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. More

Advertisements