The future Attorney General and Me

Update February 1, 2020:  I have given a 40 minute interview on the letter I sent to the judiciary which can be viewed on YouTube.

I would be remiss in my duties as a Citizen to raise the "hue and cry" about President Biden's nominee for the Office of Attorney General if I were to remain silent.  As such, I have this day mailed to the Senate Judiciary Committee a letter detailing my concerns about Judge Garland.  In that letter, I describe Judge Garland's use of his discretion to hide the misfeasance of a fellow judge which makes him unsuitable, in my mind, to be Attorney General - an office of unlimted discretion. The letter has three parts:

Elizabeth Anna Duke:  The Fugitive, Capitol Bombing, Domestic-Terrorist

The time-line and location of the U.S. v. Elizabeth Anna Duke events are as follows:

November 7, 1983 – A bomb was detonated inside the United States Capitol.

May 24, 1985 – Elizabeth Anna Duke (“Duke”) was arrested and arraigned for that Capitol bombing.  She jumps bail and is a fugitive wanted by the FBI. Duke was connected with William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, two of the most notorious — and unrepentant — figures from the violent fringe of the 1970s anti-war movement and the organizers of “Progressives for Obama.”  In 1995, Ayers and Dohrn hosted a gathering in their home for Obama and raised funds for and promoted his candidacy.

Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson Dismisses the Indictment of Elizabeth Anna Duke

Twenty-five (25) years later, on June 17, 2009, Attorney M. Jeffery Beatrice, from Obama's Department of Justice, appears before Magistrate Judge Robinson for a hearing in the matter of U.S. v. Duke. At that hearing, Beatrice makes an oral motion to dismiss the Indictment of and quash the outstanding fugitive arrest warrant for Duke.  On the record before her, Magistrate Judge Robinson grants this extraordinary oral motion and in her Order dismissing the Indictment signs it as an Article III  “United States District Court Judge” ‒ a position the Article I Magistrate Judge Robinson does not hold.  Too,  in that Order, Magistrate Judge Robinson stated that the dismissal was: “for the reasons set forth in the government’s motion and for good cause shown” – a clear misrepresentation of what actually transpired at the hearing as no such “reasons” or “good cause” was mentioned as the Transcript clearly reveals.

Chief Judge Merrick Brian Garland Buries The Misfeasance Of Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson

Merrick Brian Garland is an American lawyer and jurist who serves as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He has served on that court since 1997. President Joe Biden has nominated Garland for the position of United States Attorney General.

January 15, 2014 – Chief Judge Garland enters his order dismissing my Judicial Misconduct Complaint against Magistrate Judge Robinson stating for his reasons that: “Because the allegations lack[] sufficient evidence to raise an inference that misconduct has occurred on the part of the magistrate” the complaint against Magistrate Judge Robinson “must be dismissed.” This is absurd.

Falsifying a federal record is a felony.  By entering her Order stating that “good cause was shown” when no such cause was shown, Magistrate Judge Robinson falsified the record. Moreover, by dismissing the Duke indictment, the Article I Magistrate Judge Robinson knowingly exceeded her Congressionally-granted jurisdiction. Last, Magistrate Judge Robinson is an Article I judge, not an Article III judge.  Hence, by signing the order of June 17, 2009, as the latter and not the former, she violated 18 U.S. Code § 912 - “Officer or employee of the United States”, another felony.

Our Country has been here before. In Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 351 U.S. 115, 124-125 (1956), the Supreme Court stated: “The untainted administration of justice is certainly one of the most cherished aspects of our institutions. Its observance is one of our proudest boasts. . . . Therefore, fastidious regard for the honor of the administration of justice requires the Court to make certain that the doing of justice be made so manifest that only irrational or perverse claims of its disregard can be asserted.” (Emphasis added).     The "claims of disregard" by Judge Garland of the "administration of justice" that I raised above fall well below the standard set in Communist Party of "irrational or perverse claims". That is to say my two claims of felonious behavior by Magistrate Judge Robinson are not "irrational or perverse"; indeed, supported by irrefutable documentary evidence, I believe they are due to be heard by a grand jury.

