Judicial Reform Amendment

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 autonomous 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.

Judicial horror stories are legion. One such story can be found in the January 18, 2011 Breitbart article titled, "U.S. Supreme Court Issues Landmark Decision: Constitution is Void". According to Breitbart, victim of judicial anarchy, William M. Windsor, whose website is called "Lawless America", stated the following:

"I have discovered that the federal judges in Atlanta, Georgia, Washington, DC, and the justices of the United States Supreme Court function like common criminals intentionally making bogus rulings against honest people while covering up the crimes of their fellow judges. I have been contacted by people from all over the country and around the world with their stories of judicial corruption with judges all over the U.S. My charges have been totally ignored by the United States Attorney's Office, the FBI, and Congress. I do not believe there is a shred of decency, honesty, or Constitutional rights in our federal courts. In my opinion, we now live in a police state. Judges are free to do absolutely anything they want. Our laws are meaningless. Your life savings can be stolen by a federal judge, and they have no risk in violating every law in the books. In my opinion, this is the most serious issue that our country has ever faced. Our rights have been stolen. And the mainstream media refuses to cover this story because they are afraid of the judges. Heaven help us. I believe our only hope in America is if the masses become aware of what is taking place."

What can I say? Windsor is 100% correct in his opinion of America's judiciaries. Join the ever-growing club, William!

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/usurpation, 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 legally binding specific performance two-party contract limiting their powers. It is one of the purposes of this website 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 anointing 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 disgruntled 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 a 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 two-party 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 and unspoken political-economic agendas 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 both the spirit and letter of 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 emergencies, 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,and that jury shall decide both the facts and the law of the case.

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 value of their prevailing civil rights litigation.

11. In all cases of false testimony, upon trial and conviction, per Deuteronomy 19:16-20, the false witness shall receive the maximum penalty of law with which the falsely accused person stood in jeopardy of being punished.

12. In all cases of criminal contempt, the accused shall enjoy the same 6th Amendment right to a jury trial by his peers as all other persons accused of having committed crimes. The power to have the bailiff (with whatever assistance he may require) summarily eject discourteous, disobedient and/or otherwise disruptive persons from the courtroom is amply sufficient to protect the harmonious-to-the-constitution administration of justice and appropriate official decorum and order in any courtroom. (NOTE: Over the years, entirely too many judges have used contempt powers as an agenda-driven strategy to manipulate their desired outcome of the case. I have witness this type of judicial behavior first hand, and thus believe it is long past time to remedy this problem along with the others.)

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-profession 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."

It is hard to tell whether Lithwick is a lying sophist or simply an arrogant leftist airhead. It is a PROVABLE historical fact the various U.S. Supreme Court majorities have, at various times, lied. You will never find any legal "professional" of Lithwick's leftist ilk willing to talk about the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court deliberately turned America's economic airplane upside-down by outright lying and declaring paper-money-as-legal-tender to be constitutionally permissible, which is PROVABLY is not. That's because leftists want to be able to steal and redistribute your labor via dishonest money. Compare for yourself the historical truth of Hepburn v. Griswold, 75 U.S. (8 Wallace) 606 (Feb 7, 1870) to the revisionist-history lies told by the Grant-packed majorities in Legal Tender Cases (Knox v. Lee, Parker v. Davis), 79 U.S. (12 Wallace) 457 (1870) and Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421 (1884). Take special note of Justice Stephen J. Field's heroic lone dissent in Juilliard. I have conclusively proven my point about the U.S. Supreme Court's big paper money lie in my essay, "The Big Lie", elsewhere on this website.

It is sufficient to prove my point about judicial lying to refer to the writings of two brilliant — far more brilliant than Litwick — "conservative" judicial scholars, Antonin Scalia and Robert Bork. Both men consider themselves to be believers in what is commonly called the "originalism" school of judicial thought. In other words, they believe the Constitution should be interpreted to mean exactly what the Framers intended it to mean at the time they wrote it.

