Proposed Election 2012 caucus resolutions for judicial reform(updated) Part 1of2
This article was originally published on Examiner.com on March7, 2012. (see original print graphic at end of article) This writer’s entire column on Examiner.com was censored within 24–48 hours of this writer submitting a credible petition on 11/06/2015 to the Minnesota Supreme Court to Remove a Minnesota District Court Judge from the bench for conspiring to perpetrate a fraud upon the Court. This writer leaves it to reader to deduce for themselves who wanted these articles censored, and why the US Government wants this writer silenced.
These are still valid resolutions to produce at your State Caucus and local BPOU meetings regardless of what party you belong to. Please submit one or more at your local BPOU or at your State Caucus (in Caucus States)
THE 2020 ELECTION SEASON BEGINS IN ABOUT 10 MONTHS. WHY NOT SAVE THESE RESOLUTIONS AND TAKE THEM TO YOUR LOCAL BPOU &/OR CAUCUS & GET THE ONES YOU ARE MOST PARTIAL TO MADE PART OF YOUR POLITICAL PARTY PLATFORM?
IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, OUR JUDGES WANT TO REMAIN CORRUPT. IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, OUR CONGRESS AND STATE LEGISLATURES WHO ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY CHARGED WITH THE OVERSIGHT AND DISCIPLINE OF JUDGES AND LAWYERS, ARE NOT OVERSEEING AND DISCIPLINING OUR JUDGES AND LAWYERS AS REQUIRED BECAUSE THEY ARE COMPLICIT IN THE SYSTEMIC CORRUPTION. (REREAD THIS A YEAR AFTER YOU BEGINNING TRYING TO PASS A FEW OF THESE AND MY BET IS YOU WILL COME TO A SIMILAR CONCLUSION. AT THAT TIME, PLEASE READ THIS http:/rebrand.ly/DOCDraft-844cf
This is a list of proposed 2012 Caucus resolutions for judicial reform. For Rank and File Americans, Party affiliation will not be a concern in endorsing these proposed resolutions. Collectively, these Resolutions call for Judicial TAR reform Legislation. (Transparency, Accountability and Reform)
We encourage you to reprint these and take them to your upcoming caucus and/or District, State and National conventions.
If your caucus has not already been held, please present any and/or all of these proposals that you agree with at your precinct caucus. (Even if you live in a primary state, there is still a caucus) If you precinct caucuses have already been held, please contact your delegates selected for the District, State and National Conventions and ask them to submit these resolutions at that level. If you are a delegate to the District, State or Federal Convention for your party, please submit and/or support these resolutions at that level.
Again, this author believes these resolutions to be non-partisan in nature, yet essential to reestablish the role that Natural Law, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Rule of Law in our currently systemically corrupt state and federal judiciaries.
At the same time, some of these proposed resolutions may not apply to your state, depending on the level of corruption that has encroached on justice in your locality. While this author will try to point out resolutions that may not be applicable to states other than Minnesota, please review each resolution for applicability to your state. Again, the progression of judicial corruption in your state may not have reached the systemic corruption in Minnesota, and therefore certain of these judicial reform platform resolutions may not be applicable to your state.
