Legal Comments Forum
Are these your words? I don't carelessly argue or point out faults but do you realize what you're actually saying here?
My considered opinion is that anyone claiming to be a "pro se litigant" is identifying themself as an attorney representing no one and without any jurisdiction to conduct the court yet willing to submit himself to the masters for determination.
It seems to be VERY important to the judges, lawyers and clerks to get you to say or write that you are "pro se." When I file writs and actions as sui juris, propria persona, real party or ex parte all of the court officers try to get me to use the term "pro se." Don't you think there's a reason for this?
Do you find that any of the signers of the Unanimous Declaration claimed to be "pro se?" Is any signature on the Constitution for the United States of America specifically designated "pro se?" Does that Constitution (or any Federal statute statute for that matter) really mention the term "pro se?"
It is simply a term meaning "for itself" that the lawyers want you to use so that they can legally deny you jurisdiction to conduct the court.
Incidentally, the one supreme Court of final jurisdiction was created, established and ordained by the Constitution. The Supreme Court of last resort was created by Congress in the first Judiciary Act to fool the simple people into believing that an assize of lawyers is the one supreme Court. Didn't you ever wonder why you don't get into THAT court unless you grant those wizened jurists arbitrary jurisdiction and capricious discretion?
Don't you have any simple questions that I can answer with simple opinions?
I hope I'm not going to become embroiled in a nit-picking debate with you by responding to your message below. Let me just say that those who appear to be apologists for the judicial system by pointing the finger at certain words, terminology, phraseology, etc. are, in my humble opinion, doing a disservice to those of us who are trying to find a solution to the real problem-- establishing a system of accountability of the judiciary to the People.
Rather than be distracted by the term "pro se" or any other legal jargon that may mean something other than what is intended, or other than what is clearly evident from the facts and circumstances taking place, my focus is on the general corruption that is running rampant in our judicial system across this country.
There is no doubt that I am an individual, a nonlawyer, who is entitled to due process of law as set forth on the books in order to obtain redress of my grievances. The individual (whatever he is called by legal jargon) doesn't get past the due process (procedural) stage. The courts block him at the pleading stage in violation of procedural law, disregarding the facts and substantive law being claimed by the individual in his pleading. (I won't even call him "plaintiff" for purposes of this discussion, for fear of running into another terminology glitch).
The individual nonlawyer is being routinely deprived of his First Amendment (I won't say "right") protection of petition for redress of grievances in our courts by arbitrary edict, without evidence to support such edict. (The judge says it and that alone makes it 'law'.) Words from a judge's mouth, or by the stroke of his pen, doesn't ipso facto make it "law." But that's the way it goes in our system today-- just sheer unbridled power that is destroying our society. This shouldn't be happening in this country!
James, we have to get beyond "words." Let's deal with the real problem. I didn't intend to say this much, and I hope I don't regret it. There are a lot more words here for you to parse, if that's your inclination-- and I hope not. There's a much bigger problem controlling this country on which we, as the People, (society in America if you will) must concentrate. Let's not get side-tracked.
I read it, and I love it!! You know, as a practicing attorney, I am sick and tired of judges who see the word "shall" in a statute as meaning "maybe" or "may" or "could be" or "sometimes." Damn it, "shall" means MANDATORY, no discretion, you must do it!! I'm sick and tired of winning motions or oppositions to motions, especially in discovery disputes, where the statutes on discovery here in California say " . . . shall award monetary sanctions to the prevailing party."
Nine times out of ten, when I win, the judges that hear the case decide that I have won, but award no monetary sanctions to reimburse me or my clients for having to bring or oppose the motions in the first place. I'd like to throw them in J.A.I.L. I'm pissed off, and once I came this close [ ] to being held in contempt of court for telling a judge, in not so few words, that she was an "idiot." I'd love to be able to at least serve a judge with an Order to Show Cause why he/she should not be held in "contempt of the Legislature" when they can't follow the simple rule of law . . . especially that of the California Civil Discovery Act of 1986. However, the downside of this would be that judges would spend most of their time defending themselves at O.S.C. hearings, and not on the bench conducting trials and other interim matters. Thanks for listening.
The following was received by J.A.I.L.:
OFFICIAL CRITICISM OF JAIL4JUDGES - 11/4/99
Out of curiosity, I went to your homepage and glanced at this J.A.I.L. initiative. I don't know what kind of dream world are you living in? You propose to subject judges to criminal liability based upon a legal decision?? It's simply ridiculous.
