http://www.clr.org/crimjudg.html
Judges as Criminals CRIMINALS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ CIRCUIT COURT A CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Circuit Court of Cook County is a criminal enterprise. U.S. v. Murphy, 768 F.2d 1518, 1531 (7th Cir. 1985). The United States Supreme Court recently acknowledged the judicial corruption in Cook County, when it stated that Judge "Maloney was one of many dishonest judges exposed and convicted through 'Operation Greylord', a labyrinthine federal investigation of judicial corruption in Chicago. Bracey v. Gramley, case No. 96-6133 (June 9, 1997). Since judges who do not report the criminal activities of other judges become principals in the criminal activity, 18 U.S.C. Section 1, and since no judges have reported the criminal activity of the judges who have been convicted, the other judges are as guilty as the convicted judges. The criminal activities that the Federal Courts found in the Circuit Court of Cook County still exist, and are today under the care, custody and control of Judge Greylord II (Chief Judge Donald O'Connell). The Circuit Court of Cook County remains a criminal enterprise. JUDICIAL IMMUNITY Judges have given themselves judicial immunity for their judicial functions. Judges have no judicial immunity for criminal acts, aiding, assisting, or conniving with others who perform a criminal act, or for their administrative/ ministerial duties. When a judge has a duty to act, he does not have discretion - he is performing a ministerial act. Judicial immunity does not exist for judges who engage in criminal activity, for judges who connive with, aid and abet the criminal activity of another judge, or to a judge for damages sustained by a person who has been harmed by the judge's connivance with, aiding and abeting, another judge's criminal activity. TRESPASSERS OF THE LAW The Illinois Supreme Court has held that "if the magistrate has not such jurisdiction, then he and those who advise and act with him, or execute his process, are trespassers." Von Kettler et.al. v. Johnson, 57 Ill. 109 (1870) Under Federal law which is applicable to all states, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that if a court is "without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no justification; and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers." Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828) The Illinois Supreme Court held that if a court "could not hear the matter upon the jurisdictional paper presented, its finding that it had the power can add nothing to its authority, - it had no authority to make that finding." The People v. Brewer, 128 Ill. 472, 483 (1928). The judges listed below had no legal authority (jurisdiction) to hear or rule on certain matters before them. They acted without any jurisdiction. When judges act when they do not have jurisdiction to act, or they enforce a void order (an order issued by a judge without jurisdiction), they become trespassers of the law. The Court in Yates v. Village of Hoffman Estates, Illinois, 209 F.Supp. 757 (N.D. Ill. 1962) held that "not every action by a judge is in exercise of his judicial function. ... it is not a judicial function for a judge to commit an intentional tort even though the tort occurs in the courthouse." When a judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does not follow the law, the judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judges orders are void, of no legal force or effect. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974) stated that "when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he "comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States." [Emphasis supplied in original]. By law, a judge is a state officer. The judge then acts not as a judge, but as a private individual (in his person). VIOLATION OF OATH OF OFFICE In Illinois, 705 ILCS 205/4 states "Every person admitted to practice as an attorney and counselor at law shall, before his name is entered upon the roll to be kept as hereinafter provided, take and subscribe an oath, substantially in the following form: 'I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be), that I will support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Illinois, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of attorney and counselor at law to the best of my ability.'" In Illinois, a judge must take a second oath of office. Under 705 ILCS 35/2 states, in part, that "The several judges of the circuit courts of this State, before entering upon the duties of their office, shall take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation, which shall be filed in the office of the Secretary of State: 'I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the State of Illinois, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of judge of ______ court, according to the best of my ability.'" Further, if the judge had enlisted in the U.S. military, then he has taken a third oath. Under Title 10 U.S.C. Section 502 the judge had subscribed to a lifetime oath, in pertinent part, as follows: "I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; ...". The Supreme Court has stated that "No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.". Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958). Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason. Having taken at least two, if not three, oaths of office to support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Illinois, any judge who has acted in violation of the Constitution is engaged in an act or acts of treason (see below). If a judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), he/she is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act or acts of treason. TREASON Whenever a judge acts where he/she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason. U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821) What is the penalty for treason? Citizens for Legal Responsibility suggest that the following judges have acted without jurisdiction and therefore have engaged in an act or acts of treason: Judge Philip L. Bronstein NEW Justice Robert Chapman Buckley Judge Grace G. ****ler NEW Judge Thomas C. Dudgeon (DuPage County) NEW Presiding Judge Timothy C. Evans UPDATED Judge Lester D. Foreman Chief Judge Michael Galasso (DuPage County) NEW Justice Michael J. Gallagher Judge Francis A. Gembala Justice Thomas E. Hoffman NEW Judge Moshe Jacobius Judge Thomas James Judge Aubrey F. Kaplan Judge Philip S. Lieb Judge Veronica B. Mathein UPDATED Justice Sheila M. O'Brien UPDATED Chief Judge Donald O'Connell (Cook County) Judge Edmund Ponce de Leon Judge Daniel J. Sullivan Justice Mary Jane Theis NEW Judge William F. Ward, Jr. Any judge or attorney who does not report the above judges for treason as required by law may themselves be guilty of misprison of treason, 18 U.S.C. Section 2382. NOTE: Citizens for Legal Responsibility=AE is in the process of compiling a list of laws detailing the penalties for treason. Citizens for Legal Responsibility requests that readers who have knowledge of any laws relative to the penalties for treason, please either mail or email such information to us. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Copyright 1997-98 by Citizens for Legal Responsibility. email: clr@clr.org June 19, 1997 Last updated August 13, 1998
Last edited by jerrypitts : 09-13-2006 at 08:33 PM.
We, Citizens of the American Constitution, deal ONLY in the Constitution, which is the Supreme Law of this Nation. Our methods are entirely based in the Constitution for the united States of America, to which ALL “public servants” have sworn oaths. The following is our official position statement. Your personal message will appear below.
From the 16th American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177:
Quote:
“The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail.
This is succinctly stated as follows:
Quote:
“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. As unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.”
Quote:
“Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it…”
Quote:
“A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, in so far as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.”
Any court, government or government officer who acts in violation of, in opposition or contradiction to the foregoing, by his own actions, commits treason and invokes the self-executing Sections 3 and 4 of the 14th Amendment and vacates his office. It is the duty of every American Citizen to oppose all enemies of this Nation, foreign and DOMESTIC.
Citizens of the American Constitution do not provide “legal advice” to anyone. The law is in the Public Domain, and whatever exists in the Public Domain belongs to the People. Congress is required to create Constitutionally-compliant law for the American People, specific to the Bill of Rights. The People have the Right and the duty to deal with that which exists in the Public Domain and law created for the People. Further, since the Constitution for the united States of America is the Supreme Law of the Land, in which unlimited and inalienable Rights are guaranteed to the People, the People have both the Right and the Duty to know and discuss, among themselves, the law and the Constitution. The Constitution is the highest authority in this land and no other authority exists which supersedes the Constitution. Citizens of the American Constitution simply informs others of what we would do in their situations.
MESSAGE:
Dear David,
Sorry you were not at the seminar in Colorado Springs, I am sure we all would have enjoyed talking together.
Thanks for sending this info to us, which I will forward to others with interest.
Best regards,
Margy Flynn
David Merrill wrote:
Dear Jack and Margy;
Here in Colorado it seems the Attorney General himself swears to running a vacant office!
John Suthers only had thirty days by law to get that oath filed.
Quote:
Section 8. Oath of civil officers. Every civil officer, except members of the general assembly and such inferior officers as may be by law exempted, shall, before he enters upon the duties of his office, take and subscribe an oath or affirmation to support the constitution of the United States and of the state of Colorado, and to faithfully perform the duties of the office upon which he shall be about to enter.
Section 9. Oaths - where filed. Officers of the executive department and judges of the supreme and district courts, and district attorneys, shall file their oaths of office with the secretary of state; every other officer shall file his oath of office with the county clerk of the county wherein he shall have been elected.
Section 10. Refusal to qualify - vacancy. If any person elected or appointed to any office shall refuse or neglect to qualify therein within the time prescribed by law, such office shall be deemed vacant.
I am certain we would have enjoyed discussing this and other things.
The one thing that government should fear, but never does, is the people. I have a terrible fear that the people will rise up and strike down not just the evil, but all that is good.
__________________
"It's what you think you know that ain't so, that causes all the problems"
The one thing that government should fear, but never does, is the people. I have a terrible fear that the people will rise up and strike down not just the evil, but all that is good.
"THE GOVERNMENT" (not "government") does indeed fear We The People.
The evidence of the fear of these Machiavellian misanthropists is the topic of discussion in these Forums.
As the fear level of these despots rises, as it now approaches a level of hysteria, they are subject to haste and tactical errors of moment.
This is our hope, and we need cool headed tactics for using this to our advantage.
They have a huge bureaucratic machine which is collapsing under its own weight.
The true enemy is likely a very elite and small number of very difficult to identify individuals of tremendous intellectual and tactical cunning.
Cunning is an animal instinct.
The real "war" is a mind war.
There are tools available to defeat animal cunning, and just as a very small elite comprises the enemy of Liberty, so a small number of freedom oriented individuals can prevail.
Do not look to a majority.
Our Law was brought to life to protect the Liberty of the individual against the whims of the mob.
Was the Foundation of Law built upon a solid immutable, imovable, solid, firmament of granitic bedrock, or was it founded upon the shifting sands of time?
Liberty costs, and yields Freedom.
Freedom is presisely that: Freedom: freedom is Free.
It occurs to me that the crucial question is to ask Why?
Why for instance would JRB be determined that the clerk of court, who supposedly has his oath of office on file, would never allow a certified copy of his oath to get filed into any one case jacket?
I know what I am talking about here folks. I live vicariously through hundreds of suitors, many of whom have placed mandatory judicial notice to simply put the oath of the "Judge" into the case file for it to be available to all parties; attached.
Never is this allowed in any legislative/executive tribunal.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Answer: Because the courts operate exclusively in the realm of the Federal Reserve Act which is not Constitutional.
People handling their affairs domestically with US Notes (in the form of FRNs) would not only make their Income non-taxable, it will quickly abolish the Federal Reserve System and remove and avoid from that entire jurisdiction of bankruptcy collections and bonding/hypothecation on the birth certificate.
Quote:
Under Act Cong. May 31, 1878, c. 146, 20 Stat. 87, 31 U.S.C.A. § 404, which enacts that notes of the United States, issued during the war of the Rebellion, under acts of congress declaring them to be legal tender in payment of private debts*, and since the close of the war redeemed and paid in gold coin at the treasury, shall be reissued and kept in circulation, is consitutional, and notes so reissued are a legal tender.
*While redeemable and payable in gold the scope of US Notes was obviously government currency (public) but the gist of Juilliard v. Greenman [The Legal Tender Cases] is that US Notes will stay in circulation as discharge for private debts too. Since 1933, the emergency neither FRNs or USNs are backed by gold so they pay for nothing.
Last edited by David Merrill : 09-14-2006 at 07:05 AM.
It occurs to me that the crucial question is to ask Why?
Why for instance would JRB be determined that the clerk of court, who supposedly has his oath of office on file, would never allow a certified copy of his oath to get filed into any one case jacket?
Maybe if the Judge files his own oath of office then he has sworn to uphold the constitution. Now he can be a judge with that filing but that makes him a magistrate judge and he would be coexisting in two branches of government,,, a no-no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Merril
I live vicariously through hundreds of suitors, many of whom have placed mandatory judicial notice to simply put the oath of the "Judge" into the case file for it to be available to all parties; attached.
Mabey they allow the suitors to file one in the case jacket but what does the judge do in the end??? Did he ever act like a judge? Does the tribunal district court allow for a judge?
And about the clerks being subordinate to the judge (I think Shoonra was saying such) I do believe that the court opperates under the authority of the president and the governor.
__________________
Educational and entertainment only. Nothing posted intended as legal advice. Nothing is legal advice. All responses are general in nature even if responding to a specific question. Nothing in my posts pertains to ANYONE else but me.
Hire an Attorney.
And about the clerks being subordinate to the judge (I think Shoonra was saying such) I do believe that the court opperates under the authority of the president and the governor.
I am not quite sure what Codee means about a court "operates under the authority of" the Chief Executive. The Judicial system is supposed to be a separate branch of govt, equal to the Executive, not subservient to it.
Yes, the President nominates federal judges, and the Senate (sometimes) confirms them -- in many states it's the Governor who nominates judges, at least for some courts, and some other judgeships are by popular election -- but once in office, the judges are independent.
Linear Mode
