Evidence of cover up by the judicial system

[Sharing Lights]

When lawyer polls are returned with increasingly high percentage of mistrust for lawyers, this same reflection attaches to the lawyers with robes on! There can be no denial that the same lawyer based problem of mistrust continues to the bench.

Lawyer deception of court and in reality obstruction of justice is winked and blinked at in many courts throughout the land. While court room violence cannot be condoned under any circumstances, court room violence is merely symptomatic of the frustration litigants feel in many courts where equity and justice is subordinated to a lawyer business opportunity.

Contrary to the popular belief of those in the Judicial system, John and Jane Doe American are not blind to the abuse! The reality of the judicial system goes to the core of politics. Man is by nature a political animal and his politics will always surface in any real issue of import. Admittedly there are many fine judges in our nation who try to be objective. The stark reality is however that all of these judges from the state court level to the U.S. Supreme court are merely lawyers with a robe on. When court is in session, they look down from the bench and what do they see? They see fellow members of their fraternity. A law partner of yesterday, an associate at the country club, a fellow member of their professional organization, an affiliate of a political party or maybe even a future law partner. In any other area of the free enterprise system this would be called a serious conflict of interest with harsh penalties under federal and state laws. In the judicial system all are officers of the court in a simple closed membership club.

A showcase example for the nation of this scenario came into focus during the Clarence Thomas Senate Judiciary committee hearings in 1991. Here we witnessed the U.S. Senate, one of the highest lawmaking bodies in the nation sit collectively as judges on the Thomas appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court. In my memory there has not been a more blatant example of partisan politics under the guise of an impartial "panel of judges". What more could we expect since twelve of the fourteen members of that committee were "lawyers" trained in the judicial and legal system of this nation!

WHERE THE LAWYERS (WITH ROBES) HAVE TAKEN SOCIETY

Lets be very candid about where these judges (lawyers with a robe on) have taken our society during the past hundred years. From the supreme court of the United States down to the federal courts and on down to the state courts our lives have become a maze of "case law" (rulings by lawyer-judges) that couldn't possibly be deciphered until well into the millennium. Under the constitution, only the legislative branch of government has the constitutional powers to enact laws with the executive branch of government seeing that the laws are carried out and the Supreme court interpreting those laws. Yet our lives are being constantly ruled by "case law" which is the brainchild of Lawyer-Judges. These judges appear more eager than ever to rule on any facet of our personal or professional lives. They will rule and have ruled setting up new case law on everything from matrimony to palimony, from school busing to gay parenting lifestyles, from surrogate mothers to life termination devices including when life can and cannot begin at abortion clinics. Now they are entering an area where angels fear to tread! They rule on the question of children's rights with respect to biological and adoptive parents. In one state a judge rules a grandmother is the proper parent because her daughter's lifestyle as a ******* renders her an unfit parent. Only one week later in another state a judge of a different persuasion removes a small girl from her biological mother who admittedly was a very fit parent and gives custody to the woman's ex-companion who has lived the gay lifestyle for the past 27 years. These lawyer-judges have piled law upon top of law until there really is no law remaining.

Because of these rulings, no lawsuit is ever final, no appeal ever ends, no judgement is ever collectable, no jury is totally respected, there is no predictable protection against wrongs, there are no sacred rights, and no statute really means what it says because of the myriads of "case law". The "people" have lost access to a system of equity and justice. The bottom line is-we no longer have a system of equity and justice in America for the masses.

