JUDICIAL IMMUNITY=JUDICIAL TYRANNY

Vanity | 2/25/04 | Ms12Gauge

[Ms12Gauge]

Judges have taken over the law. With the help of legislators who are also members of the BAR Assn., they have literally revised nearly every legal definition to suit the political and personal agenda of individuals. Our Constitution, and the foundations of our very liberty are at stake. The concept of allowing total immunity, such that even the most egregious and outrageous judicial dicatator is allowed, is unconscionable. To have to address a board of the judges' peers or even subordinates, to address a grievance or present a malfeasance case is ridiculous. They simply close ranks, no matter HOW badly one of theirs is acting, and declare no foul. In Colorado alone, in 2001, there were 2200 complaints to the BAR about out of control Judges. The board actually reviewed 700 complaints (actual number close, but not exact) and of those, only ONE reprimand was published. I don't know the details of that one case, but he must have killed someone on the stand in court. I cannot imagine anything less being worthy of the BAR notice. (sarcasm intended)

If we are going to stop this incremental and insidious encroachment on our civil rights, we are going to have to arrive at some decisions soon. There is a group I belong to which is dedicated to doing just that: Defining the things needed to insure and protect our constitution. They are called "A Matter of Justice".(AMOJ)

We would like to gather a forum of discussion about this issue, arrive at some conclusions about our plan for remedy, and then take that plan to Washington DC in Sept or Oct, just before the elections, and make it clear that if candidates are not willing to make this issue a priority, we are not willing to vote for them, regardless of which party they belong to.

Please join us in the exchange of ideas, research, and the project of recommending a REAL solution for the Judicial abuses many of us have suffered. There are several bandaids currently in the arena of discussion, but the politicians just don't seem to grasp the whole of the public outrage where this issue is concerned. WE feel it is our duty to MAKE them aware that we are angry, tired of being ripped off by Divorce courts, having our kids stolen by Family Courts, our money taken by dishonest IRS courts, property seized by dishonest judges enabling their developer friends, the list is endless. If you have not visited the litigation vortex, you have no idea how corrupt this system has become. Please help us to find some solutions, and then to take those solutions to DC and present them, in masse.

Thanks for indulging me... Christine.

[Ms12Gauge]

Websites to surf:

http://www.amatterofjustice.org

http://www.wbflegalreform.com

http://www.constitution.org

http://www.ejfi.org

http://www.falseallegations.com

http://www.massoutrage.com

If I listed all the parents rights groups, I could fill a whole post. The one umbrella org for us all is

www.familyrightsassociation.com AKA "AFRA"

[squarebarb]

All the replies on this matter that I have seen seem very discouraging. They all seem to indicating that impeaching a judge is next to impossible.

The judges are part of the 'law community' and are so out of touch with reality.

Are there any real legal remedies?

[philetus]

Are there any real legal remedies?

Is usurping the Constitution a crime?

[inquest]

Unfortunately our own side is pushing for something that would hand a major victory to judicial activism in the name of fighting against it: the Federal Marriage Amendment. If this goes through, it will be the ultimate surrender to the notion that judges really do have the power to amend the Constitution, since the whole point of the FMA is to amend it "back". If we're going to be successful at defeating judicial lawlessness, then we must not allow ourselves to give in to that notion. We have to acknowledge that the Constitution hasn't changed in the slightest despite their misrepresentations of it, and that therefore continued misrepresentations will not be tolerated, and will be dealt with forcefully.

The actual means which we ultimately decide on are not as important as the conviction we maintain that the judges do not have the power to alter the meaning of the law. That conviction is often the hardest thing to get across to people - sadly, even to conservatives.

[Ms12Gauge]

Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 (Introduced in Senate) S 2082 IS

108th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. 2082

To limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

February 12, 2004

Mr. SHELBY (for himself, Mr. MILLER, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina, Mr. INHOFE, and Mr. ALLARD) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

------------------------------------------------------------ A BILL

To limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Constitution Restoration Act of 2004'.

TITLE I--JURISDICTION

SEC. 101. APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

(a) IN GENERAL-

(1) AMENDMENT TO TITLE 28- Chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 1260. Matters not reviewable

`Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official personal capacity), by reason of that element's or officer's acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.'.

