Citizens Sue Kerry and Edwards-charge Violations of Separation of Powers, Checks and Balances..

Plaintiffs charge Violations of Separation of Powers, Checks and Balances, and a Widespread Corruption

As we all learn by the 6th grade, Articles One through Three of the U.S. Constitution make provisions for the three separate and independent branches of the US government: the executive, legislative, and judicial. But how independent and separate are they really? – Three New Jersey residents, Bruce Eden, Barry Weinstein [1] and Steven Rosamilia have filed a lawsuit in the N.J. Superior Court, alleging Democrat party presidential nominees John F. Kerry and John Edwards, and the New Jersey State Democratic Committee, their co-defendant, violated Constitutional principles of separation of powers. The hearing is scheduled for Sept. 13, 2004, promptly at 10:15 A.M. in the Morris County, N.J. courthouse before Hon. Bozonelis.

While many states have similar provisions, New Jersey state Constitution, ARTICLE III titled “DISTRIBUTION OF THE POWERS OF GOVERNMENT,” is very specific about separation of powers, "The powers of the government shall be divided among three distinct branches, the legislative, executive, and judicial. No person or persons belonging to or constituting one branch shall exercise any of the powers properly belonging to either of the others, ..."

The plaintiffs allege that Democratic Presidential nominees, as professional lawyers and officers of the court, thus representing the Judiciary branch, would infringe upon the fundamental doctrines of separation of powers and checks and balances, the very foundation of our republican form of government. Plaintiffs said their there exists an urgent need to improve our government’s ability to remain faithful to the US Constitution by removing or at least restricting some of the deeply rooted, pervasive conflicts of interest, which are turning the government into a racketeering enterprise.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis (1856-1941) stated: "The most important political office, is that of private citizen". Justice Jackson stated: "... It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error, it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error.”

Many lawyers acknowledge that the courts and legislatures are corrupt but say they would deny ever making such statement because they fear losing their license on a trumped up disciplinary charges. Their licenses are, indeed, controlled, issued and revoked by the state supreme courts, and lawyers who voiced their protest against judicial corruption in the past have been silenced almost instantly by the “Commission” of the Bar, which keeps “the profession” from falling into “disrepute”.

As they are not members of the legal profession, the plaintiffs aren’t afraid of retaliation by the bar, and as civil rights advocates they have the requisite know-how to speak of judicial corruption and lawyers’ undue influence on every aspect of government. Their legal acumen cannot be dismissed with a shrug, either: one is a paralegal, the other – an experienced legal researcher, yet another one – founder of a grass roots organization with membership in the hundreds of thousands.

Among the federal and state legislators lawyers are an overwhelming majority (52,and 67% in the US House and Senate respectively, and even higher percentages of lawyers exist in the State legislatures. Is it surprising then, that we have contentious laws on the books? With lawyers in the majority in all 3 branches, there exists a symbiotic relationship between presumably “independent and separate” branches of the government, and the legal profession is the part and parcel of the cabal, cementing the three branches into an ossified, lawyer-controlled government, serving their self-interest.

If this “lawyers’ cabal” is to be branded a conspiracy, it is conspiracy of a special kind, one which was created by a confluence of the gradually advancing self-interest and social circumstances conducive to the emergence of the omni-powerful legal oligarchy. As a result, we live in a venomously litigious legal and political environment fraught with corruption, fraud, racketeering, and cover up.

Lawyers’ bids for Legislative and Executive branch positions usually come under the guise of “consumer protection.” Mr. Kerry has routinely cast his vote against restrictions on suing. He’s joined other Democrats in blocking, often through filibusters, all proposals to rein in medical malpractice, product liability, class actions, tobacco-suit legal fees and so on. “Kerry has just about a perfect record on issues that interest lawyers and trial lawyers,” said prominent trial lawyer John Coale in the June 18, 2004 Legal Times. The American Bar Association (ABA), Trial Lawyers Associations and other professional lawyers’ organizations have been financing Kerry’s campaign in a major way, even before he named John Edwards, a trial lawyer, his running mate.

