Posted on 05/04/2012 4:07:25 PM PDT by freeliberty21
WASHINGTON, May 2, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- The Federal Ethics Center (FEC), a watchdog organization protecting the rights of United States citizens, urges Congress to promptly hold hearings regarding troubling events occurring in the United States 5th Circuit. FEC's letter to members of Congress outlined several examples of recent erratic 5th Circuit initiatives as follows:
After making the threats of violent punishment in this civil lawsuit, Judge Furgeson handed down an unprecedented order, imposing a federal receivership on Mr. Baron's person, literally making him the chattel property of the judge's colleague. Furgeson's action is the first time in American history that an individual has been placed into a receivership. If this order is not overturned, the consequences for all Americans could be far reaching.
Judge Furgeson's order transfers "possession and control" of "all receivership parties" and "assets", which specifically includes the person Jeffery Baron, to a court appointed receiver. To date, the 5th Circuit Court has declined to stay the actions taken against Mr. Baron. Mr. Baron has been held in a civil lockdown for the past 15 months, without counsel, without trial and without due process.
Despite no criminal or incompetency allegations, the 5th Circuit has taken away Mr. Baron's legal rights and made him a ward of the state. This dangerous precedent is poised to set in motion a rapid expansion of receivership laws against law abiding American citizens.
Part of Mr. Baron's plight may be viewed at WashingtonExaminer.com, LawInjustice.com and facebook.com/savejeff.. In addition, a petition sponsored by human rights organization NOTEGA can be found at SaveJeffBaron.com. The transcripts of Mr. Baron's proceedings can be downloaded at FederEthicsCenter.com
The Federal Ethics Center (FEC) is a watch dog association protecting the Constitutional rights of all United States citizens. FEC's Legal Director David Nolan is a former ethics attorney for the Office of the President-Elect and the White House. He is a co-author of the Ethics Section of the DC Practice Manual. He has trained federal attorneys in continuing legal education (CLE) for their respective state bar ethics requirements.
Contact:
Federal Ethics Center:
8310 Wagon Wheel Road
Alexandria, VA 22309
202–681-2730
571-277-3265
dnolan@federalethicscenter.com
SOURCE Federal Ethics CenterBack to top
I would disagree about due process; here is text [apparently] from the Receiver Order.:
First, you are expressly prohibited from retaining any legal counsel. Should you retain any legal counsel, the Receiver may move the Court to find you in contempt of the Receiver Order.
The 2nd Amendment clearly states that in ALL criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to counsel; therefore, this prohibition is clearly in violation of the court's scope of authority, there by violating due process.
Furthermore, there is this portion of transcript[?] which is quite disturbing:
THE COURT: [...] So any failure to comply with that order is contempt, punishable by lots of dollars, punishable by possible jail, death.
So then, the judge is literally saying "I can declare you in contempt, and then order your death" despite the 5th Amendment saying that no person should be held to [answer for] a capital crime UNLESS on indictment or presentment of a grand jury. The judge has declared himself above the constitution, and above the grand jury, and therefore should be found in violation of US CODE, Title 18, Sec 242 (a felony), disbarred, and prosecuted.
This order is so egregious that it violates multiple portions of the Constitution on its mere face, and I'm sure that I (having no legal training) am missing even more violations thereof.
I took it from the PDF someone linked on the thread; that portion was in transcript format (that is that portion wasn’t in any [court] order).
I don’t know a lot of legalese (haven’t been trained), but some of the stuff I’ve read (like the Indiana supreme court’s “the state no longer recognizes the [legal] right to use lethal force to resist illegal [police] entry” decision**) I can’t rule it out.
** This decision flies in the face of 4th Amendment decisions by the USSC; the Indiana Constitution has a word-for-word copy of the 4th... therefore the state’s supreme court must either a) be asserting that the USSC’s decisions do not bind them, or that b) it is a state matter, and they have the ability to alter the state’s constitution.
>>My point, rulings like you describe WILL feed CWII sentiment.<<
Yes, they will. Are they intentional, to me that is the question.
Get in contact with your state senators and your attorney general, move them into (pre)reviewing your state constitution as to just what happens if Zero tries to declare martial law from coast to coast. What authority does your Governor have to keep the Feds out of your state. With a little (pre)planning we could shut him down to where his national declaration of martial law will encompass the District of Columbia and a couple of Democrat led states.
Study the word: “Usurpation” Congress does that all the time with the predictable support of their hand picked employees in black robes.
Study the word: “Usurpation” Congress & the president do that all the time with the predictable support of their hand picked employees in black robes.
Be sure to ask only for a plan with the assurance that we desire a plan to be better safe than sorry. That we will not simply walk away from our rights and we expect our State to do its Constitutional job in protecting them.
After I sent that, I had reservations about that specific point. I should have put due process in quotes to indicate a bastardized version for this particular case. Thanks!
There is a problem with the Bill of Rights- it can lead to the belief that those are our only rights.
“Maybe they’re getting away with something because no one can friggin’ understand what this means!”
The Defendant was reduced to the status of mere chattel property.
Let’s look at the logic of this situation
1. A slave was once chattel property under US law.
2. The judge reduced the this Defendant to chattel property.
3. Therefore, the judge made a de facto slave of the Defendant.
SLAVERY IS BACK! - DA’ JUDGE SEZ SO! ! ! !
Clear, isn’t it?
AND made the Defendant the de facto property of the Receiver.
“Things are not always what they seem, Grasshopper”.
;-)
Those posting this are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.
Probably. They provide no background, so it’s really hard to tell what is at issue.
The disturbing parts of the transcript are exactly that. Part of what the judge said during discussion in court. They are not part of any ruling and have zero force in law.
Much of what he said, however, is exactly right. The full force of the government does indeed stand behind a federal judge’s ruling. If resisted, that means up to and including military force. As it should.
Which is not to say the ruling in question is correct, as with no background that’s impossible to tell.
That said, the judge really needs to tone down his hyperbole a bit. There is no death penalty for contempt of court, though the judge can lock you up essentially indefinitely.
Sorry, but that is not logic. Consider:
1. A cat has whiskers.
2. I have whiskers.
3. Therefore I am a cat.
A textbook fallacy.
1. A cat has whiskers.
2. I have whiskers.
3. Therefore I am a cat.
A textbook fallacy.
Corrected to:
1. A cat has whiskers.
2. I have a beard.
3. Therefore I am a cat.
A dictionary deficiency.
;-).
Noun
whisker (plural whiskers)
1. That part of the beard which grows upon the sides of the face, usually of the male, or upon the chin, or upon both.
2. A hair of the beard.
3. One of the long, projecting hairs growing at the sides of the mouth of a cat, or other animal.
But never mind. I just see that the socialist has won in France. :-(
Some have commented that a judge has control of the US military. This is not true. If it were, we would all be part of a complete dictatorship of judges. Separation of powers provides the president as commander in chief of the military, not random judges (remember, judges are lawyers).
The case at issue in the article is a breach of contract case. A judge is not allowed to enforce a contract dispute by death and is not allowed to make a US citizen chattel property.
Those that care about rule of law and the Constitution should be very concerned about this.
Bingo! Exactly what I noted upon reading this drivel.
The author has his panties in a wad because Obama said something stupid and the court asked the AG to confirm that the traditional understanding of judicial interpretation still held.
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.