Paul W. Clark, A.M., M.S.E.E., Ph.D., F.R.G.S.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Introduction
A recent, shameful experience in the Superior Court of California for Kern County at Bakersfield left me feeling betrayed by the Bench at Bakersfield. What began in Bakersfield, though, opened onto a number of portentous discoveries about the very status of California as a constitutional Republic.

If the Superior Court’s practices in Kern County represent in any way the California justice system, everyone should be put on notice how lawless the legal system of California has become.

Presiding Judge Jerold L. Turner of Kern County Superior Court received a complaint from me in early September, 2007, about the judicial performance of one of his judges, including an outrageous decision that since people defending themselves (in propria persona) were not lawyers, they were not entitled to their expenses as a result of prevailing against a malicious lawsuit. Non-entities are also not entitled to claim sanctions against a counselor, even if he demonstrably committed fraud. He also declared in open Court that he refused to use my title of Doctor, an act of judicial misconduct that carries the fingerprint of one more familiar with the Spanish Grand Inquisitor Tomas de Torquemada ,who debased those whom appeared before him as the first order of business, than English Common Law and common courtesy. He was also involved in redacting the written transcript of the Hearing so that none of the actions mentioned above any longer appeared in the official record of the Hearing.

Presiding judge Turner replied that I had raised administrative (!) issues that had nothing to do with him. He passed it over to his Court’s “CEO”, Mr. Terry McNally for reply. As of this writing, in the closing days of July, 2011 I have yet to receive the courtesy of a reply from Mr. McNally. What I have documented to date reveals a fully formed exemplar of a ‘sham’ and a cover-up of felonies committed by two sitting judges.

A sham, according to the New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, is: “A trick, a hoax; something contrived to delude or disappoint expectation.” It also means “A thing that is intended to be mistaken for something else, or that is not what it is pretended or appears to be; … a counterfeit, a person who pretends or who is falsely represented to be what he or she is not.”

To be blunt, Judge Vegas’ unabashed declaration from the Bakersfield Bench that non-lawyers are not “entitled” to their expenses disabuses the grand rhetoric of our founding documents concerning equality before the law, equal justice for all, and equal protection of the law.

The assertion of differential justice based on membership in a state-sponsored closed union shop emits the stink of Sharia Law under which the kaffirs (we infidels) have no standing or rights in a court of law. It evinces the familiar stench of Hitler’s Peoples Courts and Mussolini’s Syndicalist Courts. And it becomes much worse. The entire judiciary is a chimera.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Case Comes to Court

My affair with Kern County Superior Court and the California Judiciary began with a malicious attempt to remove me as a successor trustee in a family trust. The Petitioner’s pleading was full of substantive errors and misrepresentations about the law and the Trust documents: a pathetically contemptible presentation of a case. His attorney and social friend, Mr. Thomas J. Anton, a slip-and-fall and dog-bite attorney, represented him pro bono in this probate case, according to Petitioner’s sister.

The most egregious lie in Petitioner’s filing claimed that one cannot be trustee of a family trust unless he is a relative, connected to the deceased by marriage or blood. This is a relatively benign construction of an older principle that fueled Nazi pogroms against the Jews in Germany and elsewhere – even today in the Levant.

This obnoxious doctrine, much beloved by Der Führer, is known as the Blut und Boden argument. It means quite simply “Blood and Soil”. Similar to other cultural and legalistic examples of fascism in vogue today, it argues limited rights for people of the putatively wrong blood, wrong soil, and wrong beliefs. That an American lawyer, indeed, fraudulently invoked this vicious doctrine in an American Court with impunity – indeed, cynical indifference, is remarkable.

Had he made a proper reading of the California Probate Code Article 15642 (or an honest presentation thereof) he would have seen that his interpretation applies only to a sole trustee of a family trust as described in subdivision (a) of Section 21350. His entire case rested on a deliberate lie. Judge Vega resuscitated the case for him by ordering another hearing.

A Second Round of the Case

Our second hearing took place on 4 May 2006. At the first hearing a few months earlier, I spared myself the trouble of preparing a filing and paying a filing fee of $320 in stating the obvious errors of wrong jurisdiction, wrong law, false ‘facts’, and wrong legal theory. (By the way, Mr. Anton received a discounted filing fee)The local rules allowed the option of speaking or writing so I naturally chose to speak. The judge pro tempore thought otherwise and demanded a filing. The Court is also a business, to be sure. He continued the earlier hearing.

Petitioner’s attorney, Mr. Thomas J. Anton, withdrew his Petition privately with Mr. Vega the day before the hearing on receiving my written response (without notifying me). The Hearing commenced with Judge Louie E. Vega declaring further discussions moot because the Petition had been withdrawn. Nevertheless, Attorney Anton informed the Court that Petitioner’s co-trustee, and sister, joined in the action, without the benefit of a Motion of Joinder. Judge Vega turned to me and said he would address me as ‘Mr’. This struck me as impertinent and irrelevant. It turns out this is an act of judicial misconduct. I naïvely thought a judge was meant to be impartial by law and custom.

I felt confused why Judge Vega began the hearing by maliciously and prejudicially revoking my title ‘Doctor’ of more than 40 years standing. He used it previously in the first hearing and in intervening court records without hesitation or question, as evinced in the Order Minutes and the Register of Actions/Case Docket regarding the case. Even Attorney Anton used my title in correspondence issued before the second hearing. And Attorney Anton shifted, as if on cue, from using my customary title to addressing me as ‘Mr. Clark’ during the hearing and in subsequent correspondence. I cannot rule out this insult was pre-arranged between these two Esquires. Someone should inform Vega and Anton that real Esquires are first English gentlemen of popular esteem.

While this incident may seem trivial, though admittedly rude and disrespectful and, indeed alarming, given its easy accommodation with the Nazi notions of Blut und Boden, it is significant. A friend of mine trained in California law informs me that judges will pull this trick when they want to diminish, even denigrate, the credibility of a witness or party in the event of further court actions.