So by my letter to the Senate Judicial Committee I have beseeched those permitted to ask question of Judge Garland to inquire of him about the Elizabeth Duke/Magistrate Robinson matter described above and if that is his idea of "honor[ing the] administration of justice"?

Read More...

Summary only...

Could the 9th Circuit “Travel Ban Case” Judges Be Removed from the Bench?

Impeachment of President Andrew Johnson Ticket

A  Public Policy Polling survey released Friday showed that  46 percent are for impeaching the 45th president and the same percentage are against the extreme measure.  Of course, Public Policy Polling has been intelligently criticized for it poor polling practices and extreme liberal bias. I think this is particularly true on a poll asking non-legally trained individuals about “impeaching” the President.  Clearly, President Trump can only be “impeached” pursuant to the U.S. Constitution Article II, §4 which states: “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Even those most vehemently opposed to President Trump have not claimed that he has committed treason which is defined at18 U.S. Code §2381 as “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason.”  President Trump is not leveeing “war” against the United States.  Just as clear, no one is alleging that President Trump has accepted “bribes” as President.  

Which leaves the question of whether by any stretch of the imagination President Trump has committed any “other high crimes and misdemeanors.”  The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" is not defined in the Constitution or in statute. It was however used in many of the English impeachments, which were proceedings in which criminal sanctions could be imposed upon conviction. See: Federal Impeachments, 64 U.P.Law Review 651, 676-695 (1916). Thus, under the broadest possible definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors”, President Trump would have to be accused of some sort of criminal infraction.  This, of course, is an accusation that no one is credibly making. 

Hence, for the Public Policy Polling to ask “Would you support or oppose impeaching Donald Trump?” is akin to asking: “Do you hit your wife with your right hand or your left?”  It assumes facts that are not present in order to evoke an emotional response to the end of supporting a public narrative for political ends.

Which brings me back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judges William Canby, Richard Clifton and Michelle Friedland and the now-pertinent question: “Can these judges be removed from their judicial offices?”  I believe they could – and should – be removed and here is why:

The U.S. Constitution at Article III, §1 states: “The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour. . .” Thus, if Judges Canby, Clifton and Friedland engaged in the opposite of “good behaviour” – or stated another way for convenience, “misbehavior”– they could be removed from their judicial offices.

“In England, the Crown was obligated (presumably by custom) to lend its sanction to forfeiture [of judicial office] cases when a private citizen complained of misbehavior.” 4 Matthew Bacon, A New Abridgment of the Law, 416 (London, Worrall 3rd Ed. 1768).  English law provided a  proceeding to forfeit the office by a writ of scire facias. An act “contrary to what belongs to his office” resulted in forfeiture of the office appears in the Abridgments of Viner and Bacon and in the Digest of Cromyns, which faithfully reflect these cases. Did Judges Canby, Clifton and Friedland, by entering their Travel Ban Order, act “contrary to what belongs to [their] office”?

I say: Yes. “What belongs to” a judicial office was clearly laid out in in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803) where Chief Justice Marshall for the U.S. Supreme Court stated: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.. . .This is of the very essence of judicial duty.”

Here, the statutory provision President Trump cited as the legal basis for his order – 8 U.S. Code §1182 – requires the President to give a reason for suspending visas. Such reasons can include anything from individuals having spreadable diseases to them posing a risk to the American public's safety. 

However, in their Travel Ban Order, Judges Canby, Clifton and Friedland ignored 8 U.S. Code §1182 as apparently inconvenient to their politically-motivated decision. This ignoring of their "judicial duty" to decide on the “operation of each” – here 8 U.S. Code § 1182 and their claimed First  and Fifth Amendment concerns – breaches their Marbury duty.

Thus, I argue that Judges Canby, Clifton and Friedland have “misbehaved” and thus are subject to an action to forfeit their judicial offices. Otherwise, judges can usurp power not delegated to them and act like an unelected, super-legislature and decide cases and create law without any reference to conflicting and settled principles of law and statutes.

