Systemic Corruption

ID-100178787

Image courtesy of Stuart MilesFreeDigitalPhotos.net

Proposed Caucus Resolutions for Judicial Reform

February 11, 2012 By: Don Mashak


The following are a list of resolutions presented at various Minnesota Caucuses recently. We encourage you to reprint these and take them to your upcoming caucus and/or conventions.
If you are in a different state, please review each to make sure they are applicable to your state. The progress of judicial corruption in your state may not have reached the systemic corruption in Minnesota, and therefore certain of these judicial reform platform resolutions may not be applicable to your state.

JUDICIARY RELATED PLATFORM RESOLUTIONS

Whereas,

1) Judicial decisions should be based on the Rule of Law based on the facts in evidence

Instead, justice in Minnesota is more a matter of “How much justice can you afford?” who you know, who you can influence, exchange of political favors, punishment of lawful political dissent, reward for political loyalty and the whim of Judges. Citizens should be able to come to before the Courts and have a full, fair, impartial and just adjudication of their cases.

Whereas,

2) Judicial Bribes

In Minnesota, Judges are legally allowed to accept “bribes”. As long as the bribe is not more than $150.00 from any one person in a day, they don’t have to report it. And they can accept up to $150.00 per person per day from as many people willing to do so. The allegation is that large law firms often quite skilled at making this work to their advantage.

Of course the rules that permit these “bribes” refer to them as “gifts” and “gratuities”. The author argues that what the mafia calls a “hit” is still an assassination or as the Bard would say, “A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet”.

The author asserts that the rank and file of WE THE PEOPLE, regardless of political leanings, agree that judges taking bribes is wrong. Yet for six or more years, both Democrats and Republicans in the State of Minnesota have let this matter go unaddressed. How does that represent the best interests of WE THE PEOPLE?

Whereas,

3) Code of Ethics

The Bar and judges in Minnesota found the title “Code of Ethics” for lawyers too restrictive. Therefore they call it the Minnesota Lawyers Code of Professional Conduct. However, in a recent ruling (Fabian v Volkommer) the Minnesota District, Appellate and Supreme Court have ruled that the MN Lawyers Code of Professional Conduct is not an implied covenant of a contract between a Citizen and a Minnesota Lawyer.

The author presumes that Citizens, especially those not learned in the law, rely upon the lawyer they pay hundreds or thousands of dollars to treat them ethically. Why would you hire any Minnesota attorney who objected to being bound by the Professional Code of Conduct? What is the purpose of the Code of Professional Conduct if lawyers don’t have to follow it? If the legal system in Minnesota were a private company, wouldn’t that be false advertising and fraud? If lawyers have no intention of being bound to the Code of Professional Conduct, does that not demonstrate malice of forethought to defraud WE THE PEOPLE?

How fair is it that the innocent accused of a crime when their Minnesota Public Defender is not bound to the Lawyers’ Code of Professional Conduct? How many innocent persons are in jail because their own attorney betrayed them through the Simulated Litigation process?

There is no acceptable reason for Republicans and Democrats not holding Minnesota Lawyers accountable to the Lawyers Code of Professional Conduct. The author asserts and alleges that this ruling was made to aid and abet the practice of “Simulated Litigation”. In Simulated Litigation, the court “telegraphs” to both litigants attorneys the outcome they desire. The attorneys, including your own that you paid, then only put on the record the evidence that allows the judge to reach the verdict the Judge desires. We have all been told that your attorney has a duty to “represent their client to the best of their ability”. But obviously, if your own attorney participates in Simulated Litigation in which the Judge has indicated they want to rule adversely for you, your attorney has not represented you to the best of their ability.

As it stands, anyone who hires a Minnesota Attorney with this ruling not being overturned is a fool. Your attorney has no obligation to treat you ethically. If Minnesota Attorneys were concerned about treating their clients ethically, there would have been loud, boisterous objection to this ruling. Since there was not, it is obvious that Minnesota Attorneys all want to be able to treat their clients unethically.

Whereas,

4) Discreet voice recording devices should be allowed in the Court room

Minnesota judges have a rule that there can be no electronic recording devices in their courtrooms nor at the Court teller windows without permission. If you ask permission, it will likely be denied. What can be the purpose of this rule? It is antithetical to the sentiments of the Founding Fathers who believed openness, transparency and accountability were necessary to keep people in positions of power honest.

The author asserts that the Judges specifically made this rule to allow them to fix cases by altering transcripts. There have been instances where allegations of Court Reporter transcripts were deliberately or accidently altered leading to the facts on the record not being accurate. And the very judges accused of such actions are the most oppressive in imposing the rule.

