Charles Thomas Jr. doesn't own any land near his trailer, where police seized more than 500 marijuana plants last year. Thomas says he didn't plant them. And, after being questioned by police, he was never charged with a crime. A local grand jury declined to indict Thomas. But the state nonetheless is demanding that he pay $1,161,859.94 in taxes, penalties and interest on the marijuana under a 1994 law that allows such an assessment based only on a police officer's report. The Marijuana and Controlled Substances Tax law says that anyone who possesses enough illegal drugs to be considered a drug dealer must pay taxes on them. Lawmakers hoped the measure would recover some of the profits of the illegal drug trade and get tough on drug dealers.
The law
Anyone with more than five marijuana plants is considered a dealer and must pay $1,000 per plant. A person with at least 42.5 grams of marijuana must pay $3.50 per gram. In cases where a dealer is also convicted of a crime, it serves - in effect - to levy a substantial additional fine. But even when the standard of proof in criminal court cannot be met - as in Thomas' case - the law can still punish those identified by police as drug dealers. "I don't know what I'm going to do," said Thomas, 26, a college dropout from Breathitt County. "I could never pay this off." Relying on a police report that listed him as the "dealer" > responsible for the plants, the Kentucky Revenue Cabinet has ordered Thomas to pay the tax on them. And just to appeal the tax bill, Thomas must first post bond in the amount of the tax that the state says he owes, which Thomas said is impossible. "It's about drove me crazy," he said as he stood in front of his trailer home and surveyed the hollow where police seized the marijuana plants. "I don't own any of this. I don't control any of it."
Legal wrangling
Despite the popularity of anti-drug bills with members of the Kentucky General Assembly, the 1994 bill had its opponents - including respected attorneys in both political parties. Former Sen. Walter Baker, a Glasgow Republican who later briefly served on the Kentucky Supreme Court, believed the law was flawed and voted against it. "If you violate the law you ought to be prosecuted," Baker said. "But with this law it seems the state is loading up in what is an unfair and, in my judgment, an unconstitutional way."
Seizure
Thomas' troubles began last September when the Kentucky State Police's Marijuana Strike Force first spotted the plants from a helicopter along Cloverfork Road in western Breathitt County. State police files indicate investigators found marijuana plants in two large patches and in three smaller ones. Thomas said that as investigators were cutting down the plants, police stopped him for questioning as he was driving on the gravel road from his trailer. According to police records, Thomas said he told police that he had nothing to do with the plants, an assertion he has repeated. At the time the plants were found, Thomas said, he was living mostly at college in Morehead. State police records show the investigation was closed Jan. 26. But under the 1994 law, the trooper who conducted the investigation sent a "Notice of Seizure and Tax Lien" to the revenue cabinet, listing Thomas as the "dealer" of the seized marijuana plants. The law sets a tax of $1,000 per plant plus a $1,000 penalty per plant. The tax and penalty, plus $4,078.38 in interest put Thomas' original bill at $1,038,078.38. Interest and fees have increased the bill - which is still growing - to $1,161,859.94.
A challenge
In 1995 two Lexington men challenged the tax law, saying it violated their rights against double jeopardy. After winning in Fayette Circuit Court and in the Kentucky Court of Appeals, the state Supreme Court in November 1998 unanimously ruled against their double-jeopardy claim, saying the tax does not constitute double jeopardy, partly because "assessment and payment of the drug tax is not contingent on the commission of a crime. The tax is levied regardless of whether the taxpayer has been arrested." Thomas' lawyer, Robert Cornett, is exploring options to fight Thomas' tax bill. "It's very distressing," Cornett said. "The state apparently lacks evidence needed to bring charges, but on the word of one police officer it can levy this tax that puts Charles' life on hold." The revenue cabinet has filed a lien against Thomas in the Breathitt County Clerk's office and has written letters to the two banks in the county to seize any of his accounts. Thomas had no accounts at either bank. He works for his mother's consignment clothing store and for other family-owned businesses and is paid in cash, but he's reluctant to apply for another job because the revenue cabinet has warned it might attach his wages. Charles Werder, a supervisor in the revenue cabinet's Division of Collections, said tax bills under the law are sent when a law-enforcement officer submits a report identifying a "dealer" of seized drugs. "The only information we get is from the arresting officer. That's what we use," said Werder. "We don't really have much option." "It's not a very taxpayer-friendly-type law," Werder added. "It pretty much tells you that it's up to the person to prove that they're innocent, which kind of contradicts everything we've been brought up to believe."
From: M.O.M. nox2128@... To: m.o.m. email alert list mom-l@... Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 4:44 PM
Militia of Montana P.O. Box 1486, Noxon, MT 59853 Tel: 406-847-2735 n Fax: 406-847-2246
Note: In law, what do we call persons who knowingly benefit from the fruits of criminal activity? Is it not "An accessory after the fact." The follow up question is, is crime not a crime if crime is committed by government?
It was our past mayor of Los Angeles, Mayor Bradley, who said, "Drugs are helping Los Angeles." Now if government is admittedly finding drugs financially profitable to their coffers, I wonder how long it will take then in their "War on Drugs" to eradicate this from our society? Does anyone have a clue?" Is this not a "War" we will NEVER win, nor are ever intended to win? It is a pretext to set up a police state while profiting in the process. Don't look for an end to this one, folks. It just won't happen! It's too profitable.
J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) Use header to subscribe/remove: jail4judges@... JAIL is a unique addition to our form of government. JAIL is powerful! It is dynamic! It is America's ONLY hope! Visit JAIL's informative websites, www.jail4judges.org (& .net) JAIL's message is spreading across this nation vociferously! Support JAIL @ P.O. Box 207, No. Hollywood, CA 91603
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." --Samuel Adams "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <>< ______________________________________________
NAHSVILLE, Tenn. -- Police cars blockaded Tennessee state capitol entrances and troopers patrolled legislative hallways this week as the state legislature found itself under siege by thousands of angry taxpayers upset at a plan to implement a state income tax.
Tennessee is currently one of only nine states without a state income tax. Opponents of the measure, which would assess a 5 percent tax on any income above $100,000, are skeptical that legislators would maintain that high an exemption threshold for very long.
As protestors began to gather outside the legislative chambers Monday evening, several legislators were taken away by ambulance and hospitalized for blood pressure and heart problems as tensions rose and tempers flared. By Tuesday morning, tax protestors were brandishing signs reading, "Let's send them all to the ER!"
Trouble began brewing Friday evening as the state income tax proposal emerged from a legislative conference committee considering the state budget after local news shows had already aired.
Legislators supporting the income tax had hoped that a vote would be taken on the proposal Saturday morning to avoid giving anti-tax groups time to mount a repeat of the tax revolt that occurred last November, when an earlier income-tax measure died as taxpayers besieged legislative offices with tens of thousands of calls and e-mails every hour.
But the hopes of income-tax supporters were dashed when two of Nashville's competing talk radio stations, WLAC and WTN, joined forces and served as the catalyst for opposition to the legislative proposal.
Speaking to WorldNetDaily and barely audible above the virtually non-stop horn honking, WLAC's morning show host Steve Gill gestured to the standstill traffic encircling the state capitol and said, "Do you hear that? That's the sound of freedom."
Phil Valentine, Gill's afternoon show counterpart, chided legislators on-air for conducting most of the legislative discussion regarding the state budget behind closed doors.
"If this is such good public policy, why are they afraid to do it in public?" Valentine said.
While it appeared Monday that income-tax supporters had enough votes to push the measure through both houses, support crumbled as the tax protests grew.
"These legislators have received a rude awakening in the past few days," said Darryl Ankarlo, morning drive time host for WTN. "They're realizing that taxpayers are tired of politicians picking their pockets at every turn."
Ankarlo and his WTN colleague, Dave Ramsey began broadcasting their respective programs from a remote radio site located at the entrance of the legislative plaza, where they could wave to supporters driving by. They would regularly announce on-air the position of state legislators on the income-tax proposal and provide telephone and e-mail information for constituents to contact their representatives.
The effort to pass a state income tax is being led by Republican Gov. Don Sundquist, who won two gubernatorial races handily in 1994 and 1998 after promising to prevent an income tax from ever being passed.
J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) Use header to subscribe/remove: jail4judges@... JAIL is a unique addition to our form of government. JAIL is powerful! It is dynamic! It is America's ONLY hope! Visit JAIL's informative websites, www.jail4judges.org (& .net) JAIL's message is spreading across this nation vociferously! Support JAIL @ P.O. Box 207, No. Hollywood, CA 91603
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." --Samuel Adams "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <>< ______________________________________________
The time has come for us to take the JAIL Initiative and bring changes in both the political and judicial arenas of our nation. The publicity of bringing actions under the RICO ACT provides a vehicle for that to be achieved. There is a structure that must be met to qualify for filing under RICO, and from the hundreds of emails lamenting the horrific conduct so many individuals have shared with me, I have confidence that there is an appreciable number who will qualify. We can achieve the most effectiveness by cooperating and sharing information. Unless one is a lawyer they cannot give legal advice, but there is no prohibition in sharing what we have gleaned. We can share knowledge. NO ONE HAS IMMUNITY UNDER RICO, a black collar criminal is no less a criminal that John Gotti !!!
The politicians who will not fulfill their oath of office can and should be held accountable under RICO--- WE CAN DO IT! Both Rep Henry Hyde and Rep. D. Hastert are fully informed as to the great need for judicial accountability, as are countless others, such as Senator Fred THOMPSON! They have chosen to do nothing. That is simply not good enough.
Our people are in great peril. NOW is the time to ACT. By coordination and cooperation we CAN, and WILL turn the tide. With a few RICO cases, even a slug like Henry Hyde will get the message, and will be more likely to commence bonafide hearings on the JAIL BILL that results in getting it passed rather than end up job hunting.
These are NOT the courts of the government elitist!! WE are the government! These are OUR COURTS!!! Under RICO we can start the move to achieve our constitutionally guaranteed rights again, and Henry Hyde and his crew will grasp that, especially if he is named in a series of RICO suits. NO ONE HAS IMMUNITY UNDER RICO--- we cannot stress that too much.
I believe we should make a bonafide effort to gain a cooperative/harmonious resolution first: The individual judges, et al, involved should have the opportunity to do what is required to redeem the situation: Our purpose should be for justice to be done and to get this system cleaned up so it functions for us.
Any one interested in pursing this as a possible solution please contact me, robertahamlin@..., and I will act as a central clearing house to enable us to share information, etc. For those of us who are low income we can file pro se, and if it is denied we can name the magistrates who recommend denying redress in our courts & under RICO provisions. A few of them held accountable will send shockwaves throughout the entire judicial system.
We are not weak or helpless. There is no excuse for playing the victim role. I, for one, have NO intention of sitting idly by and watch the destruction of my nation by a batch of shiftless ONE WORLDERS who want to turn us over to the powers of Darkness. Jesus had John the Baptist to prepare the way for Him, Lucifer has the judges, IF WE LET THEM!
I AM ROBERTA HAMLIN
I have signed on to hotmail for my emails. Lets get this going NOW! My email is robertahamlin@... and all interested individuals can contact me there. No matter where I am I can access it.
(In response to "No Right To Expose Judicial System")
Ron:
This "criminal trespass" scam is just one of many being used against innocent people to silence us. The Judges in Oregon are also trespassing courtwatchers and advocates from public buildings without crime, without warrant, without hearings. Myself and at least five other direct members of our courtwatchers have been brutally tortured, maced, attacked, arrested and banned from Oregon courthouses and public buildings, because we have exposed the government corruption.
....
The presiding judge Paul Lipscomb had written a memo, banishing me from the courthouse, with no hearing, in March 1998, after we filed a 500 million dollar Racketeering Complaint against the STATE OR OREGON.
I challenged Judge Lipscomb immediately to charge me with a crime, produce discovery, lawful warrants, probable cause, and lawfully allow me to face my accuser. Of course, no response to the demands, only enforcement against innocent people. This culminated in a jury trial in August 1998. For four days they heard the horrendous testimony about criminal abuse by the STATE of OREGON, perpetrator judges, attorneys, and elected officials.
At the end of the trial, Judge Charles Lukenin instructed the jury that "even if there was no signed order, and even if she was falsely arrested, she is guilty of criminal trespass and resisting arrest."
I cross-examined Presiding Judge Lipscomb at the trial, where he sat in the witness seat in his own courtroom, dropped the files on the floor, and kept saying "Yes, ma'am, no ma'am." He said he did not have a boss besides the voting booth, and that if I did not like the banishment, I could take it up in the Supreme Court (which we have done repeatedly, and as this article describes, was dismissed and ignored without hearing routinely).
In the trial, Judge Lipscomb testified that for "reasons of safety and security" he had made a "singular decision" to "permanently ... banish Pamela Gaston from the Marion County Courthouse."
....
THEY ARE INSANE AND AT THIS POINT ARE ACTING LIKE RABID DOGS....
....
I would like to see other people report from other states about the judges using this to violate the Public from Public Buildings. It is up to the People to stop this. At the end of the article [see below] the writer says "the outcome of this affects us all" - and he is right !
Charles Levendosky Editorial Page Editor Casper Star-Tribune Tel: 307-234-0338 Fax: 307-234-0338 Columnist New York Times wire Web Master First Amendment Cyber-Tribune http://w3.trib.com/FACT/
WHEN COURTS SUBVERT LAW
TO BANISH A CRITIC
(EDITOR'S NOTE: Charles Levendosky, editorial page editor of the Casper (Wyo.) Star-Tribune, has a national reputation for First Amendment commentary. His email address is levendos(AT-sign)trib.com.)
By CHARLES LEVENDOSKY c. 2000 Casper (Wyo.) Star-Tribune
In Vermont, a number of state judges and one federal judge don't think citizens have the right to attend criminal or civil trials -- at least not those citizens who criticize judges or the decisions they make. Citizen-reporter Scott Huminski has been summarily barred from Vermont courts for his criticisms.
His case is a lesson in how those in power, even when they know they are wrong can subvert constitutional guarantees of liberty.
Although Huminski transports antiques for a living, for the past three years he has been on a crusade watching how his state courts operate. He attends state court proceedings and then publicizes what he considers misconduct with posters placed in the windows of his Bennington home and in the windows of his van. He also distributes information about the proceedings to attorneys and government officials.
One of Huminski's posters contained the headline, "Judge Corsones: Butcher of the Constitution" and beneath it, Huminski listed five reasons why he made that claim. One of the reasons, Huminski charged was that Rutland District Court Judge Nancy Corsones "strips defendants of the right to defense counsel."
That poster resulted in him being banished from "all lands and property under the control of the Supreme Court and the Commissioner of Buildings and General Services, including the Rutland District Court, parking areas, and lands."
Judge M. Patricia Zimmerman of the Rutland District Court signed this sweeping trespass notice on May 27, 1999. The Bennington County Sheriff's Department served Huminski with the notice.
Clearly, Huminski is a gadfly, troubling the plodding steer of state. He may be bothersome, but he isn't a criminal. He has done nothing illegal. He has only exercised his rights as a U.S. citizen.
Zimmerman's trespass order is the third one issued against Huminski, but it is the broadest. The first trespass notice, issued only days earlier, prohibited Huminski from entering the Rutland District Court or its parking lot. The second trespass order barred him from entering Corsones' property.
If Huminski were to even park his van in the parking lot of a Vermont court, he could be arrested immediately.
The trespass notices were filed for one reason only -- Huminski criticized a state judge and her decisions.
Law enforcement officials make no claim that Huminski was disruptive, a public nuisance, or interfered with the administration of justice. He was quiet and attentive while in the courtroom and the courthouse. He neither picketed the courthouse, nor engaged in vulgar or obscene expression while there. He simply posted his opinions.
The trespass orders have worked. They have kept a citizen-reporter from engaging in public debate about his state courts. Huminski has not been close to a Vermont court for nearly a year. His reporting has been silenced.
Instead, Huminski filed a lawsuit in a federal district court against Rutland and Bennington law enforcement officials claiming they have violated the Vermont Constitution and his First Amendment rights to attend and report on court proceedings. He acted as his own attorney. And lost.
On Oct. 20, 1999, U.S. District Court Judge J.G. Murtha, apparently blinded by Huminski's harsh criticism of a judge, dismissed his claims. Murtha concluded that Huminski had "failed to demonstrate a clearly established federal right which the defendants violated." Never mind that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled time and again that the people have a right to criticize government officials.
In his decision, Murtha quoted a U.S. Supreme Court case having to do with picketing near a courthouse -- a very narrow decision that has nothing at all to do the facts of Huminski's case. No one asserted that Huminski had picketed the Rutland District Court. He hadn't.
The Vermont Constitution, in Article 13 of its Declaration of Rights, states: "That the people have a right to freedom of speech, and of writing and publishing their sentiments, concerning the transactions of government, and therefore the freedom of the press ought not to be restrained." How clear can it be? Courtroom proceedings are "transactions of government." And "the people have a right ... of writing and publishing their sentiments" concerning those transactions.
Now, Huminski has Robert Corn-Revere, an experienced and well-respected First Amendment attorney from Washington, D.C., handling his case. They have filed an appeal with the U.S. Second Court of Appeals.
According to Corn-Revere, he hopes that his client gets "a clear statement from the Second Circuit that local governmental officials don't have the ability to simply exclude people from the courthouses in the state of Vermont.
"More specifically, we would hope to get a ruling that eliminates the ability to simply use mechanisms like trespass law to silence critics of local judges. In short, what we're looking for is a clear declaration from the Second Circuit involving the fundamental First Amendment rights that are at stake in this case in the situation we're presented with here."
These Vermont law enforcement officials and judges have the astounding gall to seriously think that they can bar a citizen from the state courts for all time because that citizen criticized a judge. They make no bones about it.
In the briefs filed with the court of appeals, the attorneys for the sheriff's department, city law enforcement and city officials baldly state they have such a right.
And they note in their briefs that Huminski "has never attempted to enter courthouse property since service of the (trespass) notice, and thus has neither been denied access nor suffered any criminal sanction." The briefs assert, "Huminski has suffered no actual harm."
The series of events involving Huminski might be worse than a collusion of arrogance on the part of those in power to silence a critic.
Widespread ignorance of the foundation of liberty upon which this nation is built -- especially on the part of judges and law enforcement officials could eventually bring our nation crumbling down -- as if an earthquake had fractured the structural basis of our constitutional values. An earthquake of ignorance.
Arrogance or ignorance? That isn't much of a choice. Either way, Huminski has been unfairly and illegally persecuted by the power structure in Vermont. The harm he has suffered, all of us share. The outcome of this case affects us all.
Note: In the early stages of JAIL, Ronald Branson, author of the JAIL Initiative was passing out literature to passers-by regarding his state recognized proposed initiative, outside a courthouse in Van Nuys, California. A sheriff's deputy then came out of the courthouse and told Branson he was trespassing on private property and would have to leave. Branson responded, "This is not private property, it is public property. This property belongs to the people. It is my property." The sheriff deputy then when for back up.
Branson now asks how public property has now become "private property?" Did we the people sell our public property to some private person? When did the sale take place, and who now owns it? How much money did we get for it, and what happened to the money? How can a legal activity of promoting a state initiative in a public place become a crime? Are these judges frightened of us? We are their boss, and they work for us!
The answer to the second to last question is "Yes," our servants are indeed afraid of us. JAIL will put them in their rightful place!
J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) Use header to subscribe/remove: jail4judges@... JAIL is a unique addition to our form of government. JAIL is powerful! It is dynamic! It is America's ONLY hope! Visit JAIL's informative websites, www.jail4judges.org (& .net) JAIL's message is spreading across this nation vociferously! Support JAIL @ P.O. Box 207, No. Hollywood, CA 91603
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." --Samuel Adams "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <>< ______________________________________________
Risking It All on a Legal Crusade Lawyer defied professional standards to get a corrupt judge disbarred. But his practice, home life suffered.
By BARRY SIEGEL, Times Staff Writer
TACOMA, Wash.--Doug Schafer could not believe what he was hearing. It sounded absurd to him. It made no sense. You can't do this, Doug. Don't do this. You'll lose your license. You'll lose your livelihood. He was sitting in a Tacoma law office. Before him was a former law partner, Philip Sloan, and a former client, Bill Hamilton. Sloan was speaking. If you disclose anything derived from your talks with Hamilton, there will be trouble. We don't want to, but if necessary we'll file a grievance with the state bar. What Schafer had derived from Hamilton were hints of corruption about a Superior Court judge. Although most lawyer-client conversations are privileged, protected by confidentiality, Schafer thought it wrong to keep silent. He'd found himself before this judge recently. He'd found it appalling to be subjected to Grant Anderson's rulings. He was determined to expose him. ....
It was in July 1995 that Schafer found himself standing before Judge Grant Anderson. The judge was making rulings against Schafer's client in a dispute over division of an estate. It suddenly struck Schafer: Anderson was the guy Bill Hamilton had talked about three years before. Hamilton had bought a bowling alley from an estate. Anderson, still a lawyer but about to take the bench, had been trustee of that estate. Anderson has been milking the estate for years. . . . He's going to give me a good deal on the bowling alley. . . . I want to pay him back. That's how Schafer recalled his client's words, though Hamilton would later adamantly dispute the memory. Now, in Anderson's courtroom, Schafer thought: He's the guy. . . . And he's wearing a black robe. Back at his office, he pulled out Bill Hamilton's file. In his notes, he found the name of the estate--Hoffman--from which Hamilton had bought the bowling alley. At the Tacoma courthouse, he checked out the Hoffman estate file. He thumbed through it, taking notes. Something jumped out at him: Anderson was the only lawyer involved in this estate; no one represented the rural public hospital that was the estate's chief beneficiary. Something else jumped out: Anderson had collected some $112,000 in fees. Schafer didn't like what he saw. Still, he put the matter aside. If his client Bill Hamilton had done anything wrong, he explained later, the statute of limitations would expire in a few months. He thought it best to wait. Then came more negative rulings and comments from Anderson. Near the end of the year, Schafer felt compelled to act. Following a hearing on Dec. 15, he returned to the court clerk's office and again checked out the Hoffman estate file. This time he photocopied every page. After studying what he had, he made three calls. The first went to the state attorney general's office. The second went to the estate's beneficiary, Ocean Beach Hospital. The third went to his old client, Bill Hamilton. He and Hamilton met at a coffee shop early on the morning of Dec. 18. Schafer shared his research and grilled his client about possible paybacks for the "sweet deal" on the bowling alley. Hamilton expressed alarm at where Schafer was headed. Hamilton says he also warned Schafer not to violate client confidentiality. Schafer insists that what Hamilton actually said was, "Stop looking for dirt" on Judge Anderson. On the phone two days later, Hamilton was even firmer and angrier. As Hamilton recalls it, he cautioned Schafer not to use "incorrect and vengeful" recollections and not to "violate attorney-client privilege." As Schafer recalls it, Hamilton advised "that I should just 'drop it.' " Schafer wouldn't drop it. All through January, he made calls and collected public documents. Aware of Schafer's activity, Hamilton faxed him a letter terminating their attorney-client relationship and demanding that Schafer not disclose privileged and "knowingly false" information. Within minutes, Schafer called and suggested they get together. So it was that Schafer, on the afternoon of Feb. 1, 1996, found himself sitting before Hamilton and Phil Sloan, once Schafer's partner in the small Tacoma firm, now Hamilton's attorney. Don't do this, Doug. You'll lose your license. You'll lose your livelihood. I was your partner when your boys were born. If you lose your license, you could lose everything. Memories of this meeting differ. Schafer recalls being stressed, tired, but under control. Sloan and his colleagues describe him as wired, manic, visibly agitated. All do agree that Sloan urged Schafer to seek psychiatric counseling. All also agree that Sloan's words failed to persuade Schafer. The rules of professional conduct, it seemed to him, weren't the only guide for lawyers' moral and ethical conduct. A lawyer may do--must do--what is fundamentally right. As a matter of law, Schafer didn't think he'd be violating client confidentiality if he exposed Anderson. Yet even if he were, so what? There's corruption; there's integrity. There's good; there's evil. He had to blow the whistle on a judge he believed guilty of wrongdoing. Rules can't cover all the territory; rules can be interpreted any way you want. Moral right transcends written rules. This guy Anderson, a sitting judge daily wearing the black robe, was demonstrably corrupt. That was more important than rules of privilege. That was intolerable. That should be intolerable to any law-abiding person. That in and of itself should outweigh any policy about client privilege. Plenty of others, as it happens, see it otherwise. There are reasons why lawyers face sanctions for revealing clients' confidences. If lawyers were free to reveal bad acts of their clients, people couldn't safely go to lawyers, and couldn't talk freely if they did. They'd lose all rights. The confidentiality privilege reflects the lasting belief that a person's right to counsel outweighs society's need for a particular act of misconduct to be exposed. There are exceptions to the privilege--including a duty to warn about coming danger or criminal fraud--which reflect continuing efforts to balance competing values. There is also talk in the American Bar Assn. about expanding those exceptions, part of a centuries-long debate. Yet in Washington, it remains a violation to disclose a client's communication about past misdeeds. "I don't give a s---," Schafer declared. "Think of the consequences," Sloan appealed. "I don't care." The next day, Sloan faxed to Schafer a hand-scribbled follow-up note: "Bill H. instructs you not to disclose any communications re: Grant Anderson to anyone. If you do, you will be in violation of RPC 1.6, triggering action under RPC 8.3. Please protect your family if not yourself and stop your threats. If I can help, please call." Schafer didn't stop, didn't call. He didn't agonize over his course, he didn't for a minute see himself facing an ambiguous choice. Asked later why he didn't simply blow the whistle on Anderson without revealing his client's confidences, Schafer explained that it wouldn't have been as effective: "Look how hard it was to get any attention even with disclosing everything."
Schafer Presses His Case In the days after his meeting with Sloan and Hamilton, Schafer took all he had--including an affidavit summarizing his conversations with Bill Hamilton--to the Pierce County prosecuting attorney, the state attorney general's office, the state bar disciplinary board, the IRS, the FBI and the Commission on Judicial Review. He also approached Ocean Beach Hospital, the beneficiary of the Hoffman estate. In his arms by now were hundreds of documents, a labyrinth of detail. Schafer's view of Anderson's malfeasance had evolved, reaching well beyond the bowling alley sale. A memo he drafted late that February to "appropriate public officials" ranged over a variety of issues, from possible tax violations to how Anderson sold time-share units in a seaside resort owned by the Hoffman estate. Even Schafer acknowledges that some were based on supposition, some lacked documentation and some never panned out. Worse yet, all were aimed at a well-connected judge in a small legal community: Anderson came out of an active Tacoma law firm; he served on the Washington State Board of Education for 23 years, for a time as its president; he was a former state bar disciplinary hearing officer; he'd been endorsed by the Tacoma News Tribune; he enjoyed overwhelming support in a Pierce County Bar Assn. poll. It was no surprise, then, that for a good while no one appeared interested in what Schafer brought them. The county prosecutor passed first. The state attorney general's office said it had no jurisdiction. The state bar found no basis for charges. That's not to say the state bar wasn't interested: Instead of Anderson, Schafer drew its attention. In August 1996, the same month it closed the file on the judge, the state bar's Office of Disciplinary Counsel opened an investigation of the attorney.
Tripped Up by a Cadillac The turning point came when the state Commission on Judicial Review, alone among all agencies, finally decided to conduct its own extended review into Grant Anderson's handling of the Hoffman estate. A commission investigator thought Schafer highly credible. She found in his documents a clear, straightforward case of fraud. Wherever she turned, she verified what he had. This case, she told him, looks like "a 13 on a scale of 1 to 10." What undid Anderson was his Cadillac. It came to Schafer's attention first, through a tip from another lawyer. He suspected it was a possible payoff from Hamilton for providing a sweet deal on the bowling alley. He vainly tried to get the Cadillac's license plate number from another judge, then from the county prosecutor. He ended up wandering around the Tacoma courthouse parking lot where the judges parked their cars. He spotted a Cadillac. Looking in the window, he saw Anderson's mail sitting on the front seat. He copied down the car's license plate number. Back at his office, he contacted the state department of licensing and requested the Cadillac's ownership records. It showed only that Anderson had financed the Cadillac with a loan from Hamilton's bank. Nothing in the record could confirm Schafer's suspicions. It was left to the Commission on Judicial Conduct to connect the dots Schafer brought them. Paul Taylor, a Seattle attorney hired by the commission to prosecute Anderson, started wondering what Anderson's ex-wife knew about the Cadillac. He approached her. Anderson, she revealed, had described his new Cadillac to her as a "commission" on the bowling alley deal. Eventually, Taylor discovered that Bill Hamilton had been making Anderson's $800-a-month car payments, a total of $31,000 before he stopped. Soon after those payments began, Anderson, by then a judge, had agreed to reduce the initial selling price of the bowling alley by almost $100,000. He had also remained president of two corporations owned by the estate for 10 months after taking the bench. After an 18-month investigation, the commission filed charges against Anderson in August 1997. Most centered on the Cadillac deal, which was the part of the case Taylor felt most certain he could prove. Those expecting Schafer to rest or celebrate were mistaken. He wasn't the least satisfied: The commission had ignored three-quarters of the accusations he'd brought them. Schafer began bombarding everyone in sight with letters, documents and phone calls. In December 1997 he prepared a four-page overview of the case--"Exposing the Crook Inside the Robe"--and near noon on a Friday asked a court administrator to place copies in all the Pierce County judges' mailboxes. The administrator balked, so Schafer camped out in her office. Late in the afternoon, she finally agreed to put them in the boxes on Monday. That wasn't soon enough for Schafer: He tried to hand-deliver copies to three judges' homes on Saturday morning. When that drew no response--other than an agitated complaint from one judge's wife to Schafer's--he went public, distributing his flier to the news media, law firms and anyone passing by on the steps of the county courthouse. Three weeks later, as Anderson's hearing unfolded before the Judicial Commission, Schafer plied the commission's prosecutor with more documents, often waiting for him in the lobby of his Tacoma hotel. On the first day, Schafer also insisted on attending the hearing, although like all subpoenaed witnesses he was barred from the proceedings. To remove him, authorities had to adjourn and obtain a temporary restraining order from a Superior Court judge. By then, Schafer's conduct was driving a good number of people to absolute distraction. Some cringed when he approached with an armful of documents. Some felt close to threatened. One Pierce County judge, after receiving a call from Schafer at home on a Saturday night, directed him not to contact her again, explaining, "I am alarmed by your statement that you will feel 'alone and betrayed' . . . . As well as your statement that 'I may even lose it.' " To one lawyer he thought was moving too slowly, Schafer wrote, "Forgive me if I get too emotional about such antiquated concepts as 'truth,' 'justice,' and 'morality,' but I think about 'the Judge' every day, and being able to periodically vent in this manner perhaps keeps me from acting out my 'vigilante justice' fantasies." Schafer offers a range of reactions when asked whether he realizes that others regard his conduct as unusual. Mostly, he's perplexed and offended. He prefers the term "tenacious" to zealous, pointing out that the words people choose reflect their personal bias. He thinks his is proper conduct for someone who cares passionately, for someone who has seen everything he believes in shattered. He thinks he's going as far as he must. "There are wrongs in society where anyone who cares about people is going to act compulsively, obsessively," he says. "I see myself as a business transaction lawyer. I was putting my time and resources into a righteous cause. I knew I was right. The only question was, how much effort was needed to win. The idea that I'm not allowed to knock on the door of an elected official and hand him a piece of paper--I don't understand that. I don't see anything wrong. It's information they should have."
Unsatisfied With Guilty Verdict In April 1998, the Washington Commission on Judicial Conduct found Judge Anderson guilty of three violations: Accepting $31,000 in Cadillac payments while negotiating a lowered price for the bowling alley, not disclosing those payments and continuing as president of the Hoffman estate's corporations after taking the bench. Yet for violating various judicial canons, the commission imposed only a four-month suspension on Anderson. Again, Schafer was neither satisfied nor quelled. He promptly filed a grievance against one of the commission's judges, claiming he shouldn't have heard the case because he had a past relationship with Anderson's attorney. Schafer began hammering the lawyer for Ocean Beach Hospital, which as beneficiary of the Hoffman estate had threatened a lawsuit against Anderson, declaring that he'd "lost confidence that your firm has the principled determination necessary to expose fraudulent exploitation." Most important, he turned to state legislators in Olympia, sending each of them letters and e-mail messages, urging them to do what the commission had not: Remove Anderson from office. After holding a public hearing, the state Legislature appeared inclined to do just that, not the least because Ocean Beach Hospital--whose administrator testified she felt robbed of $1.5 million--happened to be located in the Senate majority leader's district. The Washington Supreme Court acted first, however. Following a mandatory review of the commission's findings, the high court ruled unanimously that, given the "egregious nature and extent of Judge Anderson's misconduct," suspension wasn't a strong enough penalty: Anderson should be removed from the bench for "a pattern of dishonest behavior unbecoming a judge." It was the first time in state history that the Supreme Court ordered a Superior Court judge removed from the bench for ethics violations. It was also the first time that an appeal to the Supreme Court of a Judicial Commission penalty was met with an even harsher sanction. Schafer heard the news in an early morning call from a reporter. He quickly read the court's opinion on its Web site. It astounded him. God, he thought, they actually must have read the record. They actually cared enough to do their job. Schafer cast about for what next to do. There was no point calling his wife; she'd long ago declared she didn't want to hear anything more about Grant Anderson. Nor was there much of a point in sharing this with the other lawyers in his office suite; they were weary of him. Instead, Schafer picked up the phone and called the chambers of Supreme Court Justice Barbara Madsen, who'd written the opinion. He'd spotted a mistake in her analysis, a need for correction. She'd quoted from an outdated constitutional amendment that had since been revised. On the phone, he explained as much to Madsen's administrative assistant, who then asked what he thought generally of the opinion. He offered his praise. The assistant said, "Justice Madsen will be glad to hear that." Schafer weeps still over the memory. "That's when I got a sense they're aware there is a human being down here behind this." Although Doug Schafer inspires extreme responses, it's not hard to hear ambivalence in many people's comments. "The fact is, mad dog zealots can be right," says John Strait, a Seattle University law professor and ethics specialist. "The fact is, mad dog zealots can do good things."
Victor Awaits Disciplinary Hearing In the end, Schafer's "good things" reached beyond Anderson's removal from the bench. Just before the Legislature's hearing, Ocean Beach Hospital settled its claim against Anderson and his colleagues for $500,000. Just after the hearing, the state bar revealed it had reopened its investigation of Anderson because "evidence came to light . . . that was unknown to us." Just weeks ago, in mid-March, the state bar's disciplinary board approved a two-year suspension of Anderson from the practice of law. Yet to bring all this about, Schafer inevitably crossed lines that most wouldn't cross and don't think should be crossed. That is why he and his crusade have roiled all sorts of people in Washington. Schafer says he "can't fathom" any "responsible person" not revealing a client's confidence in order to expose a corrupt judge. Others can: Nine weeks before the Washington Supreme Court removed Anderson, the state bar formally filed its charges against Schafer. His hearing--delayed, not surprisingly, by a barrage of motions he filed--is now scheduled for July 17. While he waits, Schafer prepares his next campaign: a run for election to the Washington Supreme Court. He announced his candidacy in early May. The notion of being a state Supreme Court justice pleases him as little else does. "Then I could set policy," he points out, offering a faint smile. "Then I could decide what the rules mean." Copyright 2000 Los Angeles Times
J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) Use header to subscribe/remove: jail4judges@... JAIL is a unique addition to our form of government. JAIL is powerful! It is dynamic! It is America's ONLY hope! Visit JAIL's informative websites, www.jail4judges.org (& .net) JAIL's message is spreading across this nation vociferously! Support JAIL @ P.O. Box 207, No. Hollywood, CA 91603
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." --Samuel Adams "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <>< ______________________________________________
I just heard a story about a Judge in Virginia on Face the Nation. Seems a landlord hauled into court a deaf couple who were $250.00 behind in their rent. The landlord wanted them evicted. When Judge Mac Donald learned that the couple had miscalculated their finances, he whipped out $250.00 in cash, handed to the landlord and said, "I'll pay it. Case Dismissed." Some times it's good to hear positive things about the judiciary. We can't judge the whole barrel by the rotten apples. Too bad we don't have more stories like this.
From Connie O., a J.A.I.L. subscriber.
We had verbally heard about this from other sources.
J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) Use header to subscribe/remove: jail4judges@... JAIL is a unique addition to our form of government. JAIL is powerful! It is dynamic! It is America's ONLY hope! Visit JAIL's informative websites, www.jail4judges.org (& .net) JAIL's message is spreading across this nation vociferously! Support JAIL @ P.O. Box 207, No. Hollywood, CA 91603
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." --Samuel Adams "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <>< ______________________________________________
MEMO TO: Jesus, Son of Joseph The Woodcrafter's Carpenter Shop Nazareth 25922
FROM: Jordan Management Consultants Jerusalem 26544
Thank you for submitting the resumes of the twelve men you have picked for managerial positions in your new organization. All of them have now taken our battery of tests, and we have not only run the results through our computers, but also arranged personal interviews for each of them with our psychologist and vocation aptitude consultant.
It is the opinion of the staff that most of your nominees are lacking in background, education and vocational aptitude for the type of enterprise you are undertaking. They do not have the team concept. We recommend that you continue your search for persons of experience in managerial ability and proven capacity.
We have summarized the findings of our study below:
* Simon Peter is emotional, unstable and given to fits of temper.
* Andrew has absolutely no quality of leadership.
* The two brothers, James and John, the sons of Zebedee, place personal interests above Company loyalty.
* Thomas demonstrates a questioning attitude that would tend to undermine morale.
* We believe it is our duty to tell you that the Greater Jerusalem Better Business Bureau has blacklisted Matthew.
* James, the sons of Alphaeus, and Thaddeus definitely have radical leanings. Additionally, they both registered high scores on the manic depressive scale.
* However, one of the candidates shows great potential. He's a man of ability and resourcefulness; he is a great networker; has a keen business mind; and has strong contacts in influential circles. He's highly motivated, very ambitious and adept with financial matters. We recommend Judas Iscariot as your Controller and Chief Operating Officer.
All the other profiles are self-explanatory. We wish you the utmost success in your new venture.
What if Jesus had chosen the twelve based on the modern methods of leadership selection? Most of them would have never had a chance to participate.
Jesus chooses people not for who they are, but for what they can become in Him. Aren't you glad that when Jesus looked at you, He didn't take you for what you were (a sinner); but He took you for what you could be. Jesus sees the potential in all of us, and has called us to be disciples.
A preacher was making his rounds to his parishioners on a bicycle, when he > came upon a little boy trying to sell a lawnmower. > "How much do you want for the mower?" asked the preacher. > "I'm just trying to make enough money to buy a bicycle," said the little > boy. > After a moment of consideration, the preacher asked, "Will you take my > bike in trade for it?" > The boy said, "You got a deal." > The preacher took the mower and tried to crank it. He pulled on the string > a few times with no response from the mower. > The preacher called the little boy over and said, "I can't get this mower > to start." > The little boy said, "That's 'cause you have to cuss at it to get it > started." > The preacher said, "I'm a minister, and I can't cuss. It's been so long > since I've been saved that I don't know if I even remember how to cuss." > The little boy looked at him happily and said, "Just keep pulling on that > string. It'll come back to ya!"
The City Council on Friday approved a $775,000 settlement in a case in which police serving a drug-related search warrant stormed the wrong house, terrifying an elderly couple and seven other people.
Narcotics officers from the LAPD's Southwest Division mistakenly went to the South Central Los Angeles home of Climon Hawkins, 68, and his wife, Sally, 65, on April 7, 1997.
The Hawkins' attorney, Paul deMontesquiou said the officers were looking for a home two doors down.
"The officers cuffed everyone and pointed guns," deMontesquiou said.
The Hawkins were treated for lower back and knee injuries.
--City News Service
J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) Use header to subscribe/remove: jail4judges@... JAIL is a unique addition to our form of government. JAIL is powerful! It is dynamic! It is America's ONLY hope! Visit JAIL's informative websites, www.jail4judges.org (& .net) JAIL's message is spreading across this nation vociferously! Support JAIL @ P.O. Box 207, No. Hollywood, CA 91603
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." --Samuel Adams "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <>< ______________________________________________
Mr. President, I appear on the floor to speak about a provision of the Constitution of our country that has been under nearly constant attack for 8 years. In fact, we heard on the floor this morning two Senators speak about provisions in law that would alter a constitutional right. The provision I am talking about is part of our Bill of Rights-- the first 10 amendments to our Constitution--which protect our most basic rights from being stripped away by an overly zealous government, including rights that all Americans hold dear: The freedom to worship according to one's conscience; The freedom to speak or to write whatever we might think; The freedom to criticize our Government; And, the freedom to assemble peacefully. Among the safeguards of these fundamental rights, we find the Second Amendment. Let me read it clearly: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. I want to repeat that. The second amendment of our Constitution says very clearly that 'A well regulated Militia' is 'necessary' for the 'security of a free State,' and that 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' What we heard this morning was an effort to infringe upon that right. Some--even of my colleagues--will read what I have just quoted from our Constitution quite differently. They might read 'A well regulated Militia,' and stop there and declare that 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms' actually means that it is a right of our Government to keep and bear arms because they associate the militia with the government. Yet, under this standard, the Bill of Rights would protect only the right of a government to speak, or the right of a government to criticize itself, if you were taking that same argument and transposing it over the first amendment. In fact, the Bill of Rights protects the rights of people from being infringed upon by Government--not the other way around. Of course, we know that our Founding Fathers in their effort to ratify the Constitution could not convince the citizens to accept it until the Bill of Rights was established to assure the citizenry that we were protecting the citizens from Government instead of government from the citizens. Others say that the Second Amendment merely protects hunting and sport shooting. They see shooting competitions and hunting for food as the only legitimate uses of guns, and, therefore, conclude that the Second Amendment is no impediment to restricting gun use to those purposes. You can hear it in the way President Clinton assures hunters that his gun control proposals that will not trample on recreation-- though his proposals certainly walk all over their rights. In fact, the Second Amendment does not merely protect sport shooting and hunting, though it certainly does that. Nor does the second amendment exist to protect the government's right to bear arms. The framers of our Constitution wrote the Second Amendment with a greater purpose. They made the Second Amendment the law of the land because it has something very particular to say about the rights of every man and every woman, and about the relationship of every man and every woman to his or her Government. That is: The first right of every human being, the right of self-defense. Let me repeat that: The first right of every human being is the right of self-defense. Without that right, all other rights are meaningless. The right of self-defense is not something the government bestows upon its citizens. It is an inalienable right, older than the Constitution itself. It existed prior to government and prior to the social contract of our Constitution. It is the right that government did not create and therefore it is a right that under our Constitution the government simply cannot take away. The framers of our Constitution understood this clearly. Therefore, they did not merely acknowledge that the right exists. They denied Congress the power to infringe upon that right. Under the social contract that is the Constitution of the United States, the American people have told Congress explicitly that we do not have the authority to abolish the American people's right to defend themselves. Further, the framers said not only does the Congress not have the power to abolish that right, but Congress may not even infringe upon that right. That is what our Constitution says. That is what the Second Amendment clearly lays out. Our Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment to tell us that a free state cannot exist if the people are denied the right or the means to defend themselves. Let me repeat that because it is so fundamental to our freedom. A free state cannot exist, our free state of the United States collectively, cannot exist without the right of the people to defend themselves. This is the meaning of the Second Amendment. Over the years a lot of our citizens and many politicians have tried to nudge that definition around. But contrary to what the media and the President say, the right to keep and bear arms is as important today as it was 200 years ago. Every day in this country thousands of peaceful, law-abiding Americans use guns to defend themselves, their families, and their property. Oftentimes, complete strangers are protected by that citizen who steps up and stops the thief or the stalker or the rapist or the murderer from going at that citizen. According to the FBI, criminals used guns in 1998 380,000 times across America. Yet research indicates that peaceful, law- abiding Americans, using their constitutional right, used a gun to prevent 2.5 million crimes in America that year and nearly every year. In fact, I believe the benefits of protecting the people's right to keep and bear arms far outweighs the destruction wrought by criminals and firearms accidents. The Centers for Disease Control report 32,000 Americans died from firearm injuries in 1997; under any estimate, that is a tragedy. Unfortunately, the Centers for Disease Control do not keep data on the number of lives that were saved when guns were used in a defensive manner. Yet if we were to survey the public every year, we would find 400,000 Americans report they used a gun in a way that almost certainly saved either their life or someone else's. Is that estimate too high? Perhaps. I hope it is, because every time a life is saved from violence, that means that someone was threatening a life with violence. But that number would have to be over 13 times too high for our opponents to be correct when they say that guns are used to kill more often than they are used to protect. What they have been saying here and across America simply isn't true and the facts bear that out. We are not debating the tragedy. We are debating facts at this moment. They cannot come up with 2.5 million gun crimes. But clearly, through surveys, we can come up with 2.5 million crimes thwarted every year when someone used a gun in defense of themselves or their property. In many cases, armed citizens not only thwarted crime, but they held the suspect until the authorities arrived and placed that person in custody. Stories of people defending themselves with guns do not make the nightly news. It just simply isn't news in America. It isn't hot. It isn't exciting. It is American. Sometimes when people act in an American way, it simply isn't reportable in our country anymore. So the national news media doesn't follow it. Yet two of the school shootings that have brought gun issues to the forefront in the last year, in Pearl, MS, and Edinboro, PA, were stopped by peaceful gun owners using their weapons to subdue the killer until the police arrived. How did that get missed in the story? It was mentioned once, in passing, and then ignored as people ran to the floor of the Senate to talk about the tragedy of the killing. Of course the killing was a tragedy, but it was also heroic that someone used their constitutional right to save lives in the process. A third school shooting in Springfield, OR, was stopped because some parents took time to teach their child the wise use of guns. So when that young man heard a particular sound coming from the gun, he was able to rush the shooter, because he knew that gun had run out of ammunition. He was used to guns. He was around them. He subdued the shooter and saved potentially many other lives. We have recognized him nationally for that heroic act, that young high school student of Springfield, OR. For some reason, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle never want to tell these stories. They only want to say, after a crisis such as this, 'Pass a new gun control law and call 9-1-1.' Yet these stories are essential to our understanding of the right of people to keep and bear arms. I will share a few of these stories right now. Shawnra Pence, a 29-year-old mother from Sequim, WA, home alone with one of her children, heard an intruder break into the house. She took her .9 mm, took her child to the bedroom, and when the 18-year-old criminal broke into the bedroom, she said, 'Get out of my house, I have a gun, get out now.' He left and the police caught him. She saved her life and her child's life. It made one brief story in the Peninsula Daily news in Sequim, WA. We have to talk about these stories because it is time America heard the other side of this debate. There are 2.5 million Americans out there defending themselves and their property by the use of their constitutional right. In Cumberland, TN, a 28-year-old Jason McCulley broke into the home of Stanley Horn and his wife, tied up the couple at knife- point, and demanded to know where the couple kept some cash. While Mrs. Horn was directing the robber, Mr. Horn wriggled free from his restraints, retrieved his handgun, shot the intruder, and then called the police. The intruder, Jason McCulley, subsequently died. If some Senators on the other side of the aisle had their way, perhaps the Horns would have been killed and Jason McCulley would have walked away. Earlier today, we heard the Senator from Illinios and the Senator from California read the names people killed by guns in America. Some day they may read the name Jason McCulley. I doubt they will tell you how he died, however, because it doesn't advance their goal of destroying the Second Amendment. But As Paul Harvey might say: Now you know the rest of the story. Every 13 seconds this story is repeated across America. Every 13 seconds in America someone uses a gun to stop a crime. Why do our opponents never tell these stories? Why do the enemies of the right to keep and bear arms ignore this reality that is relived by 2.5 million Americans every year? Why is it that all we hear from them is, 'Pass a new gun control law, and, by the way, call 9-1-1.' I encourage all listening today, if you have heard of someone using their Second Amendment rights to prevent a crime, to save a life, to protect another life, then send us your story. There are people here who desperately need to hear this in Washington, right here on Capitol Hill. This is a story that should be played out every day in the press but isn't. So let's play it out, right here on the floor of the Senate. Send me those stories from your local newspapers about that law- abiding citizen who used his constitutional right of self- defense. Send that story to me, Senator Larry Craig, Washington, DC, 20510, or send it to your own Senator. Let him or her know the rest of the story of America's constitutional rights. Having said all of this, let there be no mistake. Guns are not for everyone. We restrict children's access to guns and we restrict criminals' access to guns, but we must not tolerate politicians who tell us that the Second Amendment only protects the right to hunt. We must not tolerate politicians who infringe upon our right to defend ourselves from thieves and stalkers and rapists and murderers. And we must not tolerate the politician who simply says: 'Pass another gun control law and call 9-1-1.' I yield the floor.
Published in the Jun. 12, 2000 issue of The Washington Weekly Copyright 2000 The Washington Weekly. Now Free Access to All Stories at http://www.federal.com
Some observers say the legal profession is guilty of some of the grossest anti-competitive practices in the marketplace today -- and some of them are exactly the same faults plaintiffs' attorneys are alleging Microsoft is guilty of. So far, attorneys have filed more than 140 private antitrust suits against the software maker -- hoping, critics say, to cash in on the government's case.
But lawyers do everything they can to keep their own competitors at bay.
* Earlier this month, the New York State Bar Association called for a clearer definition of what constitutes the "practice of law" and for stepped up efforts to prosecute non-lawyers -- such as accountants and financial planners -- it believes are crossing the line.
* In the 1960s, the same group tried unsuccessfully to knock legal self-help books off the shelves -- claiming their authors were effectively practicing law without a license.
* Since then, state bars across the country have succeeded in shutting down low-cost alternative providers of legal advice.
* In one notorious case, a woman who helped poor clients in failed relationships obtain divorces was actually thrown in jail -- at the behest of the state bar -- for giving legal advice without a license.
While the legal profession protests that it is only trying to protect the public from incompetents, the fact is that only an estimated 11 percent of unauthorized practice suits involve any allegation that customers were actually harmed. The remaining cases are largely protectionist efforts to eliminate competition, critics charge.
Source: Robert Kry (Institute for Justice), "Real Monopolists: Microsoft Pales Compared With Lawyers' Groups," Investor's Business Daily, June 9, 2000.
Received by JAIL from Harsha Sankar
J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) Use header to subscribe/remove: jail4judges@... JAIL is a unique addition to our form of government. JAIL is powerful! It is dynamic! It is America's ONLY hope! Visit JAIL's informative websites, www.jail4judges.org (& .net) JAIL's message is spreading across this nation vociferously! Support JAIL @ P.O. Box 207, No. Hollywood, CA 91603
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." --Samuel Adams "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <>< ______________________________________________
2 Former San Diego Judges, Lawyer Get Prison Terms Court: All receive minimum sentences in the gifts-for-favors scandal that shook city's legal system.
By TONY PERRY, Times Staff Writer Two former San Diego judges and a former "lawyer of the year" were sentenced Monday by a federal judge in Los Angeles to minimum prison sentences for their roles in a gifts-for-favors scandal that rocked the San Diego legal system. The case revealed publicly an old-boy network of unusual coziness among some lawyers and judges. Former Superior Court Judges James Malkus and G. Dennis Adams and former civil attorney Patrick Frega were ordered by U.S. District Court Judge Edward Rafeedie* to begin their sentences July 10. The three have been free while appealing their 1996 convictions. "I have suffered shame, humiliation and sleepless nights," Malkus told Rafeedie. "I'm mortified by the embarrassment I have caused the judiciary," Adams said outside the courtroom. Rafeedie rebuffed a request by federal prosecutors to impose maximum sentences. Still, the case reaffirmed the controversial principle that it is illegal, not just unethical, for judges to receive gifts from lawyers whose cases they are hearing--even if it cannot be proven that the gifts were in exchange for specific preferential treatment. Rafeedie sentenced Adams, 58, to 38 months; Malkus, 63, to 30 months; and Frega, 54, to 41 months. In all three cases the sentences were the minimum under federal guidelines. After the 1996 trial, Rafeedie sentenced Adams and Frega to 41 months and Malkus to 33 months. But the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals voided one count of the conviction against the two judges. The case went back to Rafeedie for resentencing after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal. A third ex-jurist, former Presiding Judge Michael Greer, escaped a prison sentence only by becoming the star witness for prosecutors. He pleaded guilty and was placed on probation. Frega, who often represented consumers against large corporations, lavished more than $100,000 in gifts on the three judges from 1983 to 1992. Among them: automobiles, vacations, office equipment, health club memberships and jobs for the judges' children. The judges coached Frega on how to present his cases, pressured opposing attorneys into reaching out-of-court settlements and assigned his cases to "friendly" judges. Greer and Malkus resigned in 1993 during an investigation by the Commission on Judicial Performance. Adams was ousted by the California Superior Court in 1995. A dozen other San Diego judges and lawyers received scolding letters from the commission. San Diego Presiding Court Judge Wayne Peterson, in a telephone interview, said the case has been "a dark cloud" over the San Diego judiciary. "Members of the judiciary have had to suffer for the sins of these participants for years," he said. "It's very difficult to be on the defensive for actions you did not commit, errors you did not make."
Copyright 2000 Los Angeles Times
* Lest anyone think U.S. District Court Judge Edward Rafeedie is an angel, let's look into his background. Rafeedie was a defense attorney who frequented the Santa Monica Branch Office of the Los Angeles District Attorney where Stephen Trott was Head Deputy (now on the 9th Circuit Courts of Appeal by appointment of President Ronald Reagan.)
Through the recommendation of Trott, Rafeedie received a position as Superior Court judge in the Santa Monica court where he later became presiding judge.
Thereafter Rafeedie was recommended to and appointed by President Ronald Reagan to the federal district court in Los Angeles.
As a federal district judge, Ronald Branson had the occasion of a case coming before Judge Rafeedie, where he made every attempt to thwart Branson's case. He tried in vain to place words in Branson's mouth that Branson objected to, suggesting he say things detrimental to his case involving the defendant County of Los Angeles, and several state judges he was suing. The case involved judges acting in complete absence of all jurisdiction, among which was named Justice Michael G. Nott.
Not only did Rafeedie make every attempt to evade the issue clearly before the court, dodging the cases Branson cited on point, of which he could not refute, nor did he even try, but he imposed monetary sanctions upon Branson for even bringing the lawsuit in the first place against the good ol boys network of which he was a part.
The case went on appeal to the Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal entitled Branson v. Nott, (9th Cir. 1995) 62 Fed 3rd, 287, which became a famous eleven page published opinion often cited by the Ninth Circuit. While the Ninth Circuit did all they could to cover for Judge Edward Rafeedie and make Branson appear to be a nut that all he knew how to do was sue judges, they reversed Rafeedie on the imposition of sanctions against Branson.
It is Branson's opinion that U.S. District Judge Edward Rafeedie fails and refuses to acknowledge the truth when he finds it uncomfortable, and he readily demonstrates a willingness to violate his oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution. Branson believes Rafeedie himself should be sentenced to prison for involved corruption.
Please note the words above, "In all three cases the sentences were the minimum under federal guidelines," meaning under law Rafeedie was not allowed to exercise his discretion to give these bribe-taking criminally corrupt judges a lessor sentence. "All receive minimum sentences in the gifts-for-favors scandal that shook city's legal system," says the Los Angeles Times. Branson suggests there is a scandal going on that is even bigger than the one reported on by the Times. A complaint by Mr. Branson seeking impeachment proceedings in Congress against several federal judges for corruption is still pending. Branson has now proposed a federal "Judicial Accountability & Integrity Legislation" Bill to be passed by Congress. This proposed Bill is now on the J.A.I.L. For Judges website.
J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) Use header to subscribe/remove: jail4judges@... JAIL is a unique addition to our form of government. JAIL is powerful! It is dynamic! It is America's ONLY hope! Visit JAIL's informative websites, www.jail4judges.org (& .net) JAIL's message is spreading across this nation vociferously! Support JAIL @ P.O. Box 207, No. Hollywood, CA 91603
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." --Samuel Adams "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <>< ______________________________________________
Go get'em, Ron!!! Tomorrow, I am scheduled to speak before the Supreme Court of Michigan .... We must seize all opportunitites to let our voices be heard. This is just one way to skin the cat. I will let you know if anything comes of it. ... I will forward your proposed Bill to my legislators with unrelentless vigor!!! A. Amato
Everyone - Go And Do Likewise!
Judicial Accountability and Integrity Legislation
(As amended 6/5/2000)
(a) Preamble. The House of Representatives finds: that an inordinate and ever-growing number of complaints for willful misconduct have been lodged with Congress involving federal judges across this nation; that the current Title 28 U.S.C. §372(c) (Judicial Misconduct and Disability Act) is in many cases inadequate due to conflicts of interest of judges judging themselves; that judicial integrity is of major importance which affects all areas of our American society. Be it therefore resolved that the House of Representatives assembled hereby enacts the following legislation which shall be known as the "Judicial Accountability and Integrity Legislation."
(b) Definitions. For purposes of this statute:
1. The term "blocking" shall mean any act that impedes the lawful conclusion of a case, to include unreasonable delay and willful rendering of a void judgment or order.
2. The term "federal judge" or "judge" shall mean any federal justice, judge, magistrate, commissioner, or any person shielded by judicial immunity.
3. The term "Juror" shall mean a Special Federal Grand Juror.
4. The term "strike" shall mean an adverse immunity decision based upon bad behavior as set forth by paragraph (c), or a criminal conviction as set forth in paragraph (r).
Where appropriate, the singular shall include the plural, and the plural the singular.
(c) Immunity. Notwithstanding common law or any other provision to the contrary, no immunities shall be extended to any federal judge except as is specifically set forth in this statute. Preserving the purpose of protecting judges from frivolous and harassing actions, no immunity shielding a federal judge shall be construed to extend to any deliberate violation of law, fraud or conspiracy, intentional violation of due process of law, deliberate disregard of material facts, judicial acts without jurisdiction, blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case, or any deliberate violation of the Constitution of these United States, all violations of which shall constitute bad behavior.
(d) Special Federal Grand Jury. There is hereby created within the District of Columbia a twenty-five member Special Federal Grand Jury with full federal geographical jurisdiction having power to judge on both law and fact. Their responsibility shall be limited to determining, on an objective standard, whether a civil suit against a federal judge would be frivolous and harassing, or fall within the exclusions of immunity as set forth herein, and whether there is probable cause of criminal conduct by the federal judge complained of.
(e) Professional Counsel. The Special Federal Grand Jury shall have exclusive power to retain non-governmental advisors, special prosecutors, and investigators, as needed, who shall serve no longer than two years, after which term said officers shall be ineligible. However, with permission of the Special Federal Grand Jury, a special prosecutor may prosecute their current cases through all appeals and any applicable complaints to the Special Federal Grand Jury.
(f) Establishment of a Special Federal Grand Jury Seat. A Special Federal Grand Jury seat is hereby created, which seat shall be located in excess of one mile of any federal judicial body.
(g) Annual Funding. Congress hereby deducts two and nine-tenths percent from the gross judicial salaries of all federal judges, which amount shall be deposited regularly into the exclusive trust account created by this statute in paragraph (k) for its operational expenses, together with filing fees under paragraph (h), surcharges under paragraph (i), and fines imposed under paragraph (r).
(h) Filing Fees. Attorneys representing a client filing a civil complaint or answer before the Special Federal Grand Jury, shall at the time of filing pay a fee equal to the filing fee due in a civil appeal to the United States Supreme Court. Individuals filing a civil complaint or answer before the Special Federal Grand Jury in their own behalf as a matter of right, shall, at the time of filing, post a fee of one hundred dollars, or file a declaration, which shall remain confidential, stating they are impoverished and unable to pay and/or object to such fee.
(i) Surcharges. Should this statute lack sufficient funding through its fines, fees, and forfeitures (including deductions in paragraph (g)), Congress may impose appropriate surcharges upon the civil court filing fees of corporate litigants as necessary to make this statute self-supporting, or they may appropriate any and all the necessary funds for the full implementation of this statute by legislation, notwithstanding the two and one-half percent deduction of the salaries of federal judges.
(j) Compensation of Jurors. Each Juror shall receive a salary commensurate to fifty percent of a federal district judge prorated according to the number of days actually served.
(k) Annual Budget. The Special Federal Grand Jury shall have an annual operational budget commensurate to twenty times the combined salaries of the twenty-five Jurors serving full time, which sum shall be initially deposited by Congress into an exclusive trust account to be annually administered by the Controller. Should the trust balance, within any budget year, drop to less than an amount equivalent to the annual gross salaries of fifty federal district judges, the Controller shall so notify Congress which shall replenish the account, prorated based on the actual average expenditures during the budget year. Should the trust balance in any subsequent year exceed the annual operational budget at the beginning of a new budget year, the Controller shall return such excess to the United States Treasury.
(l) Jurisdiction. The Special Federal Grand Jury shall have exclusive power to establish rules assuring their attendance, to provide internal discipline, and to remove any of its members on grounds of misconduct. The Special Federal Grand Jury shall immediately assign a docket number to each complaint brought before it. Except as provided in paragraph (s), no complaint of judicial misconduct shall be considered by the Special Federal Grand Jury unless the complainant shall have first attempted to exhaust all judicial remedies available in the federal courts within the immediately preceding six-month period. Such six-month period, however, shall not commence in complaints of prior fraud or blocking of a lawful conclusion until after the date the Special Federal Grand Jury becomes functional. This provision is intended to apply remedially and retroactively.
(m) Qualifications of Jurors. A Juror shall have attained to the age of thirty years, and have been nine years a citizen of the United States, and an inhabitant of Washington, D.C. Those not eligible for Special Federal Grand Jury service shall include elected and appointed officials, members of the Bar, judges (active or retired), judicial, prosecutorial and law enforcement personnel, without other exclusion except previous adjudication of mental incapacity, imprisonment, or parole from a conviction of a felonious crime against persons.
(n) Selection of Jurors. The Jurors shall serve without compulsion and shall be drawn by public lot by the Secretary of State from names on the voters rolls and any citizen submitting his/her name to the Secretary of State for such drawing.
(o) Service of Jurors. Excluding the establishment of the initial Special Federal Grand Jury, each Juror shall serve one year. No Juror shall serve more than once. On the first day of each month, two persons shall be rotated off the Special Federal Grand Jury and new Citizens seated, except in January it shall be three. Vacancies shall be filled on the first of the following month in addition to the Jurors regularly rotated, and the Juror chosen to fill a vacancy shall complete only the remainder of the term of the Juror replaced. A majority of thirteen shall determine any matter. Special Federal Grand Jury files shall always remain public record following their final determination.
(p) Procedures. The Special Federal Grand Jury shall serve a copy of the filed complaint upon the subject judge and notice to the complainant of such service. The judge shall have thirty days to serve and file an answer. The complainant shall have twenty days to reply to the judge's answer. (Upon timely request, the Special Federal Grand Jury may provide for extensions for good cause.) The Special Federal Grand Jury shall have power to subpoena witnesses, documents, and other tangible evidence, and to examine witnesses under oath. The Special Federal Grand Jury shall determine the causes properly before it with their reasoned findings in writing within one hundred twenty (120) calendar days, serving on all parties their decision on whether immunity shall be barred as a defense to any civil action that may thereafter be pursued against the federal judge. A rehearing may be requested of the Special Federal Grand Jury within twenty days with service upon the opposition. Twenty days shall be allowed to reply thereto. Thereafter, the Special Federal Grand Jury shall render final determination within thirty days. All allegations of the complaint shall be liberally construed in favor of the complainant. The Jurors shall keep in mind, in making their decisions, that they are entrusted by the people of these United States with the duty of restoring a perception of justice and accountability of the federal judiciary, and are not to be swayed by artful presentation by the federal judge. They shall avoid all influence by judicial and government entities. The statute of limitations on any civil suit brought pursuant to this statute against a federal judge shall not commence until the rendering of a final decision by the Special Federal Grand Jury.
(q) Removal. Whenever any federal judge shall have received more than three strikes, the federal judge shall automatically be brought up on charges before Congress for Articles of Impeachment by the Special Federal Grand Jury through its special prosecutor for bad behavior and willful misconduct. Congress thereafter shall commence to a vote on such Articles of Impeachment. Upon a conviction, the federal judge shall be permanently removed from office. He may also be held liable under any other appropriate criminal or civil proceeding.
(r) Indictment. Should the Special Federal Grand Jury also find probable cause of criminal conduct on the part of any federal judge against whom a complaint is docketed, it shall have the power to indict such federal judge except where double jeopardy attaches. The Special Federal Grand Jury shall, without voir dire beyond personal relationship, cause to be impaneled special trial jurors, plus alternates, which trial jurors shall be instructed that they have power to judge both law and fact. The Special Federal Grand Jury shall also select a non-governmental special prosecutor and a federal judge with no more than four years on the bench from a state other than that of the defendant judge, (or outside of the District of Columbia, if the case so be). The trial jury shall be selected from the same pool of jury candidates as any regular federal jury. The special prosecutor shall thereafter prosecute the cause to a conclusion, having all the powers of any other prosecutor within these United States. Upon conviction, the special trial jury shall have exclusive power of sentencing (limited to incarceration, fines and/or community service), which shall be derived by an average of the sentences of the trial jurors.
(s) Criminal Procedures. In addition to any other provisions of this statute, a complaint for criminal conduct of a federal judge may be brought directly to the Special Federal Grand Jury upon all the following prerequisites: (1) an affidavit of criminal conduct has been lodged with the appropriate prosecutorial entity within ninety (90) days of the commission of the alleged conduct; (2) the prosecutor declines to prosecute, or one hundred twenty (120) days has passed following the lodging of such affidavit and prosecution has not commenced; (3) an indictment, if sought, has not been specifically declined on the merits by a Grand Jury; and (4) the criminal statute of limitations has not run. Any criminal conviction (including a plea bargain) under any judicial process shall constitute a strike.
(t) Public Indemnification. No federal judge complained of, or sued civilly by a complainant pursuant to this statute shall be defended at public expense or by any elected or appointed public counsel, nor shall any federal judge be reimbursed from public funds for any losses sustained under this statute.
(u) Redress. The provisions of this statute are in addition to other redress that may exist and are not mutually exclusive.
(v) Preeminence. Preeminence shall be given to this statute in any case of conflicts with any other federal statutes, case law, or common law to the contrary. The foreperson of the Special Federal Grand Jury shall read, or cause to be read, this statute to the respective Jurors semi-annually during the first week of business in January and July.
Proposed Bill written for Congress by Ronald Branson, 11024 Balboa, Suite # 214, Granada Hills, CA. 91344, email jail4judges@.... Ronald Branson is a three-time publicly elected Representative of the office of the Republican Central Committee for the County of Los Angeles. He currently represents the 38th Assembly District.
Redmond, WA - Microsoft today filed papers in Federal District Court alleging that the United States Government is a monopoly. The papers allege that the current government has stifled competition, and has prevented innovation in government, by using its monopoly power to pass laws prohibiting the formation of another Federal government. "American's don't have a choice in which army will protect them. They have no choice in who will collect their taxes. Less than 50% of the people even bother to vote because they know it won't make any difference." said Steve Ballmer. "It's time that the US Government opened up to some competition, that would get people out to vote and wring out a lot of the inefficiencies." Microsoft is solidly against splitting up the government saying it would cause too much harm to the public. They suggest letting Microsoft set up its own government and let the marketplace determine which government should rule. Bill Gates said, "We already have more money than most governments around the world, and we have our own army." On what a Microsoft government could do for the people Mr. Gates added, "Talk about bloated code. Have you seen the tax laws? A Microsoft government would have a simpler tax code, and each citizen would be given a copy of Microsoft Money to help them track their finances." A coalition of companies headed by Sun Microsystems filed a brief shortly after Microsoft stating, "If they get to form a government, we get to form a government." The Department of Justice is expected to respond to the allegations within a week. It is expected that this case will reach the Supreme Court.
We admit the above sounds like a spoof. However, if Bill Gates seriously wants to make a real legal threat to the federal government that will have them sweating blood, then someone please get in touch with him and tell him JAIL would like to talk with him. We'll give him his money's worth that will cause him to sit back and laugh hard. And just think of the tremendous advertisement he will get from his investment! -Ron Branson
J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) Use header to subscribe/remove: jail4judges@... JAIL is a unique addition to our form of government. JAIL is powerful! It is dynamic! It is America's ONLY hope! Visit JAIL's informative websites, www.jail4judges.org (& .net) JAIL's message is spreading across this nation vociferously! Support JAIL @ P.O. Box 207, No. Hollywood, CA 91603
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." --Samuel Adams "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <>< ______________________________________________
You are doing such a wonderful job exposing the corruption of judges around the country. I believe you can help the citizens of the State of Nevada. The Chief Deputy District Attorney Kirk Vitto in Nye County, Nevada, is a wanna-be-judge running for District Court Judge in Nye County, Nevada. This territory covers the cities of Pahrump, Beatty, Esmeralda, Mineral, Tonopah and other little communities. The story I am about to tell you is scary, very scary. Before I tell you the story, I want you to know that I am a Christian, I believe in God and depend on the Lord for every step I take in my life.
Here is the story: In 1997, a young black, mentally retarded, and disabled man, David Turner, was arrested for shoplifting a pack of cigarettes, candy and a pizza pocket from a store here in Nevada. The items totaled about $6.00. He was also found in possession of 1/2 of a marihuana cigarette and some aluminum foil claimed to be shaped into a pipe. He spent a few days in the county jail in Pahrump, Nevada at the time of the arrest. David Turner is a 21-year-old man with the intelligence of a 10-year-old boy. Mr. Kirk Vitto has labeled these charges as Felony Burglary, Felony Drug Possession and Misdemeanor Drug Paraphernalia. His attorney had made arrangement with Mr. Vitto to drop all felony charges and charge him only with the misdemeanor. This young man's family believed those problems were resolved and they relocated to Houston, Texas. David Turner is not only retarded, he also has several disabilities including hydrocephalus "water on the brain." He had several brain operations and now has a shunt in his head. Now, three years later Mr. Kirk Vitto decided to prosecute this young man on all charges for something that happened in 1997. He set a court date for last March, but David Turner, nor his family was informed and of course the boy did not appear in Court. Kirk Vitto issued a warrant for David Turner's arrest and ordered him to be extradited to Nevada. The prosecutor in Houston, Texas could not believe this man (Vitto) wanted to extradite someone on a $6.00 crime, he called Vitto to try to reason with him. Mr. Vitto refused to reason and insisted to extradite David. David Turner's mother called Mr. Vitto trying to explain the medical condition of her son. Vitto told her that no one would care about his medical condition. David Turner was picked up from Houston, Texas, spent a night in a prison in Hountsville, Texas. From there he was taken in a bus without air-conditioner to New Mexico, Arizona, Tonopah, and Pahrump, Nevada. It took longer than a week to get there -- without medical attention. David Turner's defense attorney, Robert E. Glennen III, and every member of his staff have been extremely concern about this young man's health problems, but Kirk Vitto refused to cooperate. David's mother contacted Governor Guinn's office and finally he was taken to a hospital. By extraditing this young man from Texas for a $6.00 crime, Mr. Vitto has proven very little respect for the money of his "employer" the citizens of the State of Nevada. Mr. Kirk Vitto is a Nye County District Attorney who claims to be a Christian, who performs his duties as a Minister in a Full Gospel Church. A man who desires to sit in a bench as a judge for the Fifth District Court of the State of Nevada. The County of Nye is growing fast and it is clearly understandable that we need more judges, judges with full knowledge of the law and experience, but also men with honesty, integrity and humanity who can interpret and apply the law according to the Constitution of the United States of America. Mr. Kirk Vitto does not fit this category. It is extremely important to expose the corruption of judges already seated on the bench, but it is more important to block people like Kirk Vitto from becoming a judge. As of this afternoon, and after much attention from the local media, David Turner was released from jail under the same deal offered to him three (3) years ago -- a misdemeanor. His attorney, Robert E. Glennen III, stayed with him until he was placed in a Greyhound bus back to Texas. Mr. Glennen gave David some money for food, and asked him to stay in contact with him. This story has attracted so much attention that even George Knapp, with Channel 8 News (who very seldom pays attention to cases of minorities) interviewed David Turner for over an hour. Officials with the Governor Guinn's office, members of the Southern Nevada Catholic Charter Services, members of Mr. Glennen's staff, and Mr. Robert Glennen himself stayed with David Turner until he left Nevada in the 2:30 p.m. Greyhound bus. Thank you for your time,
Rolando Larraz Las Vegas Tribune Newspaper
J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) Use header to subscribe/remove: jail4judges@... JAIL is a unique addition to our form of government. JAIL is powerful! It is dynamic! It is America's ONLY hope! Visit JAIL's informative websites, www.jail4judges.org (& .net) JAIL's message is spreading across this nation vociferously! Support JAIL @ P.O. Box 207, No. Hollywood, CA 91603
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." --Samuel Adams "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <>< ______________________________________________
Smith & Wesson To Shut Down 2 Plants Oh! What a terrible shame!
Associated Press Online - June 13, 2000 05:15
By JEFF DONN
Associated Press Writer
SPRINGFIELD, Mass. (AP) - Smith & Wesson plans to shut down two of its manufacturing plants for a month partly because of the fallout from its landmark gun-safety deal with the government.
The nation's largest handgun maker said in a statement that an unspecified number of workers would be placed on unpaid leave from July 3 through July 28. Other parts of the company, including customer service and shipping, will continue to operate.
About 500 workers at plants in Springfield and Houlton, Maine, would be affected, WGGB-TV in Springfield reported, citing company representatives it didn't identify.
Smith & Wesson blamed its decision on "normal summer softness in the firearms market compounded by the reaction of some consumers to the agreement." The company has previously closed for one or two weeks during the summer for a vacation period, the Union-News reported Tuesday.
A spokesman for Springfield-based Smith & Wesson did not return a call seeking comment Monday.
Under the deal reached March 17, Smith & Wesson promised to install safety locks, demand background checks on gun-show buyers and work on "smart guns" that can be fired only by their owner. Public officials agreed to drop Smith & Wesson from municipal lawsuits challenging the safety and marketing practices of the gun industry.
Smith & Wesson also will be the preferred gun retailer for law enforcement officials in 190 U.S. communities, a deal challenged in federal court by other gun makers who say it is an illegal conspiracy to retrain trade.
The company also has been sharply criticized by other gun makers and the leaders of the National Rifle Association.
Prosecutors in at least six states are investigating whether the gun industry is illegally trying to punish Smith & Wesson by depriving it of business opportunities.
As many of you know from the article sent out a few days ago by JAIL, "Massive Revolt At State Capitol" (printed below), that Tennessee is going through a tax revolt against the idea of beginning a Tennessee State Income Tax. Such tax is being proposed under the theory that the state is "running out of money" for its basic operations.
With the above in mind, we thought it fitting that the below response to that article be printed, which refutes the theory that Tennessee is "running out of money" and faces close-down.
Governments everywhere seem to be crying "wolf, wolf," they are "running out of money," when in fact it has be documented that they are carrying two sets of books. One for public consumption, (i.e., "we're broke"), and the other for lavishes government purchases and payraises. The "other" book is called C.A.F.R., (Comprehensive Annual Financial Report) of which Donald R. Cuva speaks. It is these billions of dollars that are "hidden from the public." -Ron Branson-
JAIL For Judges
Dear Friends:
If anyone knows the telephone numbers of the talk shows WLAC and WTN please e-mail me as soon as possible. I will try to get them myself, but any help to speed the process up will be appreciated. I need to talk with the host about the State Income Tax and to let them know that the state is keeping two set of books. The second set of books will probably show a minimum of a ten BILLION dollar surplus, yes I spelled it correctly. Kentucky's report shows a $9,440 Billion surplus that is being hidden from the public. I have a copy of this record in my possession.
J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) Use header to subscribe/remove: jail4judges@... JAIL is a unique addition to our form of government. JAIL is powerful! It is dynamic! It is America's ONLY hope! Visit JAIL's informative websites, www.jail4judges.org (& .net) JAIL's message is spreading across this nation vociferously! Support JAIL @ P.O. Box 207, No. Hollywood, CA 91603
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." --Samuel Adams "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <>< ______________________________________________
THE POWER TO DESTROY Tennesseans honk for freedom Massive revolt at state capitol stops new income-tax plan
NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- Police cars blockaded Tennessee state capitol entrances and troopers patrolled legislative hallways this week as the state legislature found itself under siege by thousands of angry taxpayers upset at a plan to implement a state income tax.
Tennessee is currently one of only nine states without a state income tax. Opponents of the measure, which would assess a 5 percent tax on any income above $100,000, are skeptical that legislators would maintain that high an exemption threshold for very long.
As protestors began to gather outside the legislative chambers Monday evening, several legislators were taken away by ambulance and hospitalized for blood pressure and heart problems as tensions rose and tempers flared. By Tuesday morning, tax protestors were brandishing signs reading, "Let's send them all to the ER!"
Trouble began brewing Friday evening as the state income tax proposal emerged from a legislative conference committee considering the state budget after local news shows had already aired.
Legislators supporting the income tax had hoped that a vote would be taken on the proposal Saturday morning to avoid giving anti-tax groups time to mount a repeat of the tax revolt that occurred last November, when an earlier income-tax measure died as taxpayers besieged legislative offices with tens of thousands of calls and e-mails every hour.
But the hopes of income-tax supporters were dashed when two of Nashville's competing talk radio stations, WLAC and WTN, joined forces and served as the catalyst for opposition to the legislative proposal.
Speaking to WorldNetDaily and barely audible above the virtually non-stop horn honking, WLAC's morning show host Steve Gill gestured to the standstill traffic encircling the state capitol and said, "Do you hear that? That's the sound of freedom."
Phil Valentine, Gill's afternoon show counterpart, chided legislators on-air for conducting most of the legislative discussion regarding the state budget behind closed doors.
"If this is such good public policy, why are they afraid to do it in public?" Valentine said.
While it appeared Monday that income-tax supporters had enough votes to push the measure through both houses, support crumbled as the tax protests grew.
"These legislators have received a rude awakening in the past few days," said Darryl Ankarlo, morning drive time host for WTN. "They're realizing that taxpayers are tired of politicians picking their pockets at every turn."
Ankarlo and his WTN colleague, Dave Ramsey began broadcasting their respective programs from a remote radio site located at the entrance of the legislative plaza, where they could wave to supporters driving by. They would regularly announce on-air the position of state legislators on the income-tax proposal and provide telephone and e-mail information for constituents to contact their representatives.
The effort to pass a state income tax is being led by Republican Gov. Don Sundquist, who won two gubernatorial races handily in 1994 and 1998 after promising to prevent an income tax from ever being passed.
Today, I made presentation to the Michigan Supreme Court as public hearings were being held on changes in court rule. I was warmly received. When I returned home there were three calls from the State of Michigan on my machine. ...
The following is a portion of my speech:
My name is Barb Willing. I am host of a radio show by the name of "Suburban Whistleblowers." I have no litigation in the courts. I am a courtwatcher and have been for over ten years. That being said, I would thank this public body for its accessibility to the citizens of this state for public comment on proposed changes and amendments to law and court rule. ....
The entire Family Court system acts as a criminal enterprise and should be immediately abolished. I have witnessed custody changes made in three minute motions under the guise of a temporary basis, with the former custodial parent often never seeing his/her child again, or at least not until well after the new custodial environment is established. This is shameful. The courts are run like a corporation. Courts must dispense justice and not act like a fortune 500 company. Otherwise, I would invest and retire a rich old lady. The price to get into court for the average person is prohibitive. There is no justice. It is a reasonable expectation that court rules be followed by all. Currently, court rules are followed by no one. In fact, the introduction of procedural shortcuts contained no where in the court rules or law increases the risk of error, but more importantly, violate due process. Due process, as I'm sure this court is aware, is described as "a course of legal proceedings according to those rules and principles which have been established for the enforcement and protection of private rights." No court rules followed, no protection.
....
Chief Justice Weaver questioned me regarding the election of judges. I said, "If you wish to recuse a judge, which chief judge do you ask, the probate or circuit?"
She then said, "So you want rules?" I responded, "There are no rules." This brought chuckles from the audience. She was trying to see if I was rules oriented and I responded, "Do I stop at a stop sign at 4 a.m. in the morning in the middle of a bad area? No, but normally, do I stop at stop signs, Yes." This brought chuckles from the audience and smiles from the panel. ...
When she knew I knew about the legislative aspect of the Family Court, she immediately dropped it. ... Freedom is not free and I would not pass up this opportunity to address this court, at least to get my name known with them.
Further, the one "justice" I will be attacking for his record in the coming election, literally was whispering to a fellow justice during one presentation. Had he done that during my presentation, I would have immediately stopped and requested of the Chief Justice to politely ask her brethren to at least look like he was listening. He did not do this during my presentation--what a smart guy after all.
J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) Use header to subscribe/remove: jail4judges@... JAIL is a unique addition to our form of government. JAIL is powerful! It is dynamic! It is America's ONLY hope! Visit JAIL's informative websites, www.jail4judges.org (& .net) JAIL's message is spreading across this nation vociferously! Support JAIL @ P.O. Box 207, No. Hollywood, CA 91603
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." --Samuel Adams "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <>< ______________________________________________
Will you ask Henry Hyde how many of these [RICO actions] does he want to see? I definitely know a wonderful lawyer who is more than able to do my case and many others, and do the media coverage, books, talk shows and all the trimmings.
Brother Hyde, we uns is jest past de time of no returnin, and all of that.... and dis ol hillbilly is fixin to see justice restored to our nation---- de onliest question be what is it you be fixin to see done? Do ye see yoself in de court in KNOXVILLE where de jedges is already on some VERY thin ice due to the staff in JJDUNCAN's Office tellin that he was engaged in de esparte cover wid de fed judges dere??? Do ya'all see tat staff person under oath along with jjduncan and de judges if needs be? I be seein' it dat a way. But den who is I ta say? I reck'n as how dat be yer departmenta.
The moral to that little story is never underestimate the power of a woman, especially if she has been beaten and butchered in a military facility with corrupt politicians, in conjunction with rotten to the core judges and court officers who provided the succor and support!
Let's put in the plainest of terms. This old bitch ain't in heat and nobody is going to screw her over! When this RICO is filed, should the Judiciary Chairman and the 5th Circuit Courts of Appeals judges chose for it to go down this way, you can consider yourselves screwed the way you gave the screwing! I'm in total disgust, but still willing and able to work with anyone who will work to clean up the judicial system up and restore America back to our constitution!
PS - In just the last 15 minutes I got 27 more of complaints on Rico of all levels and concerns, and ALL of them seem to be viable for Rico! The little lawyer can end up the richest man in Knoxville. With a few who can afford the filing fees, he is off and running! Tell me there is not God in Heaven!
We can afford to hire an attorney to handle a RICO action, but the problem is finding an attorney who will handle it. We live in Washington State and the attorneys here are deeply in bedded in the system. RICO can be filed in any State under federal jurisdiction. If you know of an attorney who would be interested in representing us in a 6 1/2 year old case, we would be very appreciative for his or her name and how to contact. We have extensive documentation to prove RICO right up to our State Supreme Court. The reason this RICO has occurred is to protect an attorney and his highly prestige law firm. This attorney just happens to be the son-in-law of a C/A Judge who sat on the bench of the C/A for 26 years. The C/A Judge in his attempt to protect his daughter's marital assets, which are extensive, used his influence to justify his son-in-law's malpractice. This resulted in forcing his brethren and court nonjudicial employees to violate law to achieve the results he desired. It also created a monster RICO situation. When I speak of documentation at the Supreme Court level, I am not talking about involvement by the Justices, but acts by nonjudicial employees there. There is a tremendous problem within the court system through out the country with corrupt nonjudicial court employees who influence judges to make damaging rulings. The reason we have so much documentation is because we could afford to get transcribes of all court proceedings and depositions and because we know enough about the law, we have kept a complete file on the case. Space does not allow for me to identify everything we have. I can only tell you that we are smart enough to know when we have an A-1 case.
Sincerely, Connie O'Neill (253) 927-7451
J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) Use header to subscribe/remove: jail4judges@... JAIL is a unique addition to our form of government. JAIL is powerful! It is dynamic! It is America's ONLY hope! Visit JAIL's informative websites, www.jail4judges.org (& .net) JAIL's message is spreading across this nation vociferously! Support JAIL @ P.O. Box 207, No. Hollywood, CA 91603
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." --Samuel Adams "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <>< ______________________________________________
Subject: FEAR: Two new Kansas City Star articles Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:01:22 -0700 From: Brenda Grantland <bgrantland@...> Forfeiture Endangers American Rights
THE KANSAS CITY STAR Asset-forfeiture laws stir reform attempts Date: 06/10/00 KAREN DILLON To protect and collect
In Missouri, lawmakers are vowing that next time they'll succeed. California legislators just took a big step toward reform, while education attorneys in North Carolina are just beginning their own battle. In recent weeks, officials in several states across the country have pledged action to block local law enforcement from keeping property confiscated in drug busts and traffic stops. Most states have passed laws blocking seized property from going directly back to police, and many states require seized property to be used for other purposes, such as education. But last month The Kansas City Star reported that police agencies in more than two dozen states checked by the newspaper circumvent their own laws and keep millions of dollars in seizures. When police seize money or property, they hand it off to a federal law enforcement agency instead of going to a state court. The federal agency keeps a cut, usually 20 percent, and returns the rest to police. Police say they need the money to fight the war on drugs. But lawmakers and some legal experts say the circumvention threatens civil liberties by bypassing state laws, which generally provide more protection to property owners than federal law. Unlike many legislators elsewhere, those in Missouri already knew about the federal handoffs and passed a reform bill in the state Senate this year. But the bill died on the last day of the session. Now Sen. Harry Wiggins, a Kansas City Democrat who co-sponsored the bill, pledges to make it his primary goal to get the bill passed by February. The session begins in January. The other sponsor, Rep. Jim Kreider, a Nixa Democrat and speaker pro tem, said he will be pushing from his side of the General Assembly. "It's high on my radar screen," Kreider said. "This is the right thing to do." Missouri law prohibits police from handing seized property over to a federal law enforcement agency. Instead police are required to notify a prosecutor. A judge then decides whether the property should be forfeited and go to education or be transferred to a federal agency. But police say when they give property to federal agencies, they are not doing anything wrong because they have not seized it - they only detained it until a federal agent seizes it. Wiggins and Kreider sponsored a bill that would: Try to close any loophole by defining a seizure "as the point at which any law enforcement officer or agent discovers and exercises control over property." Require detailed reports of each seizure as well as audits. The bill was blocked with only about three minutes left in the session by Rep. Craig Hosmer, a Springfield Democrat, who thinks police departments need seizure money to fight the war on drugs. "There is nothing in my read of our constitution that what they are doing is illegal," Hosmer said. "They are using another avenue that is available to make sure they have resources to do the job that they believe is very important." Kreider disagreed. "Rep. Hosmer believes the bill will hurt law enforcement," Kreider said. "I sincerely believe that it will hurt law enforcement worse the way it is now. It will hurt their reputation. It will hurt them in the long run by circumventing the law and possibly violating the rights of Americans." Gov. Mel Carnahan said this week through his spokesman that police were doing nothing illegal. "The governor believes law enforcement is operating within the law," said spokesman Jerry Nachtigal. "The governor stands by the highway patrol. They are doing their best to slow down the drug trade." But Nachtigal said the governor would not comment on state law requiring forfeitures to go to education or discuss whether he believes keeping the proceeds is a conflict of interest for police. Developments in other states: California. The state Senate this month passed a bill that would require police to get a court order before drug money could be transferred to a federal agency. The bill now must pass the House, where lawmakers expect a stronger fight from law enforcement. The bill would make it a crime for police to hand off seizures without a court order - possibly the toughest such provision in the country. "The lure of increased revenue has blinded local law enforcement to their responsibility to abide by our state policy and to protect the due process rights of our citizens," said Sen. John Vasconcellos, a Santa Clara Democrat, in a statement. Kansas. Rep. Ralph Tanner, a Baldwin City Republican, plans to meet with the speaker of the House next week to discuss introducing a bill to redirect forfeited money away from law enforcement and to education. The bill also would specify that only a judge could decide if forfeiture proceeds should be transferred to the federal government. North Carolina. Attorneys for school boards are talking about reform after discovering that little forfeiture money is going to education, as the state's constitution requires. One of them, Michael Crowell, an attorney who works for the state board of education, is researching legal remedies. He said he is going to speak to the attorney general. "We are going to pursue this," Crowell said. Massachusetts. A citizens group says it won't back away from reform efforts despite new opposition from law enforcement.
....
- To reach Karen Dillon, call (816) 234-4430 or send e-mail to kdillon@...
J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) Use header to subscribe/remove: jail4judges@... JAIL is a unique addition to our form of government. JAIL is powerful! It is dynamic! It is America's ONLY hope! Visit JAIL's informative websites, www.jail4judges.org (& .net) JAIL's message is spreading across this nation vociferously! Support JAIL @ P.O. Box 207, No. Hollywood, CA 91603
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." --Samuel Adams "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <>< ______________________________________________
Inasmuch as several people have written JAIL asking how to get in touch with the below judge, we thought it worthy of sending the additional information we received out to all. It is as follows:
Honorable Donald P. McDonough % Fairfax General District Court 4110 Chain Bridge Road Fairfax. Virginia 22030
Clerk of the Court phone number: 703-246-2153 Hours: 8 am to 4 pm EDT, Monday - Friday
A letter expressing encouragement to this man for being a judge with a "different" attitude toward the public might be fitting.
A COMPASSIONATE JUDGE!
I just heard a story about a Judge in Virginia on Face the Nation. Seems a landlord hauled into court a deaf couple who were $250.00 behind in their rent. The landlord wanted them evicted. When Judge Mac Donald learned that the couple had miscalculated their finances, he whipped out $250.00 in cash, handed to the landlord and said, "I'll pay it. Case Dismissed." Some times it's good to hear positive things about the judiciary. We can't judge the whole barrel by the rotten apples. Too bad we don't have more stories like this.
From Connie O.
J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) Use header to subscribe/remove: jail4judges@... JAIL is a unique addition to our form of government. JAIL is powerful! It is dynamic! It is America's ONLY hope! Visit JAIL's informative websites, www.jail4judges.org (& .net) JAIL's message is spreading across this nation vociferously! Support JAIL @ P.O. Box 207, No. Hollywood, CA 91603
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." --Samuel Adams "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <><
U.S. Under Pressure Over U.N. Court By Edith M. Lederer Associated Press Writer Thursday, June 15, 2000; 10:07 a.m. EDT
UNITED NATIONS - The United States is trying to untangle problems with the European Union and Sen. Jesse Helms as it starts high-stakes negotiations to protect Americans from prosecution by the world's first permanent war crimes tribunal. U.S. Ambassador David Scheffer said Wednesday he believes the United States can get other countries to agree to a new U.S. proposal that would exempt U.S. soldiers and government officials from prosecution and at the same time ensure that citizens of "irresponsible nations" are not exempt. * Whether the United States can achieve that remains to be seen: Scheffer, the ambassador-at-large for war crimes issues, said his deadline is June 30, when the commission preparing for the court's operation ends a three-week meeting. The European Union rejected the U.S. proposals circulated in March to deal with the exemption issue, and a coalition of more than 1,000 human rights and grass-roots groups has been lobbying delegations not to accept any U.S. changes that would undermine the court's effectiveness and credibility. Pressure on the Clinton administration intensified Wednesday when Helms, the North Carolina Republican who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, introduced legislation that would bar any U.S. cooperation with the court, as long as the United States has not ratified the treaty creating it. The United States was one of seven countries voting "no" when 120 countries approved the treaty to establish the International Criminal Court in July 1998 in Rome. Nonetheless, it is helping draft the court's rules of procedure and evidence. The court was created to deal with the most heinous crimes genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Under the treaty, the court will step in only when states are unwilling or unable to dispense justice. It can exercise jurisdiction when either the country where the crime took place or the country whose nationals committed the crime have ratified the statute.
* Just so we don't miss the point, let's repeat that second paragraph without the extra wording, "U.S. Ambassador David Scheffer said Wednesday he believes the United States can get other countries to agree to a new U.S. proposal that would exempt government officials from prosecution and at the same time ensure that citizens are not exempt." That's what you read, folks, "Government exempt, citizens not exempt." Tyrants like Hitler or Stalin could not be tried in the World Court, but you can!
J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) Use header to subscribe/remove: jail4judges@... JAIL is a unique addition to our form of government. JAIL is powerful! It is dynamic! It is America's ONLY hope! Visit JAIL's informative websites, www.jail4judges.org (& .net) JAIL's message is spreading across this nation vociferously! Support JAIL @ P.O. Box 207, No. Hollywood, CA 91603
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." --Samuel Adams "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <>< ______________________________________________
We have previously pointed out that it appears that Tennessee has billions of dollars hidden from the public's eyes they do not want known about. (See Tennessee's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, and the comments of Walter J. Burien, Jr. at the end of this article.) *
The Tennessee Income Tax- June 16, 2000 Hostage Day Number 3
LEADERSHIP: 1. A person or thing that leads. 2. Ability to lead. 3. An act or instance of leading. 4. The leaders of a group. Well, well, to say that LEADERSHIP has been in short supply, if not totally absent is a real understatement. The General Assembly is in such disarray that it is tragic.
The Conference Committee convened in Room 16 shortly after 8:00 a.m. Thursday morning where Senator Doug Henry (D-Nashville) presented Minority Report # 1. [By the way, yesterday was Senator and Mrs. Henry's 51st anniversary. She spent all day with him at the Capitol.] In general it would have placed a 1% sales tax on all goods and services that have been exempt from the present sales tax. This plan would be expected to raise around $450 million per year. After much discussion, Senator Jim Kyle (D-Memphis) stepped in with his plan, (a twist on what Senator Henry had proposed) which he called the Forward Momentum plan. This would be a 1 1/2% tax on the items now exempt and would beginning January 2001. It would be expected to raise $174 million (Jan-June) and $350 million for the full fiscal, July 2001-June 2002. After additional discussion, Senator Kyle commented that this "isn't the prettiest girl on the block" but it would work. The vote was called for and when the Senate side voted (by voice) I heard only one or two NOES. But when the House side voted, it sounded like more NOES than YESES, but Speaker Pro Tem Lois DeBerry (D-Memphis) gaveled it passed. The moment the meeting ended at nearly eleven, the lobbyists rushed out into the hall to report back to their employers on the proposal. Folks were all over the place on their cell phones. Lots of businesses would feel these new taxes. As it came out of committee, this is a HUGE tax increase and would mean that the state is unwilling to live within its means. This was another "scene" in the "HIGH DRAMA" that continues to unfold at the Capitol-- an income tax being the goal. The Governor and some of his allies are determined to fund the inflated budget and are unwilling to adjust the budget to fit the revenue. The HIGH DRAMA then moved to the House floor at 2:00 p.m. where Rep. Shelby Rhinehart (D-Spencer) presented Minority Committee Report # 1 (the Kyle plan). After discussion, the Report failed on a 0-94 vote, with not even the sponsor voting in favor of the plan. Folks, in my 13 years on the hill, I have NEVER seen the voting board with all red lights on it - quite a site. Rep. Zane Whitson (R-Unicoi) presented Minority Report # 2, which would have increased the state portion of the sales tax from 6% to 6 1/4%. This plan would be expected to raise about $192 million per year and take care of an ever-increasing budget for two to three years. That proposal failed on at 14-77-1 vote. Still no talk of reducing spending!! PROCEDURAL NOTE: There is no limit to the number of Minority Reports which can be presented to the House and Senate. HOWEVER, the MAJORITY Report, which contains a state income tax, is sitting on the desk of the House and Senate awaiting action. Don't forget that!! Then came Rep. Jere Hargrove (D-Cookeville) and others with Minority Report # 3. This plan is a new twist on the bill the House originally passed. However, in this version the residential energy tax is deleted but the manufacturing energy tax is left in; the "sin" taxes are raised (which haven't been raised since probably the 1960s); the bottler's gross receipts tax increases by one tenth of one percent; several revenues are recaptured or redirected.
This plan would produce $18,558,000 in new revenue and $56,094,000 in recaptured and redirected revenue. At the end of the day, either the House budget would have to be reduced by about $75 million or use an equal amount of tobacco money. During the discussion, one representative said, while speaking in support of this plan, "maybe the income tax is a better 'money machine'. I couldn't help but think, "just what state government needs is an unrestrained 'money machine'". This plan squeaked by on a 50-40-1 vote. Then the DRAMA moved to the Senate. Procedurally, this report must 'lay on the desk' for 24 hours before the Senate can act on it. After much discussion, much posturing and confusion, the Senate voted to "suspend the rules" so the Minority Report would be properly before them when they meet today at 10:00 a.m. The House meets at 11:00 a.m. Neither body has acted on the Appropriations bill. Should this plan pass the Senate today, the Governor has vowed to veto it. It would then come back to the General Assembly for a veto override. A veto override requires 50 votes in the House and 17 in the Senate. Since it only passed by 50 votes in the House, an override might be 'iffy'. There are two schools of thought on this bill: One is that passing it would protect us from a state income tax this year and, providing the veto can be overridden, would prohibit the government shut down July 1st. The other is that it still raises taxes and increases state government. Someone said to me yesterday: "There are three kinds of people who spend other peoples' money: children, thieves, and politicians, and they all need constant supervision." My observations: The General Assembly does not know anything they didn't know in January, except that revenues have come in above predictions. Some have been complicit in this dark drama and have become willing hostages. They could have passed a balanced budget in April, let the Governor veto it, returned to override the veto and gone home, forcing the state to live within it means. We certainly have some heroes to be grateful for, but a small group legislators and the governor have been determined to have an state income tax and now the legislators find themselves staring at the June 30th deadline.
Call legislators at 1-800-449-8366.
Sent by G. Keasling of Tenn.
* Below sent to JAIL by Walter Burien, Jr.
KEEP IN MIND that the state CAFR is just that, the state CAFR. How many counties, cities, townships, authorities, school districts, pensions are there in Tennessee. Each puts out it's own CAFR or CFS (Combined Financial Statement) Composite totals are substantially greater than State Gov., Inc.'s totals, i.e. - New Jersey State Gov. combined totals 285 billion - NJ State Gov. plus 21 counties, hundreds of cities and municipalities, school districts, 69 authorities, pensions, combined totals as of 1999 equals 1.8 Trillion dollars. When looking for surpluses, don't just open one door in a mansion that has 200 doors. I strongly suggest getting a copy of the Tennessee Valley Authority's CAFR. That 10 billion surplus figure quoted regarding the state will in most likelihood look small in comparison.
Yours Truly,
Walter J. Burien, Jr. C.E.V.I.
* The below here seems to be footnotes explaining Tennessee's billions of dollars of hidden money. For further information, we suggest you write to Walter Burien, Jr. at his email below.
FOR USE IN TENNESSEE
1. Here's our annual budget for operating our local government, and the growth of our government over the last ten years. (Excessive growth in most cases is the rule)
2. Here's the total investments and gross cash receipts from (all) city, county, state, school districts, enterprise groups, and the annual return on those investments. (all of the above have financial responsibility to every person living in your town)
3. Here's the approximate net worth of the above; CAFRs and CFS give consolidated summaries of what you are looking for, and if not shown in the combined financial columns, the notes of the report should direct you where to continue your search. (income, investment return, and value of assets both real-estate and physical property)
4. Consolidating the wealth, with a little applied prudent financial management, and using the return from the investment funds, surpluses, return from enterprise operations, and ALL cash generating ventures and assets, this can satisfy the budgetary basis allowing for the elimination of all forced taxation in our town from this point forward.
5. When considering the above, with good business management being applied to benefit "The Public's Interests", we, in all respects, should not continue to pay any further forced taxation, and in fact if individuals from within the controlling sect of the new "Corporate Government, Inc." which has been in development since 1945, continue to conduct "Business As Usual" manipulating the application of forced taxation in what can be only considered nothing other than unlawful enterprise actions, should we not as a unified peoples consider and immediately implement RICO actions against our management officials from local governments and those from outside of government as accomplices, that continue to perpetuate this runaway freight train of corporate empire building taking place within government today?
RICO = Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
Racketeering originally, an organized conspiracy to commit extortion. Today, punishable offenses created by Congress to "seek the eradication of organized crime by establishing new penal prohibitions and by providing enhanced sanctions and new remedies to deal with the unlawful activities of those engaged in organized crime." Public Law 91-452, section 1, 84 Statutes At Large 922 (1970). The federal statute is entitled "Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act [RICO]" under Title IX of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (18 U.S.C. sections 1961-68) and many states have adopted similar statutes, e.g., N.J.S.A. 2C:41-1.1 et seq. There are four punishable racketeering offenses under the federal statute: (1) directly or indirectly investing income derived from a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt in any enterprise affecting trade or commerce; (2) acquiring or maintaining any interest in an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of an unlawful debt; (3) conducting or participating in the affairs of the enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of an unlawful debt; or (4) Conspiring to violate the racketeering provisions.
The above is about half of the definition of Racketeering taken from Barron's Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, page 411. ******************************************** Yours Truly,
J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) Use header to subscribe/remove: jail4judges@... JAIL is a unique addition to our form of government. JAIL is powerful! It is dynamic! It is America's ONLY hope! Visit JAIL's informative websites, www.jail4judges.org (& .net) JAIL's message is spreading across this nation vociferously! Support JAIL @ P.O. Box 207, No. Hollywood, CA 91603
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." --Samuel Adams "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <>< ______________________________________________
Gun-rights activists from across the country are giddy after word spread that the Second Amendment's right to "keep and bear arms" received what court observers said was a fair and equitable hearing in the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.
During a presentation of the case to a three-judge panel on Tuesday, gun-rights activists who observed the proceedings reported that "the court really beat up on ... government" lawyers who were arguing that the Second Amendment is a right only granted to states, not individuals.
Also, a report summarizing the hearing suggested Wednesday that gun-rights activists may be able to count on more constitutional support for an individual's right to bear arms from the courts in the future.
The appeals case stems from an earlier U.S. district court judge's ruling in Texas on March 30, 1999. U.S. District Judge Sam R. Cummings in Lubbock ruled in favor of Dr. Timothy Joe Emerson's claims that his arrest was unconstitutional. Emerson was arrested while under a restraining order from his estranged wife for violation of a federal statute prohibiting a person under such an order from possessing a firearm.
According to pro-gun author Neal Knox, Judge Harold R. DeMoss, Jr., a George Bush appointee, told government lawyers they were misreading a prior Supreme Court ruling from 1939 on which they were basing their argument.
That case, Miller vs. United States, found that because a sawed-off shotgun was of "no military value," citizens were forbidden to have them. However, DeMoss reportedly chided government lawyers because the 1939 case did nothing to establish an individual's right or a state's right in the Second Amendment.
Also, the court noted, in the Miller case, sawed-off shotguns were found to have "no military value," but other weapons -- such as so-called "assault rifles" -- have been banned in the U.S., even though they do have immense military value.
Cummings made similar observations in his earlier ruling.
Court observers said DeMoss asked federal prosecutors if Emerson's Beretta Model 92 9mm pistol isn't the type used by armies. Of course it is, noted Knox, "it is the standard U.S. sidearm."
DeMoss also raised a "critical" 10th Amendment issue, the report said.
"I have a 12 gauge and 16 gauge shotgun and a .30 caliber deer rifle in my closet at home. Can you tell me how those affect interstate commerce?" the judge asked prosecutors.
According to the report, Judge Robert M. Parker, a Carter appointee who was moved to the appellate court by President Clinton, told the government, "I don't want you to lose any sleep over this, but Judge Will Garwood (the senior judge) and I between us have enough guns to start a revolution in most South American countries."
Court observers told the Knox Report that there "was no reluctance" to discuss Second Amendment issues, unlike in "most firearms-related court cases." One observer, Linda Thomas of Houston, told Knox that the judges had done their homework.
"It was like sitting in on a Gun Rights Policy Conference legal seminar," she said.
"If the Fifth Circuit concurs with the trial judge that the Second Amendment protects gun ownership as an individual right -- which now seems quite possible -- there would be a conflict between the circuit courts, almost guaranteeing a Supreme Court hearing after the next election," Knox said on Wednesday.
In his initial trial held in Cummings' court, Emerson claimed the federal statute he was charged under violated his Second and Fifth Amendment rights, as well as the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
While the court upheld the statute under the 10th Amendment, it ruled that the law in question, 18 USC, §922 (g)(8), was indeed a violation of Emerson's Second and Fifth Amendment rights.
"[The statute] is unconstitutional," Cummings wrote in regards to the Second Amendment, "because it allows a state court divorce proceeding, without particularized findings of the threat of future violence, to automatically deprive a citizen of his Second Amendment rights."
Regarding the Fifth Amendment, Cummings said because the statute "is an obscure, highly technical statute with no [prior notice] requirement, it violates Emerson's Fifth Amendment due process rights to be subject to prosecution without proof of knowledge that he was violating the statute."
Court officials told WorldNetDaily that the justices were under no time limit to issue a ruling, and they had no indication yesterday when that ruling could come.
I have a 12 gauge and 16 gauge shotgun and a .30 caliber deer rifle in my closet at home. Can you tell me how those affect interstate commerce?
-- U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Harold R. DeMoss, Jr.
I don't want you to lose any sleep over this, but Judge Will Garwood (the senior judge) and I between us have enough guns to start a revolution in most South American countries.
-- U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Robert M. Parker
If the Fifth Circuit concurs with the trial judge that the Second Amendment protects gun ownership as an individual right ... there would be a conflict between the circuit courts, almost guaranteeing a Supreme Court hearing after the next election.
From an article by: Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., President of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Looking back at the history of political philosophy, only a few geniuses have bothered to think and write about the dynamics of state collapse. Preeminently, in the 1550s, Etienne de la Boetie wrote Discourse on Voluntary Servitude, a tract emphasizing that "in order to have liberty nothing more is needed than to long for it." This is because tyrants are "automatically defeated if the country refuses consent to its own enslavement: it is not necessary to deprive him of anything, but simply to give him nothing; there is no need that the country make an effort to do anything for itself provided it does nothing against itself. It is therefore the inhabitants themselves who permit, or, rather, bring about, their own subjection, since by ceasing to submit they would put an end to their servitude." What did Boetie suggest that a subjugated people do? "I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break into pieces." Behind Boetie¹s thinking was the assumption, later spelled out in great detail by David Hume, that states cannot rule by force alone. This is because the agents of government power are always outnumbered by those they rule. To insure compliance with their dictates, it is essential to convince the people that their servitude is somehow in their own interest. They do this by manufacturing ideological systems that seem to justify despotism, such as socialism (among a thousand other excuses). If a population comes to believe in one or another form of statism, their compliance with despotically coercive schemes is assured. If, however, resistance develops and spreads among the subjugated people, the state must relent or step up its use of coercion and make examples out of the non-compliant. The risk of escalation is two fold: the forces of despotism may make martyrs of those singled out for malign treatment, and this can demoralize those within their own ranks who are squeamish about violating essential human rights. Once this dynamic of state collapse begins, it can be difficult to reverse, since further coercion only entrenches internal and external opposition. What about our own country? How secure is the imperial rule of Washington, DC? The ideology that supports big government has been undermined at the intellectual level and it is increasingly rejected at the public level. What the commentators decry as public indifference to public affairs is actually a reflection of widespread revulsion at the character and actions of the political class. Lacking a coherent ideological structure for their rulemost of the available ones are leftovers from the New Deal/Cold War period of American history the political class flounders around demonizing civilian sectors that dare to resist its rule (e.g. Microsoft). Polls consistently reveal that about one third of the American people fundamentally object to the political system as it currently exists and instead seek radical change. Even government officials themselves sense the deep lack of public support for their activities. They believe a fundamental disconnect separates them from the public. Washington, DC, has become an armed camp, not to protect itself against foreign attack, but to guard against citizen reprisal. The young and talented no longer aspire to political office or public service. Voters no longer have faith in the integrity of the system. Most important for gauging our present historical moment, discontent is spreading within the rank-and-file of the nation¹s military. They are outraged at the politicization of promotions, disgusted by the wild-goose chases and murderous expeditions that the commander-in-chief has foisted on them, and no longer believe the patriotic cliches that once put a moral gloss on imperial globe-trotting. Those who can flee for civilian sectors do so, while potential recruits are loathe to sign their lives away to people they no longer trust. Indeed, the dynamic of state collapse is already set in motion right here in the US. There's no point in making predictions about precisely when and how the process will end. All we know, based on every other occupying power in human history, is that the means and the shape of the restoration of liberty will surprise us all. At some point, the people will tell Caesar precisely what he is entitled to and claim the rest for themselves, while those in captivity will ask in bemusement: "What has happened? Where are the guards?"
J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) Use header to subscribe/remove: jail4judges@... JAIL is a unique addition to our form of government. JAIL is powerful! It is dynamic! It is America's ONLY hope! Visit JAIL's informative websites, www.jail4judges.org (& .net) JAIL's message is spreading across this nation vociferously! Support JAIL @ P.O. Box 207, No. Hollywood, CA 91603
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." --Samuel Adams "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <>< ______________________________________________
(Note: If judicial accountability is not of your interest please write "Remove" in header. Otherwise, place "subscribe" in header. We don't want you to receive unwanted mail.)
ON THE VERGE OF VICTORY
From an article by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., President of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Looking back at the history of political philosophy, only a few geniuses have bothered to think and write about the dynamics of state collapse. Preeminently, in the 1550s, Etienne de la Boetie wrote Discourse on Voluntary Servitude, a tract emphasizing that "in order to have liberty nothing more is needed than to long for it." This is because tyrants are "automatically defeated if the country refuses consent to its own enslavement: it is not necessary to deprive him of anything, but simply to give him nothing; there is no need that the country make an effort to do anything for itself provided it does nothing against itself. It is therefore the inhabitants themselves who permit, or, rather, bring about, their own subjection, since by ceasing to submit they would put an end to their servitude." What did Boetie suggest that a subjugated people do? "I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break into pieces." Behind Boetie¹s thinking was the assumption, later spelled out in great detail by David Hume, that states cannot rule by force alone. This is because the agents of government power are always outnumbered by those they rule. To insure compliance with their dictates, it is essential to convince the people that their servitude is somehow in their own interest. They do this by manufacturing ideological systems that seem to justify despotism, such as socialism (among a thousand other excuses). If a population comes to believe in one or another form of statism, their compliance with despotically coercive schemes is assured. If, however, resistance develops and spreads among the subjugated people, the state must relent or step up its use of coercion and make examples out of the non-compliant. The risk of escalation is two fold: the forces of despotism may make martyrs of those singled out for malign treatment, and this can demoralize those within their own ranks who are squeamish about violating essential human rights. Once this dynamic of state collapse begins, it can be difficult to reverse, since further coercion only entrenches internal and external opposition. What about our own country? How secure is the imperial rule of Washington, DC? The ideology that supports big government has been undermined at the intellectual level and it is increasingly rejected at the public level. What the commentators decry as public indifference to public affairs is actually a reflection of widespread revulsion at the character and actions of the political class. Lacking a coherent ideological structure for their rulemost of the available ones are leftovers from the New Deal/Cold War period of American history the political class flounders around demonizing civilian sectors that dare to resist its rule (e.g. Microsoft). Polls consistently reveal that about one third of the American people fundamentally object to the political system as it currently exists and instead seek radical change. Even government officials themselves sense the deep lack of public support for their activities. They believe a fundamental disconnect separates them from the public. Washington, DC, has become an armed camp, not to protect itself against foreign attack, but to guard against citizen reprisal. The young and talented no longer aspire to political office or public service. Voters no longer have faith in the integrity of the system. Most important for gauging our present historical moment, discontent is spreading within the rank-and-file of the nation¹s military. They are outraged at the politicization of promotions, disgusted by the wild-goose chases and murderous expeditions that the commander-in-chief has foisted on them, and no longer believe the patriotic cliches that once put a moral gloss on imperial globe-trotting. Those who can flee for civilian sectors do so, while potential recruits are loathe to sign their lives away to people they no longer trust. Indeed, the dynamic of state collapse is already set in motion right here in the US. There's no point in making predictions about precisely when and how the process will end. All we know, based on every other occupying power in human history, is that the means and the shape of the restoration of liberty will surprise us all. At some point, the people will tell Caesar precisely what he is entitled to and claim the rest for themselves, while those in captivity will ask in bemusement: "What has happened? Where are the guards?"
J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) Use header to subscribe/remove: jail4judges@... JAIL is a unique addition to our form of government. JAIL is powerful! It is dynamic! It is America's ONLY hope! Visit JAIL's informative websites, www.jail4judges.org (& .net) JAIL's message is spreading across this nation vociferously! Support JAIL @ P.O. Box 207, No. Hollywood, CA 91603
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." --Samuel Adams "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <>< ______________________________________________
The government established by our Founding Fathers included the provision of "separation of powers" between the various branches to provide a balance of power.
Regrettably, the original checks and balances have been set aside in recent times. One branch-the Judiciary-has dominated the other two.
The Founders' desire was rooted in Jeremiah 17:9:
"The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked; who can know it?"
This passage encapsulated what Puritans, Calvinists, and others termed the "depravity of man"; that is, the unrestrained heart of man moves toward moral and civil degradation. Society, therefore, would be much safer if all power did not repose in the same authority.
The "Supreme" Branch
Today the Founders' clear Constitutional design has been ignored. The Supreme Court is no longer simply one branch among three; it is now, literally, the "supreme" branch.
In recent years it has even described itself as "a super board of education for every school district in the nation," "a national theology board," and amateur psychologists on a "psycho journey."
Far too many of our current policies on criminal justice, education, morality, etc., are not the result of legislative action but rather of judicial decrees.
Checks and Balances
It may come as a surprise to many, but there are procedures to restore the balance. The House of Representatives has the sole right of impeachment. The Senate has the power to try them.
Reasons for impeachment include the court's frequent overturning of direct elections of the people, their revision and modification of jury decisions, and their unilateral manipulation of public policy to their own social agenda.
Judicial Policy Making
If a special interest group loses at the ballot box, it need only file suit in federal court to have it declared the winner. For example:
* In Compassion in Dying v. Washington and in Quill v. Vacco, courts reversed the results of elections in Washington and New York, in which the citizens had voted to forbid physician-assisted suicides;
* In Missouri v. Jenkins, although citizens voted down a proposed tax increase, the courts nevertheless ordered the tax to be levied;
* In Yniguez v. Arizona, the courts reversed the results of the vote by Arizona citizens that English be the official language of the State;
* In LULAC v. Wilson and Gregorio T. v. Wilson, the courts suspended the results of the California vote to withhold State-funded taxpayer services from those who are illegally in the country;
* In Carver v. Nixon, the courts set aside the results of a statewide election wherein Missouri citizens voted to approve campaign financing reform by setting limits on candidate contributions by individuals;
* In U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, and Thorsten v. Munro, the courts overturned the results of elections in which citizens in Arkansas and Washington had voted to limit the terms of their elected officials; and
* In Romer v. Evans, the courts overturned a constitutional amendment approved by Colorado citizens to forbid awarding special, rather than equal, rights to homosexuals.
Recommended Reading
Dave Barton has recently published a revealing book, Impeachment! Restraining an Overactive Judiciary. This describes the Constitutional foundations for impeachment, its process, its several justifications, and why it is essential to preserving our way of life.
This book is an absolute MUST READ for every serious American!
....
J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) Use header to subscribe/remove: jail4judges@... JAIL is a unique addition to our form of government. JAIL is powerful! It is dynamic! It is America's ONLY hope! Visit JAIL's informative websites, www.jail4judges.org (& .net) JAIL's message is spreading across this nation vociferously! Support JAIL @ P.O. Box 207, No. Hollywood, CA 91603
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." --Samuel Adams "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <>< ______________________________________________
In ancient Rome the great Caesars did not declare themselves Gods, but the insane ones did. But even the insane ones did not grant Immunity to public servants. Granting Immunity is a god like act, which can only come from God, not man.
With new stories coming out every day of some public servant somewhere, claiming they are Immune from prosecution for their acts, and worse yet, is some judge ruling that they do have Immunity!!!
Just what and how does any mortal person get or grant Immunity? What is Immunity? Is it a Super Power only Gods have? Can a mere Mortal be granted it? Who has the power to grant a mortal this Immunity? Is there really such a thing as Immunity?
If there really was in fact such a thing as real Immunity, would not any person having it, be in all intensive reasoning, be a GOD?
The FBI sniper who killed the wife of Randy Weaver is declared Immune from state prosecution, the federal appeals court ruled Wednesday. This ruling has the same effect as granting a license to kill with impunity to any government agency.
In 1992 an FBI employee hired a killer by the name of Lon Horiuchi, who shot Vicki Weaver in the head with his 308 caliber high-powered telescoped equipped sniper rifle from 200 yards, while she held her nursing baby in her arms, killing her instantly.
This woman was not guilty of any crime, nor was she even under suspicion. She had just had her 14 year old son shot many times by two other government agents armed with full automatic machine guns, killing him.
The two heavily armed government agents shot her 14-year-old boy and his dog while he and Kevin Harris were looking to see if the dog was barking at some deer which frequented the Weaver's rural property. They expected no trouble and chatted with each other as they walked into an ambush.
The Government Agents fired from ambush, shooting the boy and his dog many times. The boy had his arm almost blown off and died screaming in agony where he fell.
The government agents were hiding in the underbrush on the Weaver property, complete with full camouflage and armored vests.
One of the ambushers was killed in return fire from Kevin Harris with his old hunting rifle. The other federal agent retreated when Mr. Weaver heard the gun shots and came running to find his son shot to bits laying on the ground dead, with his dog also shot dead not far away.
Mr. Weaver carried his dead son back to their house with his boy's arm hanging by a shred. They decided to place him in a shed away out of the sight of his young daughters who were in the house with their mother and nursing baby.
The sniper, Lon Horiuchi, shot Mr. Weaver when he and his friend Harris were leaving the shed containing his murdered son's dead body.
Both Mr. Weaver and Mr. Harris were shot and gravely wounded by the sniper, Lon Horiuchi, but they made for the house, helping each other, where Mrs. Weaver, hearing the shots and seeing her wounded husband, was holding the door open for them.
The sniper, Lon Horiuchi, then shot her in the head, killing her instantly, causing her to drop the baby as she fell dead in the open doorway.
The sniper, Lon Horiuchi, was in hiding and had a high powered telescope equipped 308 cal. rifle, which at 200 yards, he could have seen the color of her eyes before he pulled the trigger to kill her.
He knew she was dead from his bullet to her head, but for the next few days the government agents taunted Mr. Weaver asking how Vicki was, making rude remarks about her, trying to get Weaver and Harris to show themselves and be shot.
These government agents knew there was a baby and other children in the house, but still they taunted and made rude jokes about the murdered wife and mother, and the son who was still laying dead in the shed.
These same agents knew both Mr. Weaver and Harris were badly wounded, and Mrs. Weaver's body was in view of the children. They also knew the baby had no milk, and didn't know-- much less even care-- if it was hurt or not when it fell to the floor when the Sniper, Lon Horiuchi, killed the mother in front of the other children.
No medical help, food, water, or even milk for the baby, was offered, only rude cruel remarks from the federal agents about the dead mother and wife were forthcoming.
These people were murdered by our government agents over a missed court appearance. The time of appearance was changed, but the change was not known to Mr. Weaver, and he had no way of knowing of the changed date.
He was later cleared of these charges.
The feds tried to show the Weaver family dangerous and the killing justified, and to this end, they made a show of displaying any and all the weapons the family had. To some, it looked like an arsenal. But to the average rural resident, the guns the Weavers had were not anything special. Most farm and rural families either have more guns in their family and most have better and newer guns.
There was nothing in the seven or eight Weaver guns that this writer would envy, except maybe that 1917 Enfield, a First World War English design rifle, which was properly the one I would take a second look at. But in real life, they were guns you would find in back closets, gathering dust.
The federal agents involved in these killings all falsified their reports and engaged in a massive cover-up after the crime. The top officials of the FBI were involved in hiding, withholding and modifying the evidence.
The killing of the boy was blamed on the dead agent just by innuendo to save the other from any charges in the killing. No tests were made on the other ambusher's gun, or the dead ones to determine who did the actual killing. The dead tell no tales and cannot be prosecuted.
No one was fined, fired, or even censored. In fact, some were given medals.
The sniper, Lon Horiuchi, has been given Immunity from any prosecution, simply because he is a federal agent and the laws do not apply to them.
Our federal agents are free to shoot any person, commit any crime with Impunity. They literally have a license to kill, as long as they only kill non-government employees, I guess.
The rule of law is no longer a part of this country's heritage. It ended with the judges granting immunity for government agents, even if they kill innocent people.
It's ironic these same agents were hired to protect the Weaver family.
The Weaver family sued the federal government in court and the government settled for over three million dollars. But they refused to admit responsibility or that they had done anything wrong.
This government will not take any responsibility for any wrongdoing, and they think money will solve all problems. With no admission of wrongdoing, nothing is corrected, and the rot continues to spread.
The Constitution of this country grants Immunity to no one for any reason. Not even the President has Immunity under the Constitution of the United States, which is the Supreme Law of the Land -- or it used to be.
All federal agents must swear by an Oath to Protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States. None is living up to that today.
We now are under the Rule of the Gun, not the Rule of Law.
Warning: The government hired gunman, Lon Horiuchi, is on the loose, and is a danger to all citizens.
The sniper, Lon Horiuchi, is a known killer. His whereabouts should be reported whenever and wherever he is spotted. This man has no qualms about killing people.
Soon after he killed Mrs. Weaver, he went to do the same at Waco. It didn't bother him, as he was ready and willing to kill again. And he doesn't even have to know why, or if it's remotely called for. He is a hired killer.
So keep clear of this cold-blooded killer and report his sightings so people can get away from where he is, or is heading. He may be demented and really believe he is Immune.
The life you save may be your own, or someone you care about.
Caution: Lon Horiuchi may believe he is Immune. Do our servants think they are gods with this granting of Immunity? Have they all become demented with power. Would any good honest person need Immunity? Even God did not grant Immunity to any person.
Disclaimer: This is sent to you for informational purposes only. J.A.I.L. cannot vouch
for the veracity of any matter.
J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) Use header to subscribe/remove: jail4judges@... JAIL is a unique addition to our form of government. JAIL is powerful! It is dynamic! It is America's ONLY hope! Visit JAIL's informative websites, www.jail4judges.org (& .net) JAIL's message is spreading across this nation vociferously! Support JAIL @ P.O. Box 207, No. Hollywood, CA 91603
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." --Samuel Adams "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <>< ______________________________________________
• Court: Roughed up, jailed and unemployed, Shoemaker makes his first court appearance.
GALESBURG, Ill. -- Members of the Western Illinois Militia say they may carry out a planned demonstration today even though authorities have jailed their leader.
Militia member Trent Lawrence said other members of the self-styled group may go through with the armed protest Dan Shoemaker said he'd planned to conduct on the public square.
"Or we may wait a week," he said. "And Galesburg may not possibly be the right spot."
Shoemaker was arrested Thursday morning and charged with nine felony counts for alleged threats against Knox County Sheriff James Thompson and Galesburg Police Chief John Schlaf. Three more felony charges were filed after a search of his car outside an Abingdon, Ill., school reportedly turned up firearms, and a misdemeanor charge of resisting arrest was filed Thursday morning.
Three additional charges await Shoemaker in Warren County involving alleged threats against Sheriff Richard "Floaty" Hart.
Shoemaker, sporting a blackened left eye and a 3-inch gash on his forehead, made his first appearance in court Thursday.
Circuit Judge James Stewart read Shoemaker the charges and appointed Public Defender James Harrell to represent the nationally known author of the "U.S. Militiaman's Handbook."
Shoemaker was soft spoken as he listened attentively to the judge and to a description of the evidence presented by Knox County State's Attorney Paul Mangieri. While the judge advised him not to make statements until he has had the opportunity to consult with his attorney, he did indicate he took issue with the prosecutor's version of events.
"There are differences I have with what was stated," he said.
A sheriff's department employee said Thompson suffered a "slightly separated shoulder" while a deputy suffered a "bruised knee." Both were on duty as usual Friday.
Shoemaker, who needed 20 stitches after the arrest, called attention to the seemingly lopsided score and asked about the arresting officer.
"Did he have any marks on him?" he said.
Security was tight around the courthouse. Three armed deputies in body armor and tactical gear escorted the handcuffed militia chief into the courtroom while four other deputies with guns at their hips stood at various points.
Outside the courtroom, several other armed officers patrolled the hallways and one deputy armed with a fully automatic M-16 assault rifle stood guard outside the main entrance.
In spite of the measure, however, Lawrence and fellow militia member Richard Reeves -- both of whom are known to authorities as part of the militia group and whose pictures appear on the militia's Web site -- said they were able to enter and leave the courthouse with ease.
They also made light of a policy that requires the general public to submit to a metal detector while some said the measures authorities are taking simply prove the point Shoemaker wanted to make.
The two said the protest, intended to coincide with the anniversary of the Battle of Bunker Hill, was to be a peaceful demonstration even though Shoemaker said he'd be armed with a semi-automatic assault-style weapon as he walked around the square.
It's an act they said is legal in nearly half the American states, as long as the weapon remains in plain view.
In Illinois, however, it's a crime for a private citizen to carry a functioning firearm within a city. They say the law is unconstitutional, and the protest was meant to demonstrate the disconnect between state law and what is supposed to be the nation's highest legal document.
Now, Reeves said, Shoemaker is in jail while a deputy stands on the courthouse lawn with a weapon of war.
"Why is that man morally superior to Dan Shoemaker to stand there with an M-16?" he said.
While the man who has publicly described himself as the head of the militia since 1995 remains in jail, the two said Kenny Butler of rural Oquawka, Ill., is in charge of the group estimated at 50 to 200 members.
They said they are under orders not to attempt a raid on the jail to release their leader.
Mangieri said in court Shoemaker threatened authorities by telling them in personal conversations and in writing he would resist if police or deputies were to attempt to detain him while he mounted his protest. The prosecutor said he told them they shouldn't try to arrest him because they wouldn't want to turn their communities into "a smoking battlefield."
Shoemaker indicated he does not have the financial means to hire a private attorney, saying as of Friday he is no longer employed by the Abingdon school district where he had worked as a custodian.
The judge added another $300,000 to Shoemaker's $1 million bond for the weapons charges and the charge of resisting arrest, meaning he would now have to raise $130,000 in cash to be released. Even if he did, he still faces active warrants in Warren County and another $1 million bond there.
Reeves described the charges as "trumped up" and questioned allegations the weapons Shoemaker had in his car weren't stored in accordance with the law.
He said Shoemaker regularly unloaded and cased his weapons while transporting them in his car, "as a matter of safety, not as a matter of law."
While authorities seem to be treating their group as leaderless followers unable to act without Shoemaker, Reeves said the militia is alive and well under Butler's command and awaiting the authorities' next move.
"The leadership of the militia is still intact," he said.
J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) Use header to subscribe/remove: jail4judges@... JAIL is a unique addition to our form of government. JAIL is powerful! It is dynamic! It is America's ONLY hope! Visit JAIL's informative websites, www.jail4judges.org (& .net) JAIL's message is spreading across this nation vociferously! Support JAIL @ P.O. Box 207, No. Hollywood, CA 91603
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." --Samuel Adams "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <>< ______________________________________________
(a) Preamble. The House of Representatives finds: that an inordinate and ever-growing number of complaints for willful misconduct have been lodged with Congress involving federal judges across this nation; that the current Title 28 U.S.C. §372(c) (Judicial Misconduct and Disability Act) is in many cases inadequate due to conflicts of interest of judges judging themselves; that judicial integrity is of major importance which affects all areas of our American society. Be it therefore resolved that the House of Representatives assembled hereby enacts the following legislation which shall be known as the "Judicial Accountability and Integrity Legislation."
(b) Definitions. For purposes of this statute:
1. The term "blocking" shall mean any act that impedes the lawful conclusion of a case, to include unreasonable delay and willful rendering of a void judgment or order.
2. The term "federal judge" or "judge" shall mean any federal justice, judge, magistrate, commissioner, or any person shielded by judicial immunity.
3. The term "Juror" shall mean a Special Federal Grand Juror.
4. The term "strike" shall mean an adverse immunity decision based upon bad behavior as set forth by paragraph (c), or a criminal conviction as set forth in paragraph (r).
Where appropriate, the singular shall include the plural, and the plural the singular.
(c) Immunity. Notwithstanding common law or any other provision to the contrary, no immunities shall be extended to any federal judge except as is specifically set forth in this statute. Preserving the purpose of protecting judges from frivolous and harassing actions, no immunity shielding a federal judge shall be construed to extend to any deliberate violation of law, fraud or conspiracy, intentional violation of due process of law, deliberate disregard of material facts, judicial acts without jurisdiction, blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case, or any deliberate violation of the Constitution of these United States, all violations of which shall constitute bad behavior.
(d) Special Federal Grand Jury. There is hereby created within the District of Columbia a twenty-five member Special Federal Grand Jury with full federal geographical jurisdiction having power to judge on both law and fact. Their responsibility shall be limited to determining, on an objective standard, whether a civil suit against a federal judge would be frivolous and harassing, or fall within the exclusions of immunity as set forth herein, and whether there is probable cause of criminal conduct by the federal judge complained of.
(e) Professional Counsel. The Special Federal Grand Jury shall have exclusive power to retain non-governmental advisors, special prosecutors, and investigators, as needed, who shall serve no longer than two years, after which term said officers shall be ineligible. However, with permission of the Special Federal Grand Jury, a special prosecutor may prosecute their current cases through all appeals and any applicable complaints to the Special Federal Grand Jury.
(f) Establishment of a Special Federal Grand Jury Seat. A Special Federal Grand Jury seat is hereby created, which seat shall be located in excess of one mile of any federal judicial body.
(g) Annual Funding. Congress hereby deducts two and nine-tenths percent from the gross judicial salaries of all federal judges, which amount shall be deposited regularly into the exclusive trust account created by this statute in paragraph (k) for its operational expenses, together with filing fees under paragraph (h), surcharges under paragraph (i), and fines imposed under paragraph (r).
(h) Filing Fees. Attorneys representing a client filing a civil complaint or answer before the Special Federal Grand Jury, shall at the time of filing pay a fee equal to the filing fee due in a civil appeal to the United States Supreme Court. Individuals filing a civil complaint or answer before the Special Federal Grand Jury in their own behalf as a matter of right, shall, at the time of filing, post a fee of one hundred dollars, or file a declaration, which shall remain confidential, stating they are impoverished and unable to pay and/or object to such fee.
(i) Surcharges. Should this statute lack sufficient funding through its fines, fees, and forfeitures (including deductions in paragraph (g)), Congress may impose appropriate surcharges upon the civil court filing fees of corporate litigants as necessary to make this statute self-supporting, or they may appropriate any and all the necessary funds for the full implementation of this statute by legislation, notwithstanding the two and one-half percent deduction of the salaries of federal judges.
(j) Compensation of Jurors. Each Juror shall receive a salary commensurate to fifty percent of a federal district judge prorated according to the number of days actually served.
(k) Annual Budget. The Special Federal Grand Jury shall have an annual operational budget commensurate to twenty times the combined salaries of the twenty-five Jurors serving full time, which sum shall be initially deposited by Congress into an exclusive trust account to be annually administered by the Controller. Should the trust balance, within any budget year, drop to less than an amount equivalent to the annual gross salaries of fifty federal district judges, the Controller shall so notify Congress which shall replenish the account, prorated based on the actual average expenditures during the budget year. Should the trust balance in any subsequent year exceed the annual operational budget at the beginning of a new budget year, the Controller shall return such excess to the United States Treasury.
(l) Jurisdiction. The Special Federal Grand Jury shall have exclusive power to establish rules assuring their attendance, to provide internal discipline, and to remove any of its members on grounds of misconduct. The Special Federal Grand Jury shall immediately assign a docket number to each complaint brought before it. Except as provided in paragraph (s), no complaint of judicial misconduct shall be considered by the Special Federal Grand Jury unless the complainant shall have first attempted to exhaust all judicial remedies available in the federal courts within the immediately preceding six-month period. Such six-month period, however, shall not commence in complaints of prior fraud or blocking of a lawful conclusion until after the date the Special Federal Grand Jury becomes functional. This provision is intended to apply remedially and retroactively.
(m) Qualifications of Jurors. A Juror shall have attained to the age of thirty years, and have been nine years a citizen of the United States, and an inhabitant of Washington, D.C. Those not eligible for Special Federal Grand Jury service shall include elected and appointed officials, members of the Bar, judges (active or retired), judicial, prosecutorial and law enforcement personnel, without other exclusion except previous adjudication of mental incapacity, imprisonment, or parole from a conviction of a felonious crime against persons.
(n) Selection of Jurors. The Jurors shall serve without compulsion and shall be drawn by public lot by the Secretary of State from names on the voters rolls and any citizen submitting his/her name to the Secretary of State for such drawing.
(o) Service of Jurors. Excluding the establishment of the initial Special Federal Grand Jury, each Juror shall serve one year. No Juror shall serve more than once. On the first day of each month, two persons shall be rotated off the Special Federal Grand Jury and new Citizens seated, except in January it shall be three. Vacancies shall be filled on the first of the following month in addition to the Jurors regularly rotated, and the Juror chosen to fill a vacancy shall complete only the remainder of the term of the Juror replaced. A majority of thirteen shall determine any matter. Special Federal Grand Jury files shall always remain public record following their final determination.
(p) Procedures. The Special Federal Grand Jury shall serve a copy of the filed complaint upon the subject judge and notice to the complainant of such service. The judge shall have thirty days to serve and file an answer. The complainant shall have twenty days to reply to the judge's answer. (Upon timely request, the Special Federal Grand Jury may provide for extensions for good cause.) The Special Federal Grand Jury shall have power to subpoena witnesses, documents, and other tangible evidence, and to examine witnesses under oath. The Special Federal Grand Jury shall determine the causes properly before it with their reasoned findings in writing within one hundred twenty (120) calendar days, serving on all parties their decision on whether immunity shall be barred as a defense to any civil action that may thereafter be pursued against the federal judge. A rehearing may be requested of the Special Federal Grand Jury within twenty days with service upon the opposition. Twenty days shall be allowed to reply thereto. Thereafter, the Special Federal Grand Jury shall render final determination within thirty days. All allegations of the complaint shall be liberally construed in favor of the complainant. The Jurors shall keep in mind, in making their decisions, that they are entrusted by the people of these United States with the duty of restoring a perception of justice and accountability of the federal judiciary, and are not to be swayed by artful presentation by the federal judge. They shall avoid all influence by judicial and government entities. The statute of limitations on any civil suit brought pursuant to this statute against a federal judge shall not commence until the rendering of a final decision by the Special Federal Grand Jury.
(q) Removal. Whenever any federal judge shall have received more than three strikes, the federal judge shall automatically be brought up on charges before Congress for Articles of Impeachment by the Special Federal Grand Jury through its special prosecutor for bad behavior and willful misconduct. Congress thereafter shall commence to a vote on such Articles of Impeachment. Upon a conviction, the federal judge shall be permanently removed from office. He may also be held liable under any other appropriate criminal or civil proceeding.
(r) Indictment. Should the Special Federal Grand Jury also find probable cause of criminal conduct on the part of any federal judge against whom a complaint is docketed, it shall have the power to indict such federal judge except where double jeopardy attaches. The Special Federal Grand Jury shall, without voir dire beyond personal relationship, cause to be impaneled special trial jurors, plus alternates, which trial jurors shall be instructed that they have power to judge both law and fact. The Special Federal Grand Jury shall also select a non-governmental special prosecutor and a federal judge with no more than four years on the bench from a state other than that of the defendant judge, (or outside of the District of Columbia, if the case so be). The trial jury shall be selected from the same pool of jury candidates as any regular federal jury. The special prosecutor shall thereafter prosecute the cause to a conclusion, having all the powers of any other prosecutor within these United States. Upon conviction, the special trial jury shall have exclusive power of sentencing (limited to incarceration, fines and/or community service), which shall be derived by an average of the sentences of the trial jurors.
(s) Criminal Procedures. In addition to any other provisions of this statute, a complaint for criminal conduct of a federal judge may be brought directly to the Special Federal Grand Jury upon all the following prerequisites: (1) an affidavit of criminal conduct has been lodged with the appropriate prosecutorial entity within ninety (90) days of the commission of the alleged conduct; (2) the prosecutor declines to prosecute, or one hundred twenty (120) days has passed following the lodging of such affidavit and prosecution has not commenced; (3) an indictment, if sought, has not been specifically declined on the merits by a Grand Jury; and (4) the criminal statute of limitations has not run. Any criminal conviction (including a plea bargain) under any judicial process shall constitute a strike.
(t) Public Indemnification. No federal judge complained of, or sued civilly by a complainant pursuant to this statute shall be defended at public expense or by any elected or appointed public counsel, nor shall any federal judge be reimbursed from public funds for any losses sustained under this statute.
(u) Redress. The provisions of this statute are in addition to other redress that may exist and are not mutually exclusive.
(v) Preeminence. Preeminence shall be given to this statute in any case of conflicts with any other federal statutes, case law, or common law to the contrary. The foreperson of the Special Federal Grand Jury shall read, or cause to be read, this statute to the respective Jurors semi-annually during the first week of business in January and July.
Send the above proposed Bill to every Congressman on the House Judiciary Committee with your personal words of urgency that this Bill be passed!
Send Email
Back to Judiciary Homepage 
