A CONSORTED EFFORT BY THE JUDICIARY TO STOP PRO SE, SUI JURIS AND THE CONSTITUTION!
We are NOT anti Government we are ANTI CORRUPTION, so if the judiciary is anti pro se litigants and those asking to have courts that uphold the Constitution, where is the true Anti? We see the anti is the judiciary against the truth and justice. This has to change.
This is a post from facebook I did today and had to share in a note as to assist it being shared in full. This is information that all MUST look into the see that we are being fought against by the current judiciary and the current defacto government so that we LOSE in court when we stand in honor as a pro se or as the men and women we are, with inalienable rights and the right to our own grand juries of the men and women. Read this information, share this note and research. Thanks to many like Bill Thornton, Anthony Troy Williams, and others we have been making progress, so let's not digress and get to the meat of this note. Read and learn, your education is up to you.
Lawyers & Their Supposed Authority - Rod Class https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vieooNH-SkE
CALL TO ACTION: READ THIS AND SHARE! It is fact that we are having the judiciary act unlawfully against the pro se litigants in the courts, especially the ones standing as the man and woman! READ THEIR EDUCATION ON STOPPING THE PROGRESS OF THE PRO SE AND CONSTITUTION!
THIS LINK HAS THE ACTUAL DOCUMENT: https://www.1215.org/…/lawnotes/anti-govt-…/antigovhbtoc.htm DOWNLOAD AND READ!!
Fearful of a growing backlash from the public against arbitrary, prejudiced, and even malicious judgments that are protected by judicial immunity, judges have banded together under government sponsorship to devise means of defending themselves from aggrieved and increasingly militant pro-se litigants.
Continuing Education Credit Prejudices Judges
The Anti-Government Movement Handbook [PDF] is a training manual for judges and court staff against pro-se litigants, published in 1999 by the National Center for the State Courts (NCSC) in Williamsburg, Virginia. This book, along with Dealing With Common Law Courts: A Model Curriculum for Judges and Court Staff, published in 1997 by NCSC, was developed from an Institute for Course Management (ICM) course on dealing with common law courts, held in Scottsdale, Arizona, February 5-7, 1997.
The curriculum and manuals for this course were prepared with a grant from the State Justice Institute: Award No. SJI-96-02B-B-159, “The Rise of Common Law Courts in the United States: An Examination of the Movement, the Potential Impact on the Judiciary, and How the States Could Respond.” The State Justice Institute (SJI) is a non-profit, 501C(3) corporation that was started in 1986 and funded by Congress to develop courses and training manuals for state courts and judicial training organizations.
This course and training manuals were developed by a group of 27 judges, court clerks, court administrators, and prosecutors in Arizona who examined the history and procedures of the Common Law Court Movement (CLC) and created the training curriculum and responses that courts, judges, and court administrators can use when dealing with common law courts in their own jurisdictions. My contact at the conference said that one of its goals was to identify ways the courts can make preemptive strikes against the CLC movement.
Some of the keynote speakers who helped produce the CLC course in Arizona were Chief Justice Thomas Moyer of Columbus, Ohio, T.C. Brown of Columbus, Ohio (a reporter for the Cleveland Plain Dealer), and Jonathan Mozzochi, Executive Director of the Coalition for Human Dignity in Seattle, Washington. Mozzochi, who distributed Guns and Gavels, a publication of the Coalition, was listed as “a nationally recognized expert on militias and hate group activity.” The Coalition is like a west coast version of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).
I originally found out about this course by watching a videotaped session of the 1996 combined conference of the Conference of Chief Justices (CCJ) and the Conference of State Court Administrators (COSCA), held in Nashville, Tennessee in the summer of 1996 and called “Impact of the Common Law Court Movement on the Courts.” More than 50 state supreme court justices and state court administrators attended the Tennessee conference. The CLC session was taped with a grant from SJI. Keynote speakers were Michael Reynolds, senior intelligence analyst for the SPLC, and James Reynolds, chief of the Terrorism and Violent Crime Section, U.S. Department of Justice.
The panel discussion included Susan Hansen, senior reporter with American Lawyer, Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas Moyer (past president of CCJ), Utah Supreme Court Justice Michael Zimmerman, and Judges Jeffrey Langton and Gregory Mohr from Montana. The taped session was more than three hours long. At the end of the session, one of the speakers mentioned that there was funding for additional CLC conferences. I immediately called ICM, located at NCSC in Virginia, and asked about the additional CLC conferences. My contact told me that a Scottsdale conference was going to take place in about three days. Since those two conferences, there have been additional conferences sponsored by SJI with other organizations.
SJI sponsored a conference with the American Judicature Society in Scottsdale, Arizona in November, 1999 that was closed to the public and the press. There will also be an ICM course in Orlando, Florida on February 5-7, 2001 called “Increasing Access to Justice for pro-se Litigants,” with that organization's perception of what “access” means.
“Constitutionalists in Court” was held in the St. Paul-Minneapolis, Minnesota area in the summer of 2000 by the National Judicial College (NJC) of Reno, Nevada, and the same course was held again November 13-14, 2000, also at NJC in Reno. This course discusses the history of protest movements affecting the judiciary, identifies typical challenges and ways to handle them, anticipates courtroom security needs, and plans solutions and strategies.
NJC, together with the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), conducted a survey, developed material for their courses from SJI materials and grants, and published a brief report called “Right-Wing Extremist Challenges to the Authority and Jurisdiction of the Court” in 1998. This course and report contains a preemptive plan against pro-se litigants and others who may disagree with the court, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Native American protest groups, religious organizations, and anyone else who may take issue with a court decision. The information from NJC is so controversial that NJC has banned its course and conference materials from the public, but their library and the SJI repository is open to the public.
I originally started researching judicial training organizations in 1996 after I was denied an inheritance by the New Jersey court system when my parents died and was also denied entrance to a conference and course materials at NJC in May, 1996, called “The National Conference on the Media and the Courts: Working Together to Serve the American People.” The media conference was closed to the public. Only one New Jersey judge, Martin Kravarick, attended that conference. Judge Kravarick was elected president of the American Judges Association (AJA), a judge's organization under NCSC. AJA publishes a quarterly journal called Court Review, available in your local law library, by subscription, or through interlibrary loan.
I first found out about the judicial movement against pro-se litigants and the CLC movement by reading Kravarick's “President's Message” in the Fall, 1996 issue of Court Review. I called Judge Kravarick for more information on what the CLC movement was all about, and he gave me some additional contact information. I called Mike Reynolds of SPLC, and he told me there were four conference proceedings and that the conference was taped. I waited over three months to get a copy of the tape, “Impact of the Common Law Movement on the Courts.” That tape is available through interlibrary loan from NCSC along with the training manuals mentioned above.
Each state has an SJI repository for all publications put out by the organizations they have funded. For example, the repository in Nevada is at NJC in Reno. In New Jersey, the SJI repository is at the New Jersey State Library in Trenton. You can check out these training manuals with a New Jersey library card. You can also find out where your SJI repository is by looking it up on the Internet at http://www.statejustice.org, by calling SJI at 703-684-6100, or by writing to the State Justice Institute, 1650 King street, Alexandria, VA 22314.
SJI is funded by Congress with your tax dollars. If you don't like the courses and materials they are funding, you can write to your senator or congressman, or directly to SJI and ask them to stop funding these materials. SJI gets very few letters from the public, and I'm sure they would love to hear from you. When you get to their Web site, read and download the newsletters. Most of their new grants are in their newsletters.
The National Center for State Courts is an umbrella organization for several judges' organizations such as the National College of Probate judges (NCPJ), AJA, CCJ, COSCA, ICM and others. I have been a member of NCPJ since 1996 and have attended four judges' conferences. The most controversial and harmful material against the public is coming from NJC and NCSC materials, two agencies that compete with each other for SJI and federal government funding.