[Article Continues below almost universal translator]
Vertaal na Afrikaans |Translate në shqip | ترجمةإلىالعربية | Թարգմանելհայերեն| Azərbaycan Tərcümə | Euskal Translate| Перавесці на беларускай| বাংলাঅনুবাদ | Превод на български| Traduir al català | 转换为中文（简体)|翻譯到中國（傳統） | Prevedi na hrvatskom | Translate to Czech | Oversæt til dansk | Te vertalen naar het Nederlands | Tõlgi eesti | Isalin sa Filipino sa| Käännä Suomen | Traduire en français | Traducir a Galego | თარგმნეთსაქართველოს| Übersetzen auf Deutsch | Μετάφραση στα ελληνικά| ગુજરાતીઅનુવાદ | Tradui kreyòl ayisyen | תרגוםעברית | सेहिन्दीअनुवाद| Fordítás magyar | Þýða til Íslenska | Terjemahkan ke bahasa Indonesia| Aistrigh go Gaeilge| Traduci in italiano | 日本語に翻訳| ಕನ್ನಡಗೆಭಾಷಾಂತರಿಸಿ | 한국어번역| Translate to Latine | Tulkot uz latviešu | Latvian Tulkot uz latviešu| Versti į lietuvių| Преведете на македонски| Terjemah ke Bahasa Malaysia| Ittraduċi għall-Malti| Oversette til norsk |ترجمهبهفارسی| Przekłada się na polskim | Traduzir para Português | Traduceţi în română |Перевести на русскую|Преведи на Српском | Preložiť na slovenský |Prevedi v slovenski | Traducir al español | Tafsiri kwa Kiswahili | Översätt till svenska | தமிழ்மொழிபெயர்க்கவும்| తెలుగులోఅనువదించడానికి | แปลเป็นไทย| Çevir Türkçe>| Перекласти українською| اردومیںترجمہکریں | Dịch cho người Việt Nam| Cyfieithu i'r Gymraeg | איבערזעצןצוייִדיש |
Most of these resolutions are the result of the culmination of the work of hundreds of Minnesota Citizens attempting to exercise our Constitutional 1st Amendment Right to Petition the Government for Redress of grievances for the past 7 or more years. (The Minnesota State House and Senate Judiciary Committees for 7 years have refused to allow 100’s of Minnesota Citizens a hearing to provide evidence and testimony of corruption in the Minnesota Courts.) This is this author’s “Plan B” to forcing Judicial Reform. Some of the resolutions contain links to the historic or logical explanation for the proposed resolution. You can get somewhat broader background on some of these resolutions here If I were running for President http://bit.ly/wtiWe6 Sections 3 and 4.
If you are so motivated, rally or friends and neighbors (or other delegates at District, State and Federal Conventions) to go to your precinct caucus to press this agenda. Be prepared to hear at the beginning of District Conventions various motions to limit debate to save time. (The reality being that the status quo entrenched delegates and the political parties themselves do not want change; they want the status quo. Be prepared for resistance to these resolutions from those who benefit from the current corrupt system.)
Each of these resolutions should be able to be submitted to your caucus and/or convention as is. Some of the Minnesota Specific proposed resolutions may be adaptable to your state with simple language changes. A downloadable copy of this article in MS Word appears here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/84391219 and http://www.jdsupra.com/profile/don_mashak/
“There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.”
ELECTION 2012 JUDICIARY PLATFORM RESOLUTIONS
TABLE OF RESOLUTIONS
Resolution 1 – Judicial Decisions Should Be Based On the Rule of Law Based On the Facts in Evidence;
Resolution 2 - Court Rules And Case Law Were Written Plainly and In Simple English;
Resolution 3 – Natural Law Right To Own Property;
Resolution 4 – Prosecutorial Discretion by The FBI, Department Of Justice, The Federal And State Attorney Generals And All Government Attorneys Has Been Flagrantly Abused For Many Untoward Reasons;
Resolution 5 - All Citizens Have The Right To Be Heard Before A True, Properly Appointed Or Elected Judge;
Resolution 6 – Rejection Of Judicial Candidates;
Resolution 7 – Judicial Bribes;
Resolution 8 – Code Of Ethics;
Resolution 9 – Random Assignment of Judges;
Resolution 10 – Discreet Voice Recording Devices Should Be Allowed In The Court Room;
Resolution 11 – Constitutional Right To Vote For Judges;
Resolution 12 - Direct Access of Citizens To The Citizens’ Grand Jury;
Resolution 13 – 11th Amendment;
Resolution 14 – We The People Believe It Is More Important To Protect 300 Million Rank And File Americans From Corrupt Judges Than It Is To Protect Corrupt Judges From Allegations Of, And Accountability To, We The People;
Resolution 15 – Requirement Of Businesses To Be Represented By Lawyers;
Resolution 16 - Public Financing Of All Judicial Campaigns At No Expense To Tax Payers
Resolution 17 – Simulated Litigation And Fact Shaping Should Be Criminalized;
Resolution 18 – Judicial Term Limits;
Resolution 19 - Rule Of Judicial Immunity Abrogated;
Resolution 20 – Duplicitous Uses Of The Courts;
Resolution 21 – Summary Judgment;
Resolution 22 – Rules Of Appeal For Judges
