Category Archives: Senado Federal

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.

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

Historia al dia, 20 de Enero 2012 (si los Anglophonos podrian empesar aprender un poco la historia, que tan diferente seria la politica aqui en los Estados Unidos—seguramente todo cambiaria por cierto!

648: en Europa, el rey visigodo Chindasvinto, instaura la monarquía hereditaria en Hispania al asociar al trono a su hijo Recesvinto.
1486: Cristóbal Colón se presenta en Córdoba a los Reyes Católicos y entra a su servicio.
1500: el marino Vicente Yáñez Pinzón es el primer español que cruza el equinoccio sobre la costa atlántica americana hasta acceder al actual Brasil.
1503: se crea la Casa de Contratación de Sevilla, encargada de organizar y controlar todo el servicio de transportes y de pasajeros entre el Nuevo y el Viejo Mundo.
1532: en México, los españoles Fernando y Francisco de Saín fundan la Villa de San Sebastián, hoy conocida como Saín Alto, (Zacatecas).
1576: en México se funda la villa de León, como una guarnición para los españoles que se encontraban en guerra con los grupos de chichimecas que poblaban la región.
1722: el príncipe de Asturias, Luis, se casa con Luisa Isabel de Orleans para afianzar la alianza entre Francia y España.
1783: se firma entre Gran Bretaña, Estados Unidos, Francia y España los preliminares del acuerdo definitivo, llamado Tratado de Versalles, por el que se reconoce la independencia de las colonias británicas americanas.
1834: en España, un decreto real suprime, de modo indirecto, la organización gremial.
1839: en el marco de la Guerra entre la Confederación Perú-Boliviana y el Ejército Restaurador Chile-Perú, se libra la Batalla de Yungay.
1874: fue atacada la Villa de Ayerbe por la columna carlista mandada por el Brigadier Don Manuel López de Caracuel.
1906: se extrae en la Premier Mine, cerca de Pretoria (Sudáfrica), el famoso diamante “Cullinan”, con un peso de 620 g antes de ser cortado.
1909: en España, el Congreso de los Diputados aprueba una ley por la que se prohíbe la exportación de obras de arte.
1917: en Londres (Inglaterra) mueren ochenta personas tras la explosión de una fábrica de armamentos.
1925: tras el Tratado de Pekín, Japón reconoce a la URSS y le entrega la mitad norte de la isla de Sajalín.
1927: en Argentina se funda en Concepción, Tucumán, el Concepción Fútbol Club.
1929: León Trotsky es expulsado de la URSS y deportado a Turquía.
1936: Eduardo VIII es proclamado monarca del Reino Unido y Emperador de la India.
1942: II Guerra Mundial: Altos dirigentes nazis deciden la “solución final del problema judío” en la llamada Conferencia de Wannsee, celebrada en Wannsee, cerca de Berlín.
1943: II Guerra Mundial: Chile rompe relaciones con los países miembro del Eje: Bulgaria, Croacia, Rumania, Japón, Alemania e Italia.
1944: II Guerra Mundial: La aviación británica lanza más de dos mil toneladas de bombas sobre Berlín.
1949: Estados Unidos: Harry S. Truman desarrolla un programa de cuatro puntos para los países económicamente atrasados.
1950: se concierta en Moscú un tratado de amistad, de treinta años de duración, entre la URSS y China.
1952: las tropas británicas ocupan la ciudad egipcia de Ismailia, fuera de la zona que les está reservada en el Canal de Suez.
1953: en Estados Unidos, Dwight D. Eisenhower asume el cargo de presidente (la última oportunidad segura de anular el “New Deal” de FDR ya así se perdió).
1956: en Estados Unidos comienza a circular el primer tren de industria española (Talgo) entre Chicago y Peoria.
1958: se publica la primera aventura de Mortadelo y Filemón en Pulgarcito.
1960: en España se funda la Universidad de Navarra del Opus Dei, en cuyo patrocinio participa un amplio capital catalán.
