|
ndeed, the Freedom of Information Act does not apply to the courts,
so they have their many secrets and hide their records. Many of the
criminal (!)ARS posters claim that courts are so correct and just, but
as you read below, others have the problems too.
Firealarm in the library, I have to go!
Barbara Schwarz
Commentary: I had the below article for quite some time, I don't know
if I ever posted it before. Toward the end of it, it gives examples of
how the Courts can and do hide their records. FOIA does not apply to
Federal Courts. The author notes:
"What conclusions may we draw from this latest foray into legal slime?
Public trials are a fantasy. There is no meaningful access to the
courts. Due process is a distant memory. The Star Chamber proceedings,
which caused our forefathers to leave England in the 17th century and
land in Massachusetts, apparently stowed away -- like rodents -- and
invaded this country and today continue to eat away at the very roots
of an increasingly dysfunctional judicial system."
Secret Courts - Secret Law by Larry Bolin
The traditional Anglo-American distrust for secret trials has been
variously ascribed to the notorious use of this practice by the
Spanish Inquisition, to the excesses of the English Court of Star
Chamber, and to the French monarchy's abuse of the lettre de cachet.
All of these institutions obviously symbolized a menace to liberty. In
the hands of despotic groups each of them had become an instrument for
the suppression of political and religious heresies in ruthless
disregard of the right of an accused to a fair trial. In re: Oliver,
333 U.S. 257, 68 S. Ct. 499, 92 L. Ed. 682 (1948).
Some authorities have said that trials in the Star Chamber were
public, but that witnesses against the accused were examined privately
with no opportunity for him to discredit them. Apparently all
authorities agree that the accused himself was grilled in secret,
often tortured, in an effort to obtain a confession and that the most
objectionable of the Star Chamber's practices was its asserted
prerogative to disregard the common law rules of criminal procedure
when the occasion demanded. 5 Holdsworth, A History of English Law,
163, 165, 180-197 (2d ed. 1937); Radin, The Right to a Public Trial, 6
Temp. L. Q. 381, 386-388; Washburn, The Court of Star Chamber, 12 Am.
L. Rev. 21, 25-31. In re: Oliver, supra.
"Secret law is an abomination," wrote Professor Kenneth Davis in
Administrative Law Treatise 137 in 1970. This quote has been cited in
numerous federal cases involving freedom of information act (F.O.I.A.)
requests. Two of the cases, Cox v. United States Department of
Justice, 576 F.2d 1302, 1309 (8th Cir. 1978) and Stokes v. Brennan,
476 F.2d 699, 701-02 (5th Cir. 1973) are just two examples where the
courts argued that secret law is wrong and government agencies, which
the Courts are, are to make their documents available for public
inspection. It is crucial to public confidence in the courts that
judges be seen as enforcing the law and obeying it themselves. U.S. v.
Muniz, 49 F.3d 36, 43 (1st Cir. 1995).
Sounds good so far.
Except when it comes to cases concerning those "evil Arab terrorists"
and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. "In 1996, the
president signed the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act,
which authorized secret evidence. A federal district judge in Newark,
N.J., William Walls, has now described this as government processes
initiated and prosecuted in darkness.'" Hentoff: "Prosecution in
Darkness," Washington Post, Saturday, November 6, 1999; Page A25.
For the rest of us, Congress created two little known bureaucracies,
which are responsible for the kind of justice that all thinking free
people have come to dread. One of the organizations created in 1922,
albeit under a different name, was the Judicial Conference. In 1939,
Congress transferred responsibility for federal court budget
preparation, data gathering, and administrative support from the
Justice Department to the newly created Administrative Office of the
U.S. Courts, which was directed to function under the Judicial
Conference's supervision. "Chambers Handbook of Judges' Law Clerks and
Secretaries" (hereinafter "The Handbook"), p. 84 (FJC 1994).
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the Judicial
Conference, which is composed of the chief judges of the courts of
appeals, one district judge from each regional circuit and the chief
judge of the Court of International Trade. Although Congress has
vested relatively little authority directly in the Judicial
Conference, this organization has considerable practical authority.
