Showing posts with label Alexander Hamilton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Alexander Hamilton. Show all posts

Monday, September 22, 2014

But if this happens, where is the remedy?

What happens if the Supreme Court imposes ITS will upon the nation, contrary to the specific provisions of the Constitution? The Founders knew this possibility existed, and Alexander Hamilton wrote:

"The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body."

Hamilton had already pointed out that an unconstitutional act of the legislative body is null and void. It should be clear, then, that an unconstitutional edict by the Supreme Court would be equally invalid.

But if this happens, where is the remedy? By what means do the people protect themselves against an unconstitutional edict by the Supreme Court? Apparently the Founders were so concerned about an overzealous Congress that they neglected to protect themselves from an overzealous judiciary. The only checks and balances provided in the Constitution are as follows:

All judges have to be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.
Article III, section 2, authorized the Congress to restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts, but this has been rarely attempted.

The Congress can impeach judges for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors," but not for an unpopular decision. Even when the Supreme Court has seriously violated its constitutional limitations by making new laws through judicial decree, no effective congressional action has been asserted.

From this it will be readily seen that insofar as checks on the judiciary were concerned, a major loophole was left in the basic structure of the Constitution. Perhaps the Founders were too busy to read an article in a New York paper signed "Brutus" (believed to have been Robert Yates) which said:

"It is of great importance to examine with care the nature and extent of the judicial power, because those [Supreme Court judges] are to be rendered totally independent, both of the people and the legislature, both with respect to their offices and salaries. No errors they commit can be corrected.... The only causes for which they can be displaced [are] convictions of treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors.... The power of the judicial will enable them to mold the government into almost any shape they please."




While the loophole is acknowledged, the Founders likely never imagined that the American Bar Association would present a constitutional calamity where over 25 years (1984-2009) EVERY state supreme court would enact one (1) law which violates a litigants rights protected by both the state Constitution AND the Constitution of the United States with all enforcement actions being kept Confidential with every level of state and federal law enforcement prevented from prosecuting the crimes (injustice and judicial corruption) by a Federal Law enacted by the US Congress and FURTHER prevented from addressing the litigant's loss of constitutional rights by LOCAL RULES enacted by the Federal District and Appeals Courts which incorporated the one (1) repugnant law.

The only remaining constitutional law enforcement authority, THE SHERIFF, has been convinced of a greatly diminished role by their lawyers and the state judiciary.

This type of circumstance does not happen by chance.

These were the deliberate and secret retaliatory actions of the American Bar Association after the FBI's Operation Greylord investigated and prosecuted such extreme judicial and courthouse corruption within the Cook County Courthouse in Chicago.

The US Congress can address a repugnant law by modifying the jurisdiction of the Federal Court to exclude jurisdiction to hear actions based on the Courts ability to create law for the operation of the courts.

BUT, this is a state law. IN EVERY STATE. Federalism may be a factor which prevents federal intervention into a state law.

THE STATE Supreme Court is not permitted by law to adversely affect their own integrity by exposing the most egregious violation of the public trust by any government.

This repugnant state law MUST be suspended by the Legislature pursuant to their EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY TO SUSPEND LAWS.

Article I, Section 12 "No power of suspending laws shall be exercised unless by the Legislature or by its authority."

Article I, Section 26 "Neither The Commonwealth nor any political subdivision thereof shall deny to any person the enjoyment of any civil right, nor discriminate against any person in the exercise of any civil right."

Article I, Section 1 "All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness."

Article I, Section 2 "All power in inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper."

Article I Section 20 "The citizens have a right in a peaceable manner to assemble together for their common good, and to apply to those invested with the powers of government for redress of grievances or other proper purposes, by petition, address or remonstrance."

Article II, Section 7 "No person hereafter convicted of embezzlement of public moneys, bribery, perjury or other infamous crime shall be eligible to the General Assembly, or capable of holding any office of trust or profit in this Commonwealth."

THE PEOPLE will accept resignations from Senators and Representatives who are members of the American Bar Association and affiliated federal, state and local organizations whose seditious and treasonous actions
- have undermined the state and federal judiciary and compromised the integrity, judicial independence and jurisdiction of the courts;
- who have violated, neglected and ignored their oath of office;
- who have conspired, obfuscated, prevented and denied without mercy, empathy or conscience the inherent rights of the people which are protected and secured by the US Constitution and the Constitution of Pennsylvania;
- who have deliberately ignored their sworn responsibilities to the Constitution in a persistent and intentional dereliction of the public trust;
- who have failed to act to address, resolve or discuss the situation created by their organization



The actions of other public officials / members of the American Bar Association and affiliates were mandated by the state Supreme Court to inaction and conflicting legality without opportunity to expose, address and resolve the issue. Their circumstances should be reviewed by a citizens committee/organization with recommendations to the House of Representatives with regard to impeachment and prosecution.

Senators and Representatives had the information and knowledge of the situation and the constitutional authority YET FAILED TO MEET with litigants, AND FAILED TO TAKE ANY ACTION to suspend the repugnant unconstitutional law permitting the problem to persist within the courts on a state and federal level without concern for the irreparable damage done to the People.

Pennsylvania Senator Stewart Greenleaf who had full knowledge of the matter of Healy v Healy and the effect of the loss of constitutional rights on a litigant AND was the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary should be prosecuted criminally and civilly for his criminal abuse of power.



JUSTICE IS COMING.

Friday, July 11, 2014

The Rule 1.6 Problem - in two sentences.