Resolution 23 - The Supreme And/Or Appellate Courts Refusal To Hear Appeal Most Often Does Not Come With An Explanation;
Resolution 24 – Performance Ratings Of Judges;
Resolution 25 - Certification Of Judgments, Decisions And Orders;``
Resolution 26 – Jury Instructions;
Resolution 27 – Right To Criticize Judges;
Resolution 28 – Child Support Payments Through The Court System
Resolution 29 - Resumed Joint Physical Custody Of Children;
Resolution 30 – Right Of Meaningful Visitation By A Parent With Their Child;
Resolution 31 – Family Small Claims Court
Resolution 32 – Citizens Anti-Corruption Committee
PROPOSED RESOLUTION 1
Judicial decisions should be based on the Rule of Law based on the facts in evidence;
Instead, justice in American is more a matter of “How much justice can you afford?” who you know, who you can influence and/or exchange of political favors with, punishment of lawful political dissent, reward for political loyalty and the Whim of Judges. Citizens should be able to come to before the Courts and have a full, fair, impartial and just adjudication of their cases.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT LANGUAGE SHOULD BE INCORPORATED INTO OUR PARTY PLATFORM TO REFLECT THE FOLLOWING:
1) Judicial Decisions must be based on Natural Law and the Rule of Law applied to the facts freely admitted in evidence;
PROPOSED RESOLUTION 2
1) The legal profession was necessary at the beginning of the Country;
2) But literacy rates have improved such that most high school graduates could represent them selves in most matters if the laws, court rules and case law were written plainly and in simple English;
3) Lawyers often do not treat their clients ethically and current use the laws and rules to the disadvantage of their own clients;
4) Lawyers are so expensive as to prohibit many people from hiring one;
5) Straight forward, simple English laws and court rules compiled and collated in a few documents would allow rank and file Americans to better represent themselves and better understand the process even when they are represented by a lawyer;
6) The current amalgam of Court rules, Case Law and Legislation are unnecessarily complex and confusing;
7) The scattered nature of Court Rules and Case Law yields great unnecessary expense to rank and file Americans who have to pay attorneys who say they “research” the legal nuances;
8) Case Law is full of unresolved conflicting rulings on the same subject;
9) Case Law Conflicts allow Judges to Cite 1 Case Law Citation in one case and a difference citation in a same/similar but different case with wildly difference outcomes. This defies the intention of the “Rule of Law”.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT LANGUAGE SHOULD BE INCORPORATED INTO OUR PARTYPLATFORM TO REFLECT THE FOLLOWING:
1) That the entire legal code, court rules and case law be written in simple English so that Citizens with a high school degree that can represent themselves;
2) That the Legislature of the State is required to undertake this task immediately and resolve all conflicts in cases law in so doing;
3) That thereafter, every 10 years, the Legislature will meet to incorporate all interim case law in the code and resolve all conflicting case law rulings;
4) WE THE PEOPLE propose that all State and Federal Court Rules, Case Law and Legislation be logically laid out in 5 documents:
A) Federal Criminal Code
B) Federal Civil Code
C) State Criminal Code
D) State Civil Code
E) State Family Code
Further understanding of why and what is proposed here: http://shar.es/gIlXh
PROPOSED RESOLUTION 3
1) The Natural Law Right to own Property is affirmed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights;
2) The Condemnation of Private Property (takings) for Public Use as narrowly defined in the Constitution and 5th Amendment has been interpreted in an unconstitutional way by the US Courts;
3) Essentially the US Courts have ruled that Government can act as kings and take property from one private property owner and give it to another private Property Ruler;
4) These Court Rulings essentially reestablish our government philosophy as “The Divine Right of Kings;
5) The Courts have ruled that the Government can condemn one citizens private property and give it to another private citizen or business;
6) The Courts have ruled that Citizens cannot drink milk from a cow that they own all or party of;
7) The United Nations Agenda 21 is yet another reassertion of the Divine Right of Kings upon WE THE PEOPLE;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT LANGUAGE SHOULD BE INCORPORATED INTO OUR PARTY PLATFORM TO REFLECT THE FOLLOWING:
1) Our State and Federal Legislatures shall pass legislation condemning the property right power grab by the US Courts;
2) Said Legislation shall restore “Public Use” to it original narrow intent of the Founders.