That authority arises from its statutory responsibility to supervise
and direct the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, including the
AO's control of the distribution of funds appropriated by Congress.
Id., p. 84-85.
People with a modicum of intelligence have already figured out that
the Judicial Conference controls the Federal courts.
In 1967, Congress created the second pillar of injustice and labeled
it the Federal Judicial Center (hereinafter "the FJC") at the request
of the Judicial Conference. The FJC's mission is "to further the
development and adoption of improved judicial administration" in the
courts of the United States. The Center's statutory duties are
codified at 28 U.S.C. 620629. They include providing orientation
and continuing education for the judges and staff (which includes
judicial law clerks and secretaries) of the federal judicial system,
performing research on court operations and procedures (particularly
in support of Judicial Conference committees), and conducting programs
to promote judicial federalism, assist foreign judicial systems, and
study the federal courts' history. "Federal Judicial Center Annual
Report," p. 3 (1999).
Governance of the Center consists of the Chief Justice of the United
States, who chairs the Center's Board, which also includes two circuit
judges, three district judges, one bankruptcy judge, and one
magistrate judge elected by the Judicial Conference, as well as the
director, who oversees the FJC's activities, and its members, who
serve on standing committees on education and research and on Center
advisory committees on judicial education programs. Federal Judicial
Center Annual Report, page 3 (1999). A very close(d)-knit group
indeed!
Now, the issues at hand: Secret Courts - Secret Law.
One of the more interesting publications the educational arm of the
Federal courts has produced in recent years is "A Guide to the
Preservation of Federal Judges' Papers" (1996) (hereinafter "the
Guide"). Just as the title suggests, this concerns the preservation of
judges' papers.
However, this is another little gem found in this book. What this
piece of work contains is absolute proof that there are two types of
justice. Des
|
| |
| |
On 12 Sep 2003 10:35:14 -0700, BarbaraSchwarz@excite.com (Barbara
Schwarz) wrote:
Indeed, the Freedom of Information Act does not apply to the courts,
so they have their many secrets and hide their records. Many of the
criminal (!)ARS posters claim that courts are so correct and just, but
as you read below, others have the problems too.
Firealarm in the library, I have to go!
Barbara Schwarz
It's no wonder why nobody bothers to listen to your statements let
alone accept them as anything more than the blabberings of a
self-pitying conspiracy nut. It's almost as if you take the contents
of any article you read as gospel without researching the entire topic
extensively before making comment. Taking the position of making
statements presented with seemingly sound evidence rather than
engaging in debate about the issue is far from the best approach when
posting to an interactive forum such as Usenet. This however seems to
be your standard tactic of engagement - which I think removes any form
of credibility you might have. Because of this I can only wonder how
many people have have simply discarded your posts without a second
thought.
Since you seem to think you're a constant victim of the US judicial
system why do you still live here?
Anti-Christ: Bringing Scientology to it's knees!
-----------------------------------------------------
My email address and name are fictitious. All posts
made to alt.religion.scientology are made with a
spoofed IP address.
|
| |
| |
alerma@nospam.bellatlantic.net (arnie lerma - www.lermanet.com) wrote in message news:<3f6206bc.11690204@news.verizon.net>...
Judges are triers of fact,
What does this mean, Arnaldo? That there are no corrupt judges? There
were kings that were good, but those judges playing kings, are a far
cry from being good.
As I am followed around by a German still existing Nazi secret
service, they use to bring the worst out in any judge, also the
American judges, which means in other words: No justice, but
corruption all over the place.
But it is not only happening to me. There are huge number of people
complaining about judges. It is not that they are angry about rulings
they don't like, but rather that the judge did not hear them, did not
let them speak, did apply the wrong laws and stomped with their feets
on peoples' rights. That is the problem, judges that are above the
law.
Barbara Schwarz
|
| |
| |
On 12 Sep 2003 16:50:09 -0700, BarbaraSchwarz@excite.com (Barbara
Schwarz) wrote:
alerma@nospam.bellatlantic.net (arnie lerma - www.lermanet.com) wrote in message news:<3f6206bc.11690204@news.verizon.net>...
