Be sure to read the comments that are coming in.  Click the link above to access!

Marti Oakley

PPJ Gazette copyright ©

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution for the United States authorizing, or otherwise directing the creation of these self protecting unions that have monopolized our judicial system at every level and use that monopoly to profit at the public’s expense. And, there is nothing authorizing the incorporation of these specialized unions or of the Supreme Court itself. Yet here we are in the grips of these corporate entities who have monopolized the very judicial system meant to protect America from just such things.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In every state and on the Federal level, the BAR Associations have established a monopoly on our courts and our so-called judicial system. The existing Sherman Act: the Clayton Act and FTC Act only become active when the monopolized systems that have been established harm consumers. I can think of no other more harmful monopoly to the American public overall, than what passes for the judicial system in America and its associated BAR unions that not ony control and own our courts, but also profit mightily from doing so. The law is what they say it is regardless of what the law might actually be.

The Sherman Act outlaws “every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade,” and any “monopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy or combination to monopolize.” Long ago, the Supreme Court decided that the Sherman Act does not prohibit every restraint of trade, only those that are unreasonable. Obviously, the Supreme Court has decided that the monopolies that exist in our courts are not unreasonable. Especially since they too, participate in that monopoly.

Q: Do you believe the monopolies on our courts at every level via so-called BAR Associations are unreasonable?

When individuals go to all the expense and time of acquiring a degree in law, why should they then be required to pass some contrived test, many times at great expense, to acquire a union card (The BARS are UNIONS) permitting them to work in the field they trained in or to practice their trade in any court room in this country? No union card? No access to the courts. Didn’t pay your BAR union dues for access to the courts they monopolize? Too bad for you!

Even the Supreme Court of the United States has established itself as its own BAR. To be heard in this highly politicized “court”, you must be a member in good standing for four years in another BAR union before you can apply to appear in their closed union shop called the Supreme Court.

Why Is The United States Supreme Court Listed as a Private Corporation On DUN & BRADSTREET?

From: John-Henry Hill Law blog

“Not only is the United States a corporation, but the “Judicial Branch of US Govt” is also a Delaware Corporation (Delaware SoS file number: 3383789), listed in Dun & Bradstreet:

“The following is the DUNS number for JUDICIAL BRANCH OF US GOV: DUNS number: 956858625”, as well.

The “Judicial Branch of US Govt” (corporation) includes: “U.S. GOV’T LAW COURT ADMIN SUPREME & U.S. DISTRICT, APPELLATE, VETERANS PROBATE, BANKRUPTCY, STATE(S) COURTS, INC.”

So our courts from the Supreme Court down to state courts are corporate “policy” (as in police) courts.”

About the Court https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/about.aspx

Equal Justice Under the Law? Really?

R.I.P. Pro Se Litigants Before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has finally revised its rules to prevent a non-lawyer from arguing before the Court.

When the Supreme Court issued its new rules for the Court in July of 2013, it curiously included rule 28.8. The move by the Court merely codified its standard practice of denying requests by non-lawyers ( no BAR union member) to argue their cases. In fact, the last time a non-lawyer managed to get in front of the Court was in 1978:

Antitrust law only springs into action against a monopoly when it destroys the ability of another company to enter the market and compete. But! Since all courts and BAR Associations operate as corporations, does this not make them businesses operated with one fiduciary duty? That duty is to make a profit.

Q: Does it not also make them invested competitors against the pro se litigant?

The key question, of course, is whether a particular monopoly is harming consumers – or merely harming its competitors for the benefit of those consumers.

Q: Who would be the competitors these closed union shops are competing with?

A: The pro se litigants who have realized that the thousands of dollars demanded for representation will likely produce few results. Because of this, they have chosen to learn the law and represent themselves.

“The answer isn’t as simple as “big equals bad”, or “competitor harm equals consumer harm.” Instead, courts must rely on complex economic analysis to determine whether consumers, not just competitors, have suffered harm.”

No they do not. They simply have to rely on the Constitution and the laws that are in compliance with it. But, as these “courts” have decided unilaterally that the Constitution applies only if and when it is to their benefit, or one of their corporate contractors, they have lost any relevance or reasonable excuse for their continued existence.

The Constitution provides no provision for the courts to declare themselves immune from prosecution for wrong doing or for their obvious pandering to their own members of their specific union.. Neither does it make any provision for the establishment of these unions or the monopolies that have resulted in what are supposed to be the people’s courts of law.

If you or I cannot claim “ignorance of the law”…why is a judge or attorney allowed to? Aren’t they supposed to be experts in the law? Supposedly, this is the reason they voted to give themselves immunity. Otherwise they might be afraid to hand down certain rulings….like those where they ignored the law or where they knowingly violated the very principles that put them on that bench.

Practicing Law without a license

The Constitution does not say that we need to have a license to access the law. That is a self-protective declaration used to keep non-union members out of the courts. What it does say is that we are allowed to have representation i.e., someone who acts on our behalf. Not a word is said about hiring a BAR union member who will charge you unimaginable fees just to gain access to that court.

In Summary

We need to end the BAR Associations and return the law and the access to the courts to the people. No one should be forced to pay exorbitant fees to closed union BAR members to access the courts. What is the first question many judges ask before any court begins proceedings? “Has your attorney been paid?”. And that would concern that judge for what reason?

Neither does any judge have the authority to order anyone to “hire an attorney”. Yet it happens everyday in court rooms across America.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

https://johnhenryhill.wordpress.com/2014/02/20/the-united-states-of-america-corproration-listings-laugh-or-weep

http://abovethelaw.com/2013/07/r-i-p-pro-se-litigants-before-the-supreme-court/?rf=1

http://www.jail4judges.org/Judicial_Immunity_Doctrine.html

INTRODUCTION TO THE ISSUE

The facts underlying this appeal are easy to understand. It is the “law” of “judicial immunity” to violate the Constitution that is complex and incomprehensible; it is a false body of law that begins with a contradiction:

1. Judges are immune from redress to those they injure in violation of constitutional rights under color of office.

2. “Congress shall make no law … abridging the right of the People to petition government for a redress of Grievances.”

3. The”Coup de Grace” emasculating the Petition Clause is found in 28 USC 2674, in the 1988 amendments.

“Personal” immunities created by the judiciary

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2674

https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Freedom/Rights/FedTortClaimsAct.pdf

JURISDICTIONAL PRECONDITIONS TO SUIT

Administrative Claims

Before an action may be filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act, an administrative claim must be presented to the federal agency employing the person whose act or omission caused the injury. Presentation of an administrative claim to the appropriate agency is a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit.

McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 S.Ct. 1980 (1993);

Meridian Intern. Logistics, Inc. v. United States, 939 F.2d 740 (9th Cir. 1991).

28 U.S.C. § 2675. The claim must include a sum certain amount of damages sought and must include sufficient information to allow the agency to investigate the merits of the claim.

28 C.F.R., Part 14.

Normally, an administrative claim should be presented on a government form called the Standard Form 95 (SF 95). Filling out the form according to the instructions on the form should assure that all necessary information is provided.

The staff attorneys for the applicable agencies or the United States

Attorney’s Office will provide SF 95’s for the presentation of administrative

claims.