Justice Scalia freely, openly, and very matter-of-factly described the process of judicial lying in his speech titled, "Constitutional Interpretation the Old Fashioned Way", which he gave at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C., on March 14, 2005:

"I am one of a small number of judges, small number of anybody — judges, professors, lawyers — who are known as originalists. Our manner of interpreting the Constitution is to begin with the text, and to give that text the meaning that it bore when it was adopted by the people...If you go back and read the commentaries on the Constitution by Joseph Story, he didn’t think the Constitution evolved or changed. He said it means and will always mean what it meant when it was adopted...."

"Now, in asserting that originalism used to be orthodoxy, I do not mean to imply that judges did not distort the Constitution now and then, of course they did. We had willful judges then, and we will have willful judges until the end of time. But the difference is that prior to the last 50 years or so, prior to the advent of the 'Living Constitution,' judges did their distortions the good old fashioned way, the honest way — they lied about it. They said the Constitution means such and such, when it never meant such and such."

"It’s a big difference that you now no longer have to lie about it, because we are in the era of the evolving Constitution. And the judge can simply say, 'Oh yes, the Constitution didn’t used to mean that, but it does now.' We are in the age in which not only judges, not only lawyers, but even school children have come to learn the Constitution changes. I have grammar school students come into the Court now and then, and they recite very proudly what they have been taught: 'The Constitution is a living document.' You know, it morphs."

"Well, let me first tell you how we got to the “Living Constitution.” You don’t have to be a lawyer to understand it. The road is not that complicated. Initially, the Court began giving terms in the text of the Constitution a meaning they didn’t have when they were adopted...."

In the last paragraph of his magnificent concurring opinion in McDonald v. Chicago - 08-1521 (2010), while surgically eviscerating Justice Stevens' dissenting opinion, Scalia clearly infers that the Supremes have usurped power from the people in sneaky ways. Here is that last paragraph which shows why, even with all their faults, I prefer the Right to the Left:

“And the Court’s approach intrudes less upon the democratic process because the rights it acknowledges are those established by a constitutional history formed by democratic decisions; and the rights it fails to acknowledge are left to be democratically adopted or rejected by the people, with the assurance that their decision is not subject to judicial revision. JUSTICE STEVENS’ approach, on the other hand, deprives the people of that power, since whatever the Constitution and laws may say, the list of protected rights will be whatever courts wish it to be. After all, he notes, the people have been wrong before, post, at 55, and courts may conclude they are wrong in the future. JUSTICE STEVENS abhors a system in which ‘majorities or powerful interest groups always get their way,’ post, at 56, but replaces it with a system in which unelected and life­-tenured judges always get their way. That such usurpation is effected unabashedly, see post, at 53 —with ‘the judge’s cards . . . laid on the table,’ ibid. — makes it even worse. In a vibrant democracy, usurpation should have to be accomplished in the dark. It is JUSTICE STEVENS’ approach, not the Court’s, that puts democracy in peril.”

On page 155 of the hardbound version of his book, The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law (ISBN-10: 0844739782 ISBN-13: 978-0844739786), Judge Bork said:

"The question of precedent is particularly important, because, as Professor Henry Monaghan of Columbia University law school notes, 'much of the existing constitutional order is at variance with what we know of the original understanding.'1 Some commentators have argued from this obvious truth that the approach of original understanding is impossible or fatally compromised, since they suppose it would require the Court to declare paper money unconstitutional and overturn the centralization accomplished by abandoning restrictions on congressional powers during the New Deal. There is in these instances a great gap between the original understanding of the constitutional structure and where the nation stands now. But the conclusion does not follow. To suppose that it does is to confuse the descriptive with the normative. To say that prior courts have allowed, or initiated, deformations of the Constitution is not enough to create a warrant for present and future courts to do the same thing."

"All serious constitutional theory centers upon the duties of judges, and that comes down to the question: What should the judge decide in the case now before him? Obviously, an originalist judge should not deform the Constitution further. Just as obviously , he should not attempt to undo all mistakes made in the past. Whatever might have been the proper ruling shortly after the Civil War, if a judge today were to decide that paper money is unconstitutional, we would think he ought to be accompanied not by a law clerk but by a guardian. At the center of the philosophy of original understanding , therefore, there must stand some idea of when the judge is bound by prior decisions and when he is not."