In many areas, there are simply no clear cut right or wrong answers. If you have as much experience as you claim to have, you would know that. How could you justify criminal and civil liability under these circumstances. Do you think many people would want to be judges, if this law was in place?? What about the provision allowing non-attorneys to sit in judgment of judges?? You need at least some legal training to determine whether a legal error occurred. And I spotted these issues by just glancing at your initiative.
Imagine what else can be uncovered under a more exacting review.
(From Gene Vorobyov, Research Attorney, California Court of Appeals)
The following rebuttal was made to the above criticism:
Dear Mr. Vorobyov:
It is with great delight that I take this opportunity to respond to your concern. First, let me state that I am the author of this initiative. While I am not an attorney (thank God), never a day has passed in seventeen years that I have not had a matter pending in some court at some level. I am very well versed in law, a public speaker, and respected by many practicing attorneys.
You accuse J.A.I.L. of "...propos[ing] to subject judges to criminal liability based upon a legal decision?? It's simply ridiculous. In many areas, there are simply no clear cut right or wrong answers."
The initiative, which you claim to have read, states in paragraph (c) in its beginning right after "definitions": "...Preserving the purpose of protecting judges from frivolous and harassing actions, no immunity. shielding a judge shall be construed to extend to any deliberate violation of law, fraud or conspiracy, intentional violation of due process of law, deliberate disregard of material facts, judicial acts without jurisdiction, blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case, or any deliberate violation of the Constitutions of California or the United States." You could not have missed it.
Mr. Vorobyov, how do you get, "...propose to subject judges to criminal liability based upon a legal decision" out of that? As author of this initiative, I couldn't make it clearer that this initiative has nothing to do with "right or wrong answers." In my public speeches I state that even after J.A.I.L. passes, judges may freely exercise discretion. Judges may make bad decisions, wrong decisions, and even decisions violative of clear law.
What they cannot do, however, is WILLFULLY violate the law or the Constitution! Mr. Vorobyov, how could you, in good faith, be critical of that? Or is it that you don't want to see it for what it is? If you are going to criticize J.A.I.L., then I want to hear why you believe that judges should be able to WILLFULLY violate the law or the Constitution, to commit fraud or conspiracy, or INTENTIONALLY violate due process of law, or DELIBERATELY disregard material facts, or block a lawful conclusion of a case. Let's keep on point!
Then you say, "How could you justify criminal and civil liability under these circumstances." The problem with your question is, your phrase, "these circumstances" is false and misrepresents J.A.I.L. The initiative justifies civil liability for the specific willful misconduct afore-described, and criminal liability based upon existing criminal statutes passed by the legislature, namely the Penal Code, (see paragraph (r)). The judge receives all the Constitutional processes due by a jury before liability is imposed. Do you disagree with those procedures, Mr. Vorobyov? Or is that not the way you want to see it? Or do you believe that judges are above the law and should remain unaccountable?
You state, "Do you think many people would want to be judges, if this law was in place??" The answer is YES! Right now the cost of running for judgeship in California is approximately $70,000. Many who are honest and desiring a bench position are barred financially from running against the wealthy and well connected. After J.A.I.L., this cost will diminish tremendously, the corrupt judges will leave like rats on a sinking ship, and only those who are honest will want their seats. Do you have a problem with that, Mr. Vorobyov? Or does that sound too much like a statewide recall of all corrupt judges?
"What about the provision allowing non-attorneys to sit in judgment of judges?? You need at least some legal training to determine whether a legal error occured." Again, we are not talking about "legal error," the false premise that you make.
"And I spotted these issues by just glancing at your initiatve. Imagine what else can be uncovered under a more exacting review." As I said above, you, as do the courts, cannot or will not see the truth that's in front of you.
You are a prime example of why we need JAIL4Judges.J.A.I.L. is here to stay. Live with it! J.A.I.L. will one day oversee the entire California judiciary and overtake the nation. Congress itself will not be able to ignore J.A.I.L. We shall then conquer the federal judicial system with Federal Judicial Accountability.
Thanks for writing. Your comments are welcome after your "more exacting review."
The following is in response to my rebuttal:
Subject: Re: OFFICIAL CRITICISM OF JAIL4JUDGES & REBUTTAL.]]
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 20:57:28 EST
It's a lively debate. But problem is more in the REBUTTAL than in the OFFICIAL CRITICISM. Let me elaborate:
The initiative, which you claim to have read, states in paragraph (c) in its beginning right after "definitions": "...Preserving the purpose of protecting judges from frivolous and harassing actions, no immunity shielding a judge shall be construed to extend to any deliberate violation of law, fraud or conspiracy, intentional violation of due process of law, deliberate disregard of material facts, judicial acts without jurisdiction, blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case, or any deliberate violation of the Constitutions of California or the United States." You could not have missed it.