1961: en Estados Unidos, J. F. Kennedy toma posesión del cargo de presidente.  Kennedy murió menos que tres años después en Dallas, Texas, asesinado, lo mas probable, por ordenes de los partidarios de Lyndon Johnson.  Kennedy se habia opuesto al banco Central “Federal Reserve” y tambien se opuso a la cancelación de “Silver Certificates” y moneda de Plata en Estados Unidos; Lyndon Johnson aumento al poder del Federal Reserve y dentro de un año después de la muerte de Kennedy, se eliminó los últimos vestigios físicos de dinero constitucional (es decir, de plata) en los Estados Unidos.
1968: Colombia reanuda las relaciones diplomáticas con la URSS.
1969: en Estados Unidos, Richard Nixon asume la presidencia; el continuaba todos los programas de Lyndon Johnson, y cancelaba los últimos vestigios legales de dinero constitucional (es decir, “la ventanilla de oro” en el Banco Central “Federal Reserve”) al mismo momento de imponer “wage and price controls” que causaron la primera etapa de “double digit inflation” en las historia de los Estados Unidos…
1972: en Chile el gobierno dimite en pleno para facilitar a Salvador Allende su reorganización.
1980: el presidente estadounidense Jimmy Carter exige la suspensión de los Juegos Olímpicos de Moscú si la URSS no se retira de Afganistán en el plazo de cuatro semanas.
1981: en Estados Unidos, Ronald Reagan jura su cargo como presidente; Reagan se eligió como “Conservador” pero en sus ocho años jamas cancelaba ningún programa importante iniciado por Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, o Carter.
1985: en Estados Unidos, Ronald Reagan jura su cargo para un segundo mandato y anuncia su apoyo al proyecto de defensa estratégica, conocido popularmente como “Guerra de la Galaxias”.   Este programa de “Star Wars” causó un aumento exponencial en el presupuesto Federal de Estados Unidos, y al mismo tiempo se tumbo al dolar en los mercados mundiales y llevó a cabo la cuadruplificación de la deuda Estadounidense.  Al inicio de su primer cuatrenio, Reagan prometió restaurar integridad fiscal a los Estados Unidos.  Al termino de su segundo, Estados Unidos no ganaba mucho a México o Argentina en este sentido….
1986: en Estados Unidos se celebra por primera vez el día de Martin Luther King como fiesta oficial (esto no fue ningún movimiento conservador por parte del Presidente Reagan).
1989: En Estados Unidos, George Herbert Walker Bush jura su cargo como Presidente de los Estados Unidos.
1993: en Estados Unidos, Bill Clinton asume como presidente.
1994: en España, Rafael Ángel Martínez González, es nombrado académico de la Institución Tello Téllez de Meneses.
1996: en los Territorios Palestinos, Yasir Arafat es elegido presidente de la Autoridad Nacional Palestina.
1998: en Brasil se crea el primer Banco Comunitario de Desarrollo, de nombre Banco Palmas
2001: en Estados Unidos, George W. Bush asume como presidente (muchos lloraron así).
2005: en Estados Unidos, George W. Bush toma posesión por segunda vez del cargo de presidente de los Estados Unidos (más lloraron en Estados Unidos pero en el resto del mundo solo reían y burlaban a los Americanos Estúpidos).
2009: Barack Obama se convierte en el 44.º presidente de los Estados Unidos, el primer presidente afroamericano.  (Se le dice o llame a Obama “afroamericano” porque mas de la mitad de los Africanos dicen que nació en Africa pero mas de la mitad de los Americanos creen que nació en Hawaii, aunque creció en Indonesia durante los años 1960s.  Los hechos únicos ciertos son los siguientes: (1) su papa oficial nació en Africa y fue sujeto del Imperio Británico, pero era comunista, (2) su mama nació en Kansas, pero también era comunista, y “Obama” (bajo el nombre de Barry Soetoro, estudio primaria en las escuelas Islamicas de Indonesia).

I have Registered as a Candidate for United States Senator, running as a Constitutional Democratic-Republican against Dianne Feinstein, that pillar of the Establishment

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Myyyf3A5uEE&feature=related
I was playing this very inspiring video with JFK, MLK, Jr., and Ron Paul on my I-Pad to a small group in Room 2013 on the second floor of the the Los Angeles County Registrar’s Office for Candidate Registration today. Kennedy was at least nominally a Democrat, although it appears he may have been assassinated, at least in part, for opposing the Federal Reserve and in particular the plan to take silver out of circulation, and hence as a basis for the United States Dollar….which had been “silver” since at least the 1780s…. I was waiting while an even smaller group of unusually efficient bureaucrats processed the paperwork necessary to put my campaign “on-line.”

And so it was that on Friday, December 30, the last business day of 2011, I filed formal campaign papers to run for U.S. Senate against Dianne Feinstein. Many of California’s representatives in Congress are traitors, and should be removed, although I noted with some satisfaction that in the Los Angeles Basin proper, only the very oldest New World Order Advocate/Brave New Warrior Henry Arnold Waxman, voted for the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011…(Fiscal 2012, aka “Indefinite Detention without charges, due process of law, or habeas corpus). Nancy Pelosi, of course, voted with Waxman and the establishment, as did Adam Schiff and Howard Berman, but in the spirit of fairness, I think we owe at least the following 18 Democratic and 4 Republican Representatives on the California delegagtion credit for their courageous “no” votes:
No CA-1 Thompson, C. [D]
No CA-4 McClintock, Tom [R]
No CA-5 Matsui, Doris [D]
No CA-6 Woolsey, Lynn [D]
No CA-7 Miller, George [D]
No CA-9 Lee, Barbara [D]
No CA-12 Speier, Jackie [D]
No CA-13 Stark, Fortney [D]
No CA-14 Eshoo, Anna [D]
No CA-15 Honda, Michael [D]
No CA-16 Lofgren, Zoe [D]
No CA-17 Farr, Sam [D]
No CA-31 Becerra, Xavier [D]
No CA-32 Chu, Judy [D]
No CA-33 Bass, Karen [D]
No CA-34 Roybal-Allard, Lucille [D]
No CA-35 Waters, Maxine [D]
No CA-36 Hahn, Janice [D]
No CA-38 Napolitano, Grace [D]
No CA-40 Royce, Edward [R]
No CA-46 Rohrabacher, Dana [R]
No CA-48 Campbell, John [R]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2011-932

I am grateful that the primary is non-partisan, because partisan labels “Democrat” and “Republican” now mean nothing except that third-party candidates are doomed. The “top two” selection process without a primary and runoff is ALSO unfairly stacked against the outside, but we shall see whether the number of ordinary Californians (in the tens of millions) can recognize their common grounds and identify with me. I call out to everyone who has been defrauded of their vested contractual rights their homes, their jobs, and their property, defeated in every court and administrative proceeding, and dispossessed of all their rights, title, and interest in life, liberty, and property….and so consistently defeated and frustrated for a very long time in their pursuit of happiness…of the American Dream— I call out to everyone with a family member now or recently in jail, on probation, or under investigation…. I call out to everyone who used to be one of the “haves” and is now a “have not”, or who has never been invited to the table of prosperity at all, to join me in fighting for the end of deceit, lies, and prevarication as policies of governmental manipulation and control. We must divest the banks and the corporations of their controlling positions in society and thus destroy the military-industrial-financial complex which has made government subservient to the few rather than the many. In particular, we must take American land and jobs off the world market—to be bought and sold into slavery by massive foreign interests with no commitment to freedom or democracy, and to restore American productivity. Let them scream in Beijing and Shanghai, Mumbai, Islamabad, Calcutta, Bangkok, and Singapore, calling us “isolationists” and “protectionists” and we will know that we are on the road toward being a happy and prosperous nation again. Let us learn from the disaster in Europe and start dismantling our Central Banking system and abolish fiat currency and reckless credit regimes before they together flatten and wreck us. Let us restore private property to our people and so replace welfare slavery with independence as the primary way of life. Let us even accept that we will all have to work harder, be poorer, and use our minds with more discipline and vigor if we are ever really to be free and stand upright to each other as citizens and to the world again. And in relation to the world, let us indeed “leave them alone.” If Sharia law is the will of the people in Amman, Algiers, Baghdad, Benghazi, Cairo, Damascus, Khartoum, Tehran, Tripoli, and Tunisia, let those people have their way. We will leave them alone and they will leave us alone—I have no doubt of it! Good fences make good neighbors so long as the dogs of war don’t jump over them….and so long as we control ours, I believe they will control theirs. “Terrorism”, as it has been analyzed and applied in the past twenty years, really DOES begin at home you know….
http://www.corbettreport.com/911-a-conspiracy-theory/