What does this mean, Arnaldo? That there are no corrupt judges? There
were kings that were good, but those judges playing kings, are a far
cry from being good.
I believe it means they see it all. They're supposed to get the facts
of the case from both sides, and present them to a jury.
Are there corrupt judges? Yeah. There are corrupt doctors, lawyers,
engineers, programmers, salesmen, Catholics, Protestants, and even
Scientologists.
There is good and bad in every institution known to man.
However, does that give us the ability to paint all in that profession
with that broad brush?
As I am followed around by a German still existing Nazi secret
service, they use to bring the worst out in any judge, also the
American judges, which means in other words: No justice, but
corruption all over the place.
So the judges aren't corrupt then, merely pawns in some grand
conspiracy.
But it is not only happening to me. There are huge number of people
complaining about judges. It is not that they are angry about rulings
they don't like, but rather that the judge did not hear them, did not
let them speak, did apply the wrong laws and stomped with their feets
on peoples' rights. That is the problem, judges that are above the
law.
Judges can put themselves above the law. That is why they have an
ethics board. How many judges recuse themselves because of conflicts?
If there are no conflicts, I can see why people hate judges. They
don't feel they get a fair shake. However, in those cases, the judge
can only apply the laws that were on the books.
In the US, if there were a law on the books where it was a crime to
have a pinky finger, and I was arrested, and charged with pinky
posession, the judge would have no choice but to find me guilty.
That is the duty of the lower courts, to uphold the laws as they are
written. The higher courts have the duty of making sure the laws
embody the constitution. And so on, until you get to the Supremes
whose primary job is to look at laws relative to the US Constitution.
Some people seek justice, but wouldn't know it. They feel wronged, and
they know it, but whether it is or not isn't known, unless it passes
the test of trial. You have to prove it.
At work, some people believe they're right because they're able to
shout down all opposition. There's a term for that kind of justice.
Mob justice.
Barbara Schwarz
|
| |
| |
Patrick J. Volk <pjvolk@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<ua15mvsqh7pohbpklkg01h7lbtggomrn9m@4ax.com>...
On 12 Sep 2003 16:50:09 -0700, BarbaraSchwarz@excite.com (Barbara
Schwarz) wrote:
I believe it means they see it all. They're supposed to get the facts
of the case from both sides, and present them to a jury.
Most of the time they don't grant esp. pro se parties no jury, despite
that the U.S. Contitution grants that right to anybody as long as the
financial value is over $20. They are above the Constitution.
Are there corrupt judges? Yeah. There are corrupt doctors, lawyers,
engineers, programmers, salesmen, Catholics, Protestants, and even
Scientologists.
There is good and bad in every institution known to man.
However, does that give us the ability to paint all in that profession
with that broad brush?
ARS does this with the Scientologists.
But it is correct, I never met any fair judge. Their rulings on my
cases were not what the constitution and the laws said. They applies
laws that hadn't even remotely something to do with my cases and
ignored the laws that crystal clear defined the situation.
So the judges aren't corrupt then, merely pawns in some grand
conspiracy.
You have a strange logic! Judges that work for a grand conspiracy and
allow them to run them are even more corrupt than if a judge would be
just corrupt on his own.
But it is not only happening to me. There are huge number of people
complaining about judges. It is not that they are angry about rulings
they don't like, but rather that the judge did not hear them, did not
let them speak, did apply the wrong laws and stomped with their feets
on peoples' rights. That is the problem, judges that are above the
law.
Judges can put themselves above the law. That is why they have an
ethics board. How many judges recuse themselves because of conflicts?
I never met any that recused himself because of being biased, despite
that they were biased. Most of the time they just recuse themselves
when they have obvicious connection to a party, but I never heard that
they recused themselves being biased towards party, and that they are.
If there are no conflicts, I can see why people hate judges. They
don't feel they get a fair shake. However, in those cases, the judge
can only apply the laws that were on the books.
I don't hate judges. I just think that those that I came in contact
with abuse their powers, and I read a lot of other people saying the
same.