This is, of course, the very definition of tyranny. But that is just my opinion.

Read More...

Summary only...

Sibley v. Chief Judge Roberts & Clerk of Court Caesar -- Part I

On February 9, 2016, I renewed my request to D.C. U. S. District Court Chief Judge Richard W. Roberts to Modify the Restraining orders which presently prohibit me under pain of contempt-of-court from releasing telephone records I properly have in my custody which I believe are relevant to the Presidential election.

On February 11, 2016, Chief Judge Richard W. Roberts penned a short "Denied" on my cover letter to the Clerk of Court and returned all the pleadings to me.  Notably, Chief Judge Richard W. Roberts again pretended that I was requesting permission to file, rather than seeking to modify the existing retraining orders.  It is a wonderful thing when you can pretend that something is what it isn't.

As a result, I have three options available to me to discharge my First Amendment right and duty to engage in a free discussion of the importance of these Verison Wireless records upon public events and public measures, and thus bring the government and any person in authority to the bar of public opinion for just criticism upon their conduct in the exercise of the authority which the people have conferred -- and are preparing to confer -- upon them.

First, I could do nothing.  As anyone who knows me personally would attest, walking away from tyrants is not in my Scottish nature.  Hell, onomatopoeia-speaking my middle name is a verb which means: "to emit a loud, raucous sound". Thus it should not be surprising that it is hard for me to be quiet when faced with such arrogance in public officials.

Second, I could appeal first to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal, wait awhile as they fiddled as Rome burns and then petition the U.S. Supreme Court.  The trouble is that course of action would require $800 in filing fees ($500 at the Circuit Court and $300 at the Supreme Court) and then the printing costs for the Briefs, Motions and Petitions in those Courts which will run some $1,000.  I simply don't have $1,800 to throw at this plain deprivation of my First Amendment Right to Publish.  If you do, please let me know.

Thus, I turned to the third option:  Sue Chief Judge Richard W. Roberts and Clerk of Court Angela Caesar personally for one million dollars each and ask the Court to declare that insomuch as I can't get a hearing on my motion to modify the restraining orders, I am released from them and thus may distribute the Verizon Wireless records as I deems fit.

The Complaint in Sibley v. Roberts & Caesar was filed today in D.C. Superior Court.  The government will screw around for a while, probably remove it to federal court and then claim that both Chief Judge Richard W. Roberts and Clerk of Court Angela Caesar are immune from suit.

We will see.

Read More...

Summary only...

Elizabeth Duke Week

All this week I will be focusing on the strange case of Elizbeth Duke.  Here is a 9 minute video file which was a portion of the NOVA class I taught last week.  The document referred to in the presentation can be viewed at: 3rd MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND VACATEJUNE 11, 2013, ORDER

Read More...

Summary only...

An Account of Some Instances of the Practice of Former Times in Order to the Improvement of Justice and Safeguard of the Constitution

A dear colleague of mine has brought an interesting book to my attention: “An Account of fome Inftances of the Practice of Former Times in Order to the Improvement of Juftice and Safeguard of the Conftitution”. A copy of the 50 page book can be downloaded here.

Printed in 1716, the book starts with a description of how King Alfred (ruled 871-899) hanged 44 judges in one year for violating his law that decreed that judges who entered: “a morally falfe judgement, they be hang’d as any other murderers.”

Detailed descriptions of the hanging of judges by Edward the First and Edward the Third follow and the other punishments of Judges by Kings, Queens and Parliament. Perhaps the most effective deterrent was devised by a Persian King who had a corrupt judge put to death and made into pillow. He then ordered that the dead judge’s successor be ordered to sit on the pillow while on the bench. That is an effective inducement to a judge to be fair and impartial!

What all this really says is that the problems with judges go back to the beginning of our justice system and that we must – as ever generation before us has – be vigilant to the harm and misfortune that judges issuing “morally falfe judgement” can have on each of us. To that end, the idea of judicial immunity must be discarded so that judges can be held accountable for their actions.

Read More...

Summary only...

How Judges React to Criticism

The CNN story of California Attorney Richard Fine echoes my own. Criticize the Judges and they fabricate the history to stigmatize -- and incarcerate -- their critics. That is why our founding Fathers were careful to require juries -- not judges -- to determine guilt under the Sixth Amendment. But when the Court defines criminal charges in such a way that incarceration is available without criminal charges, no jury is necessary.

Read More...

Summary only...

Judicial Tyranny – An Example Part II

To be fair, in Alvarez v. Smith the Supremes did in fact address the “capable of repetition” while “evading review” issue holding that:

We can find no special circumstance here that might warrant our continuing to hear the case. . . . Yet here, unlike those cases, nothing suggests that the individual plaintiffs will likely again prove subject to the State’s seizure procedures. See Los Angeles v. Lyons , 461 U. S. 95, 109(1983) (“[T]he capable-of-repetition doctrine applies only in exceptional situations, and generally only where the named plaintiff can make a reasonable showing that he will again be subjected to the alleged illegality”) . . . And in any event, since those who are directly affected by the forfeiture practices might bring damages actions, the practices do not “evade review.” See Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div. v. Craft, 436 U. S. 1, 8–9 (1978) (damages claim saves case from mootness). Consequently, the case is moot.

But of course this is simple sophistry. Ms. Roe in Roe v. Wade wasn't alleging that she was likely to get pregnant anytime soon. Indeed, the Supremes there concluded rather randily that: "Pregnancy often comes more than once to the same woman, and in the general population, if man is to survive, it will always be with us. Pregnancy provides a classic justification for a conclusion of nonmootness. It truly could be "capable of repetition, yet evading review." How is that different from the massive number of car seizures that are going on nationwide?

Moreover consider this: The state can now seize you asset for three (3) years without a hearing and, when you finally push the case after considerable time and money to the Supreme Court, simply say: "Oops, here is your property. Case over." And it is without the inconvenience of any law being made to curb this grotesque government abuse.

This is not a "justice system". It is not even "just a system". It is a protection racket.

Read More...

Summary only...

Judicial Tyranny – An Example Part I

Without question, the essence of judicial behavior is the absence of decisions based upon whim or caprice. Instead, our Rule of Law, as John Roberts, seeking confirmation as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee requires that judges are: “bound down by rules and precedents.” He continued stating that: “the founders appreciated the role of precedent in promoting evenhandedness, predictability, stability and integrity in the judicial process.”

Recently, in the case of Alvarez v. Smith, 120809 FEDSC, 08-351, the Supreme Court was faced with a challenge to the practice of the State of Illinois in seizing automobiles allegedly involved in drug transactions but waiting for up to forty (40) months before providing a hearing to the owners of the seized automobiles on the merits of the seizures. At oral argument, the Supreme Court learned that all the automobiles had been returned to the owners prior to the oral argument.

As a result, the Supreme Court held: “We consequently find the case moot, and we therefore vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case to that court with instructions to dismiss.”

But wait: Remember the notorious case of Roe v. Wade, 10 U.S. 113 (1973). In that case, Ms. Roe was no longer pregnant when her case reached the Supreme Court. However, as the Supremes apparently wanted to decide this case for political reasons held: “But when, as here, pregnancy is a significant fact in the litigation, the normal 266-day human gestation period is so short that the pregnancy will come to term before the usual appellate process is complete. If that termination makes a case moot, pregnancy litigation seldom will survive much beyond the trial stage, and appellate review will be effectively denied. Our law should not be that rigid. Pregnancy often comes more than once to the same woman, and in the general population, if man is to survive, it will always be with us. Pregnancy provides a classic justification for a conclusion of nonmootness. It truly could be "capable of repetition, yet evading review.”

The same rationale could have been applied by the Supreme Court to the odious practice of the State of Illinois in seizing automobiles for over three (3) years without a hearing. Yet, not “bound down by rules and precedents”, the Court could ignore this glaring miscarriage of justice.

Proof yet again, I submit, they we are ruled by Judicial Tyrants, not judges.

Read More...

Summary only...

I hack at the Tap-root of Evil . . .

Henry David Thoreau famously said: “There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.”

To me, the root of evil is the Judicial Tyranny under which we live. To hack at that tap-root, I have penned a short book -- The Justicide Brief -- on the conception, birth, death and hopeful resurrection of liberty and the concomitant re-internment of Judicial Tyranny.

The download version is free.

Happy New Year.

Read More...

Summary only...

Judiciary Tyranny can also take the form of sitting by while the Executive Branch in the person of the Department of Justice runs wild. A good friend and fine journalist, Andrew Kreig, has been writing on this subject for sometime and recently posted on the Huffington Post an article entitled: Why Did Feds Persecute Celebrity Expert Cyril Wecht? Who's Next?

The article tracks the absurd political prosecution of Cyril Wecht, a medical examiner in Pittsburgh. I recommend it highly for those who care about justice.

Read More...

Summary only...

Abuse of Judicial Office -- Literally

One of my major concerns is the unbridled authority of judges who can act firm in the belief that there is no consequence for their actions. As Lord Acton said so many years ago: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Now comes a story out of Alabama that a Judge allegedly forced criminal defendants in his Chambers to expose their buttocks and then he struck them with a belt or paddle. Moreover, a fellow judge has written that the Judge: "used his office to threaten criminal defendants with jail time, penitentiary time and probation revocations if they did not engage in sexual acts with him."

While I am the first to state that the judge is innocent until proven guilty, the fact that such allegations could convince a grand jury to issue an indictment speaks to how unregulated judicial behavior has become with the obvious consequence. CNN has the full story here which, if read, belies the headline:

State drops case against ex-judge facing inmate sex charges

Read More...

Summary only...

Obama and the Birth Certificate

Presumably all have heard of the controversy surrounding President Obama’s refusal to permit the release of his birth certificate by the Hawaiian authorities. The rub is that Article I, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states in pertinent part: “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President. . .” Hence, unless the Hawaiian birth certificate of President Obama in fact establishes that he was a “natural born citizen”, he is ineligible to be President.

While a slew of lawsuits were filed during the election last year, all were dismissed for lack of standing. Now, a new lawsuit is pending which appears to be postured to force the issue. In Barnett v Obama lawsuit, Army Captain Barnett decided last January that she did not want to accept orders from Obama till he proved he had natural born citizen status and could rightfully ascend to the Office of President of the United States. . .

Her lawsuit is pending. As expected the U.S. Department of Justice is moving to dismiss the lawsuit and a very interesting legal brief in response to the motion to dismiss has been filed. And what the argument comes down to is this: Who decides – the government or the people? I am following this not because I have a dog in this birth certificate fight, but because it does address the division of power between government and the people thus forcing the question: what does the Ninth Amendment actually reserve to the people?

More as it happens in this case.

Read More...

Summary only...

Why We Have The Right to Petition & Free Speech in the First Amendment

The founding Fathers understood the danger of a government empowered to shut down dissent and the expression of "treasonous" ideas -- Hence, the First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Yet a Petition now pending before the United States Supreme Court demonstrates that the First Amendment has been lost by an easily led Congress and an asleep Judiciary. . .

The case is entitled William Benson vs. United States. Mr. Benson claims that he had documentary proof that less than three-fourths of the states voted to ratify the Sixteen Amendment which states: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." If he is right, then the IRS has a lot of explaining to do. But that is not the issue.

The issue is 26 U.S.C. Section 6700 which putatively empowers the IRS to prosecute people who promote abusive tax shelters. It is that section that the IRS has used to go after Mr. Benson and his customers who bought his information packet on the infirmities in the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment.

Now Mr. Benson may be a kook, or maybe he is on to something. But the idea that he cannot espouse his claim without being sanctioned by the government crosses the First Amendment line in my mind.

Read More...

Summary only...