Category Archives: Judicial Immunity

Carrie Luft’s Extraordinary First Amended Complaint Allowed in the Middle District of Florida

Magistrate Judge Sherri Polster Chappell of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida sitting in Fort Myers has made me feel like Peter Pan: She’s made me want to crow:  “I’m just the cleverest fellow ’twas ever my pleasure to know!”   Magistrate Judge Chappell has also given Carrie Luft an extraordinary chance to litigate some unique questions of first impression in the USA, such as whether the USA needs a CIVIL Constitutional Writ equivalent to Habeas Corpus, for which I have suggested here (as I have been advocating, on-and-off now, for twenty years) the adoption of the Mexican Constitutional Writ of Amparo:

06-15-2012 First Amended Complaint Carrie Luft 06-15-2012

06-15-2012 Affidavit of Mario Kenny 06-15-2012

The Juicio de Amparo (which can be only VERY roughly translated into English as a “Writ of Prohibition”) enshrined in the Constitution of Mexico is a Constitutional Proceeding with the full force and effect of a CIVIL Writ of Habeas Corpus such as has never existed in the United States.  Historically, this writ originated and was designed by the early 19th century revolutionary Creole (Hispanic White, First generation Colonial) jurists of my “second home” state of Yucatán, so strangely aligned from the late 1830s onward through Ernesto de Zavala (born in Ticul, Yucatán) with my “first home” state of Texas.  Of course, it was neither Zavala who authored the Texas Declaration of Independence and gave his name to the State Archives building in Austin nor the famous Editor of the three great “incunabular” press journals of Southeastern Mexico, El Fenix de Yucatán, El Museo Yucateco, and the Registro de Yucatán, namely Justo Sierra O’Reilly who solicited Congress to admit Yucatán as a State in the 1840s.  Rather it was a figure even less well-known to even to the well-educated American, by the Manuel Crescencio García Rejón, born in Bolonchenticul, Yucatán, a small town now renamed in his honour Bolonchén de Rejón, in the (now separate Mexican) State of Campeche and across the Puuc (Hill Country of Yucatán) from Ticul itself where Zavala was born.

Bolonchen means “Nine Wells” in Yucatec Maya. The number nine is quite mystically intriguing here, being, however coincidentally, not only the number of levels of Hell in both the Maya Underworld of Xibalbá and Dante’s Inferno, but also the number of justices who sit on the United States Supreme Court…. It was the Nine Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, especially Chief Justices John Marshall and Roger Taney, whose theory of Constitutional review by judicial procedure so thoroughly impressed and influenced this heroic Hispanic jurist whose name should become famous in the United States of America:

Manuel Crescencio García Rejón

1799-1849

A Great Mexican Constitutionalist and Yucatec Creole Nationalist

I feel strangely certain that if telephones or the internet had existed in the 1830s and 40s, the provincial creole patriots of Yucatán, introduced through Ernesto de Zavala and Justo Sierra O’Reilly, would have thoroughly made friends with John Caldwell Calhoun, Chief Justice Taney, and the other great Southern Constitutionalists of that time, and that Mérida would have become the Southern terminus of a cross-Gulf commerce linked to Galveston, Mobile, and New Orleans in a “Greater South” including all of Mexico after 1848.  In light of subsequent history, in light of the likely union of our countries within the next hundred years, it cannot be said that it would have been so bad for all this to happen a century and a half ago.  For one thing the Creole and Native American Mexicans would never have had to suffer the indignities and inferior status to which they have been relegated by the strangely “colonialist” policies which resulted from the United States’ FAILURE or REFUSAL to integrate Mexico in 1848…. the Hacendados of Mexico would have aligned themselves naturally with the Plantation Owners of the South and the large Indian populations would have had MORE protection under American Constitutional Law than they had under MOST of Mexican history–but all this is a terrible digression from Carrie Luft’s Crusade against the Corruption in Florida Courts (although it is a corruption echoing Miami’s status as “the Capital of Latin America” and Florida’s status, with Louisiana, as the Northernmost Banana Republic…..

I reiterate, we NEED your responses to Carrie’s survey, and so far we have gotten VERY FEW:  06-06-2012 DECLARATION CONCERNING JUDICIAL HABITS

Please circulate this all around and return to one of us, either to Carrie directly or to me c/o Peyton Yates Freiman at our “Home Office” of 603 Elmwood Place, #6, Austin, Texas 78705 or to me at Mid-Cities Escrow in Downey:

MID-CITIES ESCROW, Charles Edward Lincoln, III CEO & Director,

10890 Paramount Blvd., Downey, CA 90241, (562) 861-2251 facsimile.

or by e-mail here to this blog!

Florida Judiciary—A Copyrighted Survey for use in fighting Mortgage Foreclosure Corruption—What do you know about your Court System? How Hungry are the American People for Justice?

There is no such thing as the silent exercise of your right to speak freely and share your opinion about the world you live in—effective silent protest occurs only in dreams….  We all dream of a better world, but we must speak out loud and SHOUT to make it into a demand, to make it happen…. Dreaming is free, but if we dream of freedom….especially in this, post-New Deal, New Dark Age for America…. that will cost us—what I ask of you today is just a few minutes of your time…  It’s time to make our anger “Catch Fire”…..and that can only happen if we all speak our discontent loudly and often….until there real change happens…. Nothing about modern America is more deplorable than the state of the judiciary and the courts…..

The fabulous hit movie this Spring, the Hunger Games, was a clarion call to the American People to WAKE UP BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE—even if it already is  in some easy ways “too late”, because so much damage has already been done.  Suzanne Collins has showed us the bleak future that awaits all of us if we are calm, cool, and quiescent about the terrible corruption that has taken charge of the American Dream, of Democracy, of (the mere word and illusion of) Freedom, of the Financial Establishment, of the Government, of everything that ever was or could be important to us: our family, our homes, and our future.   My primary focus for the past twenty five years has been on the Judiciary, 21 of those past years specifically involved in projects in Florida.  So I invite you to help me, and several million other people, out here: GIVE US YOUR OPINIONS, WITH YOUR NAME, AND STAND UP AND BE COUNTED, AND READY TO TESTIFY IF WE ARE EVEN ALLOWED TO PUT ON THIS TESTIMONY (as we should be):

Florida: 06-06-2012 DECLARATION CONCERNING JUDICIAL HABITS

Rule 406 of the Federal Rules of Evidence allows specific evidence of habit and routine practice to be admitted in Court.

Carrie Luft is seeking to overturn a Final Judicial Decree which was upheld on appeal in Florida.  The only way to reopen the case is the prove judicial corruption.  Wrongful foreclosure and fraudulent claims to standing, after a case is final, can only be proved if the system itself is indictable, if there is demonstrable systematic fraud on the Court—if the system is “broken,” if the judges are either “bought and paid for” or coerced into thinking in conformity with the Banks’ position.  All of these things have to be proved as a conspiracy to defraud and impose uniform outcomes on foreclosure cases.  It is a ONE THEORY, ONE SHOT, deal, although everyone who has been a victim can and could try (and I wish they would).
To prove this systemic corruption, which many people suspect, we need to gather EVERYONE who has been a victim together in one place, and that place is going to be reserved and formed through the complaint we are preparing in Carrie’s case.  If we fail, Carrie has no chance to regain her home, but I have already taken a blood oath that I will never stop until I have figured out a way to restore judicial integrity and moral honor to the judicial system in which I quite literally started my legal career, and of which I once dreamed of being an integral part.  Carrie is the first person I know who has accepted the challenge of doing everything that is necessary to try to take on the system.  Carrie literally has only this one option: prove that the system if “fixed”, broken, and corrupt.  I ask you, everyone who receives this survey:
IF YOU HAVE ANY EXPERIENCE WITH THE COURTS OF FLORIDA AT ALL, PLEASE COMPLETE THIS SURVEY, SIGN IT, SCAN IT and either E-MAIL IT BACK TO THIS ADDRESS: lincoln_for_california@rocketmail.com OR RETURN IT BY REGULAR MAIL TO
Peyton Yates Freiman, Tierra Limpia Trust/ Deo Vindice Foundation at:
603 Elmwood Place, #6 
Austin, Texas 78705
And if you have further or additional direct or circumstantial evidence of judicial corruption in Florida, how it is done and how does it, please write a letter about that as well.  We are looking to prove habits and routine practices of Judges according to Rule 406 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.  

06-06-2012 DECLARATION CONCERNING JUDICIAL HABITS

If you have any experience at all with the Florida Judicial System, especially if you have any experience with any mortgage or foreclosure related incidents, we need your opinion here…. Copyright to the survey itself, and to all material received will belong to Tierra Limpia Trust/Deo Vindice Foundation, Charles Edward Lincoln, III, Founder & President, Peyton Yates Freiman Trustee.

Please return all hard copies to:

Peyton Yates Freiman 603 Elmwood Place, Suite 6, Austin, Texas 78705.

Dombrowski v. Pfister Anniversary Day (Decided April 26 1965)(Occasionally the Warren Court got it absolutely right….ok, it hurts to say that, but it’s true….)

New Orleans in the early 1960s was not really a hotbed of liberal activism, but I suppose it was a more comfortable place for the ACLU to set up shop than, for example say, Oxford, Mississippi or smaller counties.  New Orleans District Attorney (later Appeals Court Judge) Jim Garrison and many others from “the big easy” certainly took a dim view of their activities and they regarded (possibly correctly) the ACLU as a bunch of commie-pinkos determined to destroy and subvert the American Way of Life (ok, all doubts aside they were CERTAINLY correct about that, however….).