Where the judiciary enacts an unconstitutional law, there is no ability to review the constitutionality of the law by the legislative or executive branches.

Where the judiciary will not review the constitutionality of their law, People are denied rights protected by the constitution without any possible recourse.




Rule 1.6 - Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct has been enacted into law by the judiciary in every state.

The Rules of Professional Conduct apply to lawyers and legal professionals including judges.

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality prevents a lawyer from presenting 'confidential information' during a legal proceeding, and excuses the lawyer's failure to address or counter the information presented by the opposing party.

Where an unrepresented party presents true and factual information to the court, a judge is prevented from including that true and factual information in rulings and opinions where mandated to maintain confidentiality.

Further, the court is prevented from providing any explanation for the ommission of true and factual information and testimony.

In ongoing litigation and appeals, any attempt by an unrepresented party to have the court address that true and factual information is similarly omitted and ignored without explanation.

The lawyer on the appeal is limited where the information was not addressed during the hearings - even where that lawyer is responsible to respond to the challenge to the court's jurisdiction.

"True and factual information' includes the court docket and record, the Law, a state constitution, and the Constitution of the United States.

"True and factual information" which is neglected is NOT the result of credibility determinations.

The integrity of the court is affected when the judiciary is mandated to injustice without ability to explain.

"Judicial independence does not just happen all by itself. It is tremendously hard to create, and easier than most people imagine to destroy." - Sandra Day O'Connor, Supreme Court of the United States

Alexander Hamilton remarked that "a steady, upright and impartial administration of the laws is essential, because no man can be sure that he may not be tomorrow the victim of a spirit of injustice."

President Woodrow Wilson wrote, government "keeps it promises, or does not keep them, in its courts. For the individual, therefore,... the struggle for constitutional government is a struggle for good laws, indeed, but also for intelligent, independent, and impartial courts."

The Founders knew that statutes and constitutions do not protect our judicial independence -- people do.

After over eight years of litigation, it is evident that the Rule 1.6 mandate of confidentiality has obstructed, prevented and denied any justice in Healy v. Healy by the twenty judges on the Montgomerry County PA bench who have been involved in the case.

Rule 1.6 has been improperly used by attorneys, Robert Angst & Valerie Rosenbluth Angst, to extort and leverage the judiciary to further injustice.

Rule 1.6 prevents any justice in the matter until such time as the judiciary is permitted intelligence, independence and impartiality.



While Rule 1.6 duty of confidentiality is closely related to the attorney-client privilege, it is broader in scope.

Rule 1.6 mandates confidentiality of information where the information
- would adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary,
- would reveal misconduct of their own office,
- would expose individual liability,
- would adversely affect their client.

Where a government attorney's clients include
- Public
- Government as a whole
- Branch of government in which employed
- Particular agency or department
- Responsible officers who make decisions with an agency or department

It would seem that Rule 1.6 was designed to conceal public corruption, judicial corruption, and injustice. District Attorneys, Prosecutors or Attorneys General were clearly mandated to ignore Kids For Cash, Foreclosures through fraud, and other injustices by pretending they don't exist... and having lawyers write reports which fail to explain the Rule 1.6 confidentiality which undermined their effort.

It would seems that Rule 1.6 was designed to conceal corruption... BECAUSE IT WAS ENACTED INTO LAW in response to the FBI's Operation Greylord to prevent judges from being prosecuted for corruption.

The American Bar Association failed to understand that the integrity of the judiciary is not protected by destroying the integrity of the judiciary, undermining judicial authority and usurping the authority of the Executive branch and the Legislature.

Rule 1.6 is so wrong... It's evil.

Thursday, July 10, 2014

Judicial Overthrow of Legislative and Executive - Rule 1.6

Alexander Hamilton described the separation of powers...

The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community.

The Legislative not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated.

The Judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE NOR WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.




Hamilton neglected to see how each state judiciary enacting a law could undermine the whole of the government. By enacting a law which mandates the silence of lawyers, aggressively enforcing THEIR law, and undermining the legislature through it's lawyer membership and the executive through it's governor/lawyers. By enacting a law which undermines constitutional rights, and the law, without proper authority where it affects the rights protected by the Constitution of the United states and the state Constitutions.

The Judicial Branch has demonstrated their power to undermine the Constitution of the United States, because they alone have the authority to decide what is constitutional and ignore when they violate constitutional rights.

This is not speculation. This is why the constitution and the rule of law are ignored in the united States. And lately, the judiciary committee is trying to silence the whole country.

The mistake was letting the judiciary make their law without review of the collateral impact of the opportunity for denial of constitutional rights, and of equal protection of the law.

Rule 1.6 undermined the government and mandated the confidentiality of lawyers (the legislative) and law enforcement (the executive branch). As the judiciary has the power of judgment, they have effectively usurped force, will and judgment. One law controls them all, and mandates their silence.

Quietly rolled out to each state from 1984 through 2009... and modified ONLY when it exposed their judicial corruption - leaving bread crumbs demonstrating intent. Only a legislature could stop the power shift. A a mandate of confidentiality and the shame of what the government had allowed to happen has kept every legislature silent.

The judiciary controls judgment, force and will - and aggressively attacks any challenge to their unconstitutional, unlawful and unjust actions.

The government is controlled within one organization - the American Bar Association, and it's pretend government structure. An effective silent overthrow of the United States...

Rule 1.6 is unconstitutional and is so REPUGNANT TO THE CONSTITUTION. IT IS A NULLITY. IT IS VOID AB INITIO.

JUSTICE IS COMING.