In the training manuals mentioned above, there are two sections in each book where the writers advise judges and court personnel such as court clerks and guards on how to handle pro-se litigants using a step-by-step process. The writers of these manuals reveal a court that is biased and has a dangerous point of view about justice and equal access in the court system.
Copyright © 2001 June Wisniewski
The Author: June Wisniewski is a legal researcher and journalist in Reno, Nevada, and can be reached at email@example.com. She has written a number of articles on judicial subjects and is author of the book, The Coffin Chasers: An Aggrieved Litigant's Journey Through the Corrupt World of Probate. The source of this article is the January 5, 2001 issue of the Idaho Observer (http://proliberty.com/observer/20010105.htm). The text has been modified by reformating and other nonconsequential editing and is noted as such at the request of the author. The subject matter is the basis of another book by Wisniewski, Unequal Justice: The Inside Story of the National Judicial College.
Note 1: The vulnerability of pro se's to the hostility of judges is exemplified by the fate of Elena Sassower in 2004. See also: Sherman Skolnick's Big Court Fix.
Note 2: In 2006, the American Bar Association issued a manual, Countering the Critics; Q&E Guide [PDF], that instructs judges on how to respond to complaints about the lack of accountability and other "hot-button" issues they are likely encounter from critics of the American court system.
Note 3: On March 11, 2008 the Judicial Conference of the United States adopted a new set of rules for processing misconduct complaints against federal judges [PDF]. This document also contains instructions for filing complaints against judges.
What is The Anti-Government Movement Guidebook?
The Anti-Government Movement Guidebook was copyrighted in 1999 by the National Center for State Courts
It was developed under a GOVERNMENT grant. Award No. SJI-96-02B-B-159, titled-
"The Rise of Common Law Courts in the United States: An Examination of the Movement, The Potential Impact on the Judiciary, and How the States Could Respond,"
The purpose of the guide is clearly to INSTRUCT JUDGES HOW TO DENY, IGNORE, DISMISS ANY CITIZEN'S ATTEMPT TO CLAIM THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
The grant was made by the State Justice Institute.
As of the date of writing this page (January 8, 2003) the SJI website is prominently displaying a quote from John Ashcroft-
On November 2, Attorney General Ashcroft submitted the Department of Justice's statutorily- mandated evaluation of SJI's effectiveness to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. The report concluded that:
SJI appears to have been effective in awarding grants to improve the quality of justice in the state courts, facilitating better coordination and information sharing between state and federal courts, and fostering solutions to common problems faced by all courts.
The Attorney General also observed that "some degree of support for state court innovation and improvement is a Federal interest. . . . given overlapping state-federal jurisdiction, it is in the federal government's interest to have effective and fair state courts, lest litigants turn to federal courts to resolve matters properly within state court responsibilities."
To read or download a copy of the complete report, click here. (PDF size- 4 Megs)
It is interesting to note that presently, the best we can HOPE to do is get our facts ON THE COURT RECORD so we have appealable issues to take to Federal Court-
Because it is unknown WHAT AMOUNT OF MONEY (if you had it) spent on lawyers it would take to "obtain" a decision to compel the state to obey the law and render justice to the people.
When the state steals YOUR CHILD and adopts him/her out without ever charging you with a crime, or a fair trial of CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS- would YOU like to have redress?