The Death of the Constitution: Structure of Government (are Articles I, II, and III COMPLETELY MEANINGLESS)

Bank of America Consent Order 11-029-B-HC 04-13-2011

What has happened to the three part division of functions and separation of powers of the Federal Government in the Constitution?  Article I: Legislative, Article II: Executive, Article III: Judiciary.  The above linked and attached “Consent Order” is issued in the name of the “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA” like any Article III judicial court, but the Court that issued it is the “BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, WASHINGTON, D.C.”.   This was all news to me: the Federal Reserve Board of Governors Acts as a Court and has its own Docket of cases, decisions of which have the force and effect of law?

The Federal Reserve System’s structure consists, at the top, of the presidentially appointed Board of Governors (or Federal Reserve Board) and the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). There are twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks located in major cities throughout the nation (A = Boston, B = New York, C= Philadelphia, D = Cleveland, E = Richmond, F = Atlanta, G = Chicago, H = St. Louis, I = Minneapolis, J = Kansas City, K = Dallas, L = San Francisco—note the close coordination between these Federal Reserve Banks and the 9 U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal 1 = Boston, 2 = New York, 3 = Philadelphia, 4 = Richmond, 5 = New Orleans (Dallas), 6 = Cincinnati (Cleveland), 7 = Chicago, 8 = Minneapolis, 9 = San Francisco).  At the bottom of the hierarchy there are numerous privately owned U.S. member banks and various advisory councils.

The Federal Open Market Committee takes nominal (but never “legal”) responsibility for setting monetary policy.  This “FOMC” consists of all seven members of the Board of Governors and the twelve regional bank presidents, though only five bank presidents vote at any given time (one wonders whether this is to diffuse any personal or legal liability for setting any particular policy?).  The Federal Reserve System has both private and public components, and was designed to serve the interests of both the general public and private bankers.

The result is a structure that is unique among central banks (indeed, among any kind of corporate or political hierarchy at all).  The Federal Reserve Banking System differs from all others (of England/UK, France, Germany, Italy for instance) in that an entity outside of the central bank, namely the United States Department of the Treasury, creates the currency used—again, this appears to be a stratagem to diffuse responsibility and liability.  HOW IS ANY OF THIS EVEN REMOTELY CONSISTENT WITH THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION?

According to the Board of Governors, the Federal Reserve “acts independently  within the government” in that “its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government.” The authority of the Federal Reserve Banking System derives from statutes enacted by the U.S. Congress and the System is subject to congressional oversight. Like members of the President’s Cabinet, Article III Judges, and Ambassadors to Foreign Nations, the members of the Board of Governors, including its chairman and vice-chairman, come to office only when nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

The government also exercises some nominal (or is it actual and total?) control over the Federal Reserve by appointing and setting the salaries of the system’s highest-level employees. Thus the Federal Reserve retains both private and public aspects. The U.S. Government receives all of the system’s annual profits, after a statutory dividend of 6% on member banks’ capital investment is paid, and an account surplus is maintained. In 2010, the Federal Reserve made a profit of $82 billion and transferred $79 billion to the U.S. Treasury.

What is amazing here is that, the way I see it, the REAL power triangle of the Federal Government is NOT Article I Legislative, Article II Executive, and Article III Judiciary, but Federal Reserve Board, Internal Revenue Service, and Social Security Administration.  

EACH of these “independent, quasi-governmental” entities set their own regulation by publication in the daily issued “Federal Register” (codified in the Code of Federal Regulations or “CFR”) and they make these regulations under “general” grants of authority by Congress and subject to the “general” supervision of Congress, the President, and the Courts.  (All three Constitutional Branches of government are at least NOMINALLY empowered to supervise the “extra-constitutional” branches of government).  

But each “extra-constitutional” branch of government also as enforcement (i.e. executive) powers and ITS OWN INTERNAL ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS (governed by Title 5 of the United States Code and the “Administrative Procedure Act”, among other provisions of the U.S. Code such as Title 12 for Banking, Title 15 for Commerce, and the vast Title 42 for “Public Health and Welfare”—which also, bizarrely enough, includes not only Social Security but Civil Rights, and the completely extra-constitutional and “liberty inconsistent” mandates for Environmental Regulation and Control over the Family and Probate Law systems of each state).

Where are the Senators and Congressmen and State Legislators trying to bring this behemoth within the Constitution again?  Why are high school students not taught that the three part system of REAL (DE FACTO) government in this Country consists of the Federal Reserve System, the Internal Revenue Commission, and the Social Security Administration under the Commissioner of Social Security and the Department of Health & Human Services? 

How do nullificationists and “Tenthers” (including my friends Michael Boldin and Bryce Shonka at the wonderful Tenth Amendment Center here in Los Angeles, actually expect to restore power to the states when the states are directly complicit in this constitutional breakdown and are constantly feeding at the unconstitutional troughs of general revenue and social security? (See my “white paper”: WHEN THE VALID PUBLIC DEBT IS QUESTIONED CONGRESS MUST ANSWER CEL 08-09-2011—arguing among other things that the States expressly consented to abrogate their own sovereignty with contractual finality when they accepted Social Security; and OUTLINE FOR COMPLAINT—Draft 08-17-2011 (Legislative Immunity was abolished by the Fourteenth Amendment where the Validity Public Debt is Questioned).  I had the privilege of speaking at the February 2010 Tenth Amendment Center Conference in Atlanta last year, and I asked this question to an audience of States Rights Advocates—and they had no answer…… it was discouraging….

The American People need to reclaim their control over the government, and by definition, a government entirely outside of the Constitution is entirely beyond the control of the people. The three-part division of government between the Federal Reserve System, the IRS and Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and the Social Security Administration and its own phony “Board of Trustees” which is just as fake as the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System as a pretense of responsible administration of powers) is as oppressive as it is fraudulent, and it is inimical to a Democratic-Republican form of government.  

Is this the culture we deserve?  I think not.

If you would like to help the fight for “corny old values” like Truth, Justice, and the American Way, for Family, Home, and Freedom, and to add one Senator for the Bill of Rights and against Indefinite Detention, against the PATRIOT ACT, and against the use of United States Troops in this Country against its own citizens, please support Charles Edward Lincoln, III, for U.S. Senator from California.  We are fighting one of the most entrenched establishment seats in Congress—Dianne Feinstein who tried to make cosmetic changes in S.B. 1867 to hide and disguise its truly oppressive nature (and to claim she had “done the best she could”, perhaps?)—and we ask you to send your check or money order to Lincoln-for-Senate 2012 to Charles Edward Lincoln, III, 952 Gayley Avenue, #143, Los Angeles, California 90024.  Call 310-773-6023 for more information. 

Happy 220th Birthday to the Bill of Rights, RIP Bill of Rights: Upon Signing Indefinite Detention, the tragedy, the treason, the deceit and betrayal that defines the Presidency of Barack Hussein Obama is now perfected.

Apparently, Barack Hussein Obama will sign the National Defense Authorization Act into law with Indefinite Detention for American citizens without trial.  (I feel my native land is dead—La Patria Mia e morta!–Mein Lieb Heimatland ist Tot!).   Rather than say any more than I have already said about pledging my life to fighting this monstrous new legislation, I will just refer you to two recent articles by one of my favorite writers over at Salon.com, Glenn Greenwald, author of “How would a Patriot Act?”

12-15-2011 Obama to sign indefinite detention bill into law (Glenn Greenwald’s Indictment of the President is searing—probably just not searing enough, but a good start!) Glenn Greenwald on Indefinite Detention authorized by SB 1867 (Congress Endorsing Military Detention, a New Authorization for the Use of Military Force INSIDE the United States and against United States Citizens—Carl Levin and John McCain should be allowed to share a scaffold at their hanging for Treason!)

Like clockwork this lying deceitful monster has insinuated his way into position to complete the work of destruction that no “White” President could have done.  I doubt that Congress would have ever allowed George W. Bush or even William Jefferson Clinton or George H.W. Bush the chance to sign such legislation—but who can possibly say “no” to America’s first “genuine African-American President” (so genuine he was probably born in Africa….)?  If the first black President wants indefinite detention IT MUST BE OK, RIGHT?  It surely isn’t racist or anti-Islamic coming from a President with the middle name “Hussein”!  It just cannot be.  Indefinite detention MUST be all right and good for the Country—and even for Civil Rights, right?  I mean, America’s First Black President couldn’t really be named “Uncle Tom” could he?  Could George W. Bush have picked the ONLY possible successor who could have PERFECTED George W. Bush’s complete sell-out of the American Dream?

George Bernard Shaw once commented that, under a genuine Fabian Socialist regime, any person who did not conform to the State ideals would be given several chances to conform, and “probably given a painless death”—or words very much to that effect.  

For my part, I promise, that if elected by some God-Sent Miracle to the United States Senate, I will constantly filibuster for the repeal of this statute, and for the restoration of the full force and effect of all of the Bill of Rights, even with improvements which might be drawn from the English Bill of Rights of 1689 or Article I of the Texas Constitution (one of the finest and most complete Bills of Rights in all the World, as originally enacted, anyhow, containing an express prohibition that the rights provided for in the bill of rights should maintain “forever” inviolate, untouchable by the Legislature—a provision obviously needed in the U.S. Constitution to prevent such a law as S.B. 1867 from EVER becoming law).  

See Texas Constitution, Article I, §§28-29: 

Sec. 28.  SUSPENSION OF LAWS. No power of suspending laws in this State shall be exercised except by the Legislature.

 Sec. 29.  PROVISIONS OF BILL OF RIGHTS EXCEPTED FROM POWERS OF GOVERNMENT; TO FOREVER REMAIN INVIOLATE. To guard against transgressions of the high powers herein delegated, we declare that everything in this “Bill of Rights” is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate, and all laws contrary thereto, or to the following provisions, shall be void.

Is it a coincidence that the infamous 26 March 2009 Domestic Extremism Lexicon has just now been updated and posted by the Department of Homeland Security, the most evil and insidious branch of government to be established since the Stalinist NKVD?  www.fas.org/irp/eprint/lexicon.pdf?

If you would like to help the fight for “corny old values” like Truth, Justice, and the American Way, for Family, Home, and Freedom, and to add one Senator for the Bill of Rights and against Indefinite Detention, against the PATRIOT ACT, and against the use of United States Troops in this Country against its own citizens, please support Charles Edward Lincoln, III, for U.S. Senator from California.  We are fighting one of the most entrenched establishment seats in Congress—Dianne Feinstein who tried to make cosmetic changes in S.B. 1867 to hide and disguise its truly oppressive nature (and to claim she had “done the best she could”, perhaps?)—and we ask you to send your check or money order to Lincoln-for-Senate 2012 to Charles Edward Lincoln, III, 952 Gayley Avenue, #143, Los Angeles, California 90024.  Call 310-773-6023 for more information. 

A Message of Manifest Destiny from the Queen of Mexico and Empress of America: we should be one Nation in North America divided into many local sovereign counties or smaller subunits. Could the “Federalism” inherent in the titles of the Virgin of Guadalupe finally lead (after 163 years) to a truly Democratic-Republican United States of America and the restoration of power to the people throughout North America?

Queen of Mexico, Empress of America---is there a political message here?

 In California, one of the most tortured issues, whether one likes it or not, turns on the position of California as Anglo-Hispanic or “Global” by way of fundamental culture and identity.  Another slogan-like Title of the Virgin is “Madre de la Patria” (“Mother of the Fatherland”).   Still another is “La Morenita”, “the slightly dark-skinned lady”.  

From December of 1531—barely ten years after the Spanish Conquest of the Aztec Empire, when there were still enough remnants of the Aztec aristocracy, priesthood, and warrior nobility* (See Note Below) to have dreamed and perhaps even had some chance at a nativistic revolution against the Spanish—the Virgin of Guadalupe both physically embodied and symbolized the unique syncretism of cultures which is that which we call “Mexico” or “Mexican”, the culture of Anahuac and the race of Tlatelolco (the site of the final battle between the Aztec and Spanish in 1521, also the site of Sahagún’s bi-cultural “College” where the Aztec and Spanish aristocracy came together.

And now we face, whether we like it or not, in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and my native Texas, the question of whether the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo was a mistake or not: whether the ultimate destiny of the Southwestern United States is Anglo- or Hispanic.  

The Mexicans are winning the birth race and the immigration race, despite the rather nasty political invective (by my fellow WASPS and Anglo-German descendants, primarily) against “Illegal Immigration”.   It was just pointed out to me yesterday by Melody Castillo Gillespie that, under that same Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, there could have been no such thing as “illegal immigration” because the freedom to cross the border together with one’s property was absolutely guaranteed, even 12 months after the initiation of a new war between Mexico and the United States, and that Mexicans who acquired property in the United States by contract would be absolutely protected in their ownership on the same basis as other U.S. Citizens: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=009/llsl009.db&recNum=975 .  

I have often written on these pages about the strong historical connexions which exist between Anglo-American and Latin-Hispanic culture and history on this continent—especially but definitely not limited to the states of Arizona, California, Florida, Louisiana, New Mexico, and Texas.  

I do not, in any way, agree with the oppressive and homogenizing practices of globalism, but I see no realistic way to argue or maintain that the three Nations of North America do not share a common destiny.   I have lived at different times in the United States, where I was born in Texas, Mexico, where I have spent more time than any other foreign country including England (where I lived with my parents when I was a small child, until age 6), and Canada (where I have lived less time but from whose population I have derived several of the great and deepest friendships I have known in my life).   Crossing back and forth between the three countries of North America would seem to be a fundamental right of liberty, and yet it is one of the most hotly contested issues in America.

I submit that, if elected as a Senator from California, addressing these issues of historical identity, historical injustice, and ethnic affiliation and “destiny”, whether Manifest or not, will be one of the most serious issues I would address.  I fear and despise the “mainstream” Republican approach to immigration from Mexico which would perpetuate the incarceration of hundreds of thousands of hardworking economic immigrants and utilize all the injustices inherent in the modern American judiciary against people of Hispanic speech and “southern” North American origin.  But I equally despise the “mainstream” Democrats who would use issues of welfare and “entitlement” to social services and assistance essentially to wipe out Anglo-American culture and give a superior advantage to immigrants for the purpose of socially and economically destabilizing, and politically disenfranchising, the Anglo-Saxon, Anglo-German, and general Anglo-European (non-Hispanic) population.

Local cultural and ethnic autonomy needs to be established throughout the American Southwest.  Counties, Cities, and unincorporated areas must be given, perhaps according to the principles of local determination for each geographically coherent unit of 100,000-250,000 people (“neighborhoods” in Los Angeles) that they can select their identity and structure the nature of government and laws to avoid homogenization by “majority rule” (especially since there is simply no genuine population majority along ethnic or cultural lines anywhere in the Southwest anymore, but especially in California).  

I would particularly suggest the devolution of legislative control over executive (police) authority and judicial decision-making to the county or municipal level in each and every area where this can conceivably be done, including but not limited to issues of family law, domestic violence, local property ownership and control, so long as all of these processes are subject to general and specific regulation by the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the general precepts of the common law of contracts, property ownership, and the definition of (most) crimes.

The only way for such a process of political decentralization to take place is if the Federal Government abdicates its current policy in favor of increasing centralization and concentration of power in the hands of the government in Washington D.C..  If it is possible for the United States government to USURP unconstitutional power over all matters touching upon family, contract, and ownership of property, it should be possible for the United States government to RETURN that power to the states and local governments, to ABDICATE its central roles.  

Once again I recommend a recent book I read on one of the oldest constitutional principles uniquely designed for North America, in 1650 by Lord Baltimore, the founder of Maryland.  Carl Douglas 2011, “The Baltimore Principles“, Mesa, Arizona: the Arnett Institute.  This book clearly shows how Constitutional abrogation and tyranny can best be preserved by granting increased power to local governments through a system of vertically integrated bi-cameral legislations starting at the local and county levels, where the people vote for one house at EACH level of government, but the governmental representatives elect representatives to a SECOND house at EACH Level of Government.  

Full implementation of the Baltimore Principles would permit the devolution of local power downward on the vertical scale of hierarchy, thus permitting, at once, the equation of Federal (“Title 25”) Indian reservations with Counties or Municipal Governments as local sovereign entities while still preserving the Federal Nature of the United States, and even permitting such a process as the integration of all three countries in North America (subject to full open and honest plebiscite, NOT tainted by voter fraud or computerized manipulation) in such a manner as to maximize personal freedom, local autonomy, and abolish the injustices created by NAFTA and what amounts, in essence, to massive cross-border fraud, exploitation, and invited and fostered welfare dependency.

If you would like to help the fight for “corny old values” like Truth, Justice, and the American Way, for Family, Home, and Freedom, and to add one Senator for the Bill of Rights and against Indefinite Detention, against the PATRIOT ACT, and against the use of United States Troops in this Country against its own citizens, please support Charles Edward Lincoln, III, for U.S. Senator from California.  We are fighting one of the most entrenched establishment seats in Congress—Dianne Feinstein who tried to make cosmetic changes in S.B. 1867 to hide and disguise its truly oppressive nature (and to claim she had “done the best she could”, perhaps?)—and we ask you to send your check or money order to Lincoln-for-Senate 2012 to Charles Edward Lincoln, III, 952 Gayley Avenue, #143, Los Angeles, California 90024.  Call 310-773-6023 for more information. 

Note*And, yes, the Tenochca-Mexica clearly had a society divided into three functional categories exactly corresponding to those posited as diagnostic characteristics of Indo-European Soceity by Georges Dumézil.  This three-part organization (without direct Dumezilian reference) is most clearly outlined in Rudolph van Zantwijk’s 1985, “The Aztec Arrangement” (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press), although it was reasonable clear from Jacques Soustelle’s 1961 Daily Life of the Aztec, and indeed, directly from the organization of Fray Bernaldino de Sahagún’s 16th Century twelve volume Historia General de las cosas de la Nueva España.”