A much more in depth explanation of the Concept of Property Rights and what has befallen WE THE PEOPLE, Can be found here ” DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS DISGUISED AS USA JUDICIAL CASE LAW http://bit.ly/ny4dxh
PROPOSED RESOLUTION 4
1) PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION BY THE FBI, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, THE FEDERAL AND STATE ATTORNEY GENERALS AND ALL GOVERNMENT ATTORNEYS HAS BEEN FLAGRANTLY ABUSED FOR MANY UNTOWARD REASONS;
2) Government attorneys have been accepting consideration and making prosecutorial decisions based on politics and broadly excusing their decisions as prosecutorial discretion;
3) In its present form, the DOJ and FBI have come to more resemble the former Soviet Union KGB or Nazi Germany’s Gestapo. Instead of enforcing laws without bias, they have come to be instruments of control and intimidation.
4) Domestic Friends of the Current American Regime are protected (even in their criminal pursuits);
5) Perceived political adversaries, political dissenters and other alleged political enemies of the current political regime are punished and marginalized. (see FBI COINTELPRO http://bit.ly/pXRwip )
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT LANGUAGE SHOULD BE INCORPORATED INTO OUR PARTY PLATFORM TO REFLECT THE FOLLOWING:
1) Require the FBI and DOJ and all other Federal and State Attorneys and Justice Department Employees to provide a written description of the disposition of all complaints submitted in writing in all cases where prosecution is not pursued;
2) This document to be called “NOTICE OF DISPOSITION”;
3) That written description to include the name of the elected official under whom the this description is authorized, and the name and/or traceable “pen name” of all persons who worked on the matter, Investigator, Assistant, typist etc;
4) Said document shall also contain an approximation of the man hours used in making the determination and the name of the person making the determination. This NOTICE OF DISPOSITION shall contain check boxes for the reason for declining prosecution similar to; allegations not understandable, allegations not credible, allegations not criminal offenses, insufficient evidence, insufficient resources, offenses not a priority, etc;
5) Said document would contain a conclusion would contain a short statement of what additional information or evidence would be necessary for the matter to be pursued further;
6) Notice of Disposition would be due within 90 days of the complaint. This deadline could be extended by up to 24 months upon sending a Notice of Continued Investigation before the 90 day deadline expires;
7) All allegations of Obstruction of Justice and Abuse of Process, such as witness tampering, bribes and Simulated Litigation, to require more extensive documentation than other matters;
8) NOTICE OF DISPOSITION required to be sworn and notarized and it will include a statement that the DISPOSITION was not based on political consideration, bribe or any other unlawful or amoral consideration but only upon the Rule of Law based on the freely admitted Facts in Evidence;
9) State and County Government Attorneys would have the same Duty to provide Notice of Disposition;
10) Any Government attorney or law enforcement personnel found to have made or caused any case DISPOSITION based on political consideration, bribe or other consideration shall be immediately and permanently disbarred with no possibility of reinstatement and shall be prohibited from working in Government position or as a subcontractor or employee of a subcontractor providing services to the Government. The standard of evidence shall be “preponderance of the evidence” aka “more likely than not”
PROPOSED RESOLUTION 5
1) All Citizens have the right to be heard before a true, properly appointed or elected Judge;
2) The Courts and Government have snuck in legislation permitting ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGES, MAGISTRATES, REFEREES AND COURT CLERKS to handle citizen’s cases without full disclosure and affirmative consent;
3) All Citizens have the right to have any matter heard before a properly appointed or elected judges. Instead magistrates, referees and Court Clerks are rendering judicial decisions. All Citizens should be informed of this right and waive this right in writing;
Federal Judges were trusted and given the opportunity to be appointed for various reasons;
Federal Judges have betrayed the trust of WE THE PEOPLE as evidenced by many of their unconstitutional decisions and other rulings not consistent with the Rule of Law.