(2) TABLE OF SECTIONS- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`1260. Matters not reviewable.'.

(b) APPLICABILITY- Section 1260 of title 28, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall not apply to an action pending on the date of enactment of this Act, except to the extent that a party or claim is sought to be included in that action after the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 102. LIMITATIONS ON JURISDICTION.

(a) IN GENERAL-

(1) AMENDMENT TO TITLE 28- Chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end of the following:

`Sec. 1370. Matters that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review

`Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the district court shall not have jurisdiction of a matter if the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to review that matter by reason of section 1260 of this title.'.

(2) TABLE OF SECTIONS- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`1370. Matters that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review.'.

(b) APPLICABILITY- Section 1370 of title 28, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall not apply to an action pending on the date of enactment of this Act, except to the extent that a party or claim is sought to be included in that action after the date of enactment of this Act.

TITLE II--INTERPRETATION

SEC. 201. INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

In interpreting and applying the Constitution of the United States, a court of the United States may not rely upon any constitution, law, administrative rule, Executive order, directive, policy, judicial decision, or any other action of any foreign state or international organization or agency, other than English constitutional and common law.

TITLE III--ENFORCEMENT

SEC. 301. EXTRAJURISDICTIONAL CASES NOT BINDING ON STATES.

Any decision of a Federal court which has been made prior to or after the effective date of this Act, to the extent that the decision relates to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction under section 1260 or 1370 of title 28, United States Code, as added by this Act, is not binding precedent on any State court.

SEC. 302. IMPEACHMENT, CONVICTION, AND REMOVAL OF JUDGES FOR CERTAIN EXTRAJURISDICTIONAL ACTIVITIES.

To the extent that a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States or any judge of any Federal court engages in any activity that exceeds the jurisdiction of the court of that justice or judge, as the case may be, by reason of section 1260 or 1370 of title 28, United States Code, as added by this Act, engaging in that activity shall be deemed to constitute the commission of--

(1) an offense for which the judge may be removed upon impeachment and conviction; and

(2) a breach of the standard of good behavior required by article III, section 1 of the Constitution.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.2082

[inquest]

It's not a crime in the sense that any judges could face any criminal charges for misrepresenting the law (I don't think), but lawless judges can and must be impeached and removed from office.

[Ms12Gauge]

I totally agree. The provisions are already well established to limit the powers of the branches. That the Judiciary insists on encroaching is a matter to be answered directly, not REacted to. A Marriage Definition Amend, would simply REACT to the illegal over stepping of the Mass judiciary. I do not believe that we should be cavalier in amending the constitution at all. Unintended Consequences are so easily overlooked, until they begin to bite us...

[ricks_place]

A constitutional amendment requires 2/3 of the House and Senate plus 3/4 of the States.
OUCH, that is a hard way to reign in miscreant judges.
Congress need only protect its Constitutional Rights and
judges will return to judging rather than legislating or executing law.
Impeach and Convict activist Judges for usurping powers that belong to Legislatures and Executives.
Impeachment only requires a majority of the House.
Conviction requires 2/3 of the Senate.
The process would be quick compared to the years required for State passage of an amendment.
Do 6 or 12 a year and congress could get good at it!

Start with lower courts and upper courts will understand their limitations. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[inquest]

There seems to be a problem with this bill, at least to my untrained eye. It denies jurisdiction to the supreme court, and to district courts, regarding government officials expressing official belief in God, but it doesn't appear to deny similar jurisdiction to the circuit courts. So if the 9th Circus rules that the "In God We Trust" on pennies is unconstitutional, their ruling can't be reversed by the supreme court.

[philetus]

The Constitution is the Law of the land.
Judges usurp the law of the land.
People die, other people have their money and land stolen as a direct result.
The judges are guilty of nothing?

[Ms12Gauge]

I just discovered recently that Colorado has a Judicial PERFORMANCE Committee. This panel is made up of six citizens, business people, etc, and four members of the BAR. They are empowered to hear and review cases of judicial abuse, and then to recommend whether to retain or not retain a judge, in the little blue book of issues before the voters sent to every voter at election time.

This panel is probably the best kept secret in the country, and they told us that these panels are mandated to exist. AND that the Judicial REVIEW, the Disciplinary Boards of State Supreme Courts, are supposed to forward cases where reprimand has been issued by their review. In 2001 there was one reprimand. In 2002 and 2003, there were NONE...although the complaints went up by nearly 33%each year. Merely looking at the numbers tells any prescient person that something is rotten in this woodpile.. huh?

[longtermmemmory]

Perhaps the legislature should AUDIT THE LAWSCHOOLS.

Where are these lawyers being educated, or not educated.

Some law schools are private, some are not, most recieve public funding, most have some intern program conected to the public institutions (courts).

Law schools are vulnerable to exorcising the commie infestation.

[Ms12Gauge]

My impression of this Bill is that it was a knee jerk response to the complaint about the Mass Judiciary recently, regarding gay marriage. As I said, UNintended Consequences are dangerous, and I believe that this Bill is totally FULL of them. The potential for abuse and MORE not less problems is glaring, to me. I am not an attorney, but I have quite a long history of viewing any legislative measure with an eye for imperfection, and this Bill is NOT going to make things better.

[Ms12Gauge]

It has been my experience that when we come across an attorney fresh out of law school, he will seem hell bent on the honor and integrity of the job. A year later, the system has devoured him, and he dares not to even speak against the machine that is power and corruption and money. If he DOES, he finds himself facing a BAR hearing for disbarment, for some trumped up and ridiculous accusation of malfeasance. Again, they eat their own. AND we are WAY past too overcome by the effects of this phenomena in the legislature as well. A huge portion of our congress is lawyers. And they, even on their best days, hate to come against the power of the judicial machine. Texans are working to ban lawyers from public offices. I don't think that initiative will fly, lawyers will cry discrimination. But it was a great GREAT thought, IMHO!

[longtermmemmory]

The law is misdirection. The ONLY way to trump judges on this issue is the amendment.

Any proposed mere law is a legal waste of time.

DMA in 1996 was a bandaid. Now, it is time to protect marriage and the law of the land.

The feds have previously determined marriage is one man one woman. Once for the admission of Utah as a condition of admission and when the INS laws do not acknowledge polygamy.

[longtermmemmory]

Its the public service lawyers. I happen to be a lawyer so I have a view on the inside. The professors are the writers of legal articles and model codes.

This legal institutions are the problem.

For example a branch of the ABA wrote the model code that the Mass.SJC adopted. The one where children are mere accessories to marriage. The model code where same sex marriage is included.

There is no competing conservative based model divorce code.

[Ms12Gauge]

I would consider that you may be right, but I am really not impressed with the Bill I posted above. There has to be a better form of this bill...it really seems full of holes to me. Does it not?

[inquest]

Whether it trumps judges "on this issue" isn't going to matter when it comes to trumping lawless judges in general. Either you believe judges have the power to amend the Constitution or you don't. If you don't, then it's completely inconsistent to support this amendment.

[j.havenfarm]

I don't get your objection to the amendment. Sure as shootin' one of the circuits (my bet's on the 9th) is going to rule the 1996 DOMA unconsitutional. Whether or not judicial lawlessness SHOULD exist, it does exist, and the amendment is the best way I see of putting a stop to it on this issue. Whether or not the act you posted, Ms., is the way to achieve it, Congress has a powerful tool because, under the constitution, it has the right to define the courts' jurisidiction. The Republicans in Congress are way too spineless to ever use that tool, though. Just like they'll never impeach renegade judges. Finally, I am an attorney in California, and I work for a trial level court. Judges in this state live in fear of the California Commission on Judicial Perforamnce like you would not believe.

[inquest]

My objection is that amending the Constitution involves a tacit admission that the judges had the correct interpretation of the Constitution prior to amendment. The implication will be that every bad ruling they make is now to be considered completely valid unless we amend the Constitution to change it.

It's no response to say that Congress doesn't have the political will to impeach, because they better get the political will if judges are to ever be restrained. We simply cannot keep up with their misrepresentations of the Constitution by amending each and every time they do it. It'll make a mess out of the Constitution and turn it into a political football.

The republic can survive a temporary period of judically-imposed gay marriage, until we summon up the conviction to deal with these judges properly. It can not survive an unstable Constitution.