The superstar trial lawyer accomplishments of John Edwards, which allowed him to amass a personal fortune, finance his successful U.S. Senate run in 1998 and catapult himself into the 2004 race for president, have been built on “junk science” – according to legal and medical experts who can be hardly accused of being “wingers”– which he successfully applied to convince juries, a feat done with his trademark charm and legal brilliance. According to the Center for Public Integrity, eight of the top ten contributors to his presidential campaign were law firms. Indeed, according to the Federal Election Commission, throughout his political career, Edwards has received some $10.3 million from trial lawyers.

There’s hardly any better cash cow, any law practice requiring such absolute minimum of effort, talent and skill as “family law.” Family law practice today is easy pickin’s for lawyers, with a steady stream of cash flows from divorce and child custody litigation. In New York alone, just the child custody litigation is a $5 billion industry, annually. With the nation’s 52% divorce rate, emotions running high when parents are forced to fight for their most cherished “possession”, their children. This creates abundant opportunities for redistributing wealth and expropriating family fortunes to line up pockets of lawyers. In no other area of law violations of the very basic human and constitutionally protected rights are committed as much, as flagrantly and frequently as in family courts.

Divorce attorneys are prominent in state legislatures, and they use their economic power, political and lobbying clout to elect or appoint judges, and derail any sensible legislative proposals, such as shared parenting and mediation bills. The Divorce Industry has a lot at stake: over $5 Billion a year is spent paying lawyers and forensics just for custody battles in NY State alone. The resulting social costs for New York, including crime, drug abuse and juvenile delinquency add at least another $5 Billion. Over 2.5 million children are impacted, fed as cannon fodder into the vortex of divorce. With a heavy psychological toll on children of divorce, many become permanent clients of the juvenile court system helping to maintain the lifestyles of trial lawyers, family court judges and social workers.

With “the winner gets all” divorce laws and the de-facto gender discrimination against men, generations and millions of American children are fed as cannon fodder into the litigation vortex, grow up without their fathers who are forcibly removed by the courts from their lives. Without their fathers’ loving instruction many get on the path of mental illness, drug abuse, and criminal behavior. The divorce industry practitioners, meanwhile, amass fortunes.

New York State Assembly is arguably among the most dysfunctional legislative bodies in the world [2] . Speaker Sheldon Silver has historically been and continues to be one of the vehement opponents of Shared Parenting bill just as he’s opposed to any attempts to reform New York State's antiquated family law and its corrupt courts. So, nobody is surprised when the NY Times, and other papers write that his law firm bills the state at $13,000 an hour in “legal services,” or when another NYS Assemblyman and family lawyer vehemently opposed to reform, chair of the Families and Children Committee Roger Green, has resigned in infamy, after being convicted of taking massive bribes from private prison firms. New York Senator “[Guy] Velella pleaded guilty to taking kickbacks…, while among his law firm’s clients were major insurance companies. Did these giants of the industry just happen to find Mr. Velella’s firm in the telephone book? Certainly not – Mr. Velella, when he was not practicing law, happened to be the chairman of the State Senate’s Insurance Committee.” [3]

Add judicial corruption into the mix. Dickie Scruggs, one of the nation's foremost trial lawyers, who pocketed hundreds of millions in the tobacco settlements, described [judicial corruption] best at a conference last June: “What I call the ‘magic jurisdiction’ . . . [is] where the judiciary is elected with verdict money. The trial lawyers have established relationships with the judges that are elected . . . . They’ve got large populations of voters who are in on the deal . . . . And so, it’s a political force in their jurisdiction, and it’s almost impossible to get a fair trial if you’re a defendant in some of these places . . . . Any lawyer fresh out of law school can walk in there and win the case, so it doesn’t matter what the evidence or the law is.” [4]

Catering to the agendas of some of his most malignant gender-feminist patrons, Kerry has spoken with vigor on giving “more College opportunities to women,” despite the fact that the majority of America’s college graduates today, 60% are women and the proportion of women graduates to men is even more drastic, 2:1 among African Americans graduating from college [5] . Is that a Freudian slip? Equal opportunities for women are not the true goals of his N.O.W. patrons, more opportunities, much more, is what they want.

Appealing to the same strident group of his N.O.W. backers for whom lesbianism is not so much about loving but mostly about men-bashing, he spoke with vigor about expanding other special programs, such as unconstitutional VAWA money-making machine, the greatest fraud and junk-science racket the N.O.W. men-haters ever perpetrated. Said Kerry, “I supported the Equal Rights Amendment as far back as 1970. I marched for the Equal Rights Amendment. And I believe there is enormous discrimination in the law against women in America…Support payments is a terrible problem in America... The Violence Against Women Act was a clear example of our efforts to try to target a very specific problem and create specific legislation…”

With over 90% child custody “awarded” to women, women being a majority of College graduates, and men being thrown in jail being unable to pay unrealistic and deliberately high child and spousal support, Mr. Kerry got it all badly wrong. For Mr. Kerry, his lawyer colleagues and N.O.W apologists of men-hating, the high maintenance upkeep of a badly warped picture of gender inequality in America is a highly profitable proposition.

“Self-regulation” of the judicial system, its control over lawyer licenses, and absolute judicial immunity of the judges clearly violate the checks and balances principal of the Constitution. The use of judicial power to legislate from the bench, and failure of the judiciary to uphold and interpret the laws has morphed the U.S. system of government into a semi-criminal enterprise. In the famous Supreme Court case of Elkins Et Al. v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 80 S. Ct. 1437, 4 L. Ed. 2d 1669 the court in speaking about the imperative of Judicial Integrity stated (Justice Brandeis): “In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy."

In an unprecedented grab of power, the U.S. judiciary granted itself, about 20 years ago, absolute immunity, sneaking it in behind The People’s backs. "Immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly" [6] and the prophetic words of Patric Henry (1736—1799), who is also well-known for his undying “Give Me Liberty or Give me Death” speech, are now more true than ever:

“Power is the great evil with which we are contending. We have divided power between three branches of government and erected checks and balances to prevent abuse of power. However, where is the check on the power of the judiciary? If we fail to check the power of the judiciary, I predict that we will eventually live under judicial tyranny.”

In 1821, Thomas Jefferson said: “The germ of destruction of our nation is in the power of the judiciary, an irresponsible body – working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall render powerless the checks of one branch over the other and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”

The same agents of social and cultural change, lawyers, have disproportionate representation in the House and Senate of the US Congress. Law has always been a well-rewarded profession from a financial point of view and a law background was regarded important for lawmakers. The U.S. Congress has been traditionally dominated by the legal profession. In 1993, 45% of Congressmen were lawyers by profession. By the 105th Congress (1998), the total number of lawyers climbed to 225 out of a total of 435 seats in the House of Representatives, so former lawyers outnumbered former businessmen and bankers even more, occupying 52% of the seats. Out of 100 senators 33 were from a business background, leaving the majority – 67% of the seats for lawyers, while lawyers are less than 1% of the America’s workforce.

Congress gave up its power to decide the issues of war, peace and foreign policy to the president, and its power to decide issues of culture and morality, race, gender, and religion – to the Supreme Court. Why would Representatives give up their legislative powers in issues of potential controversy? For the most basic and practical of reasons: job security, survival. Decisions on war, peace, race, gender, religion, morality and culture are the most divisive of all: Americans are in each other's faces on these issues, divided deeply and emotionally. These are issues that could easily cost Congressmen their seats. Why not turn them over to justices, appointed for life, who never face the voters?

The problem is, justices relish remaking our society to suit their own visions and beliefs, the roots of which, in Yale and Harvard, come from the European Socialists and Communists of the likes of Antonio Gramshi [7] . Our Congressmen are more concerned with getting a second term, congressional salaries, pensions, and health plans, than with being moral leaders.

Conservatives and liberals in the Congress disagree on almost everything, but unanimously agree that the Court should do their “dirty work.” Thus, the power We The People delegated to Congress, was passed on, like the proverbial “buck” to the Supreme Court.

The only point of contention is who should control the Supreme Court. Thus, the present situation: Regardless of whether or not the public policy dictated by the court is “right”, it is wrong when achieved through intellectually dishonest means, such as tortured "constitutionality" arguments pulled like rabbits out of a magician’s hat, and a “living constitution” created by judges, rather than lawfully enacted by People’s representatives. This, combined with judges’ deeply seated mistrust of the sentiments shared by the majority of the American people, spells the end of the Republic and amounts to Judicial Tyranny.

There are powerful incentives for the lawyers among the elected officials to manufacture more laws and regulations, which provide more fodder for litigation of which lawyers are the major or even sole beneficiaries. “California's 120 lawmakers introduce 5,000 bills and resolutions each year. The legislative staff has gone from 10 for both houses in the early 1960s to 2,263 today.” [8] Lawmakers have every reason to add new crimes and punishments, which make great campaign fodder and resume filler, but there exists no countervailing political interest or legislative self-restraint for reducing the bloated, bulging statutes. “Over the past century, the number of crimes in most state penal codes has at least doubled, and there are now more than 3,000 offenses punishable as federal crimes.” [9]

Where once upon a time the law have stood as a well-understood and indisputable statement of shared values and norms in American society, nowadays there is only a bloated compendium of statutes, ordinances and rules, and a mess of contradictory, partizan case law that looks far worse than the dreaded federal tax code. This legal mess, being marketed as the world’s “best legal system,” is a fertile ground for lawless, capricious, or ideology-motivated suits and court orders, and lawyer-orchestrated extortion.

“The end results can be downright ugly: a soccer mom thrown in jail in a small Texas town for failing to wear a seatbelt;”… a 5-year-old boy banned from daycare for “sexual harassment” after he kissed a girl on the cheek, four New Jersey kindergartners were given three-day suspensions after they played a game of cops and robbers pretending their fingers were guns. … “12-year-old girl arrested and handcuffed for eating french fries in a Metro station in Washington, DC; and defendants serving 25-year to life sentences in California prisons for, among other things, pilfering a slice of pizza.” Politically-correct legislation, custom-designed to the demands of “congressperson’s” special interest clientele has become a disturbing norm. Beyond the Politically Correct are newly concocted “offenses” that criminalize normal human behavior of politically inactive or weak, recriminalize and overcriminalize conduct that is already prohibited by law, or which elevate often unsubstantiated, vindictive or opportunistic allegations into a special category of crimes, where allegations are to be taken as gospel to be true as a matter of faith, and the accused to be assumed guilty until proven innocent.

The vicious circle of events is set in motion: the more crimes on the books, the more conduct prohibited (and prohibited in more ways), and the more punishment for any given crime, the more authority judges, police, prosecutors, probation, court-appointed psychologists etc. exert in the justice system, the more business is being created for lawyers, the more willingly do the litigants part with their life savings to avoid being branded as criminals, and the better look the resumes of politicians whose claim to fame is being “tough on crime.” In Management and Governance, and many other sciences and areas of human endeavor where the Cybernetic System Model applies, this is known as a Cybernetic System with a Positive Feedback, a system which soon gets “out of whack,” explodes and self-destructs. It has been shown with mathematical precision that this “out of whack” situation cannot go on without causing a social upheaval. In socio-political terms, it’s a devilish system, with the feedback functioning as a vicious circle producing more and more injustice and social strife. The appropriate checks and balances and separations of powers must be restored, which would reset the model, and make it function as intended by the founders of the Constitution, as a self-regulating Cybernetic System with Negative Feedback, a system with a built-in tendency to settle on the optimal output.

For the life of me, ins't it state imposed proselytism of a certain religion or ideology if NOW and women get 90% of the time the custodies? Isn't sound governance about the admission that sin exists equaly between men and women?

The "hammer and sicle" utilitarian men's money is what children need, but not their mother's immorality and lack of situational awareness, is basicaly a virtual right to abort the child after it is born, at the hands of women, unchecked. Lawyers in the meantime are paid high fees by women for this "freedom", through their men.

One can go back to Roe to figure where it all started.

"The plaintiffs allege that Democratic Presidential nominees, as professional lawyers and officers of the court, thus representing the Judiciary branch, would infringe upon the fundamental doctrines of separation of powers and checks and balances, the very foundation of our republican form of government."

Yes, yes and YES! Many of our founders, Ben Franklin particularly, warned about lawyers making or executing law. This is exactly what the biggest problem was with the Clinton regime. Did you know that The State of Franklin very nearly became the 14th state? In their constitution they required NO lawyers to serve in their legislature. Some of the founders were lawyers, but they mostly agreed it was a grave danger to the country. If you notice, all our agencies are run over with the barristers, like Jamie Gorelick and her "wall". This country must realize that our laws are now of, by and for attorneys. Any time any one group or profession infiltrates and runs our government we are in danger.

Reducto ad absurdum: The Attorney-General, an Executive office in both state and the federal governments, could not be held by an attorney.

As appealing as this theory is, pigs still don't have wings, but bumblebees do fly.

On the articles' url there is this note:

[1] Everyone is welcome to join the suit. All you need is to sign a simple Joinder form. write to Mr. Weinstein at YIKES@JHRCIC.ORG

I'm going to join the suit and hope others will realize the importance of this movement.

"The Attorney-General, an Executive office in both state and the federal governments, could not be held by an attorney."

Ah, c'mon. We're not advocating killing all the lawyers. Would you consider getting them out of the legislative and executive branch unless the title says "attorney"? Do you approve of our government being run over with them in all three branches?

Thanks for posting this Cincinatus' Wife. It's about time!!!

If you read nothing else today, please pay attention to this one. I'm offline most of the time, decided to take a break during this nasty election because some freepers are even too grumpy to be around, but am glad I saw this! Pres. Bush understands the danger of this attorney imbalance of power in our government.

NEVER VOTE FOR A LAWYER!

Have fun all you freeper types, see you after the election.

There was, allegedly (Lawyer -Speak), an original 13th (no superscript) Amendment, which banned lawyers from serving in the legislative or executive branches of Govt, and banned holders of titles of nobility,(Barrister is an English Title of Nobility) from same.

The issue in debate is not whether it existed, but whether it was ever ratified. It disappeared around the time of the Civil War from Textbooks on the Constitution.

http://users.frii.com/gosplow/13th.html

"TITLES OF NOBILITY" AND "HONOR"
In the winter of 1983, archival research expert David Dodge, and former Baltimore police investigator Tom Dunn, were searching for evidence of government corruption in public records stored in the Belfast Library on the coast of Maine.

By chance, they discovered the library's oldest authentic copy of the Constitution of the United States (printed in 1825). Both men were stunned to see this document included a 13th Amendment that no longer appears on current copies of the Constitution. Moreover, after studying the Amendment's language and historical context, they realized the principle intent of this "missing" 13th Amendment was to prohibit lawyers from serving in government..."

One of the Authors lived here in Albuquerque and I heard a presentation that was quite interesting.

Do you approve of our government being run over with them in all three branches?

I'd love to see them religated to the Judiciary only, with the obvious exceptions; but my comment is what I believe the judges will partially use against it.

Also, as much as I hate to admit it, some lawyers are (mostly) human & (marginally) good citizens; therefore I can bet the 14TH Amendment would also be cited to kill this.

It would take some kind of law--fat chance of the lawyer-legislators passing; or, lawyer-judges upholding an initiative--to place something like this in effect.

I wish them all the luck in the world, but I also have a realistic outlook at what the actual result will be.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.