What I find most striking is that, at least from a grammatically correct point of view, Judge Bork obviously meant to include himself when he used the words "we would think he ought to be accompanied not by a law clerk but by a guardian". In other words, one of America's most brilliant "conservative" judicial scholars believes that any judge today who told the truth about the provable unconstitutionality of paper money in a decision s/he wrote should be locked up in an insane asylum. That offends my sense of morality, and it offends my sense of intellectual honesty. Because, with Justice Story, I consider the U.S. Constitution to be a binding contract between two parties, the gubmint and the citizenry, I categorically reject the criminal notion (insane in and of itself) that a person should be locked up in an insane asylum for believing that one of the parties (gubmint) to a two-party social contract/compact should not be allowed to simply unilaterally alter the terms of the contract for personal financial gain.

The ramifications of The Big Lie and the elite gubmint (including judicial) support it receives are enormous and catastrophic. It forces all of the ignorant police powers of the nation, including both the U.S. military and the state and local civilian police departments to function as attackers of, and traitors to, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights instead of functioning as its upholders and defenders — as to a man and woman they swear an oath to be and do. This also makes them the de facto enemies and criminal attackers of the citizenry whose labor is being unconstitutionally stolen via unequal protection of law.1

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 that word).

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 so-called "human services" departments.

FOOTNOTES:

1. Here's what the fascist2, neo-feudalist Taker "government" (aka "political3") classes don't want the Maker productive classes to know: If the employer/owner of a plumbing shop charges a customer $40/hour for one of his employee/plumber's time, but pays pays his employee/plumber $20/hr, the owner of the plumbing shop has realized a $20/hr profit, or gain (aka "income"), FROM the labor of another person: his employee/plumber. The first $20/hr out of the $40/hr paid by the customer is COMPENSATION to the shop owner for the $20 he exchanged for an hour of his employee's time and labor. The only loss incurred by the plumbing shop owner was the $20/hr wage he paid his employee for an hour's work. Obviously, the plumbing shop owner didn't incur any loss on the extra $20/hr of profit of the total $40/hr paid by the customer for the plumber's time — it was 100% profit, or gain (aka "INCOME"). To the employee-plumber, however, the $20/hr wage he gets paid by his employer, the owner of the plumbing shop, is COMPENSATION for his loss of time, education, effort, and skills. It is a free-will-based voluntary zero-sum exchange in which he receives the COMPENSATION of $20/hr for the loss of time, education, effort, and skills he incurred. The only way the employee-plumber's wage of $20/hr of COMPENSATION can be logically taxed as "INCOME" (aka profit, gain) is if the monetary value of his labor, his loss of time, education, effort, and skills, is fraudulently calculated to be ZERO.

In other words, the so-called "income tax," as fraudulently and unconstitutionally enforced by the predatory statist children of hell, deliberately accords ZERO monetary value to a person's OWN labor. From both a logical, technical, and de facto point of view, that means that human labor is not accorded a monetary value unless another person pays/exchanges money for it. Therefore, to the purchasers of labor (the employer classes), labor is accorded a monetary value which is deductible as overhead, a cost of "doing business" (which is why common "law" doesn't specifically define the word "business"). But to the owners/sellers of labor (aka the hoi polloi wage-earning employee classes), their labor is accorded by the criminal "income tax" cabal as having ZERO monetary value. In every sense of the word, logical, technical, moral, legal, political, and de facto, that simply means that, under the so-called "income tax" system, THE OWNERS/SELLERS OF LABOR DO NOT "LEGALLY" OWN THEIR OWN LABOR. Hence the term "wage slave" an 100% accurate appellation/euphemism under the satanic and feudal "income tax" system.