[Sharing Lights]

SOME EXAMPLES OF LAWYER (WITH ROBES ON) POLITICS

Since judges are lawyers with a robe on, just like leopards, they do not change their spots! The robe merely covers the spots. Let's look at some of the documented cases. It is decisions like these and thousands more like them, which cause the masses to cry foul, we are ruled by a dominant lawyer political culture:

CASE #1 THE DOUBLE STANDARD

A lawyer in Valencia county, New Mexico acting in the political capacity of District Attorney and County Attorney for years prosecuted defendants and sent them to prison. While this lawyer was serving as Valencia county attorney, a dispute arose between Valencia county and one of its business citizens. High taxes was the basis of the dispute. The business citizen entered into negotiation with the county attorney over the taxes. A bribe was offered the business citizen by the county attorney to lower the taxes for a $5000 fee. The business citizen then notified the FBI who set up the transaction to proceed. $5000.00 was paid to the county attorney with the FBI agents waiting outside the door to count the money and arrest the county attorney. An indictment followed. The County attorney was bonded out and months later the case came to trial. The lawyer with a robe on in this case was a local state judge. Verdict: 3 years probation, $1000 fine and 150 hours of community service. Final comment by the lawyer-judge; "It would serve no useful purpose to place the defendant in prison". ADDENDUM: While this case is decided about a defendant lawyer in a court in the northern part of the state another case is being decided in a state court in the southeastern part of the state for a defendant non-lawyer. A former Artesia, New Mexico Thrift chief was convicted of indirectly benefiting from a loan made to a firm with the understanding that the wife of the Thrift chief would be paid $3000 in real estate commission. The now bankrupt and destitute chief was sentenced to two years in prison. Final comment by the lawyer-judge; "A prison sentence was appropriate because the defendant betrayed his position of trust".

CASE #2 THE LAWYER FRATERNITY

A lawyer in Bernalillo county, New Mexico acting in the political capacity of assistant DA was caught with his hand in the "grand jury jar". He was accused of manipulating the grand juries with "private instructions" such as "you do not need evidence to return an indictment, only a strong suspicion", among other illegal instruction. Events following offered proof that this actually happened on numerous occasions RESULTING IN INDICTMENTS OF MANY DEFENDANTS. When the story was broken by the local media, the lawyer was dismissed by the DA who obviously wanted to get some distance from this lawyer acting as assistant DA. Following that dismissal and publicity, a clamor arose by a number of lawyers whose clients had been indicted by the "tainted grand juries". This clamor was followed with a "veiled threat" by the DA that plea bargains would be cancelled if other lawyers "pushed to throw out the indictments". The violation was so blatant that over 100 indictments were dismissed in the courts. The actions of the accused lawyer who tainted the grand jury was sent before the New Mexico Supreme Court for review. Verdict: Remanded to New Mexico State bar, no action taken, details of court decision kept secret, state bar comment: "Bottom line is no action taken and the details of the court decision will remain secret".

Is Dracula in charge of the bloodbank here? Do we have a double standard, a dangerously dominant lawyer culture, some with robes on?

[Sharing Lights]

CASE #3 LAWYER-JUDGE PREJUDICE

This is a case of outlandish judicial prejudice and double standard of the dominant lawyer culture system. I was involved in a civil case as a non-party witness, because of my status with a corporation. An out of state firm wanted to move their case into the state court of our corporate residence. We employed a lawyer to represent the corporation of which I was president. Our lawyer argued against the motion. The judge agreed and ruled against the out of state firm. The lawyer representing the firm filed a motion for reconsideration and in comes a new lawyer to argue the motion. The lawyer (a lady?) came into court and presented her argument based totally in fraud, deception of court and gross misrepresentation. The judge decided to reverse and grant the motion saying "It probably will not do you any good but go ahead". I could not believe what I was hearing and decided to do some checking to see if there was a connection between the lawyer-judge and the adversary lawyer. We ran through several motion hearings and the lawyer judge appeared to become totally prejudiced against our side of the case. One of our principals was a doctor and I soon discovered what I determined was the source of the prejudice. A local medical association was raising funds to get the judge voted out in the next election. I researched the background of the movement and was informed the judge was prejudiced toward doctors as reflected in one of his rulings. At this point I filed a complaint with the judicial standards commission (more lawyers) and that complaint came right back with the decision that our option was to appeal after the case had been decided by the judge. There was no consideration that the case could cost thousands before getting to the appeal process. It finally turned out the lady lawyer quit the lawfirm and in came a male lawyer who could not tell the truth if his life depended upon it. From this point on it was just a matter of attempted extorted settlement because there was really no case. The case was finally settled after four years with a small settlement just to get rid of the lawyer fees in the ongoing scheme in a kangaroo court environment with a prejudiced lawyer-judge. I would estimate the adversary client (a bank) had probably paid the lawfirm several times the settlement. The presiding judge in this case in the last election did not have an opponent and gained a mere 50% of the vote without an opponent, he is no longer on the bench. I have interviewed other litigants who came before this judge in self-representation. I was not surprised to find a litigant was told (unconstitutionally) that if they appeared in his court again without a lawyer, he would dismiss the case.

