Happy Earth Day: 22Apr2010
MaryJane Duchene , Public Policy mandates: Fight Back Subordination of Perjury
Another Ex: Mary Jane Duchene fighting a simple Noise Ordinance removed to Federal Court
http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/advocate6/2009dog/wspnoise.html
http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/advocate6/2009dog/wspnoise.html
PDF]
Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss
- 2 visits - Jan 17File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
Mary Jane Duchene, Defendant. Court file: 19WS-CR-09-15734 .... about 75%, to hear noise from the defendant's property, has been produced by ...
www.ddaexchange.org/1144OttawaAvenue/motiondismiss2.pdf
Mary Jane Duchene, Defendant. Court file: 19WS-CR-09-15734 .... about 75%, to hear noise from the defendant's property, has been produced by ...
www.ddaexchange.org/1144OttawaAvenue/motiondismiss2.pdf
Long read but worth it on Lawless Judges
As always, some informative comments from a friend who is a lawyer and constitutional scholar.
A video of the April 20, 2010, interview of me bt Lasse Engelbrecht Jensen of the Danish Broadcasting Corporation is at http://vimeo.com/11130228 I apologize for the background noise. I should have used my shotgun mike or wireless lapel mike.
-------- Original Message --------
| Subject: | Re: LAWLESS JUDGES A few Comments on the Fourteent Amendment |
|---|---|
| Date: | Thu, 22 Apr 2010 13:26:58 -0400 |
| From: | Mark Ferran |
| To: |
Jon is entirely correct.
The Federal Courts are, in practice, LAWLESS, and this disease has been spread to State Courts. This degeneration of the Courts was accelerated when the Supreme Court decided that Executive AND JUDICIAL agents of government are not required by the Constitution "to refrain" from intentionally committing "unauthorized deprivations" of Life, Liberty or Property. www.billstclair.com/ferran/markferran2.html
The Judges immediately decided that this Doctrine means that Judges and their staff, and government prosecutors, can violate procedural rules and disregard substantive laws purposefully and with specific intent to deprive disfavored individuals of equal protection of the Court system.
"On the one hand, defendants contend that any misconduct was random and unauthorized, given that New York law already prohibits bias in the context of administrative adjudications." http://openjurist.org/264/f3d/154
Subsequently, the Supreme Court Judges discussed 'HOW LAWLESS CAN WE BE?' and decided that Judges may interminably delay civil lawsuits with an endless series of "unauthorized" departures from established rules of procedure as long as they did not purport to "finally terminate" a lawsuit.
The Doctrine of Unauthorized Deprivation is intended to convert a constitutional right to possess one's own Life, Liberty or Property into an opportunity to spend all one's time litigating to "seek" compensation or to "seek" restoration if some lawless agent of government decides not to refrain from taking it from you unlawfully.
Examples,
More at:
As Jon said: "Lawless courts have no rules, except perhaps for appearances, and you can't learn their rules or beat them at their own rules." The pigeons who imagine magic Gold flags and "admiralty jurisdiction" is controlling the predictable outcomes of cases are oblivious of the reality that NO RULES are respected, and NO LAWS are maintained.
P.S. The Doctrine of Lawless Deprivation is a backdoor means for gun-confiscation on a individual-by-individual, or house-by-house, level:
"Defendants moved for summary judgment on Counts I and II, arguing that the refusal to return Mr. Lathon's ammunition and weapons was an action not undertaken pursuant to a policy of the Board. Accordingly, defendants argued, under Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981), and Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984), the existence of a state post-deprivation remedy in the form of an action for replevin precluded a claim under 1983. In those cases the Supreme Court held that a deprivation of property caused by a state official's random and unauthorized conduct does not give rise to a 1983 procedural due process claim...."
Not only illegal deprivations of Guns are condoned, but illegal theft by a police officer of a House for his personal use, and of cars,
and of Your Cash.
" Police officers' alleged failure to return a knife and money confiscated from a motorist during the stop and search of his vehicle was insufficient to support a constitutional due process claim when the seizure was "random and unauthorized" and there were adequate state law remedies for the motorist to seek compensation for his property. Alexander v. Hodell, No. 04-1889, 124 Fed. Appx. 665 (2nd Cir. 2005). [N/R]"
http://www.aele.org/law/Digests/civil184.html
and of your pets
"The seizure and immediate euthanization of ... dogs and cats seized from a woman's trailer home and its attached fenced-in yard did not give rise to a viable claim for deprivation of property without due process of law when the county employees' actions were "random and unauthorized" under state law." http://www.aele.org/law/Digests/civil184.html
even your children:
"The individual child welfare workers violated state rules, the state said, when they upheld the abuse accusation against Bond. That finding was a "random and unauthorized act," Assistant Attorney General John Glinski said in a court document. Bond's attorney, Michael Dean, said the situation reflected "an institutional arrogance that develops when they do what they want, wherever they want. They really do, basically, whatever they want." Bond has not appealed the bureau's finding and should not have to, Dean said. "It strikes me as outrageous for me to say 'since we broke every rule in the book, the burden is on you to clear your name,' " he said. "
Do you see this, Do you understand???? The State's Attorney is saying that BECAUSE the deprivation committed was LAWLESS (unauthorized), that therefore the deprivation was NOT FORBIDDEN by the Constitution!!!!!! That is exactly Contrary to the Express Meaning of the Constitution: http://billstclair.com/ferran/markferran1.html
The Federal Judges want all federal, state, and local rulers (executive and judicial officers) to have unlimited power to intentionally commit "unauthorized deprivations" of your Houses, cars, cash, guns, pets, and even your children!!!! www.billstclair.com/ferran/markferran2.html
Establishing the most LAWLESS GOVERNMENT imaginable is the object and intention of all Federal Judges today.
This article by a Law Student only scratches the surface of the seriousness of the problem of Judges promoting Lawless Government, by outright saying Rulers have no duty "to refrain" from lawless deprivations, and by "severely restricting the ability of detainees, students, government employees, and landowners, to bring substantive due process challenges to the arbitrary exercise of executive power." http://www.aele.org/law/Digests/civil184.html (Frankly, it is so tame a treatment of the subject that it is misleading)
Very, very few Federal Judges make any effort to resist the New Doctrine establishing Lawless Government manned by lawless rulers having unlimited power of unauthorized deprivation:
"Owner of guns and ammunition seized under valid search warrant could pursue federal civil rights lawsuit for damages when police refused to return them without a court order, despite the fact that no criminal charges were filed regarding them; search warrant did not constitute sufficient pre-deprivation process, and the refusal to return them was not "random and unauthorized." Lathon v. City of St. Louis, #00-1521EM, 242 F.3d 841 (8th Cir. 2001)." http://www.aele.org/law/Digests/civil184.html
The current trend is for Obama to appoint the Most-Lawless Judges he can find (so that he in turn can be as bad as he wants to be):
His appointee Sotomayer is a proponent of the Doctrine of Unauthorized Deprivation:
Judge Sotomayor first explained that Rivera-Powell's due process claim failed. She noted that the "Due Process Clause does not protect against all deprivations of constitutionally protected interests in life, liberty, or property, only against deprivations 'without due process of law'." In fact, the key to determining "whether a constitutional violation has occurred is to ask what process the State provided, and whether it was constitutionally adequate." .... Judge Sotomayor considered whether Rivera-Powell's removal from the ballot resulted from 'random and unauthorized' conduct or established state procedures. She concluded that for the instant case, classifying the Board's action [as unauthorized] was immaterial and as such was not decided."
THE DAWNING OF THE AGE OF LAWLESSNESS: OBAMA WLL APPOINT A JUSTICE WHO WILL IGNORE THE LAW
------- Original Message -----From: Jon RolandSent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 9:28 AMSubject: Re: GCongress> A few Comments on theFourteenth Amendment Situation.On 04/22/2010 03:02 AM, Constitutionalist Radreligion wrote:More patriot mythcrap. Just because a court violates the Constitution doesn't make it an "admiralty" court. Try learning at least a little bit about the subject before making a fool of yourself in a public forum.And what
then is Admiralty law about, other than court rigging?
Real admiralty courts decide only commercial maritime civil cases. They don't decide criminal cases at all.
The origin of the myth may be the use by Britain during the colonial period of vice-admiralty courts, which were naval military courts used to decide cases on shipboard, in ports, and increasingly inland. They were called that because they were conducted under the authority of vice-admirals. But, and here is the key point: An admiralty court and a vice-admiralty court are entirely different from one another, with different jurisdictions and different rules. Don't let the inclusion of the word "admiralty" in the names confuse you.
Jefferson and the Founders strongly objected to the use of vice-admiralty courts and the Constitution implicitly restricts the use of military courts to military personnel, which has been done ever since (except for inclusion of a few contractors).
The myth seems to have been further propagated by the rhetorical device of asserting that our civil courts have come to operate like military courts. They haven't. It's worse than that. You'd have more rights in a real military court than you have in civil courts today. Don't take rhetoric literally.
What we have is not some new kind of court, with some new kind of jurisdiction. They can be called kangaroo courts, or faux courts, or show trials, or perhaps political courts, but they are not admiralty courts or military courts. Don't look for some kind of rules or jurisdiction under which they operate with some consistency. Lawless courts have no rules, except perhaps for appearances, and you can't learn their rules or beat them at their own rules. The closest thing to a rule they operate under is: the best-connected win, all else lose. If you want to win, become powerful and well-connected. Otherwise, forget it. it is about power and only about power. It is not about law.
-- Jon
----------------------------------------------------------
Constitution Society http://constitution.org/
2900 W Anderson Ln C-200-322 Austin, TX 78757
512/299-5001 jon.roland@constitution.org
----------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
GeneralCongress mailing list
GeneralCongress@constitutionalgov.us
http://constitutionalgov.us/mailman/listinfo/generalcongress_constitutionalgov.us
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Grand Jury" group.
To post to this group, send email to grandjury@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to grandjury+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/grandjury?hl=en.
In a message dated 4/22/2010 11:51:27 A.M. Central Daylight Time, nancylazaryan@yahoo.com writes:
It appears the Guardians of the Free Republics are not full of hot air. The GOFR had stated that the US Supreme Court was "on board" and assisting in bringing back our constitutional law and the Republics.Several "news items" have hit the "legal community websites" today.The US Supreme Court just decided an issue concerning FORECLOSURES....against the bank and for the natural person:http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2010/04/supreme-court-rules-legal-error-no.phpThe US Supreme Court just hear oral arguments concerning "mistakenly having the wrong party named in a lawsuit against a corportation"...If the decide "correctly"...the corporate government, banks, etc...will all be re-hauled into court and dismantled.http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2010/04/supreme-court-hears-arguments-on_21.phpAnd also...from MONTANA...eliminating the "unauthorized practice of law". This is a "law" that has been used so you are I cannot go into court and speak on behalf of another natural person. In the information from the GOFR, one of the demands was that a natural person has the right to choose whomever they wanted to speak on his/her behalf.http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legal_profession/2010/04/montana-unauthorized-practice-commission-dissolved.htmlLet us hope and pray that the restoration is completed.Nancy