The Supreme Court was blatantly politically biased in favor of the ACLU and was on a political mission to reshape the South in the image of the Brave New World where nobody knows or cares about heritage or history.  In this, the Supreme Court has been amazingly successful.  The average American does not know enough history to follow historical hints on a crossword puzzle or play a historical trivial pursuit game, much less to learn from the lessons of history to prepare for the future.  

But in 1965, to protect the ACLU and its allies from prosecution at the hands of Jim Garrison and the staunchly Anti-Communist Louisiana State Legislature, the Supreme Court did a marvelous thing: it allowed the United States District Courts to enter injunctions against State Proceedings in violation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. 

Today, almost everything that happens in State Court violates the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights, whether the venue is judicial foreclosure, judicial eviction, judicial dissolution of marriage, judicial domestic relations/child custody adjudication, or criminal prosecution.  President George W. Bush once (to this Country’s permanent disgrace) said that the Constitution was just a piece of paper.  The State Courts of my home state of Texas, onetime state of Florida, and currently adoptive state of California seem to use the Constitution as paper instead of Charmin or Cottonelle….  The state courts, in most parts of the United States in fact, are disgrace, so why are Federal Courts not enjoining their unconstitutional practices right and left?  Well, because the “powers that be” like it this way—it is so convenient to be able to sweep aside the Constitution through elected State Court judges and then have life-time appointed Federal Court judges just say, “don’t worry, that’s fine, you keep on doing whatever you want to do.”

For at least a dozen years now, I have been saying and in fact strongly advocating that Federal Courts need to use their supervisory power to a greater extent over the State Courts, because the State Courts have run amok, in so many different ways.   Various half-assed jurisprudential doctrines such as Rooker-Feldman and Younger v. Harris abstention, together with the evisceration of meaningful Civil Rights Removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1443(1) and related illegitimate principles (utterly lacking in constitutional basis of any kind) such as judicial and prosecutorial immunity, coupled with a ferociously unfair application of res judicata and collateral estoppel, have made the State Courts all but absolutely and totally untouchable in every way.

All but absolutely:  two wonderful cases, Dombrowski v. Pfister, decided 47 years ago today (April 26, 1965) and Mitchum v. Foster, decided 7 years later in 1972, SHOULD have thrown the doors wide open to Civil Rights injunctive action against the abuses of the state courts.  Why this has not happened is, as is obvious to anyone above the age of puberty with an IQ in excess of 100, merely a matter of self-serving judicial politics.  The Lower Federal Courts have basically insulated the State Courts from review even though the Supreme Court said that they didn’t have to do so.

TO EVERYONE WHO CARES ABOUT FIGHTING POLITICALLY MOTIVATED CORRUPTION IN THE STATE COURTS, I recommend that you read and seek to resuscitate the life of Dombrowski v. Pfister (attached:   04-26-2012 Dombrowski v Pfister 380 US 479 85 SCt 1116 14 LEd2d 22 SCOTUS-April 26 1965) and Mitchum v. Foster (attached:  Mitchum v Foster 407 US 225 92 SCt 2151 32 LEd2d 705 [June 19 1972]).   The middle member of this trio of cases is Younger v. Harris and you needn’t worry about studying this one: if you sue to enjoin a State Prosecution, the State will immediately cite Younger v. Harris and quote it at length.  The analysis will be yours whether YOUR situation compares most closely with Dombrowski v. Pfister, an anti-Civil Rights drama set in New Orleans in the age of Jim Garrison (of Oliver Stone’s JFK Fame, played by Kevin Costner) or Berkeley during the “Summer of Love” (the setting for Younger v. Harris).  Unfortunately, most of the US more closely resembles Mississippi Burning at present than any other historical movie—the only difference is that all people, whites, black, browns, and reds, are being suppressed and deprived of their constitutional rights without regard to race, creed, or color, and the Courts are going along with this, pretty much unquestioningly.  It is up to the people to demand that the suppression of rights and the Congressional, Executive, and Judicial Suspension of the Constitution end now.  Following and building upon two of the Warren Court’s finest legacies would serve us all well now….

A University of Virginia Law Review Article also provides a useful perspective on these case: 74 Virginia Law Review 1141 The Ideologies of Federal Courts Law 1141 as does a distinct article from the Indiana Law Review published ten years later: 32 Indiana Law Review 71 Federal Power to Commandeer State Courts 1998 and one published at Yale just the year after Dombrowski v. Pfister was decided, in 1966: 75 Yale LJ 1007 *1966* Theories of Federalism and Civil Rights.

4-20 Focus on Cannabis and Confederates, Hitler and the Hunger-Games, the New Dark Ages, and Andreas Behring Breivik

Before writing anything else, I just want to reiterate a great big Cheer “Vive La France” for Marine Le Pen and the Front National in France.  The French National Elections are this Sunday, April 22, 2012, and although polls are not rating her as having much of a chance of winning, we can always hope that people lie to pollsters (as we know they do) and speak truth inside the ballot booth.  There was once a time when Jean-Marie Le Pen came in Second and the Established World went mad with fear that a real outsider candidate might have a real chance.  It was almost as crazy as the “Vote for the Crook, It’s Important” nationwide campaign to insure that Edwin Edwards beat David Duke in 1991, when Duke received over 60% of the White vote in Louisiana.  (Prior to serving his full ten year term for racketeering, the Federal Bureau of Prisons in its great mercy released Edwards from the federal gulag into a halfway house on January 13, 2011).  Marine Le Pen has none of Duke’s biographical baggages and the Old France is quite a bit more threatened by obvious aliens and outsiders today than the New France of La Louisianne  was in 1991, but the same forces of corporate industry and global homogenization have the same goal in both cases: KILL THE POLITICAL OUTSIDERS, let the real enemies of the people reign….  And no, of course, nothing that I’m saying has anything whatsoever to do with my theory of why I’m not on the California Ballot this year, absolutely, positively, nothing.

But today if 4-20, and as the show trial of Andreas Behring Breivik concludes its first week, I can only say that I am more convinced than ever that it IS a show trial staged precisely for the purpose of suppressing freedom in a uniquely European/Scandinavian way.  9-11 was too widely recognized in Europe for the staged fraud it was for the rail bombings in Madrid or the tube bombings in London to work again.  (France, as the world-leader in rational 9-11 doubt, was strangely immune to terrorist attacks—everyone old enough to talk in France knows what a sham 9-11 was and no one in that most enlightened country in Europe would be taken in by such a farce—but as PT Barnum is so famous for saying—no one EVER went broke UNDER-estimating the intelligence of the American people).

Just look at Andreas Behring Breivik making a pseudo-Nazi arm salute and then describing in such cool rational terms how he killed people.  Cui Bono Baby?  Would any rational thinking terrorist really imagine that killing a bunch of teenagers was going to garner sympathy for the cause of expelling non-Nordic immigrants from Norway?  Obviously Andreas Behring Breivik is NOT insane, as evidenced by his coherent and predictable patterns of speech and by his ability to follow instructions on courtroom decorum (such as “Don’t Make the Nazi salute anymore”, it upsets people).  But his explanation for what he’s doing is absurd.  Cui bono?  The only plausible beneficiaries of Andreas Behring Breivik’s attack are those who want to discredit his words.  The BNP, the Front National, and the German NPD certainly shy away from him, as do the National Democrats of neighboring Sweden.  Going around killing innocent people cannot CAUSE in the knowledge (which Breivik has affirmed) that you will become the most hated man in Norway is NOT a very effective way or means to become an apostle to cultural homogeneity.  Breivik’s trial has been scheduled in the week leading up to the French Elections….Marine Le Pen being the most effective anti-immigration leader in Europe, without any doubt—is this mere coincidence?  Anyone who studied how to kill people as calmly and as privately as Breivik did must have studied some history, and there is NO historical precedent or antecedent for mass random killings of completely innocent people leading to identity as a hero.  Sorry folks—if I’ve missed something out there, please let me know, but as far as I am concerned, Andreas Behring Breivik’s entire life story is part of the plot to make the descendants of the Vikings bow down and serve Mecca in much the same way that the Varangian guard once served the Byzantine Emperors.  It is to the Norwegian’s credit that they (unlike the Brits and the Americans) couldn’t be taken in by staged MUSLIM terrorist attacks), but in effect, they’ve just been taken in by the polar opposite….  And the fabled freedoms of Scandinavia will soon start to fade and diminish.  Sad but I guarantee you it’s true….

So the looming signs of the New Dark Ages come both closer and more obvious—Andreas Behring Breivik would not be giving Nazi-Arm Salutes if he were a real Nazi, he would not have chosen the targets he chose if he were a real Nazi, and this is, after all, Adolf Hitler’s birthday (4-20-1889).

The connection between Hitler’s birthday and Cannabis is one of the odder coincidences of history.  Why?  Some inconclusive evidence suggests that Hitler might (as many frontline soldiers in the Kaiser’s army did) have used Heroin during WWI, but otherwise his use of drugs is confined to having used various drugs during WWII, especially as the war went against him.