Here's how the self-evident unequal protection of law between the buyers and sellers of labor works: The voluntary exchange between the buyers ("employers") and sellers ("employees") of labor is a ZERO SUM exchange. The money paid/exchanged for the labor is worth EXACTLY the amount of labor paid/exchanged for the money or the payment/exchange could/would not have voluntarily taken place. In the exchange, the buyer of the labor incurs a loss: the money ("wages") paid/exchanged for the labor. The seller of the labor also incurs a loss: the labor (inextricably/inherently including the monetary value thereof) paid/exchanged for the money. The buyer's/employer's loss (money equal in value to the labor it is exchanged for) is deductible as a cost/expense of "doing business". The seller's/employee's loss (labor whose monetary value is equal to the money it is exchanged for) is not deductible. On its very face, that constitutes blatant, self-evident, prima facie discrimination and unequal protection of law between the buyers and sellers of labor which has NO, and can have NO, logical/rational connection to any legitimate government purpose. The reason this is so, is because, according to one of Nature's first rules of economics: 1) whatever you tax (labor) you get less of, and 2 whatever you subsidize (non-labor) you get less of. The self-evident suspect class is labor, and, were the federal judges not a bunch of classist, elitist liars4, precisely because there IS an identifiable suspect class (labor), the so-called "federal question" at issue would normally be examined under what is called the "strict scrutiny" rule.

2. Fascism = private economic enterprise under centralized governmental control. — Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language, Second College Edition. I would expand that definition: fascism = private economic enterprise under centralized governmental control, in which “government” is used as a “business” tool by private interests. Another way of articulating the same idea is: fascism = private ownership of government.

John Flynn defined the word thusly: “Fascism is a system of social organization in which the political state is a dictatorship supported by a political elite and in which the economic society is an autarchial capitalism, enclosed and planned, in which the government assumes responsibility for creating adequate purchasing power through the instrumentality of national debt and in which militarism is adopted as a great economic project for creating work as well as a great romantic project in the service of the imperialist state.” [As We Go Marching, p. 161, 2nd ed.] — John T. Flynn (1882-1964) American Journalist and Author

"Fascist" = scumbag5 "businessman" who uses the police powers of government (via bribes, special-interest legislation, holding office himself, etc) to corruptly increase profits and eliminate or reduce competition for his (or her) business/es beyond what they would be in a genuinely fair and free marketplace comprised of willing sellers and willing buyers.

MANY Democrats and Republicans are fascists, especially the ones in Congress. To paraphrase Jesse Ventura in a conversation with Willie Nelson and Alex Jones, the DEMS and GOP are like professional wrestling: they pretend to be adversaries in public. But behind closed doors, they're good buddies, hanging out with each other, making business deals and having dinner together at fancy restaurants and at each other homes and mansions.

3. Always remember, "politics" = person or group A trying to persuade person or group B to obey the will of A, most frequently for the personal financial benefit of A and to the personal financial detriment (higher taxes) of B. That is why deception = the so-called "art" of politics. That is also why "politician" = professional deceiver, and why "political" = deception-based, or having to do with deception. Everybody is competing for political power to steal labor and money out of the "other guy's" pocket and put it in their own. Politicians get votes by promising to be all things to all people. Because that is a physical impossibility, most of their promises of necessity get broken. Because they know this in advance, they are ALL liars to one degree or another. The king is always the most corrupt person in the kingdom. After all, the first two kings of Israel, Saul and David, were murderers. In my opinion, any person who sincerely wants to be the king is criminally insane and an implacable deadly enemy to individual freedom.

4. Consistent with traditional "Golden Rule" and "thou shalt not steal" Biblical morality, an earlier more honest U.S. Supreme Court said, "To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it upon favored individuals to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes, is none the less a robbery because it is done under the forms of law and is called taxation. This is not legislation. It is a decree under legislative forms." See Citizens’ Savings & Loan Ass’n v. City of Topeka, 87 U.S. 655 (1874). See also Calder v Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dallas) 386 (1798): "An ACT of the Legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority. The obligation of a law in governments established on express compact, and on republican principles, must be determined by the nature of the power, on which it is founded. A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean. A law that punished a citizen for an innocent action, or, in other words, for an act, which, when done, was in violation of no existing law; a law that destroys, or impairs, the lawful private contracts of citizens; a law that makes a man a Judge in his own cause; or a law that takes property from A and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a Legislature with SUCH powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it. The genius, the nature, and the spirit, of our State Governments, amount to a prohibition of such acts of legislation; and the general principles of law and reason forbid them. The Legislature may enjoin, permit, forbid, and punish; they may declare new crimes; and establish rules of conduct for all its citizens in future cases; they may command what is right, and prohibit what is wrong; but they cannot change innocence into guilt; or punish innocence as a crime; or violate the right of an antecedent lawful private contract; or the right of private property. To maintain that our Federal, or State, Legislature possesses such powers, if they had not been expressly restrained; would, in my opinion, be a political heresy, altogether inadmissible in our free republican governments." See also Wilkinson v. Leland, 27 U.S. 2 Pet. 627 627 (1829): "We know of no case in which a legislative act to transfer the property of A to B without his consent has ever been held a constitutional exercise of legislative power in any state in the Union. On the contrary, it has been constantly resisted as inconsistent with just principles by every judicial tribunal in which it has been attempted to be enforced."

When you can take advantage of revisionist-history, constitutionally-treasonous, judicially-"interpreted" usurpation of the power to print infinite amounts of debt-based fiat paper "money" out of thin air — indeed just make keyboard computer entries of numbers — and pass PROVABLY UNconstitutional "laws" (aka "legal tender") which force the "other guy" to trade his labor and property for it, that IS by definition per se thievery, period!

As a financial advisor friend of mine recently said, "when you can simply print TRILLIONS of dollars, (monetary) numbers no longer have any meaning." Exactly. If gubmint bankster scum can get the hoi polloi working classes acclimated/brainwashed into accepting the number "trillions", why not quadrillions, quintillions, sextillions, septillions, ad infinitum? It is totally insane, but THAT is how stupid the elitist neo-feudalistic bankster scum5 and their bagmen buddies, the American judiciaries, think we the "little people" are! That is also why it will take a judicial reform amendment to the U.S. Constitution to settle their hash. Congress cannot do it. The Supremes would simply shoot them down under the doctrine of "separation of powers".

Here is the wannabe-clever "Catch 22": Congress, the political branch, can't correct judicial treason because of "separation of powers", yet if an individual, say a legal genius, took the precisely correct federal question into the federal courts, they would lie once again and dismiss the case as a "political question" per Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. (7 Howard) 1 (1849). Pretty neat trick, huh?! You can read Supreme Court decisions at both FindLaw and Justia. At FindLaw, just enter in the case cite numbers and click the "search" button. At Justia, browse cases with the "volume" and/or "year" buttons at the top of the page.

5. As I said in the "Welcome" section of this website, (it bears constant repetition): Regarding the words "scum" and "scumbag" as an epithet used in self-defensive demonization against select individuals. Hey, what can I say? It is a long-proven statistical fact that negative political ads work. And since the so-called "left" uses lies, half-truths, demonization and the politics of personal destruction as standard political strategies, failure to engage in a little "turn about is fair play" merely makes it easier for the various assortments of disordered illiterate fascist control freaks to destroy individual freedom. As I said on my blog homepage, "Some folks just think they're smarter than everybody else, a higher form of life than everybody else. So, instead of engaging in good faith discussions about specific ideas, they simply resort to deception, sophistry, unspecificity, undefined terms, manipulation, demonization and the politics of personal destruction AS A MATTER OF PREFERRED STRATEGY to get their little spoiled-brat control-freak way. Such behavior is anathema to intellectual honesty, an open mind, a kind heart, free inquiry, the freedoms of thought and speech, and the free flow of information. It MUST be eternally warred against if humankind is to entertain a realistic hope of ever reaching its full spiritual and intellectual potential." To avoid the violence which is directly related to repression of free speech and the crushing of polite and civil discourse, I believe it is essential to engage in strategic tit-for-tat with wannabe-clever manipulative demonizers by openly calling them what they are: the anti-freedom, anti-Golden-Rule scum of the earth (aka "scumbags"). Accordingly, it doesn't bother me in the least to do so. No less brilliant a person than Jesus of Nazareth himself referred to the scumbags of his day as "hypocrites", "blind guides", "vipers" and "whitewashed sepulchres". To paraphrase Ann Coulter, Jesus was not some moron driving around in a Volvo with a "be nice to people" bumper sticker on it. So, having read The Art of Political War and Other Radical Pursuits by David Horowitz, I don't have any problem with calling reprobate destroyer-mentality "scum" what it is.

ShareThis