Demanding Accountability

WWW US~Observer

Subscribe to the US~Observer News Flash Alerts!

Get a subscription
to US~Observer delivered right to
your mailbox via
first-class mail!

Click Here for more information

 

A Notion for Survival
Things Your Attorney
Won’t Tell You

By R. S. Errol

Judicial notices are weapons that can be used to protect you from the corruption that can be found lurking in the court system in this country. Unbeknownst to many in this country the court system is not what it appears to be as depicted in courtroom dramas in film and television. Most people think, wrongly I might add, that they have Constitutional protections when indicted and tried in the federal court system. This notion is far from the truth. For their information the Constitution provides for two types of courts. Article I section 8 states that, “The Congress shall have the Power – To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court.” In addition, Article III section 2 of the document further states, “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made under their Authority…”

Article III section 2 pertains to higher issues of dispute before a court as opposed to common law that is covered in the VII Amendment; “In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of common law.” The value of the controversy must exceed twenty dollars before a plaintiff may take his case to court. This is most interesting since the twenty-dollar figure pertains to the gold clause that was mandatory in all contracts prior to 1938. We will delve into this clause at another time where I will explain the evolution of contracts in our country.

In the meantime let’s explore the meaning of Equity. Black’s Law 6th Edition states that Equity is “Justice administered according to fairness as contrasted with the strictly formulated rules of common law. It is based on a system of rules and principles which originated in England as an alternative to the harsh rules of common law and which were based on what was fair in a particular situation…The term “equity” denotes the spirit and habit of fairness, justness, and right dealing which would regulate the intercourse of men with men.” Furthermore, “Equity is a body of jurisprudence, or field of jurisdiction, differing in its origin, theory, and methods from the common law; though procedurally, in the federal courts and most state courts, equitable and legal rights and remedies are administered in the same court.”

Our Constitution supposedly guarantees the right belonging to the people to settle their differences in a common law forum. Does this happen today? The answer is a resounding “No”! What really happens in our country is that when someone is aggrieved they immediately run to an attorney and demand he file a lawsuit and represent them in court. The attorney collects a retainer and presents the client with his contract or a boilerplate contract drawn up, in many instances, by his local bar association that is biased toward the attorney, thereby springing the trap for the client’s financial ruin. It is financially draining unless you are wealthy or have corporate attorneys on your team. The same happens on the reverse side of a lawsuit or criminal indictment. The defendant retains an attorney and presto the doors of the equity Court are opened for business. But the Constitution says that I have a right to trial by a common law jury. Again, what makes you think you have any rights guaranteed by the Constitution in equity Court? Read Article IV section 3 of the Constitution, “The congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needed Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory…” (Emphasis added) There are no such guarantees and only the spirit of the Constitution can be found in such a court. U.S. District Courts are situated in territories belonging to the federal government of the District of Columbia. If you doubt this statement just gaze around a courtroom or a federal office and notice the yellow-fringed flag that closely resembles the American flag but signifies martial law that is found in the Territories, e.g. Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands etc. Fact is there haven’t been common law courts in this country since the 1938 decision of Erie Railroad v Tompkins. In addition prosecutors have been known to file “Motions in Limine” to exclude any reference to the Constitution and judges have ruled that the Constitution does not apply in many cases, e.g. the Constitution does not apply in tax cases because one is required to pay taxes through adhesion contracts and not the XVI Amendment.

Simply put if you have an attorney you are in Equity. You will soon learn that you cannot talk unless asked a direct question by the judge or other officers of the court. The attorney therefore “re-presents” you to the court on the pretense that it is in your best interest. The officers of the court negotiate behind your back, have sidebars out of earshot of both you and the jury, and basically decide your guilt, innocence or culpability without including the jury or you. On top of these sleights the judge will ensure the desired outcome with damning jury instructions that sways the uninformed jury to render an unsavory verdict against the defendant.

If you are a defendant in a civil or criminal court action you are at the mercy of your lawyer and the judge. I know of cases where the defendant is aware of certain evidence that can prove his innocence but due to a meddlesome judge, an incompetent attorney and well-honed rules of evidence, this evidence is deemed inadmissible in a trial. How can this be possible? Refer back to the last paragraph and you will find your answer. There was a trial in Texas in January of 2004, concerning a man who had the audacity to question the authority of the IRS regarding payroll withholding. Throughout the legal process the defendant’s motions were denied, defense witnesses were not allowed to testify, defense attorneys were not allowed to cross examine certain government witnesses, and when the jury asked to see the law that this citizen was charged with violating the district judge told them they didn’t need to see the law and directed them through jury instructions and intimidation to find the defendant guilty of the charges contained in the indictment. In fact there is no law mandating withholding but the uniformed jury complied with the instructions, and unless there is a favorable outcome from the appeal, this honest soul will possibly die in prison, a broken man.

There is, however, a movement afoot that could remedy the corruption in the system that railroads political targets into bondage. The process is one that takes great courage to initiate and dedication to understanding the process by which courts manipulate the proceedings. This tool is called “Judicial Notice” and may be researched on the Internet. Black’s Law 6th Edition definition: “The act by which a court, in conducting a trial, or framing its decision, will, of its own motion or on request of a party, and without the production of evidence, recognize the existence and the truth of certain facts, having a bearing on the controversy at bar, which, from their nature, are not properly the subject of testimony, or which are universally regarded as established by common notoriety. (Emphasis added) Examples could be public records, state or federal laws and historical events. Below you can read Article II the Rules of Evidence pertaining to Judicial Notices and see for yourself how they apply.

Rule 201. Judicial Notice (Attach the following to the Judicial Notice as an exhibit)

(a) Kinds of facts. A court may take judicial notice of a fact. A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.

(b) Kinds of law. A court may take judicial notice of law. Law includes (1) the decisional, constitutional, and public statutory law, (2) rules of court, (3) regulations of governmental agencies, and (4) ordinances of municipalities and other governmental subdivisions of the United States or of any state, territory or other jurisdiction of the United States.

(c) When discretionary. A court may take judicial notice, whether requested or not.

(d) When mandatory. A court shall take judicial notice if requested by a party and supplied with the necessary information.

(e) Opportunity to be heard. A party is entitled upon timely request to an opportunity to be heard as to the propriety of taking judicial notice and the tenor of the matter noticed. In the absence of prior notification, the request may be made after judicial notice has been taken.

(f) Time of taking notice. Judicial notice may be taken at any stage of the proceeding. (Emphasis added)

(g) Instructing jury. In a civil action or proceeding, the court shall instruct the jury to accept as conclusive any fact judicially noticed. In a criminal case, the court shall instruct the jury that it may, but is not required to, accept as conclusive any fact judicially noticed.

Last month I wrote about the Code of Ethics for judges. (www.newshare.com) The code mandates that judges are in violation of this code if they find themselves in a “conflict of interest.” What greater conflict could a judge have than to rule in favor of his employer, the state or federal government? In the case of our imprisoned Texan the United States was prosecuting a citizen. Rhetorically, for whom does a district court judge work? Since the judge is an employee of the United States Corporation there must be a conflict of interest that should bar the judge from doing what he did, and that was to instruct the jury to find the defendant guilt. Why was this travesty of justice allowed to stand? Not being a lawyer I can only surmise that the defendant’s crackerjack attorney wouldn’t dare rub the judge’s nose in this blatant “conflict of interest” mud hole. Understand one thing, the prosecutor, your attorney and the judge belongs to the same club. They often play racquetball, golf, and games of chance together. They are not unlike the chicken but very much the antithesis of the pig when we think of eggs and ham for breakfast. They contribute but are not committed to the so-called “cause” of justice. There is no skin off their collective noses if the case goes south and the defendant is remanded into custody or raped financially.

Since this conflict of interest is transparent on its face the defense attorney should Notice the court regarding the conflict. This will only happen when pigs learn to fly! What to do about this quandary is simple. Before you retain an attorney or after you fire the one you currently have, file the judicial notice along with a motion to dismiss in the court. Once the judge is informed of your awareness to his Code of Ethics the chances that he will dismiss the case are enhanced, although not guaranteed due to the government’s agenda. In fairness, to some good people who happen to be judges, there are times when the judge cannot dismiss a trial because of fear of reprisals by government agencies, which, I will not bother to name.

There can, however, be no conflict of interest in a common law court because the judge cannot make rulings from the bench pertaining to finding of fact or conclusions of law. Judges are there to be a referee and not an active participant directing the final outcome. This is definitely not the case in equity Courts. As previously presented the judge is very much involved in the outcome of the proceedings. His preferences lay with the prosecution, especially in cases regarding the tax laws, child protective services and family law. The defendant is usually prepared for the slaughter and is financially bled to death by the system that demands blood money to finance certain agendas fostered against good people.

Do your own search regarding Code of Ethics, and Judicial Notices and determine for yourself if this is the avenue you should take to free yourself from the bondage of corrupt defense attorneys in particular and corrupt courts in general. Next time I will embark on the fascinating subject of contract and how contracts can be your friend or your worst enemy depending on your level of comprehension.

---

Sign-up for our free e-mail News Flash Alerts!

Subscribe Me!