DISCLAIMER: I personally know a number of lawyers and judges who, as individuals, are wonderful kindhearted individuals with wonderful families. I have had many children of lawyers as music students. I have even had a few lawyers (one of them a judge) as music students. As is the case with the medical industry, the problem I address here is purely systemic, moral, ethical, philosophical and educational. There is no personal disrespect intended toward the basic humanity of anyone in the legal-profession culture. On the other hand, it also must be said that there is no great honor in remaining silent in the face of evil, as so many lawyers and judges have done, and continue to do. For that reason, it is we, the "little guys", their customers, who must administer the "legal" corrective to the collective paternalistic arrogance and greed of the autonomous corruption-leading legal-profession culture.
On his "American Solutions" website, Newt Gingrich said, "The defeat of judicial supremacy and the reestablishment of a constitutional balance of power among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches will be one of the most intense and difficult struggles of our lifetime. It is also absolutely unavoidable if we are going to retain our freedoms and our identity as Americans."
"For the last 48 years since Cooper v. Aaron [358 U.S. 1 (1958)], the Supreme Court has operated on the fundamentally false assertion that the federal judiciary alone is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution."
"This doctrine of judicial supremacy must be abandoned by the judicial branch if the judicial branch is to enjoy the public’s support for judicial independence. The judicial branch’s abandonment of judicial supremacy will enable the reestablishment of the Founders’ vision of a constitutional balance among the three branches of our federal government."
Gingrich proceeds from there with a very useful essay of background information. Among the noteworthy quotes from that essay include, "Over the last fifty years the Supreme Court has become a permanent constitutional convention in which the whims of five appointed lawyers have rewritten the meaning of the Constitution and assigned to themselves the last word in the American political process". And one of the section headings is, "The Power Grab of the Lawyer Class: The Oligarchy Jefferson Feared".
Brilliant as he is, Gingrich's problem — as is the case with Gerry Spence's heroically courageous books ("With Justice For None: Destroying An American Myth", and "Give Me Liberty: Freeing Ourselves in the Twenty-First Century") — is that he always seems to frame the question in collective political terms, and never cuts to the chase for self-sufficient individual direct action.
The issue will be discussed in greater depth elsewhere on this website, but it must be mentioned here that so long as the policy court of the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court, remains unelected and unaccountable, the individual will continue to lose rights until there are none left. This process occurs little by little, bit by bit, in the various U.S. Supreme Court decisions, and are largely invisible to the general public. Once a right has been usurped by the judges, it is never given back. Case in point is the infamous Dred Scott decision where the Roger B. Taney and the Supremes usurped the right to define common-usage words by proclaiming that persons of African descent were not "persons" for the purposes of the U.S. Constitution.
True, the Civil War was fought and the Civil War Amendments to the Constitution were passed, but the Supremes never bothered to address their Dred Scott decision, admit it was immoral and unethical, and reverse it. So today, while blacks-as-chattel slavery is no longer legal, the Supremes still possess their usurped power to define common usage words for the purposes of being able to manipulate the U.S. Constitution to mean what they want it to mean instead of being a specific performance contract limiting their powers. It is one of the purposes of this websight to help grassroots individuals (aka "the people") to network and remedy the oppression which is the direct result of judicial anarchy and the autonomy of the legal-profession culture.
As bagmen for the globo-fascist financial elite, judges, especially federal judges, are "government's" (aka the legal profession culture's) “point men.” This fact also applies to misandristic feminazi judges and family court magistrates who have unilaterally determined that men are society's cash cow, so they will be fleeced without the remotest shred of either substantive equal protection or procedural due process. Meanwhile, the female of the species is encouraged to engage in sexual promiscuity and have her destructive behavior subsidized by "aid to dependent children" paid for mainly by the Great Satan (white males age 18-55). But that subject is for another essay. Of course, any male who, for selfish reasons of basic self-respect, dares to disagree with the self-evident injustice, unfairness, and basic stupidity of this neo-feudalisitic socio- economic arrangement is automatically demonized as a "hater" and "misogynist" by the various denominations of misandristic (aka man-hating) feminazis.