In the twisted and uneducated America today, what would you expect in the era of GW Bush & BH Obama, understanding of history is so confused in the popular mind that there is a tendency to conflate general notions of racism into one template. Confederates are considered equivalent to the Nazis and the Nazi forced labor of non-Germans in Europe to Southern American/US (i.e. “Confederate”) chattel slavery.  Critics of the Southern Confederacy have, on-line in this 150th anniversary year of Shiloh, gone so far as to claim that the CSA, if it had won the war, would have sought to extend slavery to Latin America and throughout the Western Hemisphere.  Such hateful, hate-filled fantasies seem likely to bear fruit in Tim Burton’s upcoming “Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter“, and all I can say is—“will someone please help me organize a boycott?”  

The CSA Confederates and their Southern Patriotic heirs may believe in segregation of the races, and may even believe that Barack Hussein Obama is constitutionally disqualified to be and serve as Reich’s Fuhrer, I mean Chairman of the Central Committee and Supreme Soviet, I mean President…. but the Southern Tradition is one of individual freedom, not corporate tyranny.  Tennessee Williams, of course, saw a serious contradiction evolving in this tradition in the 1950s when he wrote Sweet Bird of Youth when Big Oil and other mostly “Yankee” Corporate Interests were taking over the South (especially early in Texas and Louisiana, but throughout the South after WWII)….

To a true Son of the Confederate State of America, there is nothing sadder than such confusion as links Confederates with Nazis, traditional southerners with corporate values or interests….because the reality is the extreme opposite.

The Confederates fought for Freedom AGAINST Centralized Government and Dictatorship, and modern Southern leaders, like the late Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, were war heroes on the beaches of Normandy to liberate France in 1944.  In Lincoln’s Marxists, Donald Kennedy and his co-author draw intense comparisons between Abraham and Adolf.  They do not mention the ultimate irony that Judah P. Benjamin, a West Indian Jew, was one of the leading statesmen of the Confederacy, or that Florida’s David Levy was the very first Jewish American to sit in the United States Senate.  Levy County on the Florida Gulf Coast is named after this pioneering Hebrew settler of the Sunshine State, and by some irony Levy County is the site of the infamous “Rosewood” Massacre.   But really and truly, as I have recently written, All Americans are now living in “Greater Rosewood,” Levy County, Florida—we are all subject to summary foreclosure and eviction by force—from sea to shining sea, but it is NOT the Klansmen who are after us this time….it is the Banks….and their “servicers” of course…. 04-19-2012 Carrie Loft v Citigroup Global Markets Realty Corp et al Response to Order of 04-05-2012 and Motion for 30 day Extension of Time to file FAC.  

As I have also written here and elsewhere, the United States Federal Courts are unwilling to apply the Civil Rights Laws of the Land for the protection of white people, apparently because these laws only exist to foment racial discord and competition between Black and White (with some bones here and there thrown to fomenting conflict with Hispanics and Asians).   So long as the Banks and Banksters apply their vicious fraud equally to black and white alike, the courts will not recognize any violation of the civil rights of the people.  This too, is a sign of the Bush 41-Clinton-Bush 43-Obama Dark Age, descending upon us…

   The Nazis had certain ideals in common with conservatives throughout Western Europe and North America: the romanticized revitalization of indigenous European Culture, for example, rooting the spirit of progress in national pride and identity.  Such things are found in England, France, Italy, Poland, Russia, Greece, and Israel, not to mention in the United States and many countries in Latin America, or even post-Colonial Africa and Asia.

If that were all that Hitler’s Naziism had amounted to—resurgent national pride and rebuilding the nation shattered by the Great Depression (which effectively began in Germany immediately after Versailles in 1919 and never really ended).  Chancellor Sutler in V-for-Vendetta is a thinly disguised Hitler (“H” is the 8th letter of the alphabet starting with “A”, “S” is the 8th letter of the alphabet reciting backwards from “Z”).  Chancellor Sutler, like Hitler, believed in the power of the Big Lie.  But unlike Chancellor Sutler and his terrorism through “St. Mary’s” infection…. Hitler did more than merely terrorize his own people.  He went off to terrorize the French and the Poles.  Had Hitler NOT embarked on his war of extensive military conquest, Naziism might have been accepted and remained a “Third Way” in Europe.  Great Britain had guaranteed the integrity of Poland, and the 129 years of the Polish Partition was a wrong that deserved finally to be righted (one of the few things the Versailles Conference actually got right, surely, was the restoration of Polish national identity and autonomy).

But as a Confederate and Patriot of the American tradition, I cannot accept Hitler’s invasion and conquest of Poland, which started World War II, as even remotely legitimate.  One interesting thought is that Hitler must have had at least as clear an idea that invading Poland (and especially then invading the Soviet Union two years later, breaking faith with the after the Von Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact) would ultimately lead to his demise as Andreas Behring Breivik must realize that his slaughter of innocents would win him no friends either personally or for his cause.  

One could almost wonder and ask “cui bono” of Nazi Germany?  Nazi Germany led to the modern religion of Globalism, suppression of nationalism, and “we are one” suppression of the ideology of race-as-extended family, in short, of race as a biologically natural and real element of human culture and social identity.  World War II also resulted in the foundation of the state of Israel and the rise of a distinctly non-Christian ethos and elite in the world, which non-Christian ethos and elite clearly either needed and created or is now using and needs Andreas Behring Breivik in Norway, and George Zimmerman in Florida…  (not to make any comparison here—what Andreas Behring Breivik did in Norway was murder—intention killing of another person without justification or provocation of any kind, but what George Zimmerman did in Florida was, in my opinion, probably—almost certainly—self-defense, but it is being USED as a racially polarizing device and divisive event by President Barack Hussein Obama….).  

Going back to my April 13, 2012, essay on the Hunger Games and the New Dark Ages, and the comparison and contrast between the Hunger Games and V-for-Vendetta, the latter is clearly about Hitler-like totalitarian oppression, while the former directly concerns Confederate Rebels within an easily recognizable future North American Corporate/Centralized Government hegemony.

Confederates were not Nazis; they were not conquerors.  For all of Robert E. Lee’s fabled brilliance a military strategist, his best bet was to seize Washington D.C. and Maryland for the Confederacy in 1861-1862, when the northern armies were poorly organized and poorly led, but he and Jefferson Davis declined even to try to impose their will on Maryland and Delaware, slave states which had elected not to secede.   The Confederacy, it has often occurred to me, could and should have simply taken Washington D.C. right after the First Battle of Manassas/Bull Run, and taken over the capital there.  The War of 1861 might have then ended, perhaps with the Confederate Constitution replacing the new Federal Constitution of 1787 as Southern Sympathizers from Ohio, Illinois, and New York joined in. Slavery would have probably ended in the South by the 1880s or 1890s regardless, as it did in Brazil and the Spanish Colonies,but this is not consistent with Obama era anti-Confederate education, because Confederates were actually the original anti-Communists.  Worse (for themselves and the CSA) because Lee and Davis were dedicated to NON-CONQUEST IDEOLOGY, they gave up their best chances at winning in 1861-62.  By the time Lee invaded the North in earnest in 1863, there was no obvious purpose in doing so, no reasonable strategy, and once again, the chance to seize Washington D.C. and make it the Confederate Capital was lost.  Gettysburg ended that campaign and with it all reasonable hopes of Confederate victory, all reasonable hopes for the survival of the Confederate Constitution.

The Hunger Games, as I wrote last week, seems firmly rooted in the legacy of the vanquished 13 state of the Southern Confederacy, of which North Carolina was the state that sacrificed the most (suffering the greatest number of casualty losses, per capita, of any Southern State—Virginia lost more by number, but not as a percentage of the population, Florida lost the least, participating in the war hardly at all, Texas effectively won the war, maintaining its independence throughout, but surrendering on June 19, 1865 at Galveston, in spite of it all; New Orleans surrendered exactly 150 years ago this month, constituting the first great loss of the Confederacy, without firing a single shot, much as Paris was not defended in World War II—the French apparently like to save their beautiful cities from war-time destruction and mayhem…. consistently choosing discretion over valor….).

 But the Hunger Games also captured the coldly exploitative nature of the centralized government, in need of lots of “coal, minerals and row crops” as President Snow puts it while talking to the ill-fated game-master Seneca, who mistakenly thinks that “everyone likes an underdog.”

In the book, Hunger Games, which I finally started reading after seeing the movie last night for a seventh time in Santa Monica, suppression of private ownership of arms (even including ordinary bows and arrows like Katniss’) is a key an important aspect of the Government’s policy towards the people of District 12 (= Appalachia,  filmed in North Carolina).  

It was critical to keep the people disarmed lest they ever rise up against the establishment armies.  The people were forbidden effectively to feed themselves…. for fear that a well-fed populace might hunger for freedom….

In that connexion, I am today on my way to Fresno to work with members of the 4-20 cooperative there.  None of them, to the best of my knowledge, will be celebrating Hitler’s 123 birthday there this evening.  They have other problems.  The State of California has legalized medical marijuana but the Federal government continues to suppress it.  Just as in 1860, the Centralized Government wishes to suppress the farmers who supply a product much in demand around the world, to denigrate individual autonomy and local authority.  Unlike 1860, the states are weak, and in fact what I will face in Fresno is finding the ways and means to oppose the degree to which the Federal Government has skipped the state or effectively nullified state authority all together, and seeks to impose state law by collaborating with city and county authorities.