This amounts to Judge Vega descending from his dais to join Petitioner’s legal team: so much for equal protection of the law, due process of law and our blind-folded Lady Justice. This action, in light of added information as to motive, testifies in retrospect to a personal, collusive relationship between Judge Vega and Petitioner’s Attorney Anton, including improper ex parte communications.

As Judge Vega neared the end of the hearing, he referenced my request for sanctions against Petitioner’s attorney for a dishonest pleading and abuse of judicial process. I had also requested recompense for my time in preparing filings, travelling more than 1,200 miles to attend court, and the filing fee (clearly a judicial poll tax when levied on defendants) for leave to defend myself against an obviously bad-faith filing.

Judge Vega opined that I “charged like a lawyer” and rejected my requests. He further opined sneeringly: “You are not entitled to recompense because you are not a lawyer.” [Underlining by author] I protested with a question if his decision also included my “objective expenses” of travel and filing fee. He replied impatiently in the affirmative. Even then, without the benefit of knowing why he debased me from the start of the hearing by substituting titles, I presciently considered his decision had more to do with an expression and a demonstration of solidarity with common membership in the same industrial organization, the State Bar. (Federal Standard Industrial Classification – Code 8111) It should be noted ironically that the very Probate Code Section cited by Mr. Anton to justify his maliciously deceitful filing also empowers the court to award Respondent his costs of the proceeding: “If court finds that the petition for removal of the trustee was filed in bad faith and that removal would be contrary to the settler’s intent …” (§15642, Sub (C))

Never mind the Constitutional guarantees of equal protection of the law and due process. I left in disgust, detecting the stink of Sharia Law that also discriminates against and silences ‘outsiders’ and non-entities (infidels). George Orwell’s dictum about equality regarding privileged classes and the common man, enshrined in his work Animal Farm, sprang authentically from Vega’s throat – We’re all equal but some are more equal than others.

A Brief Biography

I felt betrayed in part because of long service to our Government and the American people in peace and war and intimate knowledge of long traditions of honor, country, and duty in service to the United States of America. We millions who victoriously served in war-time earned the power that this careless, pompously prejudiced judge now wields so crudely in defiance of our honored legal traditions, rooted in English Common Law and Natural Law, that made this country great.

I served four ambassadors in London as Air Attaché for Operations, including the redoubtable Walter Annenberg for whom I also wrote. The Air Attachés of the international community accredited to the Court of Saint James elected me as their Assistant Doyen of Air Attachés in London. I served in Viet Nam during the Tet Offensive, held a joint professorship in Electrical Engineering and History of Science at the US Air Force Academy (USAFA), worked as a design bio-engineer in the joint USAFA-NASA Laboratory on the problems of cardio-vascular deconditioning in Space, and headed special project units in Crete, Greece, and American Samoa. I’ve taught Military History, World History, History of Science and Technology, Electrical Engineering, Bio-Engineering, Higher Mathematics and International Law variously at the USAFA, the University of Maryland in Europe, and the Peninsula Technikon near Cape Town, South Africa. I am credentialed in all these areas at the post-graduate level. I am a Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science for contributions to Antarctic exploration and space science. My name appears in the American Who’s Who and the Who’s Who in the Environment in Europe. My work has been honored by the United Nations, the Governments of China and the Soviet Union. President François Mitterrand of France and Prince Bernard of the Netherlands served as patrons of my UN project. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher also gave her personal support to us as well as other government leaders in Western and Central Europe. I carry on my international work nowadays primarily in Ethiopia, Malawi, and Ivory Coast. I believe deeply in the greatness of the American experiment in self-government and the Rule of Law. It is with sadness that I must continue with this litany of predatory actions that become increasingly more antithetical to American greatness and inimical to any notion of legitimate Rule of Law.

A Scene from the Sopranos

My wife and I left the courtroom and made our way downstairs to the exit via a staircase. Near the bottom of the stairs we observed Petitioner and Mr. Anton emerging from the elevator. Our paths converged just before the visitor’s security station, consisting of metal detectors and police officers (or Sheriff’s deputies).

I turned to Petitioner’s attorney with the observation that what transpired upstairs was a fraud, and he knew it. He coldly fixed his eyes on me whilst thrusting his arm across my chest in the direction of the police (Sheriff’s deputies) a few feet away and declared “if you say one more word to me, I’ll have you taken into custody – one word, he hissed.”
I kept my silence because only minutes before Judge Vega upstairs had declared that there was indeed differential justice between lawyers and non-entities (non-lawyers) and non-entities do not enjoy equal protection of the laws. It was a scene straight from the Sopranos, including the assault and terroristic threat that included my wife.

What if lawyers qua Officers of the Court also have police powers, I mused? What if freedom of speech is off-bounds in a New World Order Court of Law wherein unconstitutional, pathetically pretentious royal forms of address are demanded; especially if it offends the sensitivities of an ‘Officer’ thereof?

I subsequently complained of Mr. Anton’s terroristic threat to the State Bar of California, but they found: “There are no findings by the court that indicate a Rule of Professional Conduct was violated. “ Protagoras of Abdera and Georgis of Leontini must be swelling with pride on this their spiritual son who seeks neither truth nor gain but protection of his order of named-ones alone. (Nomenklatura) And it says nauseous volumes about a lawyer’s Rules of Professional Conduct in California.

Now the Research Commences

More and more the privileges, powers, and protections of American lawyers and judges seemed to converge with those I encountered among the Nomenklatura (with all due respect to the Nomenklatura of the erstwhile Soviet Union). Now I think that perhaps, just perhaps, the Petitioner’s attorney’s reaction stemmed, to use a psychologist’s phrase, from guilty knowledge of an improper relation with the judge given that the judge effectively eased him out of a more difficult situation in terms of ethics and law by debasing me. In any event, the attorney felt perfectly free with the license received from Judge Vega to abuse and physically assault me further within the very precincts of the Court. The website for the Supreme Court of California fancifully associates itself with an ancient Grecian Temple when clearly it bears more resemblance to an ancient Babylonian Temple.