CASE #4 LAWYER LOVE SPAT CONTINUES TO THE BENCH

As stated at the beginning of this writing, these lawyers with a robe on look down from the bench and see members of their own fraternity and litigant victims are often caught in a political and emotional vice. In this New York case the judge looked down from the bench and saw a former lover. Leopoldo Gonzalez now serving a life sentence for murder did not know the judge and his attorney were former lovers with the affair ending in hostility. Gonzalez who is now appealing his conviction stated he did not know his attorney Jean Oliver was defending him before her spurned lover until just before his sentencing. In his appeal motion, Gonzales charges the judge, Supreme Court Justice Richard Lowe III made personal advances toward his lawyer with lawyer rebuking the judge on two occasions. In seeking a new trial, Gonzales states Lowe and Oliver had an "intimate and sexual" relationship for 5 years with Oliver breaking off the affair. The issue in this case is not the guilt or innocence of Gonzalez but a host of constitutional violations which could have been prevented. Once again the dominant lawyer culture prevails as the victim fights for his rights in prison.

[Sharing Lights]

CASE #5 LAWYER DECEPTION CATCHES UP WITH NEW YORK PRESIDING JUDGE

Deception may be the single descriptive word for the weird world of lawyers. That deception is a large part of the profession which begins as an analytical mythology in law school where right or wrong emerges as the bi-product of the most persuasive side of an argument. Right away this "situation ethics" places lawyers in a class by themselves. Fraud, misrepresentation and deception are merely tools of the trade and is unbelievably characterized as "attorney privilege" rule in the judicial system. One has to wonder how citizens of principle in our great nation have permitted such a culture to evolve and dominate a system of equity and justice where right and wrong should be, but is far from the most important question!

All to often we see this culture of "situation ethics" manifest itself in a lawyer with a robe on, sitting in mighty judgement of other peoples lives! Probably few cases parallel this manifestation like the case of Sol Wathler in the New York case that emerged in 1992.

In 1993, judge Wathler, a once considered gubernatorial candidate for the state of New York found himself in a court room where he was not presiding. Facing the charges of harassment, threats and blackmail of a former lover who had jilted him, Wathler stood this time in front of the bench to hear his sentence of fifteen months in prison for one count of sending harassment letters through the mail. He probably will serve six to eight months if that long. This chief judge could have and many believe he should have received a much stiffer prison sentence for his crimes. But once again a mere slap on the wrist sent a message from the Judicial system to the masses that this is one of our own and his punishment should be different! It would be impossible to determine just how many thousands have been banished to prison under judge Sol Wathlers' watch and perhaps justly so. It would be interesting however to determine the term of their sentences for crimes committed similar to Wathlers'. It would seem once again the judicial system in this case closed their eyes to the most important exhibit of prima facia evidence, "to whom much is given, much is expected"!

Sol Wathler ran the largest consolidated court system in the USA. Under his supervision were 13,000 employees and 3400 judges. He controlled an estimated budget near $1 billion dollars.

One of the most powerful and respected judges in the USA, Wathler had a picture perfect home life with a forty one year marriage and grown children. Hollywood could coin a title and showcase this man and his family as the all American example. Then deception, that constant companion of lawyers caught up and the world of Sol Wathler came unraveled. The judge succumbed to an unbelievable case of fatal attraction with New York socialite Joy Silverman. Seventeen years younger than the judge, Joy Silverman became the centerpiece of the judges' life of deception. Living the dual life, the judge continued to maintain his home and family life but Silverman became the judges' lover.

Then came the day when Silverman pushed for a permanent commitment. The judge looking at his other world refused to go beyond the boundaries of an extra-marital affair and Silverman ended romantic relationship. Then a New Jersey lawyer came into Silvermans life as the "other man". This apparently was to much for the power filled world of the judge. Power works that way! When you've got it all, you want to keep it all regardless of the lives involved.

The crux of judge Wathler's crimes began with his anonymous "hang-up" telephone calls to Silverman in an attempt to get her to come to him and solicit his help to trace down the telephone calls and stop them. When this ploy did not work, the judge then created a fictitious character and started to send letters to his ex-lover under the name of the fictitious character. The judge even sent Silverman's fourteen year old daughter a card with a condom in it telling her she should use this before entering into the act. The judge invented yet another character. This time a catholic woman figure who lived in New Jersey where Silvermans' new lover was involved in a legal battle. Letters from this character threatened to expose Silverman and her lover in photos of sex scenes. Finally came a blackmail or extortion attempt. The judge demanded $20,000 be left at a designated place by Silverman to be paid for non-existent compromising photos.

Un-beknowing to the judge, Silverman had long suspected the judge as the phantom culprit. Silverman had already notified the FBI who had been tracking Wathlers' moves for two months. Then came the arrest of the judge by the FBI.

Wathler faced the nation with Barbara Walters on the popular 20/20 television show. Although extra-marital romance, adultery, and deception in marriage vows is at the foundation of Wathlers' problems in the instant case, Wathler refused to talk about that. It was obvious he used the 20/20 show as a forum to build a defense for his actions through discussion of mental illness, ************ drug use, pressures of his job and other imagined illnesses. Mix all of this with the old lawyer ploy of bringing on an "expert" witness (a Psychiatrist for the defense), which appeared on the 20/20 show on Wathlers' behalf, a timely appeal fixing blame upon others by family members and the judge came off with a pretty decent defense!

Prosecutors apparently still have a different view of the judges' crimes. Acts of anger, intimidation and grotesque control are the descriptive words used by the prosecutors for the judges' actions.

Truly a sad day for the judge and his family! Perhaps an equally or greater sad experience for Joy Silverman and her daughter who were terrorized by Wathlers' acts of violence. As one reflects upon the prosecutors words that the judge was in full control of his actions, the judges' crimes beg the question!

Did lawyer deception once again catch up in this case? Joy Silverman is one who rejects Wathler's defense of mental illness.

Wathler has now been released from prison and has written a book. The book appears to be a major attempt to attain redemption of his crimes by highlighting the disease of manic depression which Wathler used as his defense.

Of course this defense begs the question-should judges be subjected to psychiatric examinations prior to taking the bench?

[Sharing Lights]

CASE #6 JUDGE'S AFFAIR WITH THE ADVERSARY LAWYER

In 1985, I knew little about the American judicial system. In fact the subject of a judicial system had only one meaning to me, it was the third branch of American government. I was introduced to the system with a bang! Winning a $200,000 judgment in a jury trial caused me to believe the system was alright and one could indeed come to this system to right a wrong. When the judgment debtor filed for a chapter 11 in bankruptcy I was led to a rude awakening. Things begin to go down hill quickly. Our lawyer missed several motion hearings and we were not kept informed about what was going on. After a gross example of malpractice, our lawyer withdrew from the case. We obtained another lawyer for the case in the bankruptcy court. This lawyer quickly informed us that we could not win in this court because the lawyer-judge was sleeping with the adversary lawyer. I did not believe such a thing would happen in the judicial system at the expense of justice. It finally dawned upon us that what the lawyer had said was prophecy! We could not win a motion! Denial of due process and abuse of process was the order of the day in this court. The activity of the mal-practicing lawyer and the outside activity of the lawyer-judge cost us about $500,000.00 and several years of hard work to overcome this travesty of justice. I then pledged myself to the cause of legal justice reform for the balance of my life.

CRIME DOES PAY IN TODAY'S JUDICIAL SYSTEM

A New York state appeals court made this ruling in February 1992. "Mugger" Bernard McCumming was awarded a $4.3 million judgment because police shot him during his mugging of an elderly man in a subway station. As a result of the shooting, McCumming was paralyzed. Lawyer David Breitbart argued that even though McCumming was shot mugging someone, he shouldn't have been sentenced to life in a wheelchair. The lawyer-judges agreed!

RULING OF VIRGINIA JUDGE ON DRUNK INDIANS

A lady walking down a Virginia street with her baby was assaulted by a drunk native American (Indian). Another lady driving by noticed her plight and stopped-screaming for her to get in the car. As she managed to get into the car, the drunken Indian came to the drivers side of the car and began to assault the woman driving the car. Judges ruling: Short jail term because Indians have a genetic predisposition toward alcohol.ess w

INCOMPETENCE, IRRESPONSIBILITY, AND A SHROUD OF SECRECY

Where do the judges of our nation come from? They come from the ranks of lawyers-where else! Ex-Supreme court justice Warren E. Burger stated that between one third and one half of the nations trial lawyers are incompetent. (Wall Street Journal, November 27, 1973). Operation Greylord in the early 80's in Cook county Illinois is a matter of public record. In July 1985, judge Richard F. LeFevour was found guilty of 59 counts of racketeering, income tax evasion and mail fraud by jury in federal court. The jury heard testimony of 163 witnesses. The offenses included payoffs by litigants subject to fines and jail time. Two other judges in the investigation were sentenced to 10 to 15 years. A total of 20 judges, lawyers and law enforcement people were indicted resulting from the investigation. The chief prosecutor in the case said: "Judge LeFevour embarked on a course of judicial corruption that is unequaled in the annals of corruption."

The judicial system is enveloped in a shroud of secrecy with only minor outside discipline if any. As a result only the scandalous acts of judges become public knowledge. The lawyers have such a stranglehold on the judiciary, the great bulk of transgressions by lawyer judges which could fill a large volume, only published in the hearts and minds of judicial victims. Because of the shroud of secrecy and lawyer domination of our judicial system, lawyer-judges are chosen from their own ranks and are about as hard to dislodge from the bench as digging up a concrete pier with a shovel.

[Sharing Lights]

JUDGE COSTS CALIFORNIA COUNTY $600,000.00 ON SEXUAL HARASSMENT

The Yolo County Board of Supervisors in California had to scratch and dig to come up with $600,000.00 to pay legal fees and agreement terms to get Superior court judge James Stevens off the hook in a sexual harassment case. Stevens gave Court Reporter a "rotting zucchini" which she said was unmistakably a phallic symbol. Stevens fired her when she complained. The case was settled out of court with the county having to pay the damages.

JUDGES RELEASE VIOLENT FELONS FROM FLORIDA PRISONS

If you are a rape victim in Florida in the future by a repeat rape felon you may have the lawyer-judges at the U.S. Supreme court to thank.

If you are a murder victim, assault victim or robbery victim in the future by a repeat felon, you may have the lawyer-judges at the U.S. Supreme court to thank.

If you are a homeless man who get's beat to death with a baseball bat by a gang of teen felons in Florida in the future, you may have the lawyer-judges at the U.S. Supreme court to thank.

This is the profile of the felons who were among 300 serving time in Florida prisons, ordered released by the U.S. Supreme court who restored "gain time" to the criminals in March, 1997. An additional 2200 were also scheduled to be released in coming months and years.

As the crimes and carnage by these felons is committed in the future-why not make the lawyer-judges at the U.S. Supreme court accessories to the crimes?

JUDGE'S SPOUSAL ABUSE INFLUENCES DECISION THAT LEADS TO MURDER

In New York, the woman in Judge Lorin Duckman's court pleaded with the judge not to release her ex-boyfriend claiming he was violent. In a frivolous decision the ex-boyfriend was released and the woman is dead-shot by the ex-boyfriend. Now witnesses have revealed the lawyer-judge once admitted that he had beaten his own wife.

JUDGE RESIGNS AFTER HIRING PROSTITUTE

In Maryland, Montgomery County District judge Henry Monahan announced his retirement after being accused of hiring a prostitute to have sex with him in his chambers. The prostitute testified the judge paid her $100 on two occasions to have sexual encounters in his chambers in 1994.

SUPREME COURT SAYS STATE CAN TAKE INNOCENT VICTIMS PROPERTY

In a Detroit, Michigan case a woman owning a 1977 Pontiac lost the car under a Supreme Court ruling. The woman's husband was arrested for having sex with a prostitute in the car. The car was confiscated and the Supreme Court upheld the ruling.

TENTH CIRCUIT JUDGES HAND DOWN A SCREWY RULING

The 10th circuit lawyer-judges ruled that a male prisoner wanting to become a female was not entitled to hormone injections at public expense under the 14th amendment. Conversely they ruled that he may be entitled to hormone injections under the 8th amendment which bans cruel and unusual punishment.

[Sharing Lights]

FORMER FEDERAL JUDGE BORK WANTS CONGRESS TO OVERRULE JUDGES

Former federal judge Robert Bork says America is in serious decline and the rot is spreading. He says it is the courts and judges which threaten our liberty to govern ourselves. Bork proposes allowing Congress to overrule the Supreme Court in decisions which depart from conservative philosophy and is marked by modern liberalism.

496 THEFT & SWINDLE CLAIMS FILED AGAINST NEW YORK LAWYER-JUDGE

When the New York client security fund was established in New York in April of 1982, it almost went bankrupt during grand opening ceremonies. Barry Grandeau, a judge and board of education member had 496 claims filed against him totalling around $2 million dollars. Many of Grandeau's clients did not know their money had been stolen until a newspaper article told of the lawyer trying to commit suicide. Many of the clients received partial reimbursement from the New York client security fund. Grandeau was sentenced to 1 to 4 years in prison. He served one year. Grandeau's swindles included Mrs. Ray Karp, 83 of New York City. She gave her life savings of $82,000 to Grandeau for investment purposes. She had to take a job as a produce market clerk, working in return for stale vegetables and fruits on which she lived. Karp recovered $25,000 from the NY security fund, about one third of her loss.

COUNTY JUDGE DISMISSED FOR SENDING CONDOM THROUGH THE MAIL

In 1996 the Indiana Supreme court dismissed a county judge for sending a condom through the mail to a courthouse secretary. Judge William McClain apparently pursued the secretary in a personal relationship. The condom along with a letter to the secretary was designed to show the secretary that her boyfriend was being unfaithful to her. DNA matched McClain's semen to the condom. The dismissal from the bench bars McClain from practicing law in Indiana for two years. Big Wow for lawyer discipline!

IDIOT LAWYER-JUDGE PROMOTES SPOUSAL ABUSE

In Michigan a lawyer-judge was relieved of most of his duties after the judge pulled a bizarre courtroom action. District Court judge Joel Gehrke suspended the fines and a 90-day jail term for a man convicted of spouse abuse, then slapped the man on the wrist with three fingers and said "Don't do that"! Gehrke said the man had been provoked and "in the eyes of Moses, the crime was not committed by the husband".

[Sharing Lights]

TWO JUDGES AND ONE LAWYER (WITHOUT A ROBE) INDICTED FOR KICKBACKS

In California in 1996 former Superior Court judges G. Dennis Adams and James A. Malkus and lawyer Patrick Frega were names in a federal indictment that details 163 crimes during a 10 year period ending 1992. Just one month prior to this indictment another California state judge pleaded guilty to accepting bribery charges after attempting suicide.

FEDERAL JUDGE RESIGNS TO DODGE A BULLET

Another lawyer with a robe on, U.S. District Judge Robert Aguilar was convicted in 1990 of disclosing a wiretap to a distant relative which authorities describe as a mobster. The government dropped their case against the judge after he resigned. Aguilar was the first federal judge ever charged with racketeering. The judge is eligible for a government pension.

LAWYER-JUDGES IMPACTING THE SOCIAL HABITS OF AMERICA

In this day of instant mass media one cannot escape the concept that lawyer-judges as never before are impacting the social habits of America. No other elite group have the power to shape society for good or for bad. Never before in the history of this nation have more citizens begun to question entrusting our social, physical, moral, economic and ethical wellbeing to this small elite group. Who is this group to whom we entrust justice and rely almost unquestionably upon their objectivity and wisdom? What is their politics? What is their moral and ethical standards? How can they, lawyers with robes on be objective in a lawyer dominated system? The answers to these questions appear to be reflected in the emerging social patterns. Chief among those social patterns is a 550% crime increase during the past thirty years. As judges, no group in our society today has more power to put the fear into criminals, but it is not happening! Criminals are putting the fear into a nation.

We are left with a nagging question as we leave this writing. The judges in position to change the habits of society for the good of it's citizens are all lawyers. Lawyers are trained to avoid black and white like the plague! They are in fact trained to change the color black to a dozens shades of gray. We watch as those shades of gray continue to slip into decisions coming from the benches around this nation. Before the social patterns of our great nation become so perverted and so pervasive should we ask the cardinal question? The cardinal question is simple. Is the belief that we can entrust the power of judging to lawyers fact or fantasy? The emerging social patterns of the nation is the report card for generations of lawyer-judges and the report cards suggest we are pursuing a fantasy!

[Sharing Lights]

JUDICIAL VICTIMS IN AMERICA

A CONSTITUTIONAL
NIGHTMARE
by: Sammy Sorrell


THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, ANCHOR OF AMERICAN GOVERNMENT

The U.S. Constitution is the anchor of American government. The great freedoms, rights and protection afforded us in that magnificent document are believed to be sacred and inspired by most Americans. There will always be a threat to such a document by would-be tyrannical leaders. That threat can be overt and we can plainly see it happen or it can be a subtle threat which comes a day at a time. It is always the subtle threat that should concern us most. That will come through gradual special interest, special privilege and special distinctions of class that will challenge the very meaning of the constitution. Our two most cherished privileges, Equal protection of the laws and due process are constantly being re-defined by the ruling class of lawyers comprising the American judicial system from the lowest court to the highest court in the land.

THE CONSTITUTION DID NOT INTEND A RULING CLASS

When we examine the American Judicial system closely, we clearly see the evolution of a dominant special privileged class, taking away due process along the way. This privileged class dominates our entire justice system today with their own rules, laws and disciplines even if those rules contradict the due process clause of the U.S. constitution. This dominant culture has laid the unequal and heavy hand of oppression upon the citizenry of this nation. We are faced with a real conflict between the contemporary lawyer meaning of "equity and justice" and the intent of "due process" under the U.S. constitution.

THE U.S. CONSTITUTION vs. CASE LAW RULINGS BY LAWYER JUDGES

It would probably be safe to say that not a day passes in this nation without scores of lawyer-judges making a ruling "case law" (the judges opinion based upon a prior judges opinion) which is in total conflict with the Bill of rights of the U.S. constitution. Many of those case law rulings will conflict with the USC XIV amendment. Any complaint of this nature, even on appeal will be dismissed with the time worn legal phrase of "judicial discretion". The constitution becomes more deeply buried each year under the landslide of thousands of these "case law" rulings in the state and federal district courts by lawyer-judges. It would be an economic and time impossibility for thousands of these rulings to ever reach the U.S. Supreme Court to be tested upon the grounds of constitutionality. Only a fraction of cases involving the issue of civil rights violations could ever reach the U.S. Supreme Court for a test. Even when the issues reach that tribunal who is judging the issues? You guessed it, nine more lawyers with robes!

Since we do not live under a system of codified law, we then live under a system of modified law. Any system of law which permits thousands of lawyer-judges to make rulings which become "case law" is ultimately going to reach the point of no return in the justice system. Today our justice system has become a maze of "case law" rulings, many of which are totally out of harmony with the U.S. Constitution. Many court rules on the face could be considered unconstitutional. Lets take an example. I once filed an appeal pro se (self representation) with a state appellate court. The judicial system by it's very design is a denial of access to pro se litigants. If the system cannot badger you into paying a ransom to a lawyer to represent you for access to the system, then the harassment begins. In this specific case, I was immediately notified in writing that I would be held to the same standards as "a practicing attorney". That rule is designed to deny individual access to the system without a lawyer. Pursue that rule out to an end result and you will quickly discover the whole premise is totally unconstitutional! Just one more example. The jury system which has been the cornerstone of our entire legal system for decades is endangered by the volume of rules and instructions that actually are designed to shape a jury verdict.

[Sharing Lights]

It could be argued and rightly so that thousands of case law rulings by lawyer-judges is a direct assault on the constitution. The language under the constitution is very clear. Under the constitution, only the federal and state lawmaking bodies will pass the laws under which citizens are governed. Yet, lawyer-judges will take those laws and change and fashion them to their own interpretation, thus creating a new law by the judiciary. Is this unconstitutional? In addition the judiciary have set their own rules of law to govern the legal system and all who pass through the system. Many of those rules enhance the concept of a "closed lawyer system" making business for itself. A case in point? The state of New Mexico leads the nation in DWI fatalities and related crimes. In Albuquerque, New Mexico on Christmas eve, 1992, the lives of a young mother and her three daughters were terminated by an alleged DWI driving in the wrong lane on a freeway. An immediate outcry focused upon the legislature to pass new and stiffer laws. What was the trial lawyers response? The legislature should stay out of the picture, the trial lawyers association said. Why? Simply because the legislature might pass laws requiring mandatory sanctions and penalties. If this happened, hundreds of lawyers would experience a diminished income if they could no longer go into the courts, represent these DWI's and get them back out on the street so their next victim could be targeted! Is this a system of equal protection of laws under the U.S. constitution?

THE BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL CONCEPT IS SIMPLE

The framers of the constitution did not envision our judicial system becoming based upon thousands of volumes of case law rulings by lawyer-judges, nor did they envision the system becoming the base of a dominant lawyer culture in America. In fact early American colonists did not want lawyers in their system of government. Their vision of a lawyer-less system is obvious! There is not one mention of "lawyer" in the U.S. Constitution. The constitution gives no requirement for someone to be a "lawyer" to be a judge. There is no requirement for someone to be a "lawyer" to be the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme court. There is no mention of "lawyer" needed to represent someone in court. The only mention is a right to "counsel", which could be your brother, sister, aunt, uncle or anyone else. So what happened? The lawyer dominated justice system has redefined that sentence in the constitution and have determined that the word counsel is indeed "lawyer". There is no mention that if someone acts as counsel and is not a "lawyer" that other lawyers can prosecute that individual for practicing law without a license. Listen to a lawyer judge attempt to redefine the word "counsel" and they will take you all the way back to the twelfth century in England to make that redefinition.

It is obvious that case law rulings by lawyer-judges have taken us away from the basic constitutional concept. It is equally obvious that lawyers have taken us a long way from the intent of that great legal document designed to protect the people. Indeed were it not for those of us who focus upon the constitution and the rights and freedoms afforded in that document, even in the courts, we could become totally enslaved to the mass of faulty case law developed by the dominant lawyer culture in the land.