In the US, if there were a law on the books where it was a crime to
have a pinky finger, and I was arrested, and charged with pinky
posession, the judge would have no choice but to find me guilty.
Well, I and I bet also many other people don't show any fingers. I
don't violate the laws. But others do and the judges that I met don't
mind that they do. They let them come away by looking the other way.
That is the duty of the lower courts, to uphold the laws as they are
written. The higher courts have the duty of making sure the laws
embody the constitution. And so on, until you get to the Supremes
whose primary job is to look at laws relative to the US Constitution.
What is that lecture for? Do you think I don't know the duties of the
courts? It is about their violations of the laws and Constitution, not
about what they should do.
Some people seek justice, but wouldn't know it. They feel wronged, and
they know it, but whether it is or not isn't known, unless it passes
the test of trial. You have to prove it.
Sure, prove it to a biased judge that doesn't grant you a jury trail
despite it is your constitutional right. Much luck! To me it looks
that you have not much experiences in courts yourself, Patrick.
At work, some people believe they're right because they're able to
shout down all opposition. There's a term for that kind of justice.
Mob justice.
I agree on this. But fair judges never should allow that. But their
lawyers know the judges and they make their secret deals, and forget
about justice. It is all about who has the judge in his corner and not
about who is right. And it is everywhere on the world the same.
Barbara Schwarz
|
| |
| |
On 12 Sep 2003 10:35:14 -0700, BarbaraSchwarz@excite.com (Barbara
Schwarz) wrote:
Indeed, the Freedom of Information Act does not apply to the courts,
so they have their many secrets and hide their records.
What kind of nonsense is this?
The FOIA didn't need to apply to the courts, because court records
were already private.
Courts are the least secret of the three branches of the government.
Their hearings are public, their records are public, and the judges
write opinions to explain their decisions. (How many legislators
write public opinions explaining their votes?)
**Dan Evans
**I post information, not advice.
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 02:36:46 GMT, Dan Evans <dan@evans-legal.com>
wrote:
On 12 Sep 2003 10:35:14 -0700, BarbaraSchwarz@excite.com (Barbara
Schwarz) wrote:
What kind of nonsense is this?
The FOIA didn't need to apply to the courts, because court records
were already private.
I meant "public." Sorry about that.
Courts are the least secret of the three branches of the government.
Their hearings are public, their records are public, and the judges
write opinions to explain their decisions. (How many legislators
write public opinions explaining their votes?)
**Dan Evans
**I post information, not advice.
|
| |
| |
Dan Evans <dan@evans-legal.com> wrote in message news:<6v8amv0v2hu62ugsm5q8ruk85fqfnheam3@4ax.com>...
On 12 Sep 2003 10:35:14 -0700, BarbaraSchwarz@excite.com (Barbara
Schwarz) wrote:
What kind of nonsense is this?
The FOIA didn't need to apply to the courts, because court records
were already private.
Courts are the least secret of the three branches of the government.
Their hearings are public, their records are public, and the judges
write opinions to explain their decisions. (How many legislators
write public opinions explaining their votes?)
**Dan Evans
**I post information, not advice.
Get real, Mister! The reality is that if you go to the Office of the
Clerk and the public records that you want to see are just not in the
file. Happened to me lots of time.
Judges render judgments in which they don't explain why they they
dismiss the cases, or they apply delberately wrong case law or they
don't want their decisions published because they know they were
wrong.
I witnessed lots of secrecy and foul play in courts.
You seem new to this planet.
Barbara Schwarz
|
| |
| |
"Patrick J. Volk" wrote:
On 12 Sep 2003 16:50:09 -0700, BarbaraSchwarz@excite.com (Barbara
Schwarz) wrote:
I believe it means they see it all. They're supposed to get the facts
of the case from both sides, and present them to a jury.
Are there corrupt judges? Yeah. There are corrupt doctors, lawyers,
engineers, programmers, salesmen, Catholics, Protestants, and even
Scientologists.
There is good and bad in every institution known to man.
However, does that give us the ability to paint all in that profession
with that broad brush?
So the judges aren't corrupt then, merely pawns in some grand
conspiracy.
Judges can put themselves above the law. That is why they have an
ethics board. How many judges recuse themselves because of conflicts?
If there are no conflicts, I can see why people hate judges. They
don't feel they get a fair shake. However, in those cases, the judge
can only apply the laws that were on the books.
In the US, if there were a law on the books where it was a crime to
have a pinky finger, and I was arrested, and charged with pinky
posession, the judge would have no choice but to find me guilty.
Actually the judge could find the law unconstitutional. Violates the 4th amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
which requires the right of the people to be secure in their persons against unreasonable seizures, since the only way you could
prevent yourself from violating this law would be to mutilate yourself and cut your finger off. Thus no person could be secure in
their person because such a law would require an unreasonable seizure to be in compliance.
--
Paul Robinson "Above all else... We shall go on..."
"...And continue!"
"If the lessons of history teach us anything it is
that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us."
|
| |
| |
Scientology's Anti-Christ <slavemaster@xenusmothership.com> wrote in message news:<mq64mvoj19o18vltj8plva3b3ea20bdr5n@4ax.com>...
On 12 Sep 2003 10:35:14 -0700, BarbaraSchwarz@excite.com (Barbara
Schwarz) wrote:
It's no wonder why nobody bothers to listen to your statements
That is not my experience. It seems rather your personal problem.
Don't try to speak for the rest of the world. Makes you look as
ridiculous as your choosen identity.
let
alone accept them as anything more than the blabberings of a
self-pitying conspiracy nut.
Just because I pity you, doesn't mean that I pity myself. There is a
big difference.
It's almost as if you take the contents
of any article you read as gospel without researching the entire topic
extensively before making comment.
You have not made your homework on me, as I exlain below. I research
and read a lot.
statements presented with seemingly sound evidence rather than
engaging in debate about the issue is far from the best approach when
posting to an interactive forum such as Usenet.
Huh? It feels so dumb to engage in a debate with people as you that
are too afraid to indentify themselves with their real identity. What
good discussion can bring a coward as you to the table?
This however seems to
be your standard tactic of engagement - which I think removes any form
of credibility you might have.
The best credibility for a person is to be hated by the ARS criminals,
as I am. Thanks to you all. That means I am not like you and I am very
proud of that.
Because of this I can only wonder how
many people have have simply discarded your posts without a second
thought.
So, why don't you do it as well? What is stopping *you* to do what so
many threaten with, but actually nobody does, which means kill-filing
me?
Since you seem to think you're a constant victim of the US judicial
system why do you still live here?
You are very glib, Mister. If you would have done your homework, you
would have noticed that I have no troubles with U.S. justice, but with
how foreign forces, as the SEGNPMSS tells the judges to deny people's
rights. As they are active anywhere on earth, it doesn't matter where
I (or others) go, it is all over the world the same organized
corruption.
Anti-Christ: Bringing Scientology to it's knees!
That is funny! How can a man without backbone to identify himself
bring anybody to it's knees? I bet you are some of the extremists on
the www.religiousfreedom.watch.org, with bad cases of arthritis. My
guess is you can't get on your own knees anymore without being in a
great deal of pain. And if you are on your own knees, you can't get
up.
Now get a life, hostile grandpa, I really don't want to waste much
time with you guys.
Barbara Schwarz
-----------------------------------------------------
My email address and name are fictitious. All posts
made to alt.religion.scientology are made with a
spoofed IP address.
|
| |
| |
Dan Evans wrote:
On 12 Sep 2003 10:35:14 -0700, BarbaraSchwarz@excite.com (Barbara
Schwarz) wrote:
What kind of nonsense is this?
The FOIA didn't need to apply to the courts, because court records
were already private.
Courts are the least secret of the three branches of the government.
Their hearings are public, their records are public, and the judges
write opinions to explain their decisions.
With the obvious exception of state bar courts -- which create no
precedent, conduct their operations and deliberations in secret, and
rule on each others' motions....
(How many legislators
write public opinions explaining their votes?)
**Dan Evans
**I post information, not advice.
|
| |
| |
|