What is required to remedy this unacceptable situation is for freedom fighters everywhere to organize, network, and launch an all out political war to bring the courts back under the collective ownership of the self-owning, self-determining and self-controlling individual, instead of allowing them to remain solely a money-motivated commercial monopoly of bar-member lawyers.
If you want to defeat something evil, you have to take the money/profit out of it. To beat drugs, you have to legalize them. Drugs are poisonous, and humans are not so stupid that we need laws to keep us from eating poison. Legalizing and deregulating drugs would take the money out of them by subjecting them to competition and "the power to tax is the power to destroy" taxation.
Likewise, America's intellectually dishonest, unconstitutionally-anarchistic, lying-through-their- teeth, revisionist-history judiciaries are corrupt because that’s where the lawyers make big money via their heavily regulated shamanistic money-motivated monopoly on access to justice. The entire legal profession culture, along with their commercial-monopoly-on- pain-relief allies in the medical profession, are in desperate need of total deregulation.
The lawyers took over the public's justice system when the lawyers' judges (NOT "the people's" judges) made themselves unanswerable to the people by anointed themselves with absolute judicial immunity from personal liability in the tyranny-based decisions of Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wallace) 335 (April 8, 1872), Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) and Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978). Contrary to the opinion of various lying revisionist history judges, removing judges from legal accountability for their professional decision is NOT "necessary to an independent judiciary" to avoid the straw man — (see the dissents of Justices Davis, Clifford, Douglas, Stewart, Marshall and Powell in the above-cited judicial immunity cases) — of judges being sued by disgrunted losing litigants. The polar opposite is true: precisely because their decisions exert such extreme influence over the political processes as those processes affect the social contract (U.S. Constitution) judges should be held to a far higher standard than the citizens they, in their disordered control-freak arrogance, want to rule over, and penalties against judges who use their official positions to commit de facto treason against "the people" by thwarting the intent and letter of the social contract (U.S. Constitution) should be far more severe than the penalties against common blue-collar criminals.
As Patrick Henry said, "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government. . . lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." That is the direct opposite of what the dominant members of the human pecking order best known by the deception-based euphemism, "government", say: "We threaten you, you low-life peasant swine, you don't threaten us!"
As long term individual-freedom-based, free-market-based political solution to eliminate the lawyer monopoly over the courts, I propose an amendment to the US Constitution — titled something like, “An Amendment for Judicial Reform to Restore Justice Between Individuals” —containing the following provisions:
1. It is the wisdom of the people that the U.S. Constitution is a binding specific-performance social contract, not a “living, breathing” document facilitating undemocratic social engineering and judicial activism.
2. It is the wisdom of the people of the United States that it is far more important for judicial officers to obey the rule of law than it is for them to have absolute liability-immune discretion to “obey their consciences” and engage in judicial activism under a “living, breathing” theory of the U.S. Constitution.
3. Election of all judicial officers by the voters in their district (especially US Supreme Court, the policy court). the term of office of all US Supreme Court justices and US Circuit Court of Appeals judges shall be limited to one eight-year term. It is the wisdom of the people that hindsight has clearly proven that life-tenure judicial appointments not only do not operate in favor of protecting the US Constitution as a viable social contract, but actually operate in favor of violating the social contract, under the unwritten rule that “the judge can do whatever he pleases.” It is the wisdom of the people that too much discretion vested in a judge subjects that judge to greater vulnerability to temptations of bribery and corruption.
4. Elimination of judicial (and all other forms of “official”) immunity. In addition to liability for actual and monetary damages, attorney fee sanctions shall be assessed against judicial officers (and all other government officers, except Presidents in time of War formally declared by Congress pursuant to Article 1, Section , Clause) in appropriate cases for the express purpose of deterring willful violations of the cornerstone social-contract principle of rule of law. In all cases of judicial liability, a jury containing no judges or lawyers, shall decide both the facts and the law.
5. Complete elimination of "unauthorized practice" of law, including revocation of all relevant statutes and court rules. It shall be deemed commercial fraud for any judge or lawyer to lie about his educational qualifications.