Mr. Thomas Anton’s threat against me provoked an immediate response in my wife. Her knees buckled and tears sprang forth spontaneously from her terrified eyes. I had to half-carry her to our car. She is a naturalized citizen. In her home country, such dark threats from governmental élites are often accompanied by ‘accidents’ or mysterious killings. All the way home she cried inconsolably whilst scanning traffic behind us through the back window and in the rear vision mirrors.

Some months passed. I sent a letter to Petitioner in December 2006 asking for my expenses and compensation for my time and travel in responding to a suit that was withdrawn. His attorney Anton replied in his behalf:
“…Once again, you have demanded compensation for time you allegedly expended for research, travel, and preparation of filings, as well as loss of economic opportunity, all items to which you are not entitled. [Emphasis is mine] …Consistent with the Court’s position, our client reiterates his previous decision. He refuses to pay you anything as your demand is frivolous.”

Here appears a clear recitation of Judge Vega’s comments, including the key word “entitled”, by Petitioner’s attorney who stood in the very same courtroom as did I. And he also addresses the letter to “Mr.” Clark: true to cue. Remember the word “entitled”.

Over succeeding months, thoughts of what a profitable sham it is to bring suits against enemies or competitors in business or neighbors or unwanted associates occurred to me. If they do not or cannot afford to respond, then get your way by dumping unwanted associates, receiving judgments, or other mischief. If the Defendant/Respondent does make the effort to defend himself (or in my case the deceased Settlor’s wishes) and happens to prevail, then do not worry because no expenses will be awarded because you are “not a lawyer”. Welcome to Sharia Law with its extinction of our endowment of “unalienable rights” by our Creator. They no longer attach to non-entities according to a judgment of the California Superior Court at Bakersfield California.

Even better, withdraw at the Bar without notice, punishing the Respondent with all the travel and expenses (including a substantial judicial poll tax), then waltz away with maximum cost and inconvenience to the other side with no expenses to bear. The Respondent may ask for his expenses but will be informed that he is not entitled because he is not a lawyer; an obvious industrial union prejudice against the outsider. Like Robber Barons of old along the Rhein River, they care not if the traffic they rob runs north or south (plaintiff or defendant). They all pay. As outrageous as this is, it turns even uglier.

The Criminality Escalates

I decided to write an article about this sham visited on in propria persona representation, since in this same period of time the State Bar hypocritically ran a public campaign assuring the populace that they had equal access to the courts. So, in early June 2007, I applied on-line for a written transcript of the May 4, 2006, Hearing at Bakersfield, Kern County Superior Court that later arrived in the post; dated August 3, 2007, and prepared by Official Court Reporter Minnal R. Hummel – CSR 5394. She certified that the foregoing transcript is a “full, true and correct statement of such testimony.” Notice that the Court does not include the phrase “under penalty of perjury.”

The foregoing discussion of significant and highly memorable statements from the Bench bears a brief review of them before examining the transcript:

Judge Vega’s substitution of my title ‘Dr.’ with ‘Mr.’ (Page 2 supra)
Judge Vega’s expression “You charge like a lawyer” in reference to my request for sanctions. (Page 2 supra)
Judge Vega’s declaration “You are not entitled to recompense because you are not a lawyer” in reference to my request for recompense. (Page 2 supra)

My question to Judge Vega if his declination also included my “objective expenses” and his reply in the negative.
Astonishingly –none of these expressions or phrases appears in the allegedly “full, true and complete statement of testimony” produced by the Official Court Reporter. The transaction wherein the Judge substituted my title is, to my best judgment, encapsulated on Line 9 of the Transcript by the following: “THE COURT: Mr. Clark, you’re –“!
The phrases “You charge like a lawyer” and “You are not entitled to recompense because you are not a lawyer” are also missing. The closest approach occurs in Lines 8-13 wherein a blander “I’m not inclined…” and “You represented yourself” now appear. Perhaps they were said to begin with and the phrases I remember were uttered later and redacted. Either way, this is not a full, true and complete statement of the testimony. Lastly, my remaining protest about non-recompense for “objective expenses” and his negative reply have also been redacted.

I find it intriguing that the phrases that became indelible in my memory make no appearance in the complete statement of testimony. Even Petitioner’s attorney writing to me more than a year later remembered that exact word “entitled” in his January 2007 letter to me. Those phrases or transactions that could be interpreted as collusive or conspiratorial or ‘sympathetically cooperative’ with Petitioner’s attorney have all been redacted. Who could have done or ordered that, I pondered; surely, not a court reporter, who, presumably, has her own professional standards and ethics that bear some resemblance to those held by other professions. Before drawing unfair or unwarranted conclusions, I decided to obtain a copy of an electronic recording of the 4 May hearing.

Rather than endure another long wait from application to delivery, I once again made the 125 mile journey to Bakersfield and the Superior Court of Kern County. On 10 August 2007 I applied in person for an electronic recording of the 4 May hearing. The clerk on duty willingly received my application. She advised me to wait five business days for a reply before enquiring further. She provided me with the telephone number of Mr. Martin Brantley, Head of Court Reporters, as the person to ring.
On the sixth business day, having had no communication from Mr. Brantley, I rang him at 8:00 A.M. on 19 August 2007. I obtained a voice mail message machine so I explained briefly what I sought and left my telephone number. About noon he returned my call, but I was out. He left a voice mail for me on my machine. I never thought to hear such a disclosure in my lifetime. I retained his reply on tape and used it as the basis for a written enquiry to Presiding Judge Jerold L. Turner of Kern County Superior Court at Bakersfield.