1) WE affirm the right of all citizens to be heard by a duly elected Judge;
2) We require that any citizen must be expressly notified that the judge they are scheduled appear before is not a duly elected or appointed Judge;
3) WE affirm that any citizen has the right to demand they are heard before an DULY ELECTED JUDGE;
4) WE THE PEOPLE demand that Federal and State Legislation be written requiring all judges to be duly elected by WE THE PEOPLE.
MN PROPOSED RESOLUTION 6
1) WE THE PEOPLE should be able to reject Judicial Candidates;
2) There is a propensity of incumbent Judges to run unopposed;
3) Lawyers do not like to run against incumbent judges;
4) Everyone in the legal fraternity knows that to run against a sitting judge violates these unwritten rules known as “Judicial Code Red”;
5) Reprisal in the event of laws can be very career limiting for a lawyer;
6) WE THE PEOPLE should not get stuck with bad or corrupt judges just because the good ole boys figured out a way to game the system;
1) WE THE PEOPLE press our Federal and State legislators to push legislation to add an extra choice for Candidates for Judge;
2) This choice would be “None of the above” or “No Confidence”;
3) That If the majority of voters cast their ballots this way, the election for that seat would be held again and only new candidates could run in the election to resolve that particular vacancy.
MN PROPOSED RESOLUTION 7
1) Judicial Bribes known as gifts are permitted Minnesota by the Court’s own rules;
2) A gift is a bribe, in the same what a Mafia his is still and assassination;
3) As the Bard of Avon indicated, A Rose by any other name would still smell as sweet;
4) As long as the bribe is not more than $150.00 from anyone one person in a day, Judges don’t have to report them;
5) And Judges can accept up to $150.00 per person per day from as many people willing to do so. (The allegation is that large law firms often quite skilled at making this work to their advantage.);
6) Rank and file Americans, regardless of political leanings, agree that judges taking bribes is wrong;
7) For seven or more years, both Democrats and Republicans in the State of Minnesota have let this matter go unaddressed.