6. Require all judges to set forth in writing complete findings of fact and conclusions of law for every judicial act they execute, with attorney-fee sanctions imposed against noncomplying judges, and treble attorney-fee sanctions imposed in all cases of willful noncompliance. The express purpose of this point is to deter judicial officers from manipulating the record in any way that would make an appeal by a litigant more difficult or expensive.
7. Except in cases of legitimate national-security concerns, require all such written judicial findings and conclusions to be open for examination and copying by the public, with attorney-fee sanctions imposed against noncomplying judges, and treble attorney-fee sanctions imposed in all cases of willful noncompliance. All cases contesting the legitimacy of a national-security claim shall be tried by a jury containing no judges or lawyers, shall decide both the facts and the law.
8. Prohibit bar-member lawyers from serving as either judges or legislators, due to self-evident conflict of interests. It is the wisdom of the people that ambiguous laws/regs facilitate profit-enhancing, individual-disempowering courtroom “justice” contests.
9. Prohibit lawyer unions (aka “bar” associations), under any name or guise, from being established, or implemented by state or federal law. It is the wisdom of the people that there should be no difference in principle between a lawyers union/association and other similar associations of other vocations such as carpenters, plumbers, etc. They should be part of the free market, and subject to its rules, not part of the government operating as a de facto autonomous commercial monopoly.
10. Require all attorney fee sanctions and private attorney general doctrines, designed to facilitate the rule of law and deter certain undesirable types of behavior on the part of government officers and employees, be interpreted in such a way as to pay non-bar pro se litigants for the market rate of their prevailing civil rights litigation.
Following are some video links of famous libertarian-leaning judge and author, Andrew P. Napolitano, speaking his mind about the way modern judges completely ignore the U.S. Constitution to suit their own political agendas. Andrew Napolitano at FFF Conference, Part 1 of 4 Andrew Napolitano at FFF Conference, Part 2 of 4 Andrew Napolitano at FFF Conference, Part 3 of 4 Andrew Napolitano at FFF Conference, Part 4 of 4 Judge Napolitano has written several excellent books on the general subject of judicial anarchy, as has lawyer and author, Mark Levin, who wrote "Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America".
The only problem with these freedom-oriented efforts coming from within the legal profession culture is that, for the most part, they amount to mere exhortations aimed primarily at their professional colleagues. In contrast, this website understands that Power never abdicates, and is aimed at helping the grassroots "little people" destroy the metaphorical One Ring altogether. In other words, use natural laws and free-market forces to find ways to radically reduce and limit the autonomous legal-professional culture's autocratic Power by using technology to live in ways that render the money-hungry tyrants virtually irrelevant to the spiritual and intellectual potential and progress of humankind.
To get a small idea of the type of wannabe-clever ad-hominem demonization the legal profession reserves for such "maverick" lawyers as Spence, Napolitano, and Levin, check out Dahlia Lithwick's "book review", actually a vitriolic ad-hominem screed, titled "The Limbaugh Code", of Levin's "Men In Black." See also "Conservative's Book on Supreme Court Is a Bestseller", by Charles Lane, Washington Post staff writer, whose reporting about the book was far more objective. For rebuttal of at least part of Lithwick's view of the legal system, see the article "Neither Force Nor Will, But Merely Judgment" by William H. Pryor, Jr., a conservative judge who also spoke on the subject of judicial independence.
Lithwick — who would do well to read "A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace" — begins her Goebbelsian propaganda hit job with such sentences as: "If a book lands on the best-seller list and nobody hears it, did it really happen?" "No serious scholar of the court or the Constitution, on the ideological left or right, is going to waste their time engaging Levin's arguments once they've read this book." "I use the word "book" with some hesitation...." "You'll experience an overwhelming urge to shower between chapters." "Men in Black never gets past the a.m.-radio bile to arrive at cogent analysis." "His attempts to draw telling distinctions between similar cases—any legal scholar's primary task—are almost laughably off-mark." "Absent any structure or argument, this book could just have been titled Legal Decisions I Really, Really Hate. Levin follows the lead of lazy pundits everywhere who excoriate 'activist judges' without precisely defining what constitutes one."
Levin's only real problem is that he tried — in a valiant effort at that — to use the format of a printed book to deal with a subject, a level of systemic law-profession-culture deception, so intimidatingly subtle and complex that it requires the power of computer technology and the Internet to adequately deconstruct and expose to the light of Golden Rule morality and individual self-ownership. Unfortunately for Lithwick, I will have no trouble using this website to define and document very specifically what constitutes an "activist" judge: one who will violate the social contract (U.S. Constitution) from any angle that will help facilitate and maintain the global financial elites' power to use such tools as "law", "government", and "money" to steal the labor and produce of their less clever fellow humans.
Lithwick drones on: "Enough already. The book is silly. But the maddening question here is why Levin, Limbaugh, and—as of yesterday, Tom DeLay — have stopped threatening just 'liberal activist' judges and have started threatening the judiciary as a whole." "Levin seems as incapable of distinguishing between jurists as he is incapable of differentiating between cases or doctrine. He's happy to decimate the court as a whole." The judiciary must be dealt with as a whole precisely because it's guilty of anti-individual-freedom tyranny and deliberate, gradualism-based step-by-step treason to the Constitution as a whole, a case the official documented record of the Supremes' own case law beyond any intellectually honest argument in this website. History itself hoists them by the written record of their own petard.
Lithwick finishes with, "I can understand completely why the serious legal thinkers of this world have no interest in engaging with Levin on his legal scholarship." "To refuse to acknowledge the call-to-arms behind Men in Black, as the press and most of the legal academy has done, can feel like intellectual integrity. But it also represents a failure to take part in a national conversation that may have very serious long-term consequences for the courts. It may be a conversation that requires some of us to take a lot more showers. So be it."
On her "taking showers" bit, I completely agree with Lithwick: after reading her arrogant, mean-spirited garbage, I felt like I needed to take a shower. Lithwick comes off as an arrogant, pseudo-intellectual jerk (a socialistic Canadian lawyer at that). It's not for nothing that Warren Burger — he of Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982), revisionist-history 2nd Amendment lying, and the JFK assassination coverup infamy — is credited with saying some 75 to 90 percent of American trial lawyers are dishonest, incompetent, or both. See, e.g., Judge Warren E. Burger, A Sick Profession?, 5 TULSA L.J. 1, 3 (1968). See also footnote 2 on page 1450 of Richard L. Abel's Practicing Immigration Law in Filene's Basement, 84 NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW 1449:
"2. The complaint of incompetence overlaps, although it is not identical. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger notoriously pronounced that, according to judges with whom he had spoken, at least 75% of trial lawyers were incompetent. Judge Warren E. Burger, A Sick Profession?, 5 TULSA L.J. 1, 3 (1968). He later amended that figure to one-third to one-half of trial lawyers. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, The Special Skills of Advocacy: Are Specialized Training and Certification of Advocates Essential to Our System of Justice?, 42 FORDHAM L. REV. 227, 234 (1973) (adopting the one-third to one-half figure as a “working hypothesis” based on an informal poll of judges whose opinions on the percentage of incompetent lawyers ranged from as high as 75% to as low as 25%). In a national survey, 41% of lawyers and 72% of litigators agreed with the latter estimate. LawPoll, 64 A.B.A. J. 832, 832–33 (1978). Two surveys of judges put the figure closer to 20%. See Anthony Partridge & Gordon Bermant, The Quality of Advocacy in the Federal Courts 5 (1978) (reporting that federal district judges regarded an estimated 8.6% of performances by lawyers as 'inadequate' and 17% as 'adequate but no better'); see also Dorothy Linder Maddi, Trial Advocacy Competence: The Judicial Perspective, 1978 AM. B. FOUND. RES. J. 105, 106 (1978) (stating that estimates by judges of the proportion of incompetent trial advocates range from 25% to 98% [emphasis added], and reporting that more than forty judges of district courts and the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said 10% to 12% of lawyers lacked a basic knowledge of advocacy)."
