THE EVOLUTION OF JUDICIAL TYRANNY IN THE UNITED STATES:

"If the judges interpret the laws themselves, and suffer none else to interpret, they may easily make, of the laws, [a shredded] shipman's hose!" - King James I of England, around 1616.

“No class of the community ought to be allowed freer scope in the expression or publication of opinions as to the capacity, impartiality or integrity of judges than members of the bar. They have the best opportunities of observing and forming a correct judgment. They are in constant attendance on the courts. Hundreds of those who are called on to vote never enter a court-house, or if they do, it is only at intervals as jurors, witnesses or parties. To say that an attorney can only act or speak on this subject under liability to be called to account and to be deprived of his profession and livelihood by the very judge or judges whom he may consider it his duty to attack and expose, is a position too monstrous to be entertained for a moment under our present system,” Justice Sharwood in Ex Parte Steinman and Hensel, 95 Pa 220, 238-39 (1880).

“This case illustrates to me the serious consequences to the Bar itself of not affording the full protections of the First Amendment to its applicants for admission. For this record shows that [the rejected attorney candidate] has many of the qualities that are needed in the American Bar. It shows not only that [the rejected attorney candidate] has followed a high moral, ethical and patriotic course in all of the activities of his life, but also that he combines these more common virtues with the uncommon virtue of courage to stand by his principles at any cost.

It is such men as these who have most greatly honored the profession of the law. The legal profession will lose much of its nobility and its glory if it is not constantly replenished with lawyers like these. To force the Bar to become a group of thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals is to humiliate and degrade it.” In Re Anastaplo, 18 Ill. 2d 182, 163 N.E.2d 429 (1959), cert. granted, 362 U.S. 968 (1960), affirmed over strong dissent, 366 U.S. 82 (1961), Justice Black, Chief Justice Douglas and Justice Brennan, dissenting.

" I do not believe that the practice of law is a "privilege" which empowers Government to deny lawyers their constitutional rights. The mere fact that a lawyer has important responsibilities in society does not require or even permit the State to deprive him of those protections of freedom set out in the Bill of Rights for the precise purpose of insuring the independence of the individual against the Government and those acting for the Government”. Lathrop v Donohue, 367 US 820 (1961), Justice Black, dissenting.

"The legal profession must take great care not to emulate the many occupational groups that have managed to convert licensure from a sharp weapon of public defense into blunt instrument of self-enrichment". Walter Gellhorn, "The Abuse of Occupational Licensing", University of Chicago Law Review, Volume 44 Issue 1, September of 1976.

“Because the law requires that judges no matter how corrupt, who do not act in the clear absence of jurisdiction while performing a judicial act, are immune from suit, former Judge Ciavarella will escape liability for the vast majority of his conduct in this action. This is, to be sure, against the popular will, but it is the very oath which he is alleged to have so indecently, cavalierly, baselessly and willfully violated for personal gain that requires this Court to find him immune from suit”, District Judge A. Richard Caputo in H.T., et al, v. Ciavarella, Jr, et al, Case No. 3:09-cv-00286-ARC in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Document 336, page 18, November 20, 2009. This is about judges who were sentencing kids to juvenile detention for kickbacks.


Tuesday, October 13, 2020

What to do if we want the United States Constitution to be truly enforced

I don't know how about you, but I personally am sick and tired of the amount of time and especially taxpaying money spent upon partisan fights over dying wishes, stolen seats and packing the court regarding the US Supreme Court.

The court is surely not operating as a proper Court should.

Instead of doing its judicial function, strictly applying written law as it was written by the legislatures two facts of cases, it has turned into a nine people monarchy, a super legislative body where it's participants sit for life in a marble palace, pick about 70 cases per year to review, mainly from their own former law clerks (that's why those look looks get $400, 000 hiring bonuses by law firms - to ensure corruption of judges), and make new laws.

Every year I see law professors and lawyers engaging in guessing games whether that Court will take or not take this of that case to review on the merits, whether the US Supreme Court will or will not make a new law for the entire country.