1) Judges should not be able to accept gift or any other remuneration or consideration which effectively could act as or be perceived as bribes;
MN PROPOSED RESOLUTION 8
1) Judges and Lawyers should be constrained by a “Code of Ethics”;
2) The Bar and judges in Minnesota and other states have found the title “Code of Ethics” for Judges and lawyers too restrictive;
3) The State of Minnesota and other State use other less restrictive Euphemisms to name their Code of Ethics;
4) Minnesota refers to its code of ethics as the “Minnesota Lawyers’ Code of Professional Conduct”;
5) in a recent District, Appellate and State Supreme Court ruling (Fabian, May and Anderson PLLP v Volkommer A10-1205 unpublished) the Minnesota District, Appellate and Supreme Court have ruled that the MN Lawyers Code of Professional Conduct is not an implied covenant of a contract between a Citizen and a Minnesota Lawyer;
6) And this effectively means that Minnesota Lawyers have no requirement to treat any client ethically;
7) And Minnesota Lawyers refuse to incorporate language into their contracts requiring them to abide by the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct and/or otherwise bind them to treat their clients ethically;
8) And releasing lawyers from an obligation to treat their clients ethically makes it easier for Lawyers to fix cases against their clients using “Simulated Litigation” and “Fact Shaping”;
9) Citizens, especially those not learned in the law, rely upon the lawyer they pay hundreds or thousands of dollars to treat them ethically;
10) No Citizen should be required hire an attorney who objects to being bound by aCode of Ethics;
11) Having a Code of Ethics that Lawyers and the State Bar are not bound to is tantamount to “false advertising”;
12) Not having lawyers required to adhere to a Code of Ethics demonstrate malice of forethought to defraud WE THE PEOPLE;
13) It is absolutely repugnant to have any person that lacks financial means to be represented by a Public Defender that is not bound to the Code of Ethics;
14) Natural Law mandates Lawyers must be required to abide by a Code of Ethics to ensure Civil Litigants and Criminal Defendants their Natural Law Rights to Due Process and to be secure in their person;
1) Our States version of the CODE OF ETHICS for Lawyers must be and is an unalienable part of every contract between our State’s BAR, every Lawyer admitted to said bar and any lawyer practicing in Court in our State, be it State, Federal, Administrative and/or any time of Court whatsoever;
2) Our States version of the CODE OF ETHICS for State Judges must be and is an unalienable part of every matter to come before them in any Court in our State, be it State, Federal, Administrative and/or any time of Court whatsoever;
3) Providing that the CODE OF ETHICS for our state be drafted by the Legislature of our State.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION 9
1) RANDOM ASSIGNMENT OF JUDGES MUST BE ASSURED;
2) Judges are supposed to be assigned randomly;
3) it has been alleged that Court personnel can anticipate what judge is next up in the rotation, and simple wait until the desired judge next in the rotation;
4) Most venues have 1 or 2 judges that are willing to fix cases;
5) Litigants get one “free boot” of the assigned judge;
6) If the fix is in and the venue has 2 corrupt judges, the target of the fix has no chance at impartial justice. (This is often done to fix cases against political dissidents and/or for other political purposes);
7) Without truly random assignment of cases to judges, judges who are willing to accept bribes can assure their coconspirator that they will be assigned to that particular case;
1) WE THE PEOPLE demand that our Federal and State Legislatures pass legislation requiring that cases be assigned truly randomly, thereby making it more difficult for the powers to be to fix cases.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION 10
1) Discreet voice recording devices should be allowed in the Court room;
2) Judges have a rule that there can be no private party electronic recording devices in their courtrooms nor at the Court teller windows without permission and If you ask permission, it will likely be denied;
3) This practice is antithetical to the sentiments of the Founding Fathers who believed openness, transparency and Accountability were necessary to keep people in positions of power honest (First Principles http://bit.ly/nLIqPn;
4) It is asserted that the Judges specifically prohibit discreet voice recording devices to allow them to fix cases by altering transcripts;
5) In this day and age, there is no reason why all court room proceedings cannot be video and audio recorded to assure accuracy and guard against injustice;
6) Allowing recording devices will provide transparency and enhance the perception of the Courts by Rank and File Americans’.
1) That Discreet voice recording devices shall be immediately be allowed in all Court rooms;
2) That Our State shall embark on a program to voice and video record all Court room and Chambers hearings and implement a cataloging system to make individual recordings easily retrievable and searchable and that said recordings would be saved for a minimum of 20 years;
3) That all such recordings shall be considered “admissible evidence”
PROPOSED RESOLUTION 11
1) The Constitutional Right to Vote for our Judges is a fundamental right of citizens;
2) Citizens Voting for Citizens creates Accountability;
3) Our State Government has colluded to appoint judges rather than have them elected by WE THE PEOPLE by having them resign before the next election;
4) The Judges of our State want to take away our right to vote for Judges;
5) Our State Judges falsely contend that our judicial System is not corrupt;
6) Our State Judges then falsely assert that recent US Supreme Court Rulings allowing Judicial Candidates the right to affiliate with political parties and to accept campaign contributions will corrupt a nearly pristine Judicial System;
1) That persons tried in our State Courts have the fundamental, unalienable right to have their case heard before a judge that was elected;
2) The Right to Vote for State Judges in our State Shall not be revoked;
3) WE THE PEOPLE oppose all machinations by anyone to have judges appointed rather than elected to office;
4) That, if WE THE PEOPLE, have already been deprived of any right to vote for any Judge, said right to vote for judges (even administrative Judges) shall be reinstated;
5) WE THE PEOPLE support legislation and/or amendment which requires that all Federal judges also be elected by WE THE PEOPLE.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION 12
1) Direct Access of Citizens to the Citizens’ Grand Jury is a fundamental right;
2) Our original State Constitution provides for direct access by citizens to grand juries;
3) Republicans and Democrats alike have put in place rules to prevent citizen access to grand juries;
4) State Government attorneys, judges and the legal system now act as gatekeepers for grand juries, to prevent citizens from bring complaints of Government corruption to citizen grand juries;
5) Government and judicial Elected Officials and Employees have prevented citizen access to Grand juries to facilitate corrupt and unconstitutional acts of the Government and Judiciary.
1) All Citizens shall have direct, full, free and unfettered access to Grand Juries;
PROPOSED RESOLUTION 13
1) THE US COURTS purposely and maliciously misinterpreted the 11TH AMENDMENT;
2) The 11th Amendment specifically reads:
3) “The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United Statesby Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.”;
4) James Madison said:
Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."
James Madison, 4th President of the USA, Author of the USA Bill of Rights;
5) Nearly 100 years after the 11th was ratified, the US Supreme Court effectively ruled that the drafters of the 11th amendment intended that NOBODY CAN SUE A STATE IN FEDERAL COURT;
6) A simple reading of the amendment demonstrates this not to be true;
7) Further, there is only one method prescribed in the Constitution to amend the Constitution and Bill of Rights and the US Supreme Court did not follow this procedure;
8) Again, about 200 years after the 11the amendment was ratified, the US Supreme Court once again reaffirmed that NOBODY CAN SUE A STATE IN FEDERAL COURT;
9) Clearly, a simple reading of the 11th permits a citizen of a State to sue the State he is a Citizen of.
1) WE THE PEOPLE COMMAND our elected officials to restore our right to sue our state of residence.
None of my elected Federal Officials would meet with this author on this matter. This author’s US Representative, Michelle Bachmann and her staff said they could not meet to discuss this matter because they are attorneys.
You can read further discussion of this issue in this article I previously have written:
ETERNAL VIGILANCE: SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY: THE 11TH AMENDMENT REVISITED http://bit.ly/yY8wiF
PROPOSED RESOLUTION 14
1) WE THE PEOPLE believe it is more important to protect 300 million rank and file Americans from Corrupt Judges than it is to protect Corrupt Judges from allegations of, and accountability to, WE THE PEOPLE;
2) Our original State Constitution provided for the our State Legislature to oversee and discipline our State Judges;
3) Instead, Democrats and Republicans have unconstitutionally delegated the fox to guard the hen house by making the State Judiciary Responsible for overseeing and disciplining itself;
4) The instruments and organization the legislature and Judiciary are wholly inadequate in overseeing and disciplining judges and lawyers;
5) Under the current mechanism, Rank and File Citizens suddenly find rank and file citizens required to have the expertise of a lawyer and/or judge in order to bring a complaint against a lawyer or judge;
6) Lawyers and judges have a familiarity with the rules of evidence and rank and file citizens overwhelmingly do not;
7) Lawyers and Judges “word” is viewed as more credible than that of rank and file Americans;
8) The Current oversight and discipline mechanisms are not transparent;
9) The evidentiary standard for a finding of “guilt” of Judges and Lawyers is “Clear and Convincing”;
10) Our Legislators written or allowed to be written rules that protect corrupt judges and lawyers more than WE THE PEOPLE aka rank and file Citizens.