This is a Tenth Amendment crusade in the Confederate tradition: restore individual independence by building up autonomous farmers.  I personally haven’t touched cannabis as an intoxicant since July 1991, but the occasion when I did, in the Mary Martin Suite at the Hotel Pontchartrain in New Orleans, was one of the turning points in my life (and certainly it sounded the death knell of my marriage).  

But for the moment, I take pride in knowing that in 2012 as it was 152 years ago, real freedom and real liberty reside in the defense of self-supporting farmers away from the city and centralized economy and government.  This is the Confederate way, and the Confederate way is anti-communist and anti-Nazi, all at the same time as it is anti-Obama, anti-Bush, and generally antithetical to the Corporate establishment which rules America and Europe, and which has dedicated untold millions to the suppression of real individualists such as Marine Le Pen, and the creation of such fake individualists as Andreas Behring Breivik……

April 13: The Hunger Games, Judicial Immunity, and the Dawn of a New Dark Age

Life in its petty pace from day-to-day (and related notes on why I’m not on the California ballot)

Is it a coincidence that the California Secretary of State refused to approve me for a ballot place as candidate for the United States Senate Seat currently held by Diane Feinstein within 3 days of Facebook Canceling my profile because I was “promoting or organizing violence?”  Since I have never (to the best of my knowledge) advocated (much less “organized”) violence except to praise the spirit of continuing revolution, it was a great shock to me, but that was how my Spring season began.  (My long-time personal assistant and “Man Friday” Peyton assures me that I’ve never organized anything in my life, violent, peaceful, or indifferent)  

The snafu that led to my ballot position not being approved may yet prove the subject of a lawsuit, so I shan’t go into details except to say: California’s “Top Two, Voter Nominated” primary system only makes sense if non-professional political operatives (i.e. “voters”) are actually permitted to nominate candidates, and this requires a certain exercise of common sense on the part of the Registrar of Voters in each county as well as the Secretary of State.  Obviously, my supporters are largely battered down middle class working people who no longer trust the government to begin with.  They are anything BUT government insiders.  If only political insiders can maneuver the system then it is NOT a true “voter nominated” system.

I would guess that, in fact, the “top two” system was designed to protect the best funded insider candidates from even any hypothetical threat from outsiders like me, and that is, of course, a way of stifling change and preventing any real “dynamic” in the democratic process.  “Top two” primaries arguably serve a system well-designed to engender a “thousand year reich”, ironic indeed since one would think that individuals of Barbara Boxer’s, Diane Feinstein’s and Henry Waxman’s background and ethnic origins would not WANT a thousand year reich….but perhaps the quibble was with the identity of the master race destined to rule for a millennium, rather than whether a unitary elite should have such power…. forever.

Remembering V-for-Vendetta and Serenity from 2005-2006

The only redeeming feature of Spring 2012 so far is a new movie, which equals and possibly surpasses in political insight my (obvious, previous) all time favorite: V-for-Vendetta.   V-for-Vendetta was a futuristic science fiction (literally based on cartoon characters based on a four centuries old English school boys’  rhyme about a highly manipulated historical even in 1605) and as such it served as an allegory about 9-11 and the “W” Bush (43rd Presidential) administration in the USA.   The lead characters, the Guy Fawkes’ masked “V” (Hugo Weaving) and Evey Hammond” (Nathalie Portman), were an amazing couple NOT in love (at least not romantically, and not in any way at all, at least not until Evey’s post-mortem eulogy) were, as cartoon characters are, difficult to relate to any ordinary people one might encounter in life.  

The brilliance of V-for-Vendetta was the incisive treatment of 9-11 and all that had happened in and around that date under the Bush 43 administration: barely a stone was left unturned to expose the rotten mould and horrible colony of insect life underneath it.  The sad part about V-for-Vendetta is that it’s message apparently resonated with so few people.  

As a movie, it should have had a national impact on political thought, revealing the ruling government as an oligarchy of hypocrisy, lies and fear through government media manipulation concealing a simple policy of orchestrated terrorism attributed to foreigners, specifically Islamic fundamentalists, in the justification of never-ending war, even though it was in fact the brainchild policy of the government itself.  

Above all, V-for-Vendetta reminded us of Adolf Hitler’s brilliant but evil insight, that the great mass of people will sooner believe a great lie than a small one.  Another movie concerning a “big lie” by the government was Joss Whedon’s beautiful epic Serenity.  The tale of the outer-space “wild-west racially non-discriminatory confederates” was, in so many ways, merely the extra galactic, historically unspecific, parallel to V.  Unlike V, Serenity did not focus on any specific modern event like 9-11, but  very generally shared a focus on governmental experiments in biotechnology and psychological manipulation as the root of transformational events in human history.  Of course, Serenity very unusually and distinctively echoed and memorialized the injustice of the Confederate defeat at the hands of a technologically superior Centralized government (“the Federation”).

Die Hungerspiele von Panem/Die Tribute von Panem (Totliche Spiele) (You’re a Damn Confederate, aren’t you?)

The new movie which in my mind at least now threaten’s V-for-Vendetta’s supremacy as the greatest political movie of our time premiered on Friday March 23, and is of course, the Hunger Games. (I confess I have not read Suzanne Collins’ books—everything I say here is based on the movie and the movie alone, which I found absolutely overwhelming—but I didn’t read Gone with the Wind until I was 26, by which time I had seen the movie at leas 30 times in my life).  The Hunger Games lacks any of the cartoonish elements of V-for-Vendetta and Serenity (as much as I like and appreciate the genuinely artistic value of those elements).  

My suspicions of Collins’ perspectives as those of a not-so-closet Confederate sympathizer gain more than moderate a bolster from the knowledge that, although born in Connecticut, the author was the daughter of a Vietnam veteran and spent her High School (i.e. critical formative identity) years in the heart of Dixie, specifically in Alabama in the 1970s…. where she attended  high school at the Alabama School of Fine Arts in Birmingham, where she was a Theater Arts major.  Oh yea, FWIW, the Alabama School of Fine Arts was founded by George Corley Wallace’s Wife, Governor Lurleen Wallace, in 1968, shortly before she tragically died of Cancer at age 41, and George Corley Wallace was Governor 1971-1979, all through Suzanne’s High School years.

Now, one way of looking at it is that, perhaps, the Hunger Games takes place after the collapse of the United States and Civil War to which the government news commentators in V-for-Vendetta made such frequent allusion.  According to those reports, the USA “the country that had everything” had become a “cesspool” of continental proportions due to its “Godlessness.”  While that’s a legitimate perspective, I think that the overwhelming weight of evidence and frame of reference in the Hunger Games is to the War of Southern Independence/War Between the States/War of 1861-1973, realizing that those dates are not the ones usually used in High School American History texts.

In fact, The Hunger Games in some of its visuals at least, almost approximates a kind of a futuristic Nanook of the North staged realism, focusing on the lives of the common people of the post-War (I mean Post-War Between the States) south, especially of the Appalachian regions of North Carolina (where The Hunger Games was filmed “on site”).  As in Whedon’s Serenity, the strong suggestion of Confederate nostalgia and sympathy is, to my mind at least, absolutely undeniable.  

It is too much to ask that we NOT see parallels to the War of 1861-65 and its aftermath when the “Treaty of the Treason” and “War” movie both recite that 13 Districts of “Panem” (“Panem” to my eyes sounds like a Hellenized partial translation of “E Pluribus Unum“, cf. Pangea) rose up against the Paternalistic “Welfare” Government that “fed them, protected them, cared for them”, that the District 12 setting is so obviously the REAL Southern landscape of coal-mining Appalachia, and that the poor whites of District 12 have a closely parallel lives and culture to at least the partially segregated black-African dominated population of District 11.

Without wanting totally to “spoil” the Hunger Games for anyone who hasn’t seen it, I will just summarize my interpretation of its wild popularity this way (aside from the obvious: a very human love story about two extraordinarily mature for their age teenagers who were unlikely ever to have fallen in love, but end up being “perfect” for each other, played by a genuinely handsome “All American Boy” lead and beautiful soft-spoken and emotional “Tomboy-type-Girl” who is so hot she literally sets her red dress on fire, combined with lots of action): Even though most Americans are not in fact hungry for food (that is the “Nano of the North” element reality of the starving South of 1865-1950, seeing oppressed, hard-working, underdogs whose primary source of protein was from very small game—squirrels, because the deer were almost all hunted out) people are clearly hungry for genuine justice and a fair playing field. (For one alternative, but to my mind, quite beautifully written and  excellent review of the Hunger Games, I recommend “The Feminist Spectator” by Princeton University’s Jill Dolan, published on April 4: http://www.feministspectator.blogspot.com/.  I somehow doubt that Professor Dolan would agree with me on the strong Confederate Sympathies implicit in The Hunger Games but there was once a President of Princeton University, the only Ph.D. ever to become President of the USA in fact, who thought that Birth of a Nation was the greatest historical drama in history, and portrayed the reality of his native south perfectly—unfortunately, that was also the Democratic President who signed into law (1) the 16th Amendment and Federal Income Tax, (2) the Federal Reserve Banking System, and the (3) the 17th Amendment, namely Woodrow Wilson….)