In this day and age, there is no reason why all court room proceedings cannot be video and audio recorded to assure accuracy and guard against injustice.

I submit that the overwhelming majority of WE THE PEOPLE agree with this position.

Whereas,

5) Constitutional Right to Vote for Judges

The Judges of Minnesota want to take away our right to vote. They contend that the Minnesota judicial System is not corrupt and that recent US Supreme Court Rulings allowing Judicial Candidates the right to affiliate with political parties and to accept campaign contributions will corrupt a nearly pristine Judicial System.

Yet for six years, the Minnesota house and Senate Judicial Committees have refused to accept testimony and evidence of corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary from 100s of Minnesota Citizens. Meanwhile, as has been pointed out, the Judges press to take away our right to vote on the wrongful pretext that the allegedly pristine Minnesota judicial system will be corrupted if Minnesota Citizens continue to be allowed to vote for judges.

Whereas,

6) Direct Access of Citizens to the Grand Jury

The original Minnesota Constitution provides for direct access by citizens to grand juries. However, Republicans and Democrats alike have put in place rules to prevent citizen access to grand juries. Minnesota Government attorneys, judges and the legal system now act as gatekeepers for grand juries, to prevent citizens from bring complaints of Government corruption to citizen grand juries.

Whereas,

7) What’s more important? WE THE PEOPLE or Corrupt Judges

The original Minnesota Constitution provided for the Minnesota Legislature to oversee and discipline Minnesota Judges. Instead, Democrats and Republicans have delegated the fox to guard the hen house.

The Minnesota Legislature put the Minnesota Supreme Court in charge of overseeing and disciplining itself, lower Judges and Minnesota lawyers. The Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board (LPRB) and the Minnesota Board of judicial Standards (BJS) are supposed to receive, investigate and recommend disposition of these complaints.

The Problem is that LBRP and BJS are “black holes”. Unless the Judge is disciplined, there is no way to know what if any investigation was done. The Supreme Court has designated that the evidential standard for the wrong doing of Judges and Lawyers is “Clear and Convincing”.

WE THE PEOPLE, the rank and file having no formal understanding of Court Rules and the standards of evidence, it is unlikely that most rank and file citizens could put together a complaint that meets the standard of “Clear and Convincing”. Worse, the lawyers and judges know the rules and know how not to provide “Clear and Convincing” of their wrong doing to their clients. Most of WE THE PEOPLE do not even ever recognize we have been betrayed by our own lawyers… or if we do, it is too late to document it in such a way to provide “Clear and Convincing” evidence.

Why have the Minnesota Legislators written or allowed to be written rules that protect corrupt judges and lawyers more than WE THE PEOPLE.

Whereas,

8) The legal profession may have been necessary at the beginning of the Country, but literacy rates have improved such that most high school graduates could represent themselves in most matters if the laws, court rules and case law were written plainly and in simple English. Further, as demonstrated by the Minnesota Findings that Minnesota Lawyers are not required to treat their clients ethically, Lawyers current use the laws and rules to the disadvantage of their own clients. Finally, lawyers are so expensive as to prohibit many people from hiring one. Straight forward, simple English laws and court rules would allow them to better represent themselves.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLATFORM SHOULD BE INCORPORATED TO REFLECT THE FOLLOWING:

1) Judicial Decisions should be based on the Rule of Law applied to the facts in evidence;

2) Judges should not be able to accept bribes;

3) The Lawyer’s Code of Professional Conduct (formerly known as a Code of ethics) should be an implied covenant of every contract between a citizen and a Minnesota Lawyer;

4) Discreet voice recording devices should be allowed in the Court room;

5) WE THE PEOPLE’s constitutional right to vote for judges should not be taken away;

6) Citizens should have direct access to Grand Juries;

7) Government should be more concerned about protecting WE THE PEOPLE from corrupt judges than they are in protecting judges from WE THE PEOPLE. (clear and convincing)

8) That the entire legal code, court rules and case law be written in simple English so that Citizens with a high school degree that can represent themselves. That the Legislature of the State be required to undertake this task immediately and resolve all conflicts in cases law in so doing. That thereafter, every 10 years, the Legislature will meet to incorporate all interim case law in the code and resolve all conflicting case law rulings.

In closing,

Thank you, my fellow citizens, for taking your valuable time to read and reflect upon what is written here.

Please join with me in mutually pledging to each other and our fellow citizens our