I believe, many people who are familiar with litigation heard or read that phrase in connection with the U.S. Supreme Court precedents which are NOT, as a matter of law, the law of the land - yet, courts deem them so and honor them more than the U.S. Constitution, the real law of the land.
Article 6 Clause 2 establishes only the U.S. Constitution, federal statues and treaties as the "law of the land" - that is the so-called "Supremacy Clause" of the U.S. Constitution.
I was sanctioned for pointing that out to a federal court, that called my constitutional arguments, including this particular argument, "frivolous".
Yet, the main "law of the land" that every attorney and litigant, probably, got across, has nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution, Article 6 Clause 2.
It is becoming so much the main "law of the land" that, as I wrote here, the entire country of lawyers pays, through "ethical courses" in Continued Legal Education classes which are required to maintain law licenses in this country, to learn about "pet peeves" of judges, their written and especially unwritten little quirks that, in "their" courts is - the law of the land, or the law of their little lands, their little kingdoms that they created for themselves while YOU THE SOVEREIGN, my dear readers, are asleep at the wheel.
The main "law of the land" is the local rules of judges.
Some judges plainly put it to the parties - my court, my rules, my law, don't try to tell me what the law is. And those "rules", written and unwritten, concern everything, from where and how you file and serve (and be served with) the pleadings, to whether a mother summoned to court can or cannot breastfeed her sick and hungry infant in court, which is a public building belonging not to the judge, but to the people.
Some judges mock pro se litigants for knowing the law and pointing it out to the judge.
Some dismiss cases and sanction litigants and counsel for not following the "court's local rules".
Some courts, like federal courts, restrict access to court for civil rights plaintiffs and plaintiffs-appellants by imposing, through "local rules" generated by panels with membership from powerful law firms where former clerks of the court are employed, or which sponsor judges through extrajudicial activities like American Inns of Courts, page limits that prevent civil rights plaintiffs and appellants from properly stating all issues in their cases.
I encourage my readers to send to me "local rules" of judges that they find objectionable. If I find them objectionable, too, I will analyze them and post rules with analysis on my blog.
The problem that I see with local rules is that too often and more often than not they change or cancel statutory law, state and federal, and amend state and federal statutes and even state and federal Constitutions.
And, judges treat their local rules as the primary, governing law operating in "their" courtrooms.
I am preparing at this time a complaint against a judge, I will not disclose the judge's name until I file the complaint, specifically targeting the local rules mandated by that judge. I believe, the rules are improper and unlawful. We will see what the Commission for Judicial Conduct will say.
But remember - you and not the government are the sovereign.
The legislature is a bunch of YOUR legal representatives enacting statutory laws on YOUR behalf.
If you do not like laws created by that legislature, you can petition to change that laws, you have that right as the sovereign.
The judge is a "public servant", servant of the people, "servant" being the important word.
The servant operates within the rules set by the sovereign (you, the people) through your legal representatives (the legislature, the Constitution).
Therefore, it is not "my law", it is not "my court", and it is not "my local rules" that reign, but the U.S. Constitution. And reminding public servants, all of them, including judges, that their power is restricted by the U.S. Constitution and statutory law, is not improper, frivolous or sanctionable.
It is a necessity.
No comments:
Post a Comment