Hunger for Justice and Freedom

Like the residents of the 13 oppressed Districts of Panem, despite all government hypocrisy and lies to the contrary Americans both you and old today know that the odds are NOT in their favor and that, in fact, the odds are fairly hopelessly stacked against them.  And yet the system has this tiny escape valve: that about 1 in every 24 people can make it rich.  That is, one-in-twenty four of the oppressed can make it rich IF they’re willing to “play the government’s game” and basically, kill a lot of their fellow citizens in the process.  As of this April 13, 2012, I have seen the Hunger Games 5 times, and each time I’ve liked it more, seen more details.  I will have to read the books before completely integrating it into my thought processes about modern pop-cultural reaction to the impending doom that this American Life obviously faces, but I submit to you: the American people (on the whole, and certainly as a population compared to many parts of the world at the present and throughout history) may not be starving or hungry for food, but they hunger for justice and an even playing field, and they do not “relish” the very real prospect of a thousand years of subservience to “the government that feeds, them clothes them, takes care of them.”

Of Time and Space and Presidential Succession in the Leap Years…..

The Hunger Games takes place on the 74th anniversary of the institution of these gladiatorial combats.  The significance of that 74 years has bothered me.  On the one hand, it COULD refer to 1860 (the election of Abraham Lincoln and the secession of “District 1, South Carolina…) + 74 = 1934, the year in which Roosevelt’s New Deal started WPA reorganization of the South in earnest, or it could refer to the original publication date of the book, 2008, as the 74th year since 1934—or it could refer to both.  The coincidence, again, is hard to avoid.  1934 was the first full year of (de facto) Socialist Dictatorship in the United States (Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected in 1932, took office in March 1933, and many of his first year legislative proposals only took effect in 1934).  2008, 74 years later, Barack Hussein Obama, the first Communist President of the United States, was elected and took office, “perfecting” or at least completing the process begun by Abraham Lincoln in 1860, a mere 12 years after the publication of the Communist Manifesto in London in 1848.  (See Al Benson, Jr., & Walter Donald Kennedy’s 2011: Lincoln’s Marxists, Pelican Publishing, Gretna Louisiana, a fine historical summary of the connexion between Communism and Central government predominance in the USA, a historical summary which is easy to read although not nearly well-enough documented with footnotes and source citations as professional historians would like and scholars generally would appreciate).

Another aspect of the Hunger Games is the correlation between the oppressive Central government of Panem and Edward Gibbons’ the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, on the one hand, and a heartless, Machiavellian version of the Social Darwinism of the late 19th century on the other.  The capital of Panem is degenerate in a distinctly Roman Imperial Silver Age manner (Rome’s “Silver Age” normally said to run from the death of Augustus in A.D. 14 through the death of Marcus Aurelius in A.D. 180).  Nero and even Caracalla (“Post-Silver Age” Emperor from A.S. 198-217) would have felt quite at home in the Capitol of Panem, I think.  But the “Emperor” himself is a distinctly late 19th century Anglo-American type (President Snow, played by Donald Sutherland), who has a Romano-“Robber-Baron’s” scorn for the “underdog” without any explanation or moral justification, just the political desire to keep himself and his world on top and everyone else underneath.  President Snow appears to share none of the cultural degeneracy of the Capital, but has a great deal in common with aristocratic Victorian gardeners of the late 19th century.  

Snow’s name is English, as are most of the names of the characters known from District 12.  Most of the residents of the Capitol City, however, and apparently of Districts 1-2, have Roman names: “Cato”, “Caesar”, “Seneca”, “Octavia”, and “Claudius” just to name a few…..  

So the Hunger Games follows the pattern of Serenity and V-for-Vendetta in another distinctly modern way (although all these movies do it well, and for good purposes and effect, quite a few others, such as Captain America and [the movie that I dread most]—Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Slayer, do it very poorly and for improper purposes): historical metaphors and mythic realities are conflated, merged, and reorganized.

NOX OCCIDIT (“NIGHT FALLS”)

In any event, there is a Leonard Cohen song that summarizes why the Hunger Games, as a historical-mythological and futuristic allegory of injustice and game rigging, is so wildly popular, and that song is:

Everybody knows that the dice are loaded
Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
Everybody knows that the war is over
Everybody knows the good guys lost
Everybody knows the fight was fixed
The poor stay poor, the rich get rich
That’s how it goes
Everybody knows

Everybody knows that it’s me or you
And everybody knows that you live forever
Ah when you’ve done a line or two
Everybody knows the deal is rotten
Old Black Joe’s still pickin’ cotton
For your ribbons and bows
And everybody knows

And everybody knows that the Plague is coming
Everybody knows that it’s moving fast
Everybody knows that the naked man and woman
Are just a shining artifact of the past
Everybody knows the scene is dead
But there’s gonna be a meter on your bed
That will disclose
What everybody knows

And everybody knows that you’re in trouble
Everybody knows what you’ve been through 
From the bloody cross on top of Calvary 
To the beach of Malibu 
Everybody knows it’s coming apart
Take one last look at this Sacred Heart
Before it blows
And everybody knows

The saddest difference between V-for-Vendetta and Serenity on the one hand and the Hunger Games on the other is the complete transparency of the society of Panem: “Everybody knows that the system’s rotten…. everybody knows that the war is over, everybody knows that the good guys lost.”  Everybody knows that the government that feeds the people, clothes them, and cares for them does not like underdogs.  President Snow is a late 19th Century-styled  avatar of George H.W. Bush (41st), Bill Clinton, George W. Bush (43rd), & Barack Hussein Obama all rolled into one.  

At least in V-for-Vendetta and Serenity, there still existed the apparent hope that revelation of truth could lead to revolution and change. 

But now President Obama signs the National Defense Authorization Act allowing indefinite detention of American Citizens on American soil without charges or trial, and he does so unblinkingly and unabashedly.  President Obama jingoistically adopts the dead Trayvon Martin as his own son in an effort to exacerbate racial tensions and divisions to his advantage in an election year at the same time that he tells the AIPAC Conference that he supports Israel’s quest to maintain ethnic homogeneity and integrity.  

There are no secrets in modern America, our Joseph Stalin, aka President Obama, has no need of Hitlerian, Rooseveltian, or “W” Bushian type “Big Lie”—he tells us all that he wants the power to take away all our rights, but asks us to trust him that he won’t really do it—except in the case of real underdogs, like, I guess, for example, George Zimmerman?  And speaking of that, how many of you imagine that George Zimmerman, whether he be called White, Hispanic, or Jewish, or all of the above, will get a fair trial?

So now to celebrate April 13 even further: WHERE WILL WE BE 74 years from now, or from 2008, say in 2082?  I predict we may well be in a New Dark Age, and not just because I’m not on the California Ballot for this year (although that is symptomatic).  

So far as “fixed games” go, what could be worse than a criminal prosecution set by agreement between Judges and prosecutors arranged through bribes?  Is that the American Way?  We wouldn’t like to think so.  In 1980, the year I graduated from the College of Arts & Sciences at Tulane and started graduate school at Harvard, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California said that “fixing” cases was not a normal judicial function and that no judicial immunity could attach to such activities: Rankin v Howard 633 F2d 844 _9th Circuit December 5 1980.  A short six years later, that same Ninth Circuit reversed itself and found judicial immunity from civil suit for such activities: Ashelman v Pope 793 F2d 1072 *EN BANC* 9th Circuit 1986

But the outrageous history of the suppression of judicial immunity just goes on and on through the subsequent citation history of Ashelman v. Pope to show how official immunity for prosecutors and the executive branch has almost merged with Judicial immunity to the point that the government is just one big immune mass of oppression against the people, and the modern government of E Pluribus Unum, aka “Panem” can prosecute you, jail you, and torture you, with complete immunity.

State-Licensed Marriage is a CRIME AGAINST GOD, HUMANITY, and NATURE!

My Dear Friend Dr. Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson of Palm Beach Continues her Crusade against the forces of Secular Humanism as they fight against Constitutional Freedom, Liberty and Individual Integrity and Autonomy.  04-16-2012 KAGL Edited Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Determination back in 15th Judicial Circuit Court.  We a complete reversal in the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeals!  Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson’s divorce decree was vacated and nullified (on February 15, 2012) as having been entered in the Complete Absence of Jurisdiction, by Judge Richard L. Oftedal (now off the case).  The 4th DCA returned its mandate to the Florida Circuit Court in North Palm Beach County on Friday 13 April, and so here we are, back in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County.  Hurray, Kathy! 

Notice of Respondent’s Constitutional Objections to Personal Jurisdiction,

Motion for Leave to Amend Answer & Counterclaim,

Motion for Scheduling Order and New Trial, and

MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING DETERMINATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL JURISDICTION

COMES NOW the Respondent Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson, pro se, giving notice of her constitutional objections to the exercise of personal and subject matter jurisdiction over her by and under the Family and Domestic Relations Code and Courts of Florida. The fundamental question which Respondent submits is this:

Where there is no express constitutional authorization, how can there be any legitimate constitutional exercise of control over any subject matter or personal question defined as a matter of fundamental right, such as marriage, privacy, and child-rearing? If neither the constitutions of the United States of America nor the State of Florida authorize the licensing or dissolution of marriages, nor to regulate domestic relations in any way except with regard to public safety, how can the State of Florida erect and maintain courts to adjudicate cases relating to such matters?

The Fourth District Court of Appeal for the State of Florida has expressly decided in its order of February 15, 2012, that the Judge Richard L. Oftedal had no power whatsoever to enter a final judgment on April 29, 2010 for the dissolution of marriage.  In other words, the Fourth District Court found that Judge Richard L. Oftedal acted in the complete absence of jurisdiction in entering that “Final Decree of Dissolution” dated April 29, 2010, and that his actions were a nullity.  Implicitly, Judge Oftedal must also have acted unlawfully when he refused to set aside his April 29, 2010, order upon Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson’s post-trial Motion.  As the Fourth DCA correctly noted, Respondent Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson had not one, but two appeals of non-final orders filed (pursuant to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, 9.130).

The two interlocutory appeals both concerned constitutional challenges to the Florida Family Code and Florida Domestic Relations jurisdiction. Since the Fourth DCA denied Respondent’s motion for clarification or rehearing on these subjects, the appellate justices essentially declined to decide and/or found it unnecessary or improper to reach these issues, since they had already reversed and vacated Judge Oftedal’s final judgment in full in Respondent’s favor[1].

Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson now returns to this Circuit Court and asks for leave to amend her pleadings, and for a new scheduling order, a new opportunity to conduct discovery (which she never did) and for a New Trial in this Court to find and/or determine, after sufficient hearing and inquiry into the underlying facts and law of the case all of the Constitutional Issues which Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawon has sought to bring to bear in this case, as a matter of law.

The essential point is that neither the United States Constitution nor the Constitution of the State of Florida authorize the State to Issue Marriage Licenses or to impose jurisdiction by statute to resolve cases or controversies involving or arising from private domestic relations or religious questions of any kind (so long as no breaches of the public safety or peace are involved or implicated).

Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson now demands that, in the interests of judicial economy, this Court rule (after seven long years of waiting) how the Florida Florida Family Code (in particular as dealing with dissolution, division of property, and child custody) derives any legitimate power or constitutional authority in light of Article I: §§1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 12, 21, 22, 23, 27, including but not limited to Basic Rights, Religious Freedom and Non-impairment of contract provisions of Article I: §§3 & 10 (including the proposed amendment of Article I: §3 submitted to the people for popular mandate on the ballot this November 2012) of the Florida Constitution, as well as the First, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as a whole, and her rights to Due Process of Law (Art. I: §9), Trial-by-Jury (Art. I: §22), and protection from wrongful intrusion into her privacy (Art. I: §23) by the Courts as a precondition of preserving those rights in dissolution proceedings.

The only mentions of “marriage” in the entire constitution of Florida appear in the recently adopted negative definition in I: §27 and in Article X, §5.  Neither section neither authorizes nor implies state authority to license marriage.  Article I, §27 mandates that Florida will respect only heterosexual unions as marriages as a matter of law, for whatever legitimate purposes there might be in so doing.  Article X, §5 likewise makes no reference to state regulation of marriage, but addresses (somewhat mysteriously, and perhaps redundantly with Article I, §2 above) another issue of “respect” under law:

There shall be no distinction between married women and married men in the holding, control, disposition, or encumbering of their property, both real and personal; except that dower or curtesy may be established and regulated by law.

Accordingly, Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson now asks this Court finally to rule, resolve, and clarify, upon new trial after amendments, discovery, and full-briefing herein requested to resolve Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson’s constitutional questions and affirm her challenges both to this court’s exercise of personal and subject matter jurisdiction.

Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson is the respondent to the Petition for Dissolution of Marriage brought by her husband, Jeffrey P. Lawson, originally in February of 2005.

Contending from the beginning that there was a defect in the subject matter jurisdiction of this Court, Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson has never consented to the jurisdiction of this Court.  It is a time honored principle in this state, affirmed steadily by our Supreme Court since at least Lovett v. Lovett, 93 Fla. 611, 112 So. 768 (Florida March 29, 1927) that any:

Party proceeding without objection with hearing in equity court of controversy, jurisdiction of which may be given by consent, may not thereafter complain as to jurisdiction.

            But the record will show that Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson has continually objected to the jurisdiction of this Court and never waived her rights to challenge the personal or subject matter jurisdiction of any Florida Court to adjudicate any aspect of her marriage, her domestic relationship with her husband, or her domestic relationship with their daughter, or to dispose of any of their property except that her husband or the Court show positive constitutional authority to do so, and not merely acquiescence by silence as to this point of most sacred and fundamental rights.

Nor has Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson ever been afforded the right to amend her pleadings in accordance with her constitutional objections and challenges to the personal and subject matter jurisdiction of this Court.  Accordingly, Respondent here and now further requests that this Court acknowledge, affirm, and enforce her right under Article I, §§1, 2, 3, but especially §5 (Right to Instruct Representatives and to Petition for Redress of Grievances), §9 (Due Process of Law) and §21 (the “Open Courts” provision) of the Florida Constitution to amend her pleadings, conduct discovery (Art. I, §24), file pre-trial (and, unlike under Judge Oftedal, have a full and fair hearing on all) motions (including but not limited to Constitutional questions of both substance and procedure[2]), and otherwise to prepare try her constitutional and jurisdictional challenges related to the current Florida Statutory Scheme for the Dissolution of Marriage.  Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson submits that seven years is too long already, and that she should no longer have to wait to challenge and deny the power of the State of Florida so to intrude upon her fundamental rights as to design and enforce upon her a Family Law Jurisdiction and application of judicial process without consent to deny her (1) right to petition, (2) right to privately contract, (3) right to due process of law, (4) right to a trial-by-jury, (5) rights and powers reserved to her as one of the American people under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson has already collected statistical and documentary evidence which she would have plead and presented by and through expert witnesses and testimony (long ago) to the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, had she been allowed to do so by Judge Richard L. Oftedal, which shows that Florida Courts automatically grant 100% petitions for divorce without regard to any principal or standard other than that to allege that a marriage is irretrievably broken is taken as sufficient proof of the same as a matter of both fact and law.  Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson would also have argued that such a system was enacted by the Florida Legislature without legitimate or even colorable constitutional authority, then enforced by the State Judges and “officers of the Court,” and applied to her in defiance of all constitutional and statutory law, and in violation of her rights guaranteed under the Federal and Florida Constitutions to rights to due process, equal protection, and freedom from both state impairment of the obligations of contract and takings of liberty and process in violation of the First, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.


[1]           Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson abandoned these two interlocutory appeals once Judge Oftedal entered his final judgment on April 29, 2010, but the issues were not waived firstly because by operation of law the issues raised by the interlocutory merged, and secondly because these issues were fully briefed, as part of Kathy Ann-Garcia-Lawson’s Initial Appellate Brief, of which the Florida Fourth D.C.A. reached only the 9.130 jurisdictional issue and refused, even on her March 1, 2012, motion for clarification or re-argument, to address, decide, or resolve in any manner.

[2]           This Court should be aware that Judge Oftedal, on the record, refused to hear or rule upon any constitutional issues in his court, which is surely a denial of Kathy Ann Garcia’s rights under both the State and Federal Constitutions of Florida and the United States.

In the full version of this Motion, attached above, Kathy quotes in her conclusion of Chief Justice John Marshall’s stirring words in Cohens v. Virginia (March 3, 1821):

The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty.

The Full text of Cohens v. Virginia is attached here: Cohens v State of Virginia 19 US 284 5 LEd 257 6 Wheat 264 Chief Justice Marshall March 3 1821

Curbing (Abolishing) Official Immunity for Federal and State Officers: Executive, Judicial, and Legislative, following where Senators Sam Ervin & Strom Thurmond of North & South Carolina led the way

The “law” of absolute judicial immunity not only cannot be found in the Constitution nor in any statute, but in fact offends the Constitution and common sense, when articulated as follows:

     Judges enjoy absolute immunity from liability for damages for acts performed in their judicial capacities.  Immunity exists for “judicial” actions; those relating to a function normally performed by a judge and where the parties understood they were dealing with the judge in his official capacity. 
      The policy behind this principle is that judges must be free to act in a manner they view proper without fear of subsequent personal liability.  This rule is deemed essential to preserve judicial independence.  
       A judge’s errors may be corrected on appeal, but he should not have to fear that dissatisfied litigants may hound him with litigation charging malice or corruption. Imposing such a burden on judges would contribute not to principled and fearless decision-making but to intimidation.
      The immunity afforded judges is quite broad and applies to all acts performed in the exercise of judicial functions. Judges are immune from liability even for corrupt or malicious acts. Liability exists only where a judge acted in the “clear absence” of all jurisdiction or performed an administrative task not embraced within the judge’s judicial duties.
Olney v. Sacramento Bar Association, 212 Cal.App.3d 807, 260 Cal.Rptr. 842 (July 28, 1989)(citations omitted).

Obviously, being a judge by these standards rights right up there with the Divine Right of Kings or even divinity itself!  Nice work if you can get it, I guess, but can we tolerate such immunity for judges, prosecutors, and even (effectively) for the police and other officers of executive and judicial function if we are to remain in any sense a free society?  “Jurisdiction” limits judicial power, as do doctrines of “judicial discretion”—but if immunity remains absolute, regardless, and only clumsy, indirect, highly technical, and cumbersome appellate remedies exist, do judges not in fact rise higher in the real power hierarchy of earth than all the gods of the Ancient Nile, Greek Olympus and Norse Valhalla combined, inferior only to the One Creator of the Universe, who for unknown reasons rarely intervenes directly in human affairs?

I oppose all sorts of official immunity: executive, legislative, and judicial, but I especially deplore and oppose absolute immunity for judges to take actions without jurisdiction which infringe upon or violate constitutional rights.  If elected to the United States Senate, I promise to fight vigorously to construe all civil rights laws to apply to judicial and prosecutorial misconduct, as well as to executive “police actions” and legislatively authorized derogations from the Bill of Rights and other fundamental constitutional protections.  I will work to strengthen and ensure the colorblind, race neutral, application and construction of 42 U.S.C. §§1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988, which the Courts currently only apply and construe in favor of African-Americans (and occasionally but atypically Hispanics or Asians) against Whites.   White Caucasian Americans must have equal rights to assert violations of their Civil Rights, even when the civil rights involve commercial,  contractual, or proprietary violations rather than race-based violations, but as I have often stated on this blog, I do contend that the judicial constructions of 28 U.S.C. §1443 and 42 U.S.C. §1981-1982 actually DO constitute race-based infringements upon the equal rights of White Caucasian Americans to invoke the provisions of these statutes in their own defense in cases of non-race-based discrimination and oppression under color of law.  But now on to the general concept of immunity, and the roles of Senators Sam Ervin and Strom Thurmond in fighting these concepts.

“POLITICAL PROCESS” labels the mechanism by which societies allocate decision-making authority.  “AUTHORITY” means “POWER”.  “POWER without CONSEQUENCES FOR ABUSE” defines “ABSOLUTE POWER”, and “ABSOLUTE POWER” equates (in societies possessing relatively well-developed judicial systems) with “ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY” from civil suit or criminal prosecution for official derogations, deviations, excessive use or application, infringement, or violations of any stated limits on power or action, especially when these result in the derogation, infringement, or violation of the rights or powers of others.   English Political language contains an ancient aphorism that “Absolute Power corrupts Absolutely.”  In my opinion, that aphorism needs to be expanded as a constitutional norm that “Absolute Immunity corrupts Absolutely.”  And the simple truth is that in modern America, both Federal and State Officers, Executive, Judicial, and Legislative, possess something very close to absolutely immunity for all crimes, torts, and violations of the constitution which they may choose to commit in their “official capacity.”  

This problem stands as a central focus of my life and career since at least 1995 when I first perceived that Family Court Judges in Texas possessed unreasonable power and discretion to infringe on the Constitutional rights of litigants in family court actions, and that the law itself, through such hopelessly vague concepts as the statutory power of Family Court Judges to rule “in the best interests of the child” when a marriage is “irretrievably broken” constituted a wild derogation from the constitutional norms of due process of law applicable in every other field.  “Best interests of the child”, and/or “irretrievably broken” as formally enacted statutory norms, constitute extreme legislative breaches and violation of constitutional rights to due process and equal protection, in my humble opinion.

On February 15, 2012, an opinion came down from a Florida District Court of Appeal which reversed a final decision rendered 19 days after my fiftieth birthday in 2010, on the grounds that “the circuit court did not have jurisdiction to render a final order disposing of the case.”  “A trial court lacks jurisdiciton to render a final order while an appeal from a non-final order in the same case is pending and, if the trial court does so, the final order is a nullity.”  “A trial court may proceed in a cause pending a non-final appeal and dispose of any matter not in form or effect interfering with the power and authority of the appellate court to make its jurisdiction effective, but the trial court may do so only short of final disposition.”  “This may all sound like legal gobbledegook to some…but jurisdiction is not a question a court can take or leave, and a judgment entered without jurisdiction is void.”  Many other aspects of this case offer promise and possess extreme interest to all who care deeply about the Constitution as a guiding light for the life of the United States of America, but those aspects must await the briefing of a Motion for Rehearing and, eventually, remand to the Circuit Court from whence this particular appeal arose.

In citing and quoting this very recent decision of an intermediate appellate court in Florida, I mean only to ask the question: should a judge so described by his immediate court of appeals not be held personally liable for acting in the complete absence of jurisdiction?  If his actions caused harm, why should any immunity at all attach to “judicial conduct” undertaken without jurisdiction, since “jurisdiction is not a question a court can take or leave, and a judgment entered without jurisdiction is void.”  

Only the bravest and most eccentric and idiosyncratic of all recent politicians have ever dared to confront the question of immunity head on.  Among these are Sam Ervin and Strom Thurmond.

The Senatorial career of North Carolina Senator Sam Ervin began and ended with questions of legislative and executive immunity, respectively, which rocked the nation between 1954 and 1974, respectively, namely the investigations into the conduct of Wisconsin Senator Joseph Raymond McCarthy (1908-1957) and President Richard Milhous Nixon (1913-1994).  

Ervin’s 1954 role in leading to the censure of Senator McCarthy for making irresponsible allegations constitutes a curious (and effectively unique) abrogation of or exception to the most basic and fundamental concepts of “legislative immunity” in that McCarthy’s conduct which Ervin’s inquiry deemed “censurable” occurred almost entirely in the context of Senate Debate’s and proceedings, and consisted entirely of verbal conduct.  In that sense, McCarthy’s censure differed from all but one of the other nine censures rendered by the Senate in United States history, which mostly commonly have concerned non-debate related issues such as financial irregularities (Hiram Bingham 1929, Thomas J. Todd 1967, Herman Talmadge 1979, and David Durenberger 1990), physically fighting on the Senate Floor (Benjamin R. Tillman and John L. McLaurin 1902) and breaches of secrecy (Timothy Pickering 1811 and Benjamin Tappan 1844).  Of these eight, only Pickering’s conduct, a breach of secrecy during 1811, actually occurred on the Senate floor during Senate debates, and even so was only very vaguely comparable to the censure against McCarthy.  Senator Sam Ervin’s role in leading the censure of McCarthy is notable as the most severe censure ever for conduct almost clearly within the meaning of the Constitution’s Article I “debates” clause (protecting members of the U.S. House and Senate as “be[ing] privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”  In this connexion I consider Ervin’s role in prosecuting McCarthy historymaking: it shows (or at least suggests) that members of Congress must be held responsible for their role in obstructing or interfering with justice (and other constitutional rights) even while participating in senate proceedings.

As important and historical as Ervin’s early work with the investigation of Joseph McCarthy may have been), Ervin achieved immortality by his monumental and most memorable role on the world stage as Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Watergate, 1973-1974. Richard Milhous Nixon’s extremely ambiguous place in United States and World history began as a communist-baiter (in the House, largely contemporaneous with McCarthy’s in the Senate), but ended as a communist-appeaser (seeking “Detente” with the Soviet Union and beginning the “sellout” of America to Maoist China), whom the Senate (including Republicans such as Barry Goldwater) forced to resign because of a twisted and bizarre serial episode of abuses of Presidential power in connexion with the Watergate Scandal.  Senator Sam Ervin earned worldwide reverence as  advocate for the nation’s conscience while this writer was in High School in Hollywood, California.  Senator Sam Ervin’s final year in the Senate oversaw the collapse of the Nixon Presidency, in large part due to Sam Ervin’s commitment AGAINST Executive Privilege (as Nixon referred to his claim of immunity from prosecution or even inquiry regarding his domestic actions taken as President against American citizens in the name of National Security).  

As an aside, I pledge that if I should achieve election to the United States Senate—Senator Sam Ervin would serve as my role-model on almost every issue.  I would fight both legislative and executive immunity and simultaneously uphold the Bill of Rights against all legislative infractions including the “no knock” laws which Ervin fought, which have now become routine nationwide.  Ervin, like his South Carolina cohort Strom Thurmond, feared the advent of the Police State in America long before it became fashionable or even acceptable to do so among most of the Southern and Western U.S. Middle Class—who have a terrible habit of confusing and conflating their perfectly reasonable political opposition to cultural social change with a need for legal repression and suspension of the Constitution.   All constitutionalists must deplore such confusion and conflation, for without the Constitutional protections for our freedom, no hope remains for our traditional cultural or social norms whatsoever.

Now, ironically enough, everything that Nixon did (and covered up) during Watergate is now not only legal, in the aftermath of Federal “National Security” legislation passed in 1996-2011), but Nixon’s (and his White House staff’s) conduct and career of constitutional infringements and violations pales and seems of little consequence or importance compared with what President’s now have “statutory authority” to do.  The recent National Defense Authorization Act, in particular, provides legislative statutory authority for the president to order “indefinite detention” of “terrorists” which (as a pair of connected concepts subject to wildly abusive application) is exactly analogous to the vaguest provisions of family law mentioned above regarding judicial authority to rule and render in the “best interests of the child” whenever a marriage is “irretrievably broken.”

I have in any event focused on the career of North Carolina Senator Sam Ervin because he was one of my first “media heroes” and I first dreamed of studying and applying myself to the resuscitation of American Constitutional Law while watching him preside over the Watergate hearings.

Less known and less famous (and much less politically correct in the modern context) to celebrate is Senator Sam Ervin’s role as the co-author of the “Southern Manifesto” with Senators Strom Thurmond of South Carolina and Richard Russell of Georgia.   The “politically correct” way to look at this document requires calling it a reactionary racist response to Brown v. Board of Education and the subsequent orders of the Supreme Court of the United States requiring school desegregation.  But forced desegregation and integration caused social chaos, first in the South, and only slightly later in the North, causing murderous race-riots even in such “liberal” citadels as Boston, Massachusetts through the mid-1970s.   Just as I have often observed that Brazil never experienced anything approaching the level of racial hatred or tensions known in the United States, precisely because emancipation took place gradually and without force there in the Brazilian Empire (and in fact in every nation of the Americas EXCEPT first Haiti and then the United States), the use of force to accelerate the implementation of social change is almost always destructive.