In the notorious anti-individual-freedom Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958) decision, the Supremes set forth a bunch of noble-sounding-but-deceptive rhetoric:
"Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath taken pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3 'to support this Constitution.' Chief Justice Taney, speaking for a unanimous Court in 1859, said that this requirement reflected the framers' 'anxiety to preserve it [the Constitution] in full force, in all its powers, and to guard against resistance to or evasion of its authority, on the part of a State. . . .' Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. (21 Howard) 506, 62 U. S. 524. No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it. Chief Justice Marshall spoke for a unanimous Court in saying that: 'If the legislatures of the several states may at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery. . . .' United States v. Peters, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 115. A Governor who asserts a power to nullify a federal court order is similarly restrained. If he had such power, said Chief Justice Hughes, in 1932, also for a unanimous Court, 'it is manifest that the fiat of a state Governor, and not the Constitution of the United States, would be the supreme law of the land; that the restrictions of the Federal Constitution upon the exercise of state power would be but impotent phrases. . . .'"
The systemic problem completely unmentioned in all the Supremes' noble-sounding dicta, and the problem Newt Gingrich tried to address in arguably too-benign language, is: what are the subject classes (aka "the people") to do when (not if) ruling-class Supreme Court majorities violate their oaths of office and make open war against the social contract (U.S. Constitution)? Hmmmm? What then? Doesn't a constitutionally-violative, revisionist-history fiat by a Supreme Court majority debase the U.S. Constitution and reduce it to a "solemn mockery" and "impotent phrases" just as surely — even more surely and more tyrannically — as the exact same fiat by a state official?
As Justice Louis D. Brandeis said in his dissent in Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438 (1928), "The government is the potent omnipresent teacher. For good or 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 the end justifies the means -- to declare that the government may commit crimes -- would bring terrible retribution."
Self-anointed judicial immunity and all other judicially created immunity doctines are NOT in the constitution. Indeed, they cannot be, as that very principle was what the War of 1776 was all about. Self-anointed judicial immunity stems from the ancient tyranny-based English common-law axiom, "Rule number 1: The king can do no wrong. Rule number 2: If the king does wrong, see rule number one." It can be fairly and self-evidently inferred from history such dogma was anathema to America's Founders.
As far as I can see, a pecking order ("government") is a pecking order. In reality, there is zero practical difference between a corrupt state official, much bemoaned by the Supremes, and a corrupt federal official (e.g. a lying revisionist-history U.S. Supreme Court majority), only a difference in the number of layers of One Ring deception and corruption with which to fool the productive subject classes.
To quote Wikipedia on the subject of judicial immunity, "Historically, judicial immunity was associated with the English common law idea that "the King can do no wrong." (Compare Sovereign immunity.) Judges, the King's delegates for dispensing justice, accordingly "ought not to be drawn into question for any supposed corruption [for this tends] to the slander of the justice of the King." Floyd & Barker, 12 Co. Rep. 23, 25, 77 Eng. Rep. 1305, 1307 (Star Chamber 1607)." I've got news for dear sweet little Dahlia Lithwick: when a U.S. Supreme Court majority engages in lying historical revisionism, in effect, the stinking "king" is slandering his own stinking so-called "justice", and for the law-profession culture collectively, or for arrogant, Machiavellian, sophist-jerk individuals such as Lithwick individually, to pretend that there is no practical nonviolent measures which the subjects classes can implement to keep their labor and produce from being stolen by the "king" is totally unacceptable. It is anathema, both to individual freedom, and to the self-owning, self-determining, self-controlling, self-sustaining Almighty Creator/God of the individual, in whose image human indivuals were designed (or "evolved" if you atheists prefer).
Accordingly, in lieu of picking up swords and spears prematurely, individual-freedom fighters need to network, do exhaustive legal research in all states and in all federal circuits on the legal issues relevant to men and children (of course, women are welcome, too). Thanks to the Internet, freedom fighters can network, pool their information, organize it for retrieval on websites, form local "clubs" which should have regularly scheduled meetings to attract new activist recruits, and put out regularly scheduled newsletters watchdogging the courts and the misandristic feminazi-magistrate-controlled human services departments.
ShareThis