The relevant part of the tape reads in transcription:1

“Hello, this is Martin Brantley, Kern County Superior Court. I’m returning Dr. Clark’s message …voice mail message to me. The Court does not provide those. [Electronic recordings] It is not an official record. The Court uses that for Court purposes. It is not an appealable record. And to obtain a transcript from recordings it has to be paid for through a transcriptionist we contract with.”

It still astonishes me that anyone could imagine how an unofficial and unappealable record could become the source of a “full, true and complete statement of testimony”. This claim attains a transcendentally religious status equivalent to the religious Doctrine of Transubstantiation whereby the Eucharistic elements of wafer and wine become the actual physical body and blood of Christ following the invocation of prayerful words and operations (and divine intervention).
Hence, we are left to conclude that judges, lawyers and court-contracted transcriptionists can, by means of priest-like powers, transmute the profane unofficial and unappealable record of electronically recorded sources into a sanctified transcript that ascends mystically to the level of a “full, true and complete statement of testimony”.

This fantasy of transmutational powers has invaded the minds of élitists (and clever lads) from time immemorial. Alchemists, taking the 8th Century Arab alchemist Geber as their inspiration, sought the Philosopher’s Stone whereby base metals could be transmuted into gold. How remarkable that similar thinking should have invaded some courts in the State of California in an age of space exploration and disciplined scientific reason. No matter who dips a cup into Love Canal whilst repeating mystical formulæ or fondling the Philosopher’s Stone can seriously believe that the contents have become potable water. This message betrays pervasive corruption of the first order.

I asked most of the people I wrote if this is the quality of transcript testimony that sends people to their deaths in a California prison or prolongs their sentences for decades? None replied nor defended their system. The answer is regrettably in the affirmative. What evil prevails here? The British author William Makepeace Thackeray wrote these apropos lines:
“The wicked are wicked, no doubt, and they go astray and they fall, and they come by their deserts, but who can tell the evil which the virtuous do?”

Other astonishing elements of Mr. Brantley’s claim are two in number. A clerk gave me a form for obtaining an electronic recording – she did not inform me that they were for Court purposes only and unavailable to the public. Was that her oversight or was Brantley lying? His statement is also in direct contradiction of instructions to employees from the Records Office. Secondly, Mr. Brantley’s claimed policy would set Kern County apart from some other County Superior Courts in California and the Federal Government itself. Mr. Brantley’s assertion of an idiosyncratic practice suggests a protective measure being deployed against me being able to establish factually their criminal redaction of the words and phrases cited above.
This suggested motive explains why Presiding Judge Turner would distance himself from responding directly to my first letter to him. This ‘passing of the buck’ is in direct contradiction to instructions from The Commission on Judicial Performance: “If you wish to complain about a subordinate judicial officer, please be advised the California Rules of Court, rule 10.703, and Commission Rule 1092 require that complaints about court commissioners and referees be handled first by the court that employs the officer to allow the court to exercise its initial jurisdiction over these matters. Accordingly, you must complain to the presiding judge directly about the commissioner or referee.”

This instruction directly contradicts Presiding Judge Turner’s statements and impugns his failure to ensure that the CEO of his Court replies to my complaint.

Even when I wrote a second time to the Presiding Judge, I received no reply despite the Commission’s stated expectation that a reply should be forthcoming within 90 days. Years have passed and no reply yet. This strongly suggests that deliberate, malevolent, and felonious obstacles to a resolution of the dispute were constructed to block forever the truth of false transcript testimony produced by Judge Louie Vega and associates with the help of Judge Turner and others.

In one of my letters to Presiding Judge Turner I expressed the following conviction: “If you will forgive me for expressing a hope that God will forgive us if we allow the rule of law to become an occult enterprise that doles out rights on the basis of group membership and perverts testimonies given under oath in a putatively open court. Please help me understand that Mr. Brantley’s policies do not prevent me from obtaining a full, true and correct statement of my testimony and that of the other participants in the referenced Hearing.” No reply.

Elitist minds are also subject to the operations of Lord Acton’s dictum. “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Is not Mr. Brantley’s message a consummate expression of the corruption born of absolute power? No independent examination or review of the electronic record by participants in the recorded event or an independent body is permitted and the recordings are for court purposes only. And only a court-contracted transcriptionist may perform the ceremony of transmutation. This does indeed add up to a tyrant’s total absence of transparency and accountability.
And does it not add up to the one conclusion about the redactions that I least wanted to believe – a coördinated cover-up? It adds up to the perfect opportunity that the Soviet Nomenklatura certainly cherished — the opportunity to go back and rewrite history. Each new edition of the Soviet Encyclopedia appeared with new versions of events to previous accounts. The old versions vanished and non-entities were disallowed to examine the sources for any of the accounts. This seems to be the natural trajectory for institutions that begin as monopolies. They eventually arrive as tyrannies.
And this collusion by Vega, Turner, Brantley, and Hummel to Vega’s deceit is described in U.S. C. Title 18 Chapter 1 §4:
“Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”

It is called Misprision of Felony. It involves both knowledge of a crime and some affirmative act of concealment or participation, and the Courts have also concluded that misprision of felony is a crime of moral turpitude.

I submit that it is a reasonable hypothesis that someone near Judge Louie Vega, or he himself, or together rewrote or redacted the account of the 4 May 2006 hearing. I cannot ascribe a motive as yet, but certainly industrial preference and hubris and arrogance and guilty knowledge of judicial misconduct would not be far off the mark. More will be developed on this point later on. It might have been that he was under active consideration for promotion to a full judgeship.

In any event, the confidence that a fellow lawyer filling in as a judge pro tempore can truly be impartial, especially between a fellow industrial organization member and an in pro per, is likely to leave most people incredulous. It is not dissimilar to requiring all drivers in collision with a truck driver to appear in a courtroom ruled by Jimmy Hoffa.

On 7 September 2007, I wrote of these same ideas in a less expansive manner to Presiding Judge Turner of California Superior Court, County of Kern. His incredible letter stated that my complaints regarded administrative staff instead of judicial matters. Only later did I discover that the State Bar of California, consisting of all licensed lawyers, is described by the State of California itself as an “administrative arm” of the Supreme Court of California.

If the integrity of recorded or transcribed accounts of trial are not at the heart of judicial policy, what woes have been heaped upon all those who appeared in their courts and relied on transcripts by other counsel, jurors, or appeals judges? Oh, sorry, just a clerical error? Or more darkly, the trial or hearing judge wanted to brush up his utterances – in the same manner allowed to our Federal Representatives and Senators.

Presiding Judge Turner’s letter was dated and postmarked on 24 September 2007. That was the last communication I have received from Kern County Superior Court, despite later additional correspondence sent at the direction of The Council on Judicial Performance. I interpret his silence to mean the worst for our system of justice and unalloyed contempt for ordinary citizens. The implied question if a lawyer is a subject of legal policy made by a Presiding Judge or an administrative clerk or operating under the jurisdiction of the Chief Operating Officer of the Court will be revisited.

The Farcical Round of Complaints Begins

The farcical round of complaints began with The State Bar of California. The unsigned reply stated: “Your complaint against Mr. Anton alleged that he failed to act competently in his representation of Gary Branker in Probate Court proceedings, made misrepresentations to the court and made terrorist threats to you. Please be advised that a review of the complaint file does not indicate anything warranting further investigation and/or prosecution of Mr. Anton for ethical misconduct.”
The Governor’s Office replied: “The Governor appreciates hearing from constituents on the issues that matter to them.”
The Attorney-General’s Office responded: “Thank you for your letter to the Office of Attorney General (sic) Edmund G. Brown Jr. Often, it is only through letters from concerned and responsible citizens, like you, that we become aware of matters of public concern.”

I replied that I was reporting on important criminal behaviour that deserved the attention of the Attorney-General. I requested a serious reply regarding a serious criminal enterprise. No answer to date. This silence I take also as an affirmative act of protection in behalf of the perpetrators Vega, Turner, Brantley, and Hummel.

After more than six months of silence from Presiding Judge Turner, the Commission on Judicial Performance wrote that “the commission cannot address your complaint about the commissioner until it has been considered and resolved by the local court.” Six months later “the commission determined that there is no basis for commission proceedings with respect to the judge (then-commissioner) you have named. Your complaint addresses, in part, legal rulings made by the then-commissioner.”

This is false and misleading – I complained about his probable alteration of transcript testimony. Whether judicial or administrative in nature, there is clear intent not to understand – and they promoted a commissioner to judge during a period of time when an active investigation was proceeding against his actions with respect to the alteration of sworn testimony in a Hearing under his direction. The commission correspondent suggested the Presiding Judge Turner “apparently did not construe your September 17, 2007 letter as a complaint about the court commissioner …” Impossible.

If the reader has understood my complaint so far, then how is it conceivable that a trained law clerk could confuse events? The Presiding Judge could not have misunderstood; he was determined to protect his commissioner and their common deceit; that which I have declared to be a misprision of felony.

The action ended in October, 2008, with a pair of remarkable statements revealing intractable determination to protect Turner, Vega, Brantley, and Hummel. They are:

“Even a judicial decision or administrative act later determined to be incorrect is not itself a violation of the Code of Judicial Ethics and is not misconduct. … It was the commissions’ conclusion that the actions of the then-commissioner that were the subject of your letter provided an insufficient basis for commission proceedings.

These statements might have been uttered in a television Saturday Night Live skit were they not so portentous. Cooking transcript testimony, insulting Respondents in open court, failing to address grievances regarding felony crimes committed under color of law, claiming as true and accurate transcript testimony that has been criminally altered, and so-called officers of the court issuing terroristic threats against me and my wife do not merit a hearing because they do not constitute violations of the Code of Judicial Ethics (a playful oxymoron, no doubt)?

Well, as a minimum, there were two crimes committed – wire fraud and mail fraud in connection with the taking of an order over the internet for an accurate and true copy of the Hearing proceedings and delivery of same fraudulent transcript to me in the U.S. Post. These acts serve as predicate causes in bringing a Racketeer Influenced and Criminal Organization (RICO) action. (U.S.C.18 §161)

In another circumstance, The U.S. Supreme Court opined in more stentorian tones: “Concealment of crime has been condemned throughout our history … Although the term ‘misprision of felony’ now has an archaic ring, gross indifference to the duty to report known criminal behavior remains a badge of irresponsible citizenship.” It seems there is some all-encompassing fraud that binds all these characters together.

Underpinnings for Criminal Behaviour Revealed – 1st Revelation

Well, let us examine the context in which this all occurred. Do such terms as Officer of the Court, Code of Judicial Ethics, Rule of Law, State Bar Association members owing first allegiance to their clients, and fidelity to their Oaths of Office and the Constitutions of California and the United States relate to the pursuit of justice in California in any lawful or substantive connection?

Yes, indeed, and it all begins with the Oath of Office because no public officer of any description may serve in or take up an elective or appointed office without first taking or subscribing to the Oath of Office designated in the California Constitution at Article XX, § 3.

The Oath is the sole form and substance of qualification to hold office. The California Constitution specifies that ‘no other oath, declaration, or test, shall be required as a qualification for any public office or employment.” (Quoted from The Government Code under § 1360 which declares that taking the oath of office is required “before any officer enters on the duties of his office.”)

Hence, “The constitution itself speaks of the prescribed oath as a ‘qualification’ for an office. Equally is the oath required to be taken by the successful candidate as qualification for office, for the very provision of the act is, that, for his refusal or neglect in this regard, or for the making of a false statement, he shall be deprived of his office, and shall forfeit any office to which he may have been elected.” (Bradley v. Clark (1901) 133 Cal. 196,200-201.) “Eligible” means capable of being chosen, while “qualify” means the performance of the acts which the person chosen is required before he can enter into office.

Applying the Oath of Office test to Vega, we find he has a signed Oath of Office filed in the Office of the Secretary of State of California. First, let us examine the Oath of Office as it appears in the California Constitution. It follows directly on the next page. Notice the three constituent paragraphs prefaced by the notice that “Members of the Legislature, and all public officers and employees, executive, legislative, and judicial,…,shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation:”

Following is the Oath of Office sworn (or affirmed) and signed by Vega and attested by Turner.

Take notice of the dramatic truncation of the Oath. Only the first third is sworn to and signed. Two thirds is redacted — where have they done that before? Yet the Presiding Judge Turner accepts and forwards it to the Secretary of State for filing. They forwarded a truncated version that does not fulfill the requirements of the Constitution of California. Vega should have, according to the California Constitution been prohibited from taking office.

This document shows that Vega holds his bench unlawfully and that Turner was complicit in a fraud. It is also prima facie evidence of Misprision of Felony from the very beginning of Vega’s tenure by Vega and Turner. Another fraud has been foisted upon the citizens of California.

By the way, did Presiding Judge Turner himself swear (affirm to) an Oath of Office? We do not know because none is on file with the Secretary of State at the time of acquiring a copy of Vega’s Oath.

An activity of the Free Enterprise Society has addressed the issue of oaths in California. In their studied opinion: “Currently not one official in the State of California has taken the constitutionally prescribed oath of office.”

My concern about tampered transcript testimony suddenly took on a far larger context. Horrified, I stammered aloud: Is the defilement of my transcript testimony the same as that used to send defendants to prison to be judicially killed or to serve lengthy sentences ???!!! There is absolutely no predicate to think otherwise.

No prisoner presently in a California prison or awaiting his death sentence to be executed therein was tried or committed lawfully. By sheer force of arms these men and women were denied their constitutional rights of a fair trial. Sheer force of arms, I declare, because no lawful police authority arrested them, no lawful warder held them, no lawful lawyer represented them, no lawful lawyer prosecuted them, and no lawful judge sentenced them. Was the jury lawful, you ask? Perhaps, in some esoteric sense, but they were sworn in by an unqualified judge, so any legality that may have attached to their judgment was dissolved.

Little wonder the California State Bar, the Council on Judicial Performance, the Attorney-General, the Governor, et alia could find nothing to fault when every last one of them has committed a felony, the same felony. Indeed they live daily as dictators, tyrants, usurpers of law, and destroyers of the Rule of Law as understood within any tradition flowing from the Magna Charta, through Blackstone, filtered by the Founding Fathers and passed on to us by the U.S. Constitution. But the platform being constructed for the application of California’s brand of the rule of law is not dissimilar to that designed by Benito Mussolini.

Underpinnings for Criminal Behaviour Revealed – 2nd Revelation

Where the Rule of Law morphs into the Law of the Ruler, there must first be a destruction of independent lawyers – they must be co-opted by the State and turned into agents of the Reich at war with the ordinary People. Frivolous and malicious law-suits are encouraged by differential filing fees for lawyers and those representing themselves. Both the Court and the lawyer profit. My own case shows how the Petitioner’s attorney (Anton) was protected from legitimate and documented claims of outright fraud and lying by Vega and further protected by Turner and the State Bar. All the agencies of the State genuflected before the inviolability of a fellow conscript of the State.

The French employ Examining Magistrates to weed out these pestilential Dick Turpins from the highways of the Law. Now Wisconsin has announced formal restrictions on people defending themselves, making pro se litigation virtually impossible. Several other States have issued new rules that make it illegal for anyone to assist a non-entity (ordinary citizen) in preparing a legal case. Do you not catch the acrid smell of Sharia? Can you not hear the strains of the Horst Wessel Lied on the breezes?
Another observation begs to be given a voice. It is this same industrial solidarity that succors the proliferation of frivolous law suits. Such predacious suits produce profit in abundance for the Craft. Like other attractions of a closed union, there is mutual protection and the promise of handsome rewards. The State supports its conscripts in this enterprise as energetically as any union boss or Sheikh extracting tribute from their dhimmis. Vega made it clear: you are not entitled to equal justice before the law because you are not a lawyer.

Mention of a new platform for applying a new brand of the Rule of Law brings us to another feature of the context mentioned above — the California State Bar. Founded in the first few years of the twentieth century, the California Bar Association (CBA) was an independent, self-regulating, voluntary body of attorneys. It came under heavy lobbying by Judge Jeremiah Sullivan from 1917 during the time President Wilson oversaw American participation in WWI. Judge Sullivan wanted the CBA to become integrated with the Supreme Court of California. He succeeded ten years later in 1927 when the Supreme Court of California appointed a State Bar Commission charged with organizing the first California State Bar (CSB) despite public caution about such a close connection between lawyer, Supreme Court, and government bureaucrats.

The California State Bar is a creature of the Supreme Court of California, indeed, the very State of California. It sets the requirements for membership; it alone determines which law schools will be recognized in evaluating an applicant’s training; and establishes the policies for access to the courts by the public.

Despite the obvious fascist notions undergirding the establishment of such a judicial system, the CSB incidentally ran a state-wide campaign during my court case to assure the citizenry that they had equal access to the courts at precisely the time Vega denied my expenses and sanctions against Anton for his frivolous/malicious lawsuit against me on the very grounds that I was not a lawyer. What then does equal access mean? It is clear that ‘equal ‘only means when hiring one of the Supreme Court’s personally chosen few whose names are recorded in the very books of the Supreme Court’s creature – one of the ‘named ones’ – one of the American Nomenklatura.

Integrated, also known as incorporated, State Bars and Supreme Courts are found in a majority of the States as well. They derive in large part from the inspiration of the Progressive Era of our history, circa 1912-1940. Progressive President Wilson was a great fan of Benito Mussolini, calling him “the greatest law-giver of the century”. Syndicalism, Mussolini’s version of socialism, emphasized familiar themes of group membership. He supported, for example, industrial unions over trade unions. It is an issue that continues today with the proliferation of public service unions. State Bars represent early manifestations of unionization of public institutions and centralization of economic as well as political power in the State.

California Judge Sullivan began his campaign for integration in 1917. So what difference to the average citizen does integration or incorporation or, more bluntly, conscription of attorneys and their respective supreme courts make?
The answer to this question is foreshadowed in the resistance shown by Canadian Law Societies when the Canadian Federal Government recently wanted lawyers (solicitors) to report suspicions of money laundering conducted by their clients. One Richard C. Gibbs Q.C., whom we could also admire, responded:

“The Government’s vision o f the role of lawyers as State conscripts to secretly inform on their clients is completely repugnant to centuries of legal tradition and modern views of democracy: the legal profession is founded upon independence of the lawyer from the State, loyalty of the lawyer to the client, avoidance of conflicts of interest between the lawyer and the client, and the keeping of client confidences. Asking layers to report to the State on their clients is unacceptable to the Law Societies. All of these core values along with solicitor and client communication privilege are recognized as pillars to our democracy. To protect the solicitor and client communication privilege while riding roughshod over the other core values of the legal profession is a completely unacceptable political response to increase surveillance of transactions conducted for clients by lawyers.”

Notice the difference in the relation of the Canadian Law Societies to the Canadian State and the California State Bar vis-à- vis its creator, the Supreme Court of California. For the former relation the following principles apply:

  • An independent bar is a cornerstone of a democratic society and that bar must be free from government regulation;
  • An independent bar performs a critical rôle in the proper administration of justice;
  • Solicitor (lawyer) — client confidentiality is a principle of fundamental justice;
  • The protection of the independence of the judiciary is an unwritten principle of the Constitution;
  • There is an interdependent relationship between an independent bar and an independent judiciary which requires that the former as well as the latter should be considered unwritten constitutional norms;
  • An independent bar is essential to the maintenance of an independent judiciary.

Just as the independence of the courts is beyond so the independence of the bar must be beyond question. The lawyers of the independent bar have been the constant source of the judges who comprise the independent judiciary in English common law history. The “habit” of independence is nurtured by the bar. An independent judiciary without an independent bar would be akin to having a frame without a picture.

In the performance of what may be called his private function, that is, in advising on legal matters and in representing clients before the courts and other tribunals, the lawyer is accorded great powers not permitted to other professionals …. By any standard, these powers and duties are vital to the maintenance of order in our society and the due administration of the law in the interest of the whole community.

What a different path a country with an intact and lively appreciation of English Common Law has taken from ours where lawyers have been conscripted as cronies of the State and its Courts subject to people with no legal training or allegiance to Common Law. The first allegiance of a Bar lawyer is, of necessity, to the State, which gives him the means and venue of his practice. It is a State sanctioned and sheltered practice rather than a private practice. No man, as ancient wisdom counsels, can serve two masters.

The California State Bar is officially described as an “administrative arm” of the Supreme Court. What is professional about an administrative arm? If the American Medical Association suddenly appeared as an administrative arm of the Federal Department of Human Health and Services, would we not take alarm? We’re almost there, too. What if professional engineers associations were to be conscripted as an administrative arm of the Department of Public Works? Would we feel more comfortable about the quality of engineering and architecture projects? What true profession would willingly surrender its professional autonomy to the subservient status of an administrative arm of anything else?

They display their wanton surrender in unearned royal titles like ‘Esquire’ and ‘Your Honor’, unearned academic titles like Juris Doctor for academic achievement no more significant than a Bachelor of Arts (though their civil service pay schedules are grossly enhanced thereby), and allow their God-given independence to be co-opted by The State. And all hypocritically require us to obey the laws of the land whilst deliberately refusing to take an oath that requires the taker to abjure overthrow of the Government or joining political parties that would.

Reflections on the Revelations

In passing, can a constitutional republic long survive if members of an incorporated bar become a significant sector(s) of its legislative body? They are clearly subjected to divided loyalties capable of upsetting the balance between ordinary citizens and the élites in the making of laws.

Office holders in California unlawfully occupy their positions by virtue of their failure to take the entire oath prescribed by the California Constitution. Indeed, they cannot take refuge in claims of being elected or appointed officials. Without swearing (affirming) to the entire oath under Article XX, Section 3 of the Constitution they are not elected or appointed officials.

Nor can the fraud be remedied by office-holders by merely taking the complete oath. The oath is a prerequisite to assuming the office and receiving payment for services performed.

Does California have a constitutional Republican form of government; the constitutional Republican form of government guaranteed to every state of the union under Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution? NO, because there is no one qualified to run it or perpetuate it with qualified officials.

Here we return to our original question. Do the terms and concepts of Officer of the Court; Code of Judicial Ethics; and, Rule of Law relate in any lawful or substantive connection. Do California State Bar members owe first allegiance to their clients and fidelity to their Oaths of Office and the Constitutions of California and the United States? No, is the reply because no qualified official is anywhere in charge. They are most aptly called Nazis because they have employed similar means to wrest our constitutional Republican form of government from us in much the same way as Hitler commandeered the Weimar Republic.

He and his Party ignored existing law and made up their own laws as they proceeded. And they used force of arms. Attorney Anton’s threat to have me taken into police custody for exercising my right of free speech and his own physical assault on me in the Court are examples of the force of arms within what should be the sacred precincts of the Temple of Justice. And no ‘official’ body within the constellation of jurisprudential bodies under the aegis of the Supreme Court found any fault with his intimidatory behavior. Surprise, surprise. Neither did Hitler with members of his Sturmabteilung – the notorious Brown Shirts. Hitler ruled by successive approvals of an Emergency Authorization and thereby gave a gloss of legitimacy to his de facto government.

Indeed, the American Revolution and its consequent Constitution placed Government itself under the Rule of Law for the first time in history. The American Experiment in Self-Government arises from 17th Century John Locke’s notions framed by the phrase “Consent of the Governed”. For the first time in history The People became the Sovereign. Their consent to be governed is confirmed by their choice of leaders when they take their oaths of office. Locke regarded this arrangement as an example of the Golden Rule of reciprocity.

All government is therefore a fiduciary trust. When that trust is betrayed, government loses its legitimacy and dissolves. People are free to start a new one and to oppose those who claim authority under the new one.

The events described above adumbrate the death of California’s constitutional Republican form of government and a reset to conventional governments that hold themselves above the law and disregard the natural law principle known as the Rule of Law.
Let us observe simply that California is governed by a de facto administration that appears to legitimate itself by periodic elections, while keeping the dark, deep secret that there are no qualified, legitimate officers of the State (including the Courts) conducting the election; hence, there can be none after the election. We are saddled with a comparable problem of eligibility, de facto governance, and misprision of treason in Washington, D.C. as well – and the entire Administration, Congress, and Supreme Court know it, too. And stealthy subversion of republics is not new by any means; Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 BC – 43 BC) utters his wise counsel to us across the ages from another brilliant civilization:

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. FOR the traitor appears not a traitor, he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less fear.”

No evidence exists that any receiving party cited above so much as performed a minimal investigation or expressed any curiosity about my claims of judicial tampering with, indeed, rewriting sworn testimony for the official record. No evidence are we left with that the California Judiciary produces better than junk for justice.

The transcript and its certification of truthfulness could not meet the standards regarding false testimony of even the earliest (putatively most primitive) law-givers like Moses. Even hundreds of years before Moses, those judges who so much as gave incorrect decisions, let alone feloniously rewrote transcript testimony, in the Babylonian Kingdom of some 3700 years ago, would be fined and removed permanently from the Bench, in accordance with the Hammurabi Code. Meanwhile, by contrast, in modern, decadent California, “incorrect decisions” are ruled incontestable and the offending commissioner is promoted to a full judgeship, in which status he enjoys immunity.

“Indeed it has been argued, by Lon Fuller in a famous debate with H.L.A. Hart (Harvard Law Review, 1958), that a jurisprudence which generates outcomes offensive to justice doesn’t deserve the name of law,” quoted Professor Stanley Fish in his article entitled Empathy and the Law.

Is there nothing that we Freemen can do to take the wind out of our rulers’ sails and return us to our lives in a constitutional republic? This was question often visited by Mahatma Gandhi who heard fine rhetoric from their British masters that failed to match their performance or promises. Our own national hero Martin Luther King, who emulated the sagacious Gandhi, challenged American apartheid by appealing to our constitutional promises and the Natural Law that ultimately governs us all.

Let it be said first that many lawyers and judges are honourable men and women. We have all benefitted from their services. It is a systemic problem that we address which attracts those more sympathetic to Torquemada and his ilk than John Locke and our Founding Fathers’ visions of self-government.

The formula? The formula already exists within our police forces. They are required to display a badge of office that attests to their authority and legitimacy in the performance of their duties. The badge gives silent witness to training, disciplined self-restraint, and knowledge of the law. But all the other public officers required to take the oath need not file evidence of any kind for public inspection. Let that be corrected once we can regain a constitutional republic by requiring all who would act as a public officer carry or wear evidence that they have taken the oath of office prescribed by the Constitution of California. No more Turners running about swearing in others with absolutely no evidence that he himself has ever taken the Oath of Office as mandated by the Compact between Governed and Government officers. No judge can arbitrarily rewrite the Oath contained in the Constitution from his solitary Bench; as reportedly occurred in 1967 and is sometimes cited as authority for others to use the truncated oath. This act is totally without reference to the Consent of the Governed. More than forty years later Section XX exists as a viable mandate in the Constitution.

And just as essential is the easy, readily available evidence that a person acting as an officer the State produce that evidence before we citizens comply with his directions. The tax collector, for example, wants payments from us for owning property, earning income, or hundreds more excuses for separating us from money: let us first inspect his certified evidence that he has taken the full oath of office. If none is available, wish him a pleasant day and walk away in peace. You want to arrest and imprison my family member; show me a certified copy of your oath of office as required by the Constitution before you expect coöperation from me. Judges and lawyers should display certified copies of their oaths in public places associated with their relevant judicial establishments.

Speaking of judicial establishments, I would also suggest the following reform. Court recorders should be separated from the control of the Court bureaucracy. I cannot be the only person whose transcript testimony has been feloniously altered. How many people have been judicially murdered or imprisoned on the basis of redacted or reorganized or supplemented transcript testimony? An independent establishment for recordation of testimony and judicial commentary is an absolute necessity. The current system that relies on embedded recorders and subordinate contract recorders is far too vulnerable, too unethical, and improper (if not felonious) influence by judges, commissioners, and judicial “CEO”s.

In closing, I should like to draw on the metaphor of a Revolutionary Era tale by Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Gray Champion, used by exponents of the Oath Project under the sponsorship of the Free Enterprise Society:

“This story having been told, without a beginning, must therefore have earned no end and so it has not and there is none. Ergo, now we must ask ourselves, a question. ’If there was not a beginning, and there can be no end to this story which has been unfurled, what must we do to start anew? Perhaps we must revive the Gray Champion? Think about it. Think about it real hard.”

Paul W. Clark, A.M., M.S.E.E., Ph.D., F.R.G.S.

Advertisements