The authors of the Southern Manifesto saw this destructive waive being unleashed by the Supreme Court in America, and they also perceived, correctly, that pitting black against white constituted a means of destabilizing society and increasing the power of the Federal government (in particular) over the people, and of accelerating the empowerment of the police state.  

The authors of the Southern Manifesto against forced school-integration rightly focused their criticisms on Chief Justice Earl Warren.  

As I like to point out, Earl Warren’s life-long commitment to civil rights manifested itself early on in his career as Attorney General and Governor of California when he supervised the hateful and purposeless, in fact counterproductive, internment of hundreds of thousands of (as the newsreels of the time and even early “Batman” movies recited over and over again) “shifty-eyed Japs”, the Second Generation or “Nisei” as they called themselves during World War II.  

In any event, Senators Sam Ervin and Strom Thurmond led the ultimately failing Southern Resistance against Earl Warren’s Court and what became, effectively, America’s Second “War Between the States”, although this time more ink spilled in the Courtrooms than blood on the streets.

For purposes of this present topic of immunity, I will end with my repeated hymn of praise to Senator Strom Thurmond for his crafty drafting of the 1996 Amendments to the Civil Rights Action, 42 U.S.C. §§1983, 1988(a).   The United States had handed down its most dramatic and emphatic “anti-Judicial Immunity” opinion in 1984, in the decision of Pulliam v. Allen, which has been my personal favorite Supreme Court decision for more than a quarter of a century now.  Pulliam v Allen 466 US 522 104 SCt 1970 80 LEd2d 565 (May 14 1984).  In 1996, Strom Thurmond proposed a relatively minor amendment to 42 U.S.C. §§1983 & 1988 to clarify the application of this provision to judicial officers.  Under Thurmond’s leadership, Congress amended the Civil Rights Statute to clarify that judges would only be liable for judicial actions taken “clearly in excess of jurisdiction” in the statute, and this language exactly tracks Justice Blackmun’s language in his opinion in Pulliam v. Allen (footnote 12) which reviews the tradition of limiting judicial immunity to matters “clearly within their cognizance” or “clearly within their jurisdiction”, in full (Blackmun here was in fact quoting Blackstone!).  Writing of the Judges of England, Blackstone in Volume 3 of his commentaries at pages 112-113 stated that if these Judges,

in handling of matters clearly within their cognizance, they transgress the bounds prescribed to them by the laws of England; as where they require two witnesses to prove the payment of a legacy, a release of tithes, or the like; in such cases also a prohibition will be awarded. For, as the fact of signing a release, or of actual payment, is not properly a spiritual question, but only allowed to be decided in those courts, because incident or accessory to some original question clearly within their jurisdiction; it ought therefore, where the two laws differ, to be decided not according to the spiritual, but the temporal law; else the same question might be determined different ways, according to the court in which the suit is depending: an impropriety, which no wise government can or ought to endure, and which is therefore a ground of prohibition. And if either the judge or the party shall proceed after such prohibition, an attachment may be had against them, to punish them for the contempt, at the discretion of the court that awarded it; and an action will lie against them, to repair the party injured in damages.

The Southern Manifesto co-authored by Sam Ervin & Strom Thurmond (and Richard Russell?) did not expressly cite Blackstone but began:

The unwarranted decision of the Supreme Court in the public school cases is now bearing the fruit always produced when men substitute naked power for established law.  The Founding Fathers gave us a Constitution of checks and balances because they realized the inescapable lesson of history that no man or group of men can be safely entrusted with unlimited power. They framed this Constitution with its provisions for change by amendment in order to secure the fundamentals of government against the dangers of temporary popular passion or the personal predilections of public officeholders.”

The consequences of this language include the assertion that public officeholders (including judges) must be liable for the consequences and injuries caused by their derogations from and violations of “established law.”  Just as in the recent Florida case decided above, where a judge enters a decision in violation of well-and-long established law relating to jurisdiction and scope of authority, that Judge renders nothing but a personal statement with personal consequences, for which that Judge should be personally liable.
I ask here: should any Judge enjoy immunity from prosecution for civil rights violations and/or suit for civil rights violations when that judge violates the letter of the Constitution, especially when a litigant points out that violation to the Court and no excuse (such as a Constitutionally declared war or surprise invasion) exists to suspend the Constitution temporarily…. and temporarily only… I have often had occasion to refer to 1996 USCCAN 4216-4217 which affirms that these amendments do not establish absolute immunity for judges.  I submit that Strom Thurmond authored the 1996 Amendments to the Civil Rights Action to ensure that Judges (like Chief Justice Earl Warren) could and would be held liable for their actions taken “clearly in excess of jurisdiction.”  Unfortunately, to date, neither the State nor Federal Courts have recognized the importance of these amendments, and continue to enforce Absolute Judicial Immunity.
The doctrine of “qualified immunity” also arose out of Watergate, particularly in the case of Mitchell v. Forsythe, 472 U.S. 511 (June 19, 1985) in which the Supreme Court limited former Attorney General John Mitchell to merely “qualified immunity” rather than “absolute immunity.”  Oddly enough, the standard the Supreme Court applied to the Attorney General of the United States involved a determination of what a “reasonable person” would know about the law (reasonably or unreasonably, most people in the United States today know almost nothing about the law, which explains why lawyers run amok and control the country).  Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the Attorney General of the United States would enjoy qualified immunity, “so long as his actions do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”
         Rather unsurprisingly, in practice, interlocutory appeal of any and every trial court determinations of qualified immunity plus a very pro-defense, anti-plaintiff judiciary means that even for prosecutors and police officers, “qualified immunity” is difficult to distinguish from “absolute immunity.” 

I know that my critics often accuse me of writing overly long-and-windy commentaries on my blog, and I suppose this will constitute one of my more offensive pieces.  I submit that the American public have become too used to short sound bytes and non-analytical thinking, and I hope I can encourage a more “in depth” and historically-based approach here.

Regarding legislative immunity, I recently discovered a very interesting and historically based article by a journalist name Chuck Murphy (Colorado Constitution and History of Legislative Immunity):

Murphy: Colorado’s legislative immunity rooted in 17th century England

Blame it on King Charles I.

He dissolved Parliament, made Oliver Cromwell famous and is as responsible as anyone for the get-out-of-jail-free card Rep. Laura Bradford of Mesa County used last week.

Bradford, R-Collbran, was pulled over Wednesday night on suspicion of driving while intoxicated after a Denver officer saw her make an improper lane change. But after failing a roadside sobriety test, Bradford mentioned that she was on her way home after a legislative function at a Colfax Avenue bar.

Those were the magic words.

Article V, Section 16 of the Colorado Constitution says:

“The members of the general assembly shall, in all cases except treason or felony, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the sessions of their respective houses, or any committees thereof, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either house, or any committees thereof, they shall not be questioned in any other place.”

That’s where Charles comes in.

By the time he took the crown in 1625, England had a robust Parliament and Charles was determined to put them in their place. He declared the divine right of the king to rule as he chose, and, after a series of confrontations, dissolved Parliament. Four years later, he did it again — and this time, he put much of the body’s leadership in prison. He was eventually defeated by Cromwell and lost his head — literally.

Say this for Brits — they have long memories.

It was 60 years later when Charles’ second son, James II (Dismal Jimmy), ascended to the throne. He wanted to impose Catholic rule on a deeply skeptical nation, and it did not go well. Within four years, he was deposed by his daughter Mary, and her husband, William of Orange. They are better known today as William and Mary.

Parliament had invited them to take over, but with certain conditions, partly based on the naughty behavior of Charles I. One of those was the 1688 Bill of Rights, which said in part:

“That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;

“That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal;”

And…

“That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.”

A couple hundred years went by before 1876, when Colorado was working on its latest version of a state constitution designed to get us admitted to the union. By then, we had the U.S. Constitution and the work of several other states to crib from, including an 1859 effort from Kansas:

“For any speech or debate in either house, the members shall not be questioned elsewhere. No member of the Legislature shall be subject to arrest — except for felony or breach of the peace — in going to or returning from the place of meeting, or during the continuance of the session; neither shall be he subject to the service of any civil process during the session, nor for fifteen days previous to its commencement.”

Look familiar? It all leaps right out of 17th-century England.

Now, say what you will about Gov. John Hickenlooper — he is impetuous, and he does on occasion show signs of a temper — but he is not about to lock up members of the legislature, not even the House, if he doesn’t get his way. I’m certain of it.

These immunity clauses exist in a majority of state constitutions today (legislators know a good thing when they see it). Arizona has discussed getting rid of theirs after their former Senate majority leader avoided arrest on a domestic-violence charge by invoking legislative immunity. His girlfriend was arrested while he went home, provoking well-placed outrage.

Legislators have no right to any protections not enjoyed by every other citizen, period, and most don’t avail themselves of this constitutional provision anyway. Even Bradford denies that she intended to avoid arrest by mentioning where she was coming from.

So who in Colorado’s legislature will take up the charge to rid our constitution of this anachronism? We amend the document all the time, with mixed results, but this seems like a no-brainer in an election year.

All it takes is a proposal to get it on the ballot. A majority of Coloradans just might go along.

Chuck Murphy: 303-954-1829, cmurphy@denverpost.comortwitter.com/cmurphydenpost

Read more:Murphy: Colorado’s legislative immunity rooted in 17th century England – The Denver Posthttp://www.denverpost.com/murphy/ci_19849376#ixzz1mpThOiJt
Read The Denver Post’s Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse