Archive for month: August, 2012

The requirements of Federal Jurisdiction are used by courts as a due process denying trick

29 Aug
August 29, 2012

Federal jurisdiction is used in circular court logic to defeat forever unpleasant lawsuits.

The United States has filed its motion to dismiss regarding our lawsuit challenging the constitutionally of federal statutes that enable systemic lawlessness within the federal government.  We know where they stand now.  It is weak and does not respect the rule of law.  For liberty loving people, the document is disheartening.

The statutes we challenged in our constitutional lawsuit purport to provide citizens with a remedy against federal employees whenever they break the law.  Instead, the federal remedy statutes exacerbate the problem of systemic lawlessness by providing total personal immunity for federal employees’ intentional violation of the law.  Effectively, the statutes undo deterrence for lawless behavior of federal employees.

We opposed the brief. (United States motion and Our Opposition)

The United States’ central argument is that all our claims have been justly dismissed because, they assert, federal employees do not have to appear in court as a result of far reaching federal immunities.  The courts have so far agreed with the United States by dismissing the lawsuits.  The courts also reasoned that federal immunities insured that it had no authority to even consider the lawsuits.  The courts called this a “federal jurisdiction” dismissal.  Nevertheless, in every federal jurisdiction dismissal the courts would also add a “dismissal” on the lawsuit on “the facts”.  The court would then argue that both that the lawsuit was over, because it did not have the power to hear the case, and that we could never file a future lawsuit on the same issues since they had also “decided” the case on the issues.   I hope the ridiculousness of the court’s position is obvious to you.

They are mistaken (or worse).  When a court lacks “federal jurisdiction”, it has no legal authority to find judgment on any claim against any party.  There has been no determination on the facts.  Our lawsuit has just been delayed.  This dirty trick is another creepy attempt by federal employees to deny due process.  I bet this stunt is pulled all the time to pro se plaintiffs.  Here’s what the Supreme Court had to say about the issue:

Whether the complaint states a cause of action on which relief could be granted is a question of law and just as issues of fact it must be decided after and not before the court has assumed jurisdiction over the controversy.  Bell v. Hood, 327 US 678 (United States Supreme Court 1946)

If any portion of the justice system is just, federal employees will not be able to escape liability.  In any event, the dirty trick described by this post is the point of our constitutional lawsuit.  Previous (and just) courts under stood the issue:

“[W]hen the judgment of a state court … is challenged for want of due process it becomes the duty of this Court to examine the course of procedure in both litigations to ascertain whether the litigant whose rights have thus been adjudicated has been afforded such notice and opportunity to be heard as are requisite to the due process which the Constitution prescribes” Hansberry v. Lee, 311 US 32 (United States Supreme Court. 1940).

Our constitutional lawsuit is proper.

Absolutism, an old political philosophy that may be in America’s future

07 Aug
August 7, 2012

Nature abhors a vacuum. A vacuum of power is the same. Absolutism is a political philosophy recognizing that reality.

America fills the gap of power with rights specifically protected by the Constitution.  Allow a leader to usurp those rights, and the leader has obtained absolute power and control over the people.  The vacuum is filled.

No so long ago, as various societies of Europe were emerging from the middle ages, political thinkers struggled with the problem of who should fill the absolute power position at the top of a society.  In order to achieve stability, these political thinkers theorized that a doctrine  of absolute authority should be established to protect a monarch from the constant challenges to his authority.  It was as clear then as it is now, that some person or thing must fill the vacuum of absolute power.  Anything less, and societal instability ensues to fill the power vacuum.   The core political theory came to be known as “absolutism.”

Technology and communications during the time of absolutism’s emergence were not what they are today.  As a result, the monarch often had a tenuous hold on power.  The aristocracy could and did challenge the monarch’s right to have that absolute control over the people.  So a refinement of absolutist theory was in required in order to justify the monarchs’ right to possess that power.  Some of these refinements are well known:  heredity and divine right.

But in America, neither really makes sense.  Another absolutist sub-theory however, does –“enlightened” absolutism.  Achieving total control of the population over the heads of the aristocracy is difficult at best.   So during the enlightenment, it was the absolutist thinking of the day to justify possession of absolute power over the people through a “social compact” with the governed.  The enlightened ruler agreed to use his power for the benefit of the governed (for good).  Sound familiar?  In this way, the monarch or absolute leader could reach around the aristocracy and appeal directly to the people in order to hold onto their absolute power.  In other words, total and absolute power was achieved through democracy.

America is different.  The founders of the American republic chose to set aside key components of power and leave them in the hands of the individual, so that an absolute ruler could not amass total control over the populace. This is how the Constitution works.  It protects individual rights.  It does not grant them.  By protecting individual rights, the Constitution, another social contract, places a wall around the place in society where absolute power is obtained, so that not even some part of government can obtain absolute power.  So long as democracy is used to maintain that protective wall around absolute power, and not by electing your preferred choice of all powerful leader, the republic and the individual is protected.

But you also lose what you don’t use.  We are pro se litigants.  We do not use attorneys to fight our battles with the government (the disputes of this website).  Originally we made the decision because of cost.  Now we understand that, for the sake of liberty, we can’t.