This is far to dangerous to be missed. The judges do not currently enjoy these privileges under existing statute. Also, note that there are three lawyers who have signed the Judicial Accountability Initiative Law. I do not know what it is that Ron Branson thinks that he is going to accomplish with this Law; but as I read it I see the liaryers hand manipulating the public very effectively. He sends out his word, the "legal guru" from the Ninth Circuit makes a half-hearted attempt to shoot it down, the patriots buy the bill of goods and pass the initiative.
Now that I have looked with a "more exacting review" in mind. I am appalled that the patriots have not seen this ploy for what it is - a law granting 'judicial immunity' a myth under constitutional law - and shot this initiative out of the saddle. My advice is to "look to the horses mouth, before the owner and the vet convince you to buy an old nag."
The non-lawyers argument is probably the best and most convincing piece of propoganda that I have seen. I agree that they cannot police themselves. But "we the people" have elected "titles of nobility" i.e. lawyers to judgships, because they understand the law and for some reason no other one of "we the people" can seem to understand that we sealed our fate in this arena by doing just that years ago. The spirit of Justus township was based on these facts. Ordinary men have an inate since of justice, an insatiable quest for knowledge, and the greatest desire I've ever seen to avoid making a mistaken accusation marring in any way the reputation and well-being of a family, friend, or enemy. Lawyers, Esquire's of the American Division of the Bar Association of Great Britian - "titles of nobility", have only one place in our courtrooms, if any, that of prosecutor. The efforts of good people to create justice in the courtrooms of today are continually marred by the "three" (3) prosecutorial positions held and esteemed by "we the people" as their rightful place. These positoins are: US/County/State Attorney, Public/Federal Defender, and Judge, with these three strikes against "we the people" what good will J.A.I.L. do for us.
To those of you who have found this path to be "ideal" for you to support. My sincerest apologies for offending you. But I cannot remain silent any longer. The sound of the distant drums, flutes, and marching boots of the past Minutemen ring too loudly in my ears to ignore. The words of Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and their contemporaries still stir my heart to follow the God of the Bible, to seek His counsel first, to be on His side. The Lord has asked that we be aware lest the very elect among us be deceived.
* Dear Kristin:
Thank you for your expressed opinion. Since you have taken the time to critique my rebuttal to Attorney Gene Vorobyov of the California Court of Appeal (4th DCA), I thought it only fitting that you have a reply.
I enjoy immensely defending J.A.I.L. legally on principles of law. If your critique was merely limited to that, I would be qualified to reply on that subject. However, I note that you have assailed my personal character and motives by suggesting that I am a liar and hand manipulating the public by promoting my propaganda and exercising a ploy to deceive everyone into voting for J.A.I.L. to their own peril.
Under the circumstances, I must recuse myself from personally replying inasmuch as anything I say would be in pursuit of my "ploy" to deceive. Obviously, I have a conflict of interest and am not qualified to sit in judgement of myself.
I will, therefore, distribute your opinion to others for comment. I will ask them to state whether or not they have any interest or motive in concert with me, such as payment, etc. I will ask them to respond directly to you with a copy to me. (I want you to know that I have no idea how or if they will respond, nor am I suggesting any direction.) God bless.
I think the concept of J.A.I.L. is a first step forward for any court that practices under UCC. The problem is not a factor under a Common Law Court, which no Judge in their right mind wants to sit in that makes them liable to Title 42.
Mr. Vorobyov should read the sections that authorize the special Grand Juries
to empowerment. Even though normal Grand Juries can indict judges, this new
provision sets up a grand jury for the specific action to indict judges.
We are not talking about incorrect decisions; we are talking about corruption; about failing to follow the law; about retaliation for complaining about judges; and just as judges sometimes appear capable of sorting out the valid lawsuits against employers for discrimination, misconduct, and retaliation against their workers, so we can sort out the valid cases against judges from the invalid ones. For starters: start having courtesy and respect for those appearing before you.
-(Pat is a practicing attorney in L.A. responding to Vorobyov's criticism of J.A.I.L.)
Gene, the problem is that your starting point regarding judges is not the same as ours. Apparently having worked for them has inhibited your ability to see any wrong in them.
Gene, judges are people who, like the rest of us, are subject to the rule of law. If a judge on or away from the bench violates the law, then he or she should be held accountable. Even the Supreme Court agrees. Look up 18 U.S.C. 242, cases under, and, as they pertain to Judges.
Return To Home Page