1) Government shall be more concerned about protecting WE THE PEOPLE from corrupt judges than they are in protecting judges from WE THE PEOPLE;
2) The Evidentiary Standard in disciplinary actions against lawyer and judges shall be “Preponderance of the evidence” aka “More like true than not”;
3) Our State Legislator shall retain or retake control of the oversight and discipline of the State Judiciary;
4) The mechanism to oversee and discipline judges shall be constructed in such a way that rank and file citizens comprise at least half of any oversight and discipline Committee;
5) The Mechanism of overseeing and disciplining judges shall not exclude any variety of judges, for example, Administrative judges;
6) Funding shall be provided for investigation of complaint by rank and file citizens against judges and lawyers.
MN PROPOSED RESOLUTION 15
1) THERE SHOULD NO REQUIREMENT OF CERTAIN LIMITED OWNERSHIP CORPORATIONS TO BE REPRESENTED BY LAWYERS FOR COURT MATTERS;
2) Currently all Corporations are required to be represented by lawyers in Court;
3) The Minnesota District, State and Federal Courts have ruled in Fabian, May and Anderson PLLP v Volkommer unpublished A10-1205 that Minnesota Lawyers do not have to treat their clients ethically;
4) Most Small Corporations lack the resources and expertise to hold unethical lawyers accountable;
5) No Person, business or corporation should be compelled to pay lawyers that are not bound by law to treat them ethically;
6) The only reason for requiring small business to be represented by lawyers is to gin up business for lawyers.
1) The Minnesota legislature should pass legislation that would allow corporations only owned by natural persons with the number of owners less than 25 to represent themselves by unanimous agreement of the owners;
2) For Claims for$10,000.00 and more, representation would be required to be one or more of the owners;
3) For claims less than $10,000.00 either an owner or an employee would be allowed to represent the corporation.
MN PROPOSED RESOLUTION 16
1) The US Supreme Court recently ruled that lawyers can accept campaign contributions;
2) In Minnesota, a “cabal” has allegedly arisen whereby Large Law firms provide large campaign contributions to judges in a quid pro quo arrangement for favorable rulings;
3) Campaign Contributions to Judicial Campaigns create certain concerns and/or the appearance of impropriety;
4) Judicial Campaigns could be publicly financed without using tax payer money by increasing lawyer licensing fees;
5) In Minnesota we calculated increasing lawyer’s fee by about $100.00 per year would be sufficient to adequately publicly finance Minnesota Judicial Elections.
1) WE THE PEOPLE support implementing a plan for PUBLIC FINANCING OF ALL JUDICIAL CAMPAIGNS AT NO EXPENSE TO TAX PAYERS.
You can get a better idea of this proposal by reviewing North Carolina’s 2004 Legislation. Or you can search for this topic in:
Twenty Legal Reforms synopsis and comment - 11/27/10 draft (Minnesota)
To read part 2 of 2, click here.
WORKING LINK HERE >
Those were my thoughts,
Thank you, my fellow citizens, for taking your valuable time to read and reflect upon what is written here.
Please join with me in mutually pledging to each other and our fellow citizens our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor to our mutual endeavors of restoring liberty and economic opportunity to WE THE PEOPLE as our Founding Fathers envisioned and intended. [Last
This article is written with the same intentions as Thomas Paine http://ushistory.org/paine. I seek no leadership role. I seek only to help the American People find their own way using their own “Common Sense” http://amzn.to/kbRuar
Keep Fighting the Good Fight!
The Cynical Patriot
Justice in Minnesota #JIM
Bring Home the Politicians #BHTP
Get out of our House #GOOOH
Critical Thinking Notice - This author advises you as no politician would dare. Exercise Critical Thinking (http://bit.ly/ubI6ve) in determining the truthfulness of anything you read or hear. Do not passively accept nor believe anything anyone tells you, including this author... unless and until you verify it yourself with sources you trust and could actively defend your perspective to anyone who might debate you to the contrary of your perspective.