Judges of the Court becomes celebrities specifically for their lawmaking, which is in reality abuse of power and judicial misconduct.


Yet, there are simple measures needed to restore normalcy and proper judicial function to that Court.


The US Supreme Court takes only about 70 cases per year for review on the merits, and for decades it was claiming that the amount of filings per year remain unchanged, at about 8,000 to 10,000 petitions, which is incredible because the population grows and the volume of litigation in federal and state courts from where people appeal to the US Supreme Court also grows exponentially. 


 That said, the court dumps without an explanation 99.99% of cases and has been doing that for a century. 


The reason for it is the Judiciary Act of 1925, written instead of the US Congress by the chief judge of the US Supreme Court at that time, and written for the only purpose of making the life of judges on that Court easier - which is not even close to being a legal or constitutional reason of changing jurisdiction of the Court.


 The chief judge explained to the US Congress that allowed him to legislate in this matter that because of the growing population due to the first world war and the Russian revolution and immigration into the US of refugees, there are too many cases now filed with the US Supreme Court, so the court needed to reduce access to court for people by changing jurisdiction of the court from mandatory to discretionary review.

And the United States Congress rubber-stamped that self-serving unconstitutional usurpation of legislative power by the US Supreme Court judges.

There was no proper legislative review of that statute, and there was no intermediate review of the legislation to see how it works and the whether it serves the people and whether it violates the United States Constitution, and no sundown provision.

The US Congress could not fail to realize that they are unleashing a disaster upon the American people by changing this way jurisdiction of the highest court in the nation.

And that is especially because by changing jurisdiction to discretionary, the court received a carte blanche to refuse to address constitutionality of that same statute written by them for themselves.

And that is before the court gave itself immunity for malicious and corrupt actions through a court case which they do not have a right to do either.

The act changed the jurisdiction of the Court from mandatory review on the merits of every filed petition to a discretionary review, turning the jobs of US Supreme Court justices into sinecures. 

So the so-called constitutional law, the collection of cases reviewed on the nearest by the United States Supreme Court before and after 1925 present a drastic difference 

Before 1925 the case law of the United States Supreme Court presented the entire picture of all petitions filed with the court. After 1925, cases decided by the United States Supreme Court on the merits represent simply the whims of the Court's justices in picking cases in order to make legislative policy for the entire country - and justices of the Court are not authorized to legislate at all by article 3 of the United States Constitution each one of them is sworn to protect and uphold.

If you think lawyers of this country and judges of this country do not know about that, think again.

Of course, they do.

But there was one more trick played by the judiciary upon the American people since 1925 to secure the status quo of the judiciary.

And that is called absolute attorney monopoly.

To reduce challenges to judicial power and mainly to abuses of that power, the judiciary with consent of legal elite, usurped the power to decide for and instead of the people who can represent them in giving them advice, and representing them in transactions in and out of court.

Since now all attorneys in the United States are licensed/ permitted to work in their profession by the judiciary, and since the judiciary invented and viciously enforces the main rule of its power all the lawyers - prohibition for lawyers to criticized judges for misconduct in office - lawyers pretend not to know and not to offer to the public the effective solutions of how to reform the judicial system, including the US Supreme Court.

Let's return back to the United States Supreme Court.

They now do not have a minimum of cases that they have to review per year.

It is not physically possible for nine justices to review even eight to ten thousand petitions which is an understated and not a true number with a three months vacation, all the public holidays and weekends in the remaining 9 months, and all the speaking engagements travels nationally and internationally, University professorships and book writing activities that justices of the Court regularly engage in during business hours of the court.

They don't have to work at all.

Their law clerks, at least four per judge, sworn to silence and personal loyalty to judges, do their work for them.

That's why I see the shenanigans of both parties to fill the court or pack the court, or are you about qualifications of candidates for that office as laughable. 

By the way the United States Constitution does not require a United States Supreme Court Justice to be and attorney licensed by a state government. In fact, being licensed by a state government is an influence problem and and irreconcilable conflict of interest for all federal employees/licensed attorneys, including the United States Supreme Court justices.