"I have spent all my life under a Communist regime, and I will tell you that a society without any objective legal scale is a terrible one indeed. But a society with no other scale but the legal one is not quite worthy of man either." -Alexander Solzhenitsyn
"Power is the great evil with which we are contending. We have divided power between three branches of government and erected checks and balances to prevent abuse of power. However, where is the check on the power of the judiciary? If we fail to check the power of the judiciary, I predict that we will eventually live under judicial tyranny." - Patrick Henry
I am waiting for some Leftjudicial bench-warmer to declare that the Constitution itself is unconstitutional!
added from Jamie Barker: Sui Juris,- commonly also spelled sui juris (/ˈsuːaɪ ˈdʒʊərɪs/ or /ˈsuːi-/), is a Latin phrase which literally means "of one's own right".In civil law the phrase sui juris indicates legal competence, the capacity to manage one’s own affairs (Black's Law Dictionary, Oxford English Dictionary).
As opposed to Alieni Juris, which means someone under the control of another, such as one adjudged incapable of appropriate self-determinations or an infant.
ARE YOU GOING IN FRONT OF A JUDGE WHO HAS INTEREST IN A BANK FORECLOSING ON YOU? http://www.uslegalforms.com/us/US-02219BG.htm Ask every judge if he owns bank stock...if he does, hand him this form!
Lawyers and Attorneys Are Not Licensed To Practice Lawhttp://freedom-school.com/lawyers-and-attorneys-are-not-licensed-to-practice-law.html
28 U.S. Code § 3002 - Definitions
Current through Pub. L. 113-296, except 113-287, 113-291, 113-295. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
prev | next
As used in this chapter:
(1) “Counsel for the United States” means—
(A) a United States attorney, an assistant United States attorney designated to act on behalf of the United States attorney, or an attorney with the United States Department of Justice or with a Federal agency who has litigation authority; and
(B) any private attorney authorized by contract made in accordance with section 3718 of title 31 to conduct litigation for collection of debts on behalf of the United States.
(2) “Court” means any court created by the Congress of the United States, excluding the United States Tax Court.
(3) “Debt” means—
(A) an amount that is owing to the United States on account of a direct loan, or loan insured or guaranteed, by the United States; or
(B) an amount that is owing to the United States on account of a fee, duty, lease, rent, service, sale of real or personal property, overpayment, fine, assessment, penalty, restitution, damages, interest, tax, bail bond forfeiture, reimbursement, recovery of a cost incurred by the United States, or other source of indebtedness to the United States, but that is not owing under the terms of a contract originally entered into by only persons other than the United States;
and includes any amount owing to the United States for the benefit of an Indian tribe or individual Indian, but excludes any amount to which the United States is entitled under section 3011 (a).
(4) “Debtor” means a person who is liable for a debt or against whom there is a claim for a debt.
(5) “Disposable earnings” means that part of earnings remaining after all deductions required by law have been withheld.
(6) “Earnings” means compensation paid or payable for personal services, whether denominated as wages, salary, commission, bonus, or otherwise, and includes periodic payments pursuant to a pension or retirement program.
(7) “Garnishee” means a person (other than the debtor) who has, or is reasonably thought to have, possession, custody, or control of any property in which the debtor has a substantial nonexempt interest, including any obligation due the debtor or to become due the debtor, and against whom a garnishment under section 3104 or 3205 is issued by a court.
(8) “Judgment” means a judgment, order, or decree entered in favor of the United States in a court and arising from a civil or criminal proceeding regarding a debt.
(9) “Nonexempt disposable earnings” means 25 percent of disposable earnings, subject to section 303 of the Consumer Credit Protection Act.
(10) “Person” includes a natural person (including an individual Indian), a corporation, a partnership, an unincorporated association, a trust, or an estate, or any other public or private entity, including a State or local government or an Indian tribe.
(11) “Prejudgment remedy” means the remedy of attachment, receivership, garnishment, or sequestration authorized by this chapter to be granted before judgment on the merits of a claim for a debt.
(12) “Property” includes any present or future interest, whether legal or equitable, in real, personal (including choses in action), or mixed property, tangible or intangible, vested or contingent, wherever located and however held (including community property and property held in trust (including spendthrift and pension trusts)), but excludes—
(A) property held in trust by the United States for the benefit of an Indian tribe or individual Indian; and
(B) Indian lands subject to restrictions against alienation imposed by the United States.
(13) “Security agreement” means an agreement that creates or provides for a lien.
(14) “State” means any of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, or any territory or possession of the United States.
(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.
(16) “United States marshal” means a United States marshal, a deputy marshal, or an official of the United States Marshals Service designated under section 564.
This form should be completed and mailed to the above address to the attention of the "Circuit Executive".
The envelope should be marked "JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT" or "JUDICIAL DISABILITY
COMPLAINT". Do not put the name of the judge or magistrate judge on the envelope.
The "Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings", adopted by the Judicial Conference of
the United States, contain information on what to include in a complaint (Rule 6), where to file a complaint
(Rule 7), and other important matters. Your complaint (this form and the statement of facts) should be
typewritten and must be legible.
2. Any Judge that prohibits you from representing yourself or hiring a defense other than a BAR attorney, are in fact, committing a felony on the bench in violation of the Taft-Hartly Act (running a closed union shop) and the Smith Act (overthrow of Constitutional form of Gov’t)
3.Anytime an BAR attorney represents someone in a case against you, you can now claim that person is incompetent; a ward of the state, with no standing to sue.
4. Any and all tax collectors, police officers, sheriffs dept’s, DOT, tag agencies, BAR attorneys, Judges, Highway Patrol, supposed elected officials, are nothing more than private contractors, who can now be brought up on fraud charges for impersonating a public official while receiving federal funding.
5. Any and all home, vehicle, credit card loans are supposed to be discharged through the Treasury window, in compliance with the 1933 bankruptcy laws. These scumbags are double dipping and never discharging the debt like they are supposed to. They are embezzling the funds and pocketing them for themselves.
6. Every person sitting in prison today was railroading by a BAR attorney who’s first allegiance is to the State; who had no lawful authority to represent them; who worked in concert with the State to perpetrate a fraud upon it’s victims.
7. Orders from Administrative courts prove for the fourth time, an agency of the State is NOT an agency under the State.
8. Elected Officials are claiming 11th Amendment sovereignty, when it’s actually you and I that hold 11th Amendment sovereignty. They are getting paid by the corporation, you and I are not.
9. They have admitted to the crime of no one actually holding a public office; they are filling corporate seats and defrauding the public.
10. Political subdivisions are not getting their 40% funding from the Feds as they are supposed to get.
11. These Judges have admitted (black ink on white paper) that all these State Offices are ……….. EMPTY!
12. Now we have Administrative paperwork – ruling these public offices aren’t part of the State agencies.
13. Attorney Generals may not practice law; can’t represent the people who are not public officials.
14. If the State is a 3rd party interloper in your Marriage (marriage license); Vehicle Title (State Registration), etc. then they are liable for 1/3rd of the cost to manage the daily activities of that contract.
15. If the State demands you have a Drivers License and Tag your vehicle because it is registered with the State, then as the owner of the vehicle, the State is required to pay for the vehicle, the tags, licensing, fuel, tires, oil, etc. and they are also to pay you a salary for driving a State owned vehicle; it says so in their own Highway Safety Act and USC – CFR rules and regulations.
16. We now have the court orders that goes back and nullifies any and all IRS and Tax cases, Foreclosures, Credit Card Debt, cases or actions. These people never had the lawful right to demand anything of you; they are corporate actors, not a legitimate government body.
17. Judge admits the 1933 bankruptcy, and no way to pay off anything because of Federal Reserve Notes; all public debt is t be discharged through the Treasury.
18. Only the Secretary of Transportation can hear traffic cases; all traffic cases are civil, not criminal.
19. If you’re not being paid for you time, you are not required to have one of their CDL or CMV licenses; it’s prohibited.
20. Says we now have a major labor dispute on our hands; US corporation running a slave racket against American Citizens without the pay.
21. United States Codes (USC) and Titles #1 thru #50 are void; have never been passed by Congress; all have been repealed.**