Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Response to: Public /Private Partnership - Fascism Pure & Simple

Expand Messages
  • jail4judges
    ... From: Big Al To: jail4judges Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 8:54 PM Subject: Re: *Public /Private Partnership - Fascism Pure & Simple This goes right
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 22, 2000
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Big Al
      Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 8:54 PM
      Subject: Re: *Public /Private Partnership - Fascism Pure & Simple

      This goes right along with my case against the phone companies that have been protectd by the State and the US Supreme Court who denied my cert. So I just sent the below to the Chief Justice.  I wonder how he will react.
       

        CASE No.00-6105
                                                                          IN THE one supreme court for the united STATES of AMERICA


      Albert Coombs, Sui Juris                 Plaintiff/Petitioner
      Paul Burge, Sui Juris         Intervener/Petitioner

         Vs.

      Sprint Communications company LP, and  Appellees
      AT&T Communications of the Southern
      States Inc.

      Dear Justice William H. Rehnquist;

       I received a denial of Petition for Certiorari dated November 13, 2000  and signed by the Clerk of the Court. Enclosed is a copy.
       We "protest" and "refuse" a "non-judicial" determination by under signature of a "clerk" a non judicial/non-Article III constitutional officer who does not have the experience or credentials to adjudge such a complicated case "on behalf: of justices of the countries highest adjudicatory body.  I believe we have a fair understanding of the role of legal "aides" assisting justices in their administrative tasks...however; I take extreme issue with MERE law school graduates "wetting their feet" as a prelude to a higher paying position with some so-called prestigious Law Firm; making NATIONWIDE legal determinations on legal issues that even the most seasoned of Lawyers have failed to recognize.

        As a case in point; I refer you to the very recent decision emanating from your court in GTE vs FCC,  where that case was briefed and re-briefed by some of the most notorious and highly respected Lawyer members of the Bar.   Not a single one of those eminent Law firms captured the "overriding" legal concept that myself and the joining Intervenor discovered; that being - the TREATY nature of the improper telephone company charges at issue.
        So....if the countries brightest and best legal scholars didn't understand this important and relevant legal principle; why on earth should we, Intervenor and myself, ever anticipate that mere 4L law graduates could possibly comprehend this complex argument?
        In truth Mr. Rehnquist...we don't and we're sure your 4L's did not !  The fact Sir; that a decision in our behalf will work an extreme hardship upon the Respondents and similar situated entities should not - no - I say,  MUST not influence the treatment that our case deserves in Justice.
       We therefore protest the procedure thus far presented as a judicial determination in the controversy before your court; and appeal to you Mr. Rehnquist, under Rule 22; to take the righteous; reasonable and warranted action to assure that our case receives its just review, not just a cursory review.
       We have never received a due process hearing at any stage of this controversy, from its inception to this point in time, and have been denied any remedy or reasoning for why there has been no remedy or hearing forthcoming.
       This is a case that affects everyone in this country that uses a phone. But, more importantly is the fact of runaway corporations and the courts denying the fundamental operation of government and due process at the expense of the people, it smacks of 100 percent oligarchy and fascism. If you condone such a blatant abuse and misuse of the judicial system where the people have no remedy for ... grievances, then you will deny this Re-petition and Protest and we will all know there is no such thing as justice for the “little” people in this country.
       I SPECIFICALLY "set" the court as a demand of RIGHT issue of
      Original Constitutional jurisdiction, and as such it MUST be heard, or, in the alternative....the court must "state why" this treaty matter does not rise to that level as the original constitution never stipulated any prohibitory rules whatsoever on the right to be heard via discretionary rules, apparently in effect today.
      Sincerely,
       

      Albert Coombs
      and/on behalf of
      Paul Burge
      Date November 20, 2000 
        


      J.A.I.L. News Journal
      Los Angeles - November 20, 2000
      ____________________________________________________
      Listen to HotSeat4Judges daily on Internet Radio M-Th, 6-7 pm P.T.
      ____________________________________________________
      For a beautiful navy blue T-shirt with "J.A.I.L." on the back and www.jail4judges.org large and visible over the pocket, imprinted in a bright yellow-gold lettering, send your check payable to J.A.I.L. for $11.95 plus $4 S&H. (Discounts on volume quantities.) Wear them to your next courthouse function and watch the reaction.
      Public /Private Partnership - Fascism Pure & Simple
        Every so often the good guys win one.  This is one of those times!!! This is a direct hit at the public/private partnership (better known as
      FASCISM).  Every single public/private partnership maneuver should be shot down and the legislators who promote such efforts should be exposed for what they are - fascists. Government has no business being in business - any business.  There is no place in the Constitution allowing for such misadventure. .... *
      Jackie Juntti - WGEN  idzrus@...

      Court throws out Narrows Bridge contract over toll issue

      By HUNTER T. GEORGE
      The Associated Press
      11/9/00 12:44 PM

      OLYMPIA (AP) -- The Washington Supreme Court on Thursday overturned the state's contract with a private firm that would have used tolls to pay for a second bridge over the congested Tacoma Narrows.

      The nine-member court unanimously agreed the project violates a 1961 law that banned tolls from the existing bridge. The court also ruled that the state exceeded its authority by giving a private entity the ability to set tolls.

      The ruling was a victory for Gig Harbor-area residents who have been desperately trying to block the project on the grounds they would end up paying the most for it.

      "I think the fact it's a unanimous ruling only verifies the strength of our case," Randy Boss, a Gig Harbor real estate agent who has been one of the project's most vocal critics, said as his phone rang off the hook with people calling to congratulate him.

      The ruling was a major setback for the state, which has clung to the project as the last gasp for a law that sought private financing for expensive public transportation needs.

      Backers had hoped to clear all legal hurdles this year so that bonds could be sold as early as next month and construction could begin soon after.

      State officials were reviewing the decision and had no immediate comment.

      The project is expected to cost more than $800 million in construction, financing and contingency charges.

      The Peninsula Neighborhood Association challenged the project from its inception under a 1993 law that authorized state Transportation Secretary Sid Morrison to "test the feasibility" of finding private financing for expensive public transportation projects.

      The state Transportation Commission hired a construction firm, United Infrastructure Washington, to build a new bridge, modify the existing bridge and operate and maintain the pair. Under the agreement, UIW would sell bonds to finance the project and then repay the bonds and earn a yet-to-be-determined profit by charging a round-trip toll across one of the bridges. The initial toll was to be set at $3.

      The neighborhood group sued in July 1999, arguing that the Public-Private Initiative Act was unconstitutional and accusing the DOT of violating numerous laws.

      In January, Thurston County Superior Court Judge Daniel Berschauer dismissed the challenge, saying the law was constitutional and the contract the state signed with UIW was valid. The neighborhood group appealed.

      On Thursday, the Supreme Court rejected the group's claim that the Public-Private Initiative Act was unconstitutional.

      But the high court agreed the project is at odds with the 1961 law declaring that the Narrows Bridge would be a "toll-free facility" once its construction debt was paid off. The debt was repaid in 1965 and the toll came off.

      "Because the agreement allows for the imposition of a 'round trip' toll rate that is set, adjusted, and retained by WSDOT, it violates the statutory mandate that the existing Tacoma Narrows bridge be toll free," Chief Justice Richard Guy wrote for the court.

      Even if the existing bridge were allowed to have a toll reimposed, Guy added, the state transportation agency exceeded its authority by agreeing to let a private entity determine the toll rate on the existing bridge.

      State law gives toll authority to the Transportation Commission, a citizen panel that oversees the agency, he said.

      The state attorney general's office had argued that the Public-Private Initiatives Act should supersede earlier statutes, including the one declaring that the existing bridge would be operated toll-free.

      The state said the law did not prohibit it from undertaking a new project that would be financed through tolls.

      On the Net:

      The decision in Peninsula Neighborhood Association v. State Department of Transportation, case No. 69432-0, can be found at:
      http://www.courts.wa.gov/


      * The above is not sent to you so much for information about a bridge in Washington State, but to alert our readership about the Public/Private Partnership which is overtaking our nation. Near every public service is going to private corporations, such as Child Protection Services, Parking Violations Bureaus, Private Judicial Adjudications, etc. As Jackie Juntti correctly points out, government has no authority to go into business. These services must either be open to free competition that anyone and everyone may conduct the business, or it be handled by government without profit. It cannot be government with any sort of profit motive. This is a very subtle form of fascism. It leads to unelected stockholders governing the nation with only one criterion - PROFIT. They make the laws, they enforce the laws, and they profit from it going in and going out, and Constitutional implications has no bearing or control. Thus, we are headed to "government" without Constitutional bounds brought to you only by cooperative courts!  Only J.A.I.L. will stop this descent into Fascism. J.A.I.L. is an acronym for (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law)
      JAIL's very informative website is found at www.jail4judges.org
      JAIL proposes a unique new addition to our form of government.
      JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!
      JAIL's is spreading across America like a fast moving wildfire!
      JAIL is making inroads into Congress for federal accountability!
      JAIL may be supported at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603
      To subscribe or be removed:  add-remove-jail@...
      To send published judicial articles: USA-jail4judges@...
      To contact the author of JAIL4Judges: jail4judges@...
      All E-Groups are encouraged to sign on at jail4judges@egroups.com "..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    <><

       
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.