Archive for month: July, 2012

Majority tyranny–the Constitution may not protect us

05 Jul
July 5, 2012

Majority tyranny is condoned with the Obamacare decision

“It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices” — Justice Roberts in his opinion upholding Obamacare, no doubt bending to majority tyranny.  Otherwise, why would he say this?

Majority tyranny and the “EFFECTS OF THE OMNIPOTENCE OF THE MAJORITY UPON THE ARBITRARY AUTHORITY OF AMERICAN PUBLIC OFFICERS” — Alexis de Tocqueville

The court and Constitution must stand as a bulwark against majority tyranny, otherwise there can be no individual liberty.  Justice Roberts, I emplore you, the court and the constitution are the only civilized tools available to Americans to protect themselves from majority tyranny.  Please do not undo these tools with the court’s opinions.  Send the decision to undo Obama care back to the people if you must, but please do not undermine the Constitution’s check on majority power.  Statements made in the majority opinion accomplish just that.

The Obamacare opinion is both alarming to us and a threat to the lawsuits of this web-site.  Our experience has been that the lower federal courts increasingly do not respect the rule of law.  We believe that the thinking is, that, the legitimacy of the federal government is at risk with the various KENNER lawsuits.  The courts must further believe that a little “rule bending” is justifiable in order to avoid the conflict and to promote the general peace.  But Justice Roberts, left is right and visa versa.  You are simply looking into a mirror.  I believe your understanding, as illustrated within the Obamacare decision, is backwards.  The only way to keep the peace is to reinforce the legitimacy of the rule of law–irrespective of its appearance and the short term consequences to the court.  The court’s job must not be to maintain an appearance of the country’s respect for the rule of law while bending to the majority’s will.  A loss of liberty is at the end of the road.  The court and country must instead honor the rule of law.

Justice Roberts please, majority tyranny is presently reasserting its power, and, liberty is again as risk.  Do not allow majority tyranny to undermine the primary importance of the rule of law.

Due process is at risk in the federal court system

02 Jul
July 2, 2012

Be on guard.  The federal courts system has some dirty tricks to defeat due process

Due process rights are protected by the 5th amendment

Presently we are attempting to force a final resolution in the district court the second lawsuit (based on the Bane Act statute).  We intend to appeal the decision. We have an excellent case.  The proof: the court wants us to proceed no further.  To accomplish this, the court has attempted to trick us into forfeiting our appeal rights.  Here’s how it works.

The second lawsuit has been “dismissed” three times.  After the first two times we appealed the decision.  I assure you, we did not file our appeal too early.  Nevertheless, appeals can be unjustly tricky things.  One has a limited amount of time to file an appeal.  Usually it is 30 days.  If you miss that window, your rights to appeal are lost.  We knew this and were on guard.  We studied the law and met the conditions for appeal.  The court, however, was using the system’s latitude for ambiguity to deceive us into missing that 30 day filing requirement.

In the first dismissal, the judge (Roger Benitez) filed a minute order for dismissal.  We learned that he was attempting to defeat due process.  Ordinarily courts are required to file a separate document with the clerk of the court establishing final judgment.  Courts recognize minute orders to be final judgment under certain circumstances too.  Primarily, the minute order needs to communicate that the judge has completed the case.  Our minute order said, in very cautionary and unambiguous language, that our case was closed (see here). Also, all the parties and claims in our complaint had been resolved.  This is another requirement for using minute orders to indicated final judgment.

We filed our appeal.  A few days later the United States filed a motion to declare that the United States had not been dismissed.  It is important here to know that grounds for dismissing some of the federal employees were that the United States had been substituted in for those employees.  However, the status of the United States was irrelevant for the lawsuit’s final judgment since the United States had not been served.  Furthermore, the United States could not yet be sued because we had not yet filed an administrative complaint against it (as required by statute).  The United States therefore had sovereign immunity.  Sovereign immunity prevented the court from obtaining jurisdiction over the United States.  That is, the court had no authority over the United States.  But, the appeals court, in conflict with its own precedent, ruled that the case was not yet over.  Nevertheless, we undermined the first attempt at defeating due process.

A hearing was then held on a motion to dismiss the United States from the lawsuit.  For dismissal, the district filed another minute order. A second attempt at defeating our due process.  This time, the court was not as overt (declaring case closed) in the minute order’s text.  Instead, at the top of the order, it just said appeal.  Well, we did.  Again, the appeal court said we jumped the gun.  Right!  Finally, a couple of weeks ago, and just after we served the United States on the constitutional case, the district court dismissed the lawsuit declaring that they do not have jurisdiction over the United States.

We just filed a document with the court requesting that court enter final judgment as they are required to do by law (here’s the law).  No notice yet.

And so it goes.  Each day we anticipate some new justice denying stunt.  Each day, because federal employees have immunity and our RICO case is excellent, we often get one.

We anticipate more stunts designed to defeat due process as we proceed.

The “BIG” picture

01 Jul
July 1, 2012

This entire battle is about federal employee immunities.  Period.  Here’s how it goes:  Internal Revenue Code (IRC) statutes (sections 7433 and 7432) provide IRS employees with immunity for intentional violations of the law.  If employees think an act is in the best interest of the government, they can confidently depart from the rule of law.  This power has led to systemic violation of the law and corruption of the organization.  That is how the initial lawsuit (RICO) came to pass.

If we were ever to get the RICO lawsuit before a jury, the consequences to the legitimacy of the government would be horrific (not my goal).  Consequently, the courts and the DOJ are now breaking other laws in order to keep the RICO case out of court.  At this point, the battle began spinning out of control for all involved.  I filed lawsuit #2 (California Bane Act) against the original and new parties.  The Bane Act makes it unlawful for ANYONE to attempt to defeat your constitutional rights by threat or coercion.

The lawlessness nevertheless continued.  I think some of these justice folks even tried to bate me into suing more federal employees to make me look “crazy” and vexatious.  But, I saw where it was all headed.  I shifted tactics.

Our third lawsuit is a constitutional challenge against the very statutes that enable the above lawlessness–clauses within statutes that provide immunity to federal employees for intentional violations of the law.  This new lawsuit seems to have momentarily changed the tenor of the dispute.

Maybe now we are on the right path.