I wonder which one of the United States presidents will have the guts to appoint a non-lawyer to that Court - which the United States Constitution perfectly permits to do.

As it stands now, no matter if justices of the Court are liberal or conservative, they will still be dumping 99.99% of petitions filed by Americans without an explanation, at a whim. 

And they will rule the legal profession, and through it people's access to Justice with an iron fist.


 That is what we need to change. 


We need to abolish the judiciary Act of 1925, return the court to reviewing every single filed petition on the merits, which will drastically reduce the potential for corruption of that Court and its power that is unheard of in a democracy and looks like a super-legislative power and not judicial power.


 If we abolish the judiciary Act of 1925 and return the court to mandatory review on the merits of every single filed petition, then it will become an obvious and reasonable necessity to appoint as many judges as necessary to deal with the caseload, so there will not be any shenanigans about dying wishes, stolen seats, packing the court by both parties for political purposes etc.  


Coupled with very short term limits, not more than 2 years, and abolishing the super complex and technical filing rules, instead simplifying those rules and allowing electronic filing, we can restore normalcy to the court and its proper judicial function for the benefit of the people, as courts are supposed to function.

Will so need to abolish attorney monopoly, the restriction by the judiciary of the right of legally competent adults of the United States to pick 


1/ who advises them on the law that is made by our public representatives on our behalf and for our money, the law that all of us are presumed to know for purposes of its enforcement,

2/ who represents us in various transactions outside of court and in court.  That is nobody's business but of the person who is choosing he's or her own representative.


Once the power of the judiciary over the legal profession and over the people's access to Justice through that legal profession is gone, once the United States Supreme Court is made again to review on the merits every single petition filed with the court, it will drastically change how state governments uphold the United States Constitution.


Why?

Because now federal, state and local government officials may laugh into your face violating your constitutional rights in the most obvious of ways, knowing full well that due to restrictions on access to the United States Supreme Court and to other courts for review of constitutional issues on the merits, the absolute overwhelming majority of the American people will never have their constitutional violations reviewed or heard by that Court.

And that is a license to violate the United States Constitution for state governments. After and despite the fact that each one of State officials is sworn to uphold and protect it.

If we want our Constitution to be respected and upheld, we will make sure that review of constitutional violations regarding the rights of every American is not discretionary.  And that's to begin with.



Friday, September 25, 2020

Elections2020: On ethnic shaming by fascist Democrats. Shaming Russian Americans for criticism of Democrat idols.

When people say they respect the U.S. Constitution and human rights, it is very often a lie.


People hate criticism of themselves and what they like. 

That is exactly why our Founding Fathers had to put into the U.S. Constitution the 1st Amendment, a constitutional guarantee to criticize the government - so that people would be able to do that without fear of prosecution for "sedition", and thus discuss flaws in their country as a way to figure out how to spot them and eradicate them, making the country better.

But, during the current contentious presidential elections, many in the flock of Democrats say one thing and do the opposite.

They jam down people's throats their political correctness about respect to illegal aliens, criminal thugs (if they are illegal aliens or "back or brown") - but at the same time bash the First Lady for her accent and possible language flaws (in the language which is not her native).

I have lived in the United States for 21 years and am an American citizen.

I also am an ethnic Russian (and spouse of 1/4 Cherokee and mother of a US soldier who is 1/8 Cherokee, later you will see RBG admirers telling me to "go back to Russia" and to "go back to your country" because "we do not want you here" and "you are not invited here") .

Until President Trump came to the White House and Democrats started to wage a war against him, mainly claiming that he has gotten into the power because Russia interfered into elections in 2016, I had no need to worry about my "Russian-ness".

Now I do have to worry, and not because of anything the President did.

It is because of a vicious bigotry campaign against ethnic Russians that I am increasingly beginning to feel not safe not only on social media, but also physically.

I am regularly receiving on Facebook death threats because, I criticize Democrats for logical inconsistencies, illegal actions and hypocrisy - "while being Russian".

I criticize Republicans, too - but never so far have I received death threats from them for that criticism.

My concern for safety of myself and other Russian Americans is also backed up by the existence of the gruesome U.S. Supreme Court precedent Korematsu v United States, in which the U.S. Supreme Court has declared constitutional putting American citizens in concentration camps based on their origin.

Switch "Japanese" to "Russian" in Korematsu - and here we go, the bigots can start catching American citizens - ethnic Russians - and put them into concentration camps right now.

The sad irony of it is that the biggest bigots are the "dying wish" thumpers from the cult of Ruth Bader Ginsburg who is extolled by the same cult for her constant criticisms of the government.

For her - it is allowed and praised.

For second rate citizens, such as Democrats consider us, Russian Americans -  it is a taboo that invites this.

Here is the comment I have made yesterday on the Washington Post article - and I have researched Ruth Ginsburg for years and stand by my word that she was a corrupt judge.

 In any event, whether I was right or wrong, Democrats hurl insults and accusations against their political opponents all the time without any proof whatsoever - and consider it normal.

But see what kind of comments Democrats posted in response to my criticism of their new saint.

 


Out of over 568 comments here (more now) placed by Democrats in response (they did not conceal their political leanings), 129 at the time I saved the scan (I am sure there are more now, and the 129 scans do not include those comments in the same bigoted vein that I blocked yesterday, and there were quite a few) - well over 20%, a VERY statistically significant bashed me for being Russian, told me to go back to Moscow from "their" country.

People were bashing me because I was Russian, for my name, for me using my native language on my page, for me educated in a Moscow university, for me being born and having lived in Moscow.  You name it - they did it.

Moreover, such insults came not only in singles, but also in blocks of 2, 3 and even 4 in a row - and on each one of them a lot of likes and even "loves" appear.  So, Democrats consider ethnic shaming of an American citizen an absolute norm for themselves, and being a Russian American an equivalent of being a second rate citizen for whom the very same rights they are fighting to give illegal aliens are forbidden.

Moreover, when I started to call bigots out and call them bigots, it is I who was blocked by Facebook for responding, and it is I who was blocked by Facebook from even putting laughing signs on the bigoted comments - while bigots continued their galore and commented that, because I am not responding, I am definitely a troll.


So here, first blocks of 2, 3 and 4.




The bottom one says: "Learn English better, comrade, or you will have to work 3rd shift".  No indication as to what exactly was wrong with my English in the comment.

And note that the same people will consider it despicable to shame an illegal alien - or a "black or brown immigrant" for their English language abilities.  With me Democrats, with their hysteria about "Russian collusion" and "Russian influence" in the left-wing press practically declared an open hunting season on Russians.

And that's exactly what somebody said on my page - that they will hunt me down, physically.  Of course, Facebook helpfully blocked me from answering them, ON MY OWN PAGE.

But, here are more blocks. 











See - they have already started to resort to ethnic name-shaming, the shining followers of a "human rights icon" Ruth Bader Ginsburg, many with her likeness as their profile pictures.  And in her defense.

By the way, parents of Ruth Bader Ginsburg arrived from the Ukraine, which was a part of the Russian empire, and then the USSR.  So, they were Russian Jews.

A daughter of two Russian Jews is - who?

Oh, no.  They are bashing a Russian woman for criticizing another Russian woman (a public official in the employ of the first Russian woman) because the critic is Russian - why not, logical, isn't it?



"Natasha" is a vulgarspeak for a "Russian prostitute", by the way.




As you see in the bottom "statement here", the commentator's command of the English language leaves much to be desired.




So now they are shaming me for being proud of my child serving in the U.S. military - after bashing the U.S. President that he was supposedly disrespectful to the troops, go figure.




The bottom comment here points out that "I don't even hide" that I am Russian.

I guess, being an ethnic Russian is now shameful and needs to be hidden - as well as having been born in the USSR/Russia, and having obtained 2 ADVANCED GRADUATE DEGREES (in linguistics and in economic sciences) because they were from Moscow universities - that was inherently bad of me.

