in the United States. Yet as precedence, Blackstone Commentary 1765-69, clearly point out that the Kings and Queens of England never had immunity from their subjects, who could sue the ‘sovereign’ (i.e. divinity, rex es vicarious, potentate, SUPREME BEING) in the Court of Chancery, albeit, several months away by sea! The reality is that the Human race has never enjoyed governing themselves without “sovereigns” using “sovereign immunity” as an excuse to be excused from liability for human right violations they commit willfully or accidentally. Therefore, a solution presents itself just as remarkable as the destruction of the Ptolemy theory instigated by Galileo, albeit, a misconstrued paradigm shift. Yet, again, look at Galileo. What is the element of corruption? To fundamentally misconstrue the plaintiff claim to non-actionable rant. The theocracy, fearing that their own “sovereign” power would be exposed used pretext as a preemptory move to cast light from themselves, but onto Galileo as a “God hater,” which was not true. The Theocracy hid the argument from the right that allows sovereigns to force false reality, dogma on civilization, which exploits human beings for profit. They instead ignored science reality and framed Galileo. Yet, Galileo was very lucky. He was not burned at the stake, but remained in prison or house arrest until he died for, not a scientific paradigm shift, but for attempting to weaken church sovereignty by pointing out that God did not have the intelligence to inform the church of a reality of planetary positions (i.e. the Copernicus revolution)..

    So today, five religious nuts in the Supreme Court force “sovereignty” on the United States. Not all religious people are nuts, and they do not acquiesce to this! God has nothing to do with this! I was shocked to find that five right wing conservatives, of whom I am a former member (until I did some research and found these facts). Notice in my research, there is no evidence of an unsubstantiated conspiracy. Every word is a quote or at least a reference to an existing paper trail found in judicially noticeable historical documents. If I have made opinion, I do not hold it enforceable! Yet millions run to conspiracy theories, even Big Foot and UFO events. Yet the population will ignore these facts! God help humanity! This sovereignty prevents FDN and others from using Tax funded venues “equally.” Richard I. Fine and many others have been persecuted for objecting to abuse of power. Yet their bold assertions and courage has been performed in vain. They have failed to point out the foregoing facts! Thus, Sun Tzu strategy used by many great leaders is ignored. The “Mastery of Empire” is sovereign immunity. Qualified Immunity equals sovereign immunity when corrupt officials defend it. Until we bind together to fight the common enemy, antiquated sovereign dogma, human rights will suffer unnecessarily. But this calculus rocket science I speak of falls to the ground merely denting the grey matter one is in stewardship of. I don’t know what else to do? I don’t have the ways and means to bring this about? Any suggestions?

    Sun Tzu 3: 5-7
    5. The general, unable to control his irritation, will launch his men to the assault like swarming ants,

    [This vivid simile of Ts`ao Kung is taken from the spectacle of an army of ants climbing a wall. The meaning is that the general, losing patience at the long delay, may make a premature attempt to storm the place before his engines of war are ready.]

    with the result that one-third of his men are slain, while the town still remains untaken. Such are the disastrous effects of a siege.

    [We are reminded of the terrible losses of the Japanese before Port Arthur, in the most recent siege which history has to record.]

    6. Therefore the skillful leader subdues the enemy’s troops without any fighting; he captures their cities without laying siege to them; he overthrows their kingdom without lengthy operations in the field.

    [Chia Lin notes that he only overthrows the Government, but does no harm to individuals. The classical instance is Wu Wang, who after having put an end to the Yin dynasty was acclaimed “Father and mother of the people.”]

    7. With his forces intact he will dispute the mastery of the Empire, and thus, without losing a man, his triumph will be complete.

    • [email protected] | March 15, 2014 | Permalink Reply

      This is my first visit to this particular site, for which I was driven here by Edward Griffin and because of my interest in law. I was also compelled to read your opinion or treatise of the video. I am a rather simple man with simple and using layman’s terms to express points of law to my readers, so I did have some difficulty in understanding some of what you have written.

      Nevertheless, I believe it needs to be pointed out that there is something more fundamental that is going on that many simply would not believe or even enter into the minds of most. We are no longer a party to the Constitution, since we were numbered by FDR and the beginning of commercial law being applied to those that enter into the court system since 1938. Sure, the so-called “authorities” give it “lip service” only because they have to as a matter of form, as not to expose the fraud that is pervasive in our courts. Indeed, they are arbitrary in their mostly unpublished “rules of the court”, which makes for some difficulty when one needs to defend themselves per se.

      Judges do have jurisdiction in the courtroom, but not necessarily on the subject matter presented by a defendant that makes a constitutional challenge as for example a “traffic ticket”. It is because our courts are courts of enforcing contracts, for which the driver’s license is a commercial contract and the proof thereof is the signature that is required. This is why we cannot bring the Constitution into any courtroom based upon any commercial contract. As long as one’s signature is required on all government paperwork, we are subject to the terms and conditions of those contracts, for which the Constitution and Rights thereof, become both “null and void”. This makes everyone that enters a courtroom with a docket number, “commercial chattel”, for which none will escape from paying fines, with the exception of a dismissal and a portion of those fines goes into the judge’s retirement fund.

      Mandatory auto insurance is also a part of the driver’s license contract, but without mass public knowledge, it was the insurance companies that conspired with the politicians of each State, allocating a portion of insurance payments to political campaigns. And we wonder why auto insurance is so expensive! As you can see the corruption goes both wide and deep and I value your opinion(s) on what I have presented. And I say this because you are critical of the so-called “justice system” we have to endure. I am always reaching out to like-minded people that understand what is going and why. My studies of law and related issues have spanned nearly 20 years and I simply cannot have a stopping point, short of my demise. Yeah, that’s right… I love it!

      • Legal Fictions | July 8, 2015 | Permalink Reply

        There are so many speculative, desperate theories of how to legally prevail over rampant corruption that it makes the head spin. I am a paralegal, not an attorney. In other words, I work for a living. Needless to say, legal research is a daily task for me. Yet there is a barrier even between attorneys and paralegals as to the functions and labyrinthine twists of legal fictions pertaining to things such as Cestui Que Vie Trusts, attorneys not appearing in propria persona (in their proper person,) the question of a Judge’s conflict of interest, whether they must honor their oath to uphold the Constitution. I have found that attorneys will evade these sorts of questions at all costs. I believe there is a “secret society” element to becoming a member of the Bar. There are indications that membership therein actually alters their citizenship status. It is associated with the right to affix the suffix “Esq.” to their name. A person who graduates from law school has achieved a degree called a “Juris Doctorate.” They are essentially a Doctor of Law and can affix the designation of J.D. after their name, but it requires admission to the Bar to acquire the suffix of “Esq.” and to call one’s self an “attorney at law.” Much legal significance attaches to the form in which a name appears in a legal document or in a legal setting. Attorneys admitted to the Bar are vested under their full names such as “John Adam Smith.” But on legal documents in which they are the attorney of record, I have never seen a spelled out middle name, it is always an initial, as in: “John A. Smith.” It is my speculation that their oath is taken under “John Adam Smith” which is their “propria persona” and that “John A. Smith” is a legal fiction that is not bound by the oath taken by the “proper person” John Adam Smith. This also extends to Judges. I have never seen a legal document or name placard on a judicial bench with a spelled out middle name for a judge. As many people point out, defendants and plaintiffs are always listed in all caps. I have been given to believe that this represents the title of a Cestui Qui Vie Trust and not a “propria persona.”

        I think that these things play a part in their arrogance and sense of impunity under which they function in court. I can’t attest to any of this absolutely, but just from inferences I have gleaned over time, and research I have conducted for my own curiosity. This doesn’t in anyway make the abuse of power lawful in my opinion, but I believe these may be elements of how they rationalize their disregard of Constitutional restraints on their actions.

  2. Dylan Brewster-Buckley | April 15, 2014 | Permalink Reply

    I am someone who recently in my live of 40 years started to think about why our country does not teach the constitution and civics in full and in depth. From the 1850s our government gradually moved out the teaching of civics and instituted American Government by the 1950s. This is wrong in the sense that the latter is not informative as to our real history and the earlier has to do with the philosophy of our natural rights that we do no owe to the federal or state governments. Listen to the speech that our former president John F. Kennedy says about the relationship between we the people and our government concerning the 1st Amendment http://youtu.be/xmRJSEKKiU0 Its time to realize that the only power that these government officials have is though the authority of the governed. Please everyone look up California Govt Code 54950. Its says that the people of the state of California do not yield their sovereignties to the agencies which serve them nor do we allow our public servants to let us know what is good and what is not good for us to know and that we the people insist on remaining informed at all times so that we can retain control over the instruments that we have created.

  3. joebanana | September 28, 2014 | Permalink Reply

    @mark.debarbieri
    Son, I can say with certainty, the “judicial system” in the US, is by far the most corrupt in the “free world”. There is no honor, or integrity, it’s a RICO by every definition of the word(s). We have an organized crime syndicate for a government and a corrupt court system to keep it running.

  4. soverign | December 6, 2015 | Permalink Reply

    leave the government farm.

Leave a Reply

Make a

s2Member®
Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE