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

* *We Must Focus On SPECIFIC Lawyers, i.e., JUDGES* *

Expand Messages
  • victoryusa@jail4judges.org
    J.A.I.L. News Journal ______________________________________________________ Los Angeles, California September 15, 2004
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 15, 2004
      J.A.I.L. News Journal
      Los Angeles, California                                     September 15, 2004
      Mission Statement                  JNJ Library                     PayPal Support
      Federal J.A.I.L.                           FAQs                    What?MeWarden?

      We Must Focus On SPECIFIC Lawyers, i.e., On JUDGES
      The below article sent to our Legal Discussions Group by JOSEPHN126@... is excellent-- except for one vital factor: IT LACKS FOCUS!  We quote in our J.A.I.L. signature:  "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root."  -- Henry David Thoreau.  The entire profession of "Lawyers" represents many BRANCHES of evil. Every aspect of life involves lawyers as advisors and/or legal representatives. While there are many BRANCHES of evil, there is only one ROOT from which all branches 
      flourish. That one ROOT consists of one specific sect of lawyers, and that is the judiciary. Folks, that is where the People must set their focus if we are to accomplish any control over our tyrannical, unconstitutional form of government as it currently operates.  
      Taking on all lawyers is like taking on government itself. It's too broad a field to challenge and in attempting to do so, our resources become diffused and depleted with no resolution accomplished. Rather, we have to limit our focus on the source of evil in government-- not on the entire scope of it. Track every aspect of government corruption (wrongdoing) to its ultimate source of authority. Where does the buck (pardon the pun) stop? Where does everything in controversy-- you name it-- end up?  Think, People, THINK!  Where is the end of the line-- the final backstop-- as far as redress of grievances goes? What do people say whenever they run into an unsolvable predicament--  whatever it is?  Yes, "We'll have to take it to court!" --as if court were the ultimate resolution to all controversies! Well, IS IT?? 
      Picture a funnel, where all government alleged wrongdoing is dumped into. The top of the funnel is a wide, gaping opening to take in all claims and allegations of wrongdoing, all of which allegations and defenses are mixed in with lawyers of all kinds. They are all eventually sucked into the narrow bottom of the funnel leading to the ultimate destination-- yes, the courts where only one sect of lawyer controls-- JUDGES (including hearing officers, commissioners, magistrates, arbitrators, referees, etc. --anyone sitting in judgment of a case). And that destination includes the entire judicial system, from administrative hearings, to supposed courts "of law," to courts "in equity," to appellate courts, to state supreme courts, and to the U.S. supreme court-- whatever they may be called: admiralty courts, law merchant courts, Article I courts, Article III courts --the whole enchilada. That's where they all end up. The judicial process churns and chews it all up until the case finally, after often many years and much expense (yes-- to the various and sundry scope of lawyers), the final level of JUDGE control is reached, exhausting the process. After all the JUDGES have had their chance at chewing, where does the case go after that when it is still left without a lawful conclusion, without due process?
      Well, under our present system of "dispute resolution," THAT'S IT!  The "Final Judgment Rule" says that a final decision is eventually reached, and after that it's "res judicata" --the subject matter cannot be adjudicated further. That would make sense in an honest judicial system. However, in our system, whenever judges don't want to be bothered with a case, any ruling they make at that point is considered a "decision" --whether or not due process is given, material facts of the case addressed, the applicable law to those facts addressed, proper court rules applied, proper procedures allowed and followed, etc. The merits (substance) of the case need not be reached under the current system for there to be a "decision" as appellate and federal courts now rule. Judges call judicial rulings of lower courts "decisions" in order to fraudulently place the taint of "finality" to the case-- such as the common judicial abuse of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine which states that a litigant may not bring a state court DECISION to federal court for further adjudication. Then the appellate JUDGES simply rubber-stamp that closeout, regardless of the fact that the merits of the case were never reached due to lack of due process. But that's the end of the line! What lawyers are responsible for that?  --only the JUDGES-- they make the final ruling and bang the gavel, "Case Dismissed!  -- Next..."  You're left high and dry, without redress! That's it!
      According to the Declaration of Independence, the "end of the line" is the People, not government. However, we failed to include in the Constitution an enforcement provision to specifically allow the following: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce [People's rights] under absolute despotism, it is [the People's] right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. ..."  No provision was spelled out in the Constitution for the People to exercise that DUTY.  J.A.I.L. is now here to offer that provision-- to enforce the Constitution!
      With that as an "introduction," read the following article which, by and large, is a good article-- but understand, IT LACKS FOCUS. That lack is a vital flaw when considering how to resolve the problem of government corruption.

      Sent to J.A.I.L. Legal Discussions group by  JOSEPHN126@...
      Yale Law Professor on Lawyers and Law
      With our huge collective personal experience of the similarly situated, we all know that something's rotten in Denmark, big time.

      Some of us are beginning to see a clear picture, at least in part, of exactly what is rotten... I'd like to offer just a handful of quotations from Fred Rodell's book Woe Unto You, Lawyers! (New York: Reynal & Hitchcock, 1939) (New York: Pageant Press, 1939) (New York: Reynal & Hitchcock, 1940) (New York: Pageant-Poseidon 1972) (New York: Berkley Pub. Corp., 1980)

      Fred Rodell (1907-1980) was a Yale Law Professor for 41 years, and authored many books and articles, among them "55 Men: The Story of the Constitution: Based on the day-by-day notes of James Madison"
      (Harrisburg, New York: The Telegraph Press,1936) (Harrisburg, New York: The Telegraph Press, 1975) (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Stackpole Books, 1986) (Costa Mesa, California: Noontide Press, 1986)

      Here are the quotations. I hope you'd give them some thought, at your leisure:

      In TRIBAL TIMES, there were the medicine-men. In the Middle Ages, there were the priests. Today there are the lawyers. For every age, a group of bright boys, learned in their trade and jealous of their learning, who blend technical competence with plain and fancy hocus-pocus to make themselves masters of their fellow men. For every age, a pseudo-intellectual autocracy, guarding the tricks of its trade from the uninitiated, and running, after its own pattern, the civilization of its day.

      It is the lawyers who run our civilization for us - our governments, our business, our private lives. Most legislators are lawyers; they make our laws. Most presidents, governors, commissioners, along with their advisers and brain-trusters are lawyers; they administer our laws. All the judges are lawyers; they interpret and enforce our laws. There is no separation of powers where the lawyers are concerned. There is only a concentration of all government power - in the lawyers. As the schoolboy put it, ours is "a government of lawyers, not of men."

      It is not the businessmen, no matter how big, who run our economic world. Again it is the lawyers, the lawyers who "advise" and direct every time a company is formed, every time a bond or a share of stock is issued, almost every time material is to be bought or goods to be sold, every time a deal is made. The whole elaborate structure of industry and finance is a lawyer-made house. We all live in it, but the lawyers run it.

      And in our private lives, we cannot buy a home or rent an apartment, we cannot get married or try to get divorced, we cannot die and leave our property to our children without calling on the lawyers to guide us. To guide us, incidentally, through a maze of confusing gestures and formalities that lawyers have created.

      The legal trade, in short, is nothing but a high-class racket. It is a racket far more lucrative and more powerful and hence more dangerous than any of those minor and much-publicized rackets, such as ambulance-chasing or the regular defense of known criminals, which make up only a tiny part of the law business and against which the respectable members of the bar are always making speeches and taking action.

      The legal racket knows no political or social limitations.

      Furthermore, the lawyers - or at least 99 44/100 per cent of them - are not even aware that they are indulging in a racket, and would be shocked at the very mention of the idea. Once bitten by the legal bug, they lose all sense of perspective about what they are doing and how they are doing it. Like the medicine men of tribal times and the priests of the Middle Ages they actually believe in their own nonsense. This fact, of course, makes their racket all the more insidious. Consecrated fanatics are always more dangerous than conscious villains. And lawyers are fanatics indeed about the sacredness of the word-magic they call The Law.

      Yet the saddest and most insidious fact about the legal racket is that the general public doesn't realize it's a racket either. Scared, befuddled, impressed and ignorant, they take what is fed them, or rather what is sold them. Only once an age do the non-lawyers get, not wise, but disgusted, and rebel. As Harold Laski is fond of putting it, in every revolution the lawyers lead the way to the guillotine or the firing squad.

      It should not, however, require a revolution to rid society of lawyer-control. Nor is riddance by revolution ever likely to be a permanent solution. The American colonists had scarcely freed themselves from the nuisances of The Law by practically ostracizing the pre-Revolutionary lawyers out of their communities - a fact which is little appreciated - when a new and home-made crop of lawyers sprang up to take over the affairs of the baby nation. That crop, 150 years later, is still growing in numbers and in power.

      What is really needed to put the lawyers in their places and out of the seats of the mighty is no more than a slashing of the veil of dignified mystery that now surrounds and protects The Law. If people could be made to realize how much of the vaunted majesty of The Law is a hoax and how many of the mighty processes of The Law are merely logical legerdemain, they would not long let the lawyers lead them around by the nose. And people have recently begun, bit by bit, to catch on. The great illusion of The Law has been leaking a little at the edges.

      Yet it will take a great deal more than a collection of happenings like these to break down, effectively, the superstition of the grandeur of The Law and the hold which that superstition has on the minds of most men. It will take some understanding of the wordy emptiness and irrelevance of the legal process itself. It will take some cold realization that the inconsistencies and absurdities of The Law that occasionally come into the open are not just accidents but commonplaces. It will take some awakening to the fact that training in The Law does not make lawyers wiser than other men, but only smarter.

      Perhaps an examination of the lawyers and their Law, set down in ordinary English, might help achieve these ends. For, despite what the lawyers say, it is possible to talk about legal principles and legal reasoning in everyday non-legal language. The point is that, so discussed, the principles and the reasoning and the whole solemn business of The Law come to look downright silly. And perhaps if the ordinary man could see in black and white how silly and irrelevant and unnecessary it all is, he might be persuaded, in a peaceful way, to take the control of his civilization out of the hands of those modern purveyors of streamlined voodoo and chromium-plated theology, the lawyers.

      As we point out, this article proposes a lot of theories, but no practical solution.  J.A.I.L. is that solution!

      J.A.I.L.- Judicial Accountability Initiative Law - www.jail4judges.org
      Contribute to J.A.I.L. at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603
      See our active flash, http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm
      JAIL is a unique addition to our form of gov't. heretofore unrealized.
      JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!
      JAIL is taking America like a wildfire! AddRemove@...
      E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
      Get involved at JAIL_SALE_USA-subscribe@yahoogroups.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.