|  |
 |
 |
Join Our Free Workshops |
Believe in America. She believes in you.
Know & Protect Our Constitution
"Knowing the Law and Being Well Disposed To Use It"
Statistically, you have a 70% chance of being sued within the next 5 years.
We care about and believe in the Law and want "YOU" to have the information, knowledge and procedures "YOU" will need to take your turn in front of the bench, stand your ground, and know courage.
Breaking the law is illegal, even if you are a debt collector, lawyer or judge and yes, even the IRS!
Learn how to enforce your rights in a non-confrontational, non-adversarial manner.
Free Monthly Meetings
Contact: 502-500-8161 or
E-Mail; Don_FitzGerald1953@Yahoo.com

The safety of the people cannot be judged but by the safety of every individual.
Since the safety of the people is the supreme law, this maxim tells us how to judge the safety of the people. It's not just the safety of the majority that counts. It is the safety of every single one of us .
individually.
If a law is bad for any innocent individual it is bad for all.
Suppose your state passed a law making it a crime to have blue eyes. Brown-eyed
people are in the majority (about 3:1), so the majority could conceivably pass a law
making it unlawful to have blue eyes. Some scientific evidence might prove that blue eyed
people are more likely to commit crime, so brown-eyed folks could condemn blue eyed
people to death. After all, majority rules . or does it?
In civilized societies where maxims are upheld, the majority is prevented by the
principles of maxims from wounding the minority.
Maxims teach us that every individual must be safe or society itself is not safe.
This principle protects minorities from the majority.
These truths need to be taught to every generation. They protect us all from the
abuse of law that always results where such truths are hidden from the people.
The maxims teach that only by evaluating the safety of every individual can we
gauge the safety of society itself. It's good to support legislation to protect minority
groups and individuals from being invidiously discriminated against by society's laws,
but until we use our maxim power we are merely fighting political battles.
Politics alone cannot make the world safe for individuals.
The needs of individuals and minorities must be protected not only for the sake of
individuals and minorities but for the sake of society in general.
This is self-evident truth, and it is expressed by this maxim. The safety of society
cannot be judged but by the safety of every individual. If anyone, however insignificant
he or she may seem, is being unfairly wounded by our laws, then those laws are wrong
and should be repealed at once.
The power of maxims outweighs the imperatives of the majority. If any law unfairly wounds just one innocent person, that law violates this maxim and the law should be changed.

What Kind of Person Can Become a Successful Pro Se?
If you have what it takes...Join Us!
When the legal establishment starts putting on seminars to teach lawyers how to deal with people like me, we know we're starting to cause the corrupt legal establishment grief. What follows in Beating Up On Debt Collectors are strategies that put people in a position to win. Not only can you win using these strategies, you will make lawyers absolutely miserable. It is time for the predator to become the prey and the prey to become the predator! As Maximus said before the battle, "Unleash Hell!"
Richard Luke Cornforth
If you see yourself in the following statements, you might be Pro Se material:
You've been through several rounds of court experience with a lawyer and just weren't satisfied with his/her performance. (You really think you could have done it better!)
After observing lawyers at work, especially in your case, you can't understand why they get paid so much.
You tend to be obsessive about intellectual issues, like what is the truth and what is not.
After ad nauseum hearing the cliche about anyone representing themself having a fool for a client, you have about ten different arguments as to why the cliche is wrong in your case.
You like to do many things yourself, because other people don't do it right and because it feels good.
You sincerely listen to what other people have to offer, but if you disagree then you're quite willing to go your own way.
You can maintain a determination over a very long period of time, and are willing to invest personal and financial resources to obtain your desire.
You tend to stay up late and work on weekends on what interests you.
You can follow an intellectual trail for a long time and hunt down whatever it is that interests you.
You are willing and able to read and assimilate difficult material.
It doesn't bother you to argue both sides of an issue, because you can see different facets of the truth which interact in a complex way.
You tend to like argument and debate. Arm wrestling someone via debate has been a good sport many times in your life.
You tend to be organized and to accumulate written materials. You are an information-oriented person.
You have a good mind for details, but you don't get lost in them.
You are known as a hard and persistent worker.
You like to write.
You're willing to take the risk and full responsibility for the fall if you lose.
On the other hand, if the following applies to you, going Pro Se might not be such a hot idea:
You just want to get it over with and get on with your life.
People who tell you that representing yourself is pure foolishness seem to know what they're talking about.
Your interests change quickly in your life.
You don't like being cooped up with books or in boring libraries.
Other people's opinions affect you a great deal.
Your social life is more important than this case.
You think you can just tell the Judge the truth, and if he has any decency then you'll win.
You like paying people to do it for you. After all, they're professionals.
When you think you're right, you're right, and you stop listening.
You tend to lose your temper.
You think all judicial opinions are just politics.
After a while it doesn't seem so important anymore. You get over it.
You are a disorganized, artistic, intuitional sort of person.
You have an excellent mind for details, but often miss the larger picture.
You have a great ability to grasp the big picture, but details are boring.
You don't like to write.
You like to run with the "in" crowd and you don't like being exposed to criticism.
You don't like taking chances and you don't want to risk losing.

Private attorney general
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
A private attorney general is a private party in the United States who brings a lawsuit that is considered to be in the public interest, i.e. benefiting the general public and not just the plaintiff. The private attorney general is entitled to recover attorney's fees if they prevail. The purpose of this principle is to provide extra incentive to private citizens to pursue suits that may be of benefit to society at large.
[edit] Examples of application
Most civil rights statutes rely on private attorneys general for their enforcement. In Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises - one of the earliest cases construing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the United States Supreme Court ruled that "A public accommodations suit is thus private in form only. When a plaintiff brings an action . . . he cannot recover damages. If he obtains an injunction, he does so not for himself alone but also as a 'private attorney general,' vindicating a policy that Congress considered of the highest priority." The United States Congress has also passed laws with "private attorney general" provisions that provide for the enforcement of laws prohibiting employment discrimination, police brutality, and water pollution. Under the Clean Water Act, for example, "any citizen" may bring suit against an individual or a company that is a source of water pollution.
[edit] Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act
The U.S. Congress codified the private attorney general principle into law with the enactment of Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The Senate Report on this statute stated that The Senate Committee on the Judiciary wanted to level the playing field so that private citizens, who might have little or no money, could still serve as "private attorneys general" and afford to bring actions, even against state or local bodies, to enforce the civil rights laws. The Committee acknowledged that, "[i]f private citizens are to be able to assert their civil rights, and if those who violate the Nation's fundamental laws are not to proceed with impunity, then citizens must have the opportunity to recover what it costs them to vindicate these rights in court." Where a plaintiff wins his or her lawsuit and is considered the "prevailing party," § 1988 acts to shift fees, including expert witness fees [at least in certain types of civil rights actions, under the Civil Rights Act of 1991, even if not in § 1983 actions], and to make those who acted as private attorneys general whole again, thus encouraging the enforcement of the civil rights laws. The Senate reported that it intended fee awards to be "adequate to attract competent counsel" to represent client with civil rights grievances. S. Rep. No. 94-1011, p. 6 (1976). The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the act to provide for the payment of a "reasonable attorney's fee" based on the fair market value of the legal services.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_attorney_general"

|
Philosophical Inspiration for Those Who Dare
"The courts hold a unique position among our democratic institutions. In a sense, they represent one of our last bastions of participatory democracy, in which disputants go directly before a judge or jury to resolve an issue. In no other governmental context does an individual have the opportunity to take a problem to a decision-maker who represents the full force and power of that particular branch of government. This direct interchange between the individual and the state is at the heart of the democratic process ... We must protect this unique heritage and strive to preserve the values it represents."-- Rose E. Bird, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of California,
Los Angeles Times (16 Nov 1977)
"People of mediocre ability sometimes achieve outstanding success because they don't know when to quit. Most men succeed because they are determined to."-- George Allen, Football Coach
"About half the practice of a decent lawyer consists in telling would-be clients that they are damned fools and should stop."-- Elihu Root, 1845-1937, Martin Mayer, The Lawyers, 1967
"The person who goes farthest is generally the one who is willing to do and dare. The sure-thing boat never gets far from shore."-- Dale Carnegie
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the sage harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover."-- Mark Twain
"Everyone has his own Atlantics to fly. Whatever you want very much to do, against the opposition of tradition, neighborhood opinion, and so-called 'common' sense - that is an Atlantic."-- Amelia Earhart, National Geographic, January 1998.
"As a general rule the most successful man in life is the man who has the best information."-- Benjamin Disraeli
"I'm sick and tired of hearing about the number of cases disposed of when we discuss the judicial system. The chief justice should know that the job of the courts is not to dispose of cases but to decide them justly. Doesn't he know that the business of courts is justice?"-- Jim R. Carrigan, Justice, Supreme Court of Colorado
Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, August 3, 1977.
"He wastes his tears who weeps before the judge."
-- Italian Proverb
"You may be disappointed if you fail, but you are doomed if you don't try."-- Dale Carnegie
"May you have a lawsuit in which you know you are right."
-- Spanish gypsy curse
"The late George Haight, a giant of the Chicago bar, was once asked 'What makes a good lawyer?' His short reply deserves to be remembered: 'Lots of scar tissue.'"-- Milton B. Pollock, "Some Practical Aspects of
Appellate Advocacy," New York State Bar Bulletin,
February 1959.
"Once a lawyer was arguing a case before three lord justices in the court of appeal, dealing with an elementary point of law at inordinate length. Finally, the master of the rolls, who was presiding, intervened: 'Really,' he protested, 'do give this court credit for some intelligence.' Quick as a flash came the reply: 'That is the mistake I made in the court below, my lord.' "-- Anonymous, reported in A Lifetime with the Law, 1961,
by Archibald Edgar Bowker.
"Just keep going. Everybody gets better if they keep at it."-- Ted Williams, Hall of Fame Baseball Player
"The public regards lawyers with great distrust. They think lawyers are smarter than the average guy but use their intelligence deviously. Well, they're wrong; usually, they are not smarter."-- F. Lee Bailey, Los Angeles Times, January 9, 1972
"The fact that a lawyer advised such foolish conduct, does not relieve it of foolishness ... "-- Lucilius A. Emery, American jurist, Hanscom v. Marson,
82 Me. 288, 298 (1890).
"Most of the important things in the world have been accomplished by people who have kept on trying when there seemed to be no hope at all."-- Dale Carnegie
"The court should be a place where anybody can come - whatever they have in their pocket - and be able to file a complaint in simple fashion and at least have somebody give consideration to it and give them an opportunity to be heard."-- Thomas T. Curtin, Judge, U.S. District Court,
New York Times (7 Oct 1971)
"Success seems to be largely a matter of hanging on after others have let go.-- William Feather
"My fees are sufficient punishment for anyone."-- F. Lee Bailey, LA Times, January 9, 1972
"Ninety percent of our lawyers serve 10% of our people."-- Jimmy Carter, in Modern Legal Glossary, 1983
"My prayer to God is a very short one: 'O Lord, make my enemies very ridiculous!' "-- Voltaire, Letter to M. Damilaville, May 1767
"The average lawyer is essentially a mechanic who works with a pen instead of a ball-peen hammer. Machinists' unions require an apprenticeship, not an advanced degree."-- Bob Schmitt, American jurist, Americans for Legal
Reform, Vol. 4, No. 3, Spring 1984
"... in spite of all the bar examinations and better law schools, we are more casual about qualifying the people we allow to act as advocates in the courtroom than we are about licensing electricians. The painful fact is that the courtrooms of America all too often have Piper-Cub advocates trying to handle the controls of Boeing 747 litigation."-- Warren E. Burger, Lecture, Fordham University
Law School, LA Times, December 28, 1973
"When you have no basis for argument, abuse the plaintiff."-- Cicero, Roman poet, 106-43 B.C.
"The [legal fees] are outrageous. With the cost of litigation these days, I think clients would often be better off if they just met in the halls and threw dice. Certainly it would be cheaper."-- Walter McLaughlin, Chief Justice,
Supreme Court of Massachusetts, Time, July 27, 1981
"I find the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have."-- Thomas Jefferson
"It seems as if the Department [of Justice] sees the value of the Bill of Rights as no more than obstacles to be overcome."-- Sanford H. Kadish, Professor,
University of California at Berkeley,
LA Times, July 25, 1969.
"No one knows what they can do till they try."-- Publilius Syrus
"Ignorance of the law does not prevent the losing lawyer from collecting his bill."-- Anonymous, Laurrence J. Peter, Peter's Quotations, 1977
"Better suffer a great evil than do a little one."-- Proverb, Handbook of Proverbs, 1855
"When innocence is frightened, the judge is condemned."-- Publilius Syrus, Latin writer, Sententiae, c. 43 B.C.
"The man who removes a mountain begins by carrying away small stones."-- Chinese Proverb
"When we lose the right to be different, we lose the privilege to be free."-- Charles Evans Hughes
Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, June 17, 1925
"There is nothing more horrible than the murder of a beautiful theory by a brutal gang of facts."-- La Rochefoucauld, 1747-1827
"A judge knows nothing unless it has been explained to him three times."-- Proverb, Rosalind Fergusson,
The Facts on File Dictionary of Proverbs, 1983.
"There is no surer way to misread any document than to read it literally."-- Learned Hand, Guiseppi v. Walling, 324 U.S. 244,
65 S.Ct. 605, 89 L.Ed. 921 (1944)
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."-- Aldous Huxley, A Note on Dogma, 1894-1963
"No one is ever innocent when his opponent is the judge."-- Lucan, Roman poet, 39-65, Pharsalia
"Now, then, all ye black guards that isn't lawyers, out ye go!"-- Crier at Ballinloe when ordered to clear the court
by the judge
"... all life is an experiment. Every year if not every day we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge."-- Oliver Wendell Holmes

The judge who decides a case without hearing both parties,
though his decision be just, is himself unjust.
This is the first principle of due process.
This is the bedrock of justice and fair play.
Everyone should be heard. Fully.
If a party has witnesses, those witnesses should be heard. If a party has evidence
to present, the evidence should be examined. If the witnesses are not trustworthy or the
evidence is inadmissible according to law, the party should nonetheless have a chance to
offer the testimony and evidence until they are shown to be improper. Under no
circumstance should a party be denied the opportunity to at least offer witness testimony
And, certainly, under no circumstance should the cause of any person be judged
until that person has been heard by the court explaining his or her side of the story.
Many people today are so anxious to see "justice done" they are unwilling to
acknowledge what justice really is. Some believe it is so important to punish evil that it
doesn't matter how the punishment comes about, so long as evil doers are required to pay
for their crimes. The maxims teach us that punishment of an evil doer without affording
due process of law (e.g., without allowing the person to be heard and present witnesses
and evidence in his behalf) is itself an evil deed . a wrong performed by the court itself.
Even where the court is convinced of a party's guilt, if the judge does not give
that person an opportunity to be heard and to present witness testimony and other
evidence in his or her behalf, the judge is not just - and an order of the court entered in
such circumstances violates the rule of law. Indeed, no matter what the party's guilt may
be, the unjust act of a court of law is an even more guilty crime.
Only when the people understand these fundamental principles of law - once
revered and generally upheld and honored by civilized people throughout the world - can
we hope to reestablish justice and liberty for all.

|
Judges as Criminals
CIRCUIT COURT A CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Circuit Court of Cook County is a criminal enterprise. U.S. v. Murphy, 768 F.2d 1518, 1531 (7th Cir. 1985).
The United States Supreme Court recently acknowledged the judicial corruption in Cook County, when it stated that Judge "Maloney was one of many dishonest judges exposed and convicted through 'Operation Greylord', a labyrinthine federal investigation of judicial corruption in Chicago". Bracey v. Gramley, 519 U.S. 1074, 117 S.Ct. 726 (1997).
There has been no finding that the Circuit Court of Cook County is no longer a criminal enterprise, nor that judicial corruption no longer exists in Chicago.
Since judges who do not report the criminal activities of other judges become principals in the criminal activity, 18 U.S.C. Section 2, 3 & 4, and since no judges have reported the criminal activity of the judges who have been convicted, the other judges are as guilty as the convicted judges.
The criminal activities that the Federal Courts found in the Circuit Court of Cook County still exist, and are today under the care, custody and control of Judge Greylord III (Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans). The Circuit Court of Cook County remains a criminal enterprise.
JUDICIAL IMMUNITY
Judges have given themselves judicial immunity for their judicial functions. Judges have no judicial immunity for criminal acts, aiding, assisting, or conniving with others who perform a criminal act, or for their administrative/ministerial duties. When a judge has a duty to act, he does not have discretion - he is then not performing a judicial act, he is performing a ministerial act.
Judicial immunity does not exist for judges who engage in criminal activity, for judges who connive with, aid and abet the criminal activity of another judge, or to a judge for damages sustained by a person who has been harmed by the judge's connivance with, aiding and abeting, another judge's criminal activity.
TRESPASSERS OF THE LAW
The Illinois Supreme Court has held that "if the magistrate has not such jurisdiction, then he and those who advise and act with him, or execute his process, are trespassers." Von Kettler et.al. v. Johnson, 57 Ill. 109 (1870)
Under Federal law which is applicable to all states, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that if a court is "without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no justification; and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers." Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828)
The Illinois Supreme Court held that if a court "could not hear the matter upon the jurisdictional paper presented, its finding that it had the power can add nothing to its authority, - it had no authority to make that finding." The People v. Brewer, 128 Ill. 472, 483 (1928). The judges listed below had no legal authority (jurisdiction) to hear or rule on certain matters before them. They acted without any jurisdiction.
When judges act when they do not have jurisdiction to act, or they enforce a void order (an order issued by a judge without jurisdiction), they become trespassers of the law,and are engaged in treason (see below).
The Court in Yates v. Village of Hoffman Estates, Illinois, 209 F.Supp. 757 (N.D. Ill. 1962) held that "not every action by a judge is in exercise of his judicial function. ... it is not a judicial function for a judge to commit an intentional tort even though the tort occurs in the courthouse."
When a judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does not follow the law, the judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judges orders are void, of no legal force or effect.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974) stated that "when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he "comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States." [Emphasis supplied in original].
By law, a judge is a state officer.
The judge then acts not as a judge, but as a private individual (in his person).
VIOLATION OF OATH OF OFFICE
In Illinois, 705 ILCS 205/4 states "Every person admitted to practice as an attorney and counselor at law shall, before his name is entered upon the roll to be kept as hereinafter provided, take and subscribe an oath, substantially in the following form:
'I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be), that I will support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Illinois, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of attorney and counselor at law to the best of my ability.'"
In Illinois, a judge must take a second oath of office. Under 705 ILCS 35/2 states, in part, that "The several judges of the circuit courts of this State, before entering upon the duties of their office, shall take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation, which shall be filed in the office of the Secretary of State:
'I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the State of Illinois, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of judge of ______ court, according to the best of my ability.'"
Further, if the judge had enlisted in the U.S. military, then he has taken a third oath. Under Title 10 U.S.C. Section 502 the judge had subscribed to a lifetime oath, in pertinent part, as follows: "I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; ...".
The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.". Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958).
Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason.
Having taken at least two, if not three, oaths of office to support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Illinois, any judge who has acted in violation of the Constitution is engaged in an act or acts of treason (see below).
If a judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), he/she is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act or acts of treason.

|
 |
Home | Open Letter To Debt Foreclosing Attorneys: | Debt Buying | Racketeering by the Bar | Products & Services | Jurisdictionary | Meetings | A Successful Pro Se | Fair Debt Collection | Void Judgments | Maxims | Attorney's | Aribtrator's | Shame of Mapother | My Rico Suit |
Jurisdictionary Club Phone: 502-500-8161
Email: Don_FitzGerald1953@yahoo.com
|
|
|