Democrats support only education obtained in Columbia University and in Honduras.





The comment in Russian here says "yes, yes, Grandma".

And now the singles.
















































The tricolor flag here is a Russian flag, so the statement goes that I am "pushing talking points for Russia".








Americans have a very poor knowledge on average of the world history, and so they do not realize that RBG's father came from Odessa (I guess, Oleg Zachemtebe was too lazy to consult even a Wikipedia page about his "idol"), while mother from Krakow, and both Odessa and Krakow were at the time were very much a part of the Russian Empire.

Notably, the guy claims this distinction to say - oh, no, no, my idol cannot be of that horrible Russian ethnicity.















































































This is not accidental, this is not anecdotal, this is not sporadic.

This is massive, systematic and concerted bigotry, deeply ingrained by the propaganda of Democrats.

Moreover, these people actually BELIEVE in their right to treat me in a condescending and insulting manner based on my name, education, place of birth and ethnic origin alone.

They even pushed it further - many of them not only told me that, because I dared to criticize THEIR darling (a public official, while they can insult the President and his family all they want in whatever way they want), I needed to "get out of THEIR country", but also that "America will be better off without people like me", or without people "named Tatiana".

And that is, ladies and gentlemen, fascism and smacking very much of the proximity of concentration camps.

Since A LOT of these people really came to my page to harass me, and some of them said they will hunt me down, it is only a matter of time when Russians will deliberately be hunted down and attacked in the streets.

Now imagine for a split second that my profile was of a brown faced woman named Maria Alvarez who would claim she was educated in Mexico and who would post on her page in her supposedly native Spanish.

Do you think if Maria Alvarez would say the absolute same things about RBG as I did, ANY of this crowd would DARE to shame her because of her 

  1. Ethnic origin,
  2. Name,
  3. Country of birth,
  4. Education
  5. Use of her native language on her page?
Dare to presume that she is "busy undermining our country" for pesos?

Do you think they will DARE calling her a prostitute (well, on Senator Elizabeth Warren's website a couple of days ago when I criticized the Senator, people simply called me Russian pigwhore, and neither the Senator nor Facebook interfered, that obviously did not violate "community standards" for either one)?

So when you are heading for the voting booth in November, remember - voting for Democrats is voting for the above FASCISTS who will attack you, deprive you of your rights, harass you, intimidate you, threaten your life, shame you for the same things (ethnic origin, ethnic name, command of native language, education, place of birth) - which they celebrate for people whose ethnicities Democrats do not find "offensive" - all in the name of higher principles and their sainted idols.

But let me ask you - who are they to pick and choose whose ethnicity is "offensive" or to be praised?

You know who Hitler exterminated during Holocaust?

No, not only Jews.  Also gypsies and SLAVS.

Like me.

Oh, and it is interesting to mention that when I started to call them out on their bigotry, this way:



that is - before Facebook restricted my ability to do that - you know what one of them very condescendingly told me?

Here:



See?

All of the above that you see 

(that's why I strived to preserve each bigoted comment with the exception of those I have blocked yesterday - too much trouble to go back and sort through blocked people, there were a lot of people who came to harass me to my page who I had to block)

is casually shrugged off as a "someone" who "cries about an INCIDENTAL bigoted (they admit it) comment" as "their EXCUSE", mind, "to vote for Trump".

It is an EXCUSE now.

Because, despite bigotry and fascism displayed above towards me and other Russian Americans, voting for Democrats is supposedly a duty of every freedom loving American.

It is like expecting Mr Korematsu to vote for his guards.

Well, this Russian American will certainly will not vote for fascists.

Because, once again, THIS string of ethnic targeted hatred for criticism of the government is FASCISM, and to put such people into the White House and into the key legislative positions in the U.S. Congress and Senate is downright scary.

Let's vote to prevent it.

Remember this when you go to the polls, Russian Americans.

Update:

After this article was published, I have received this private message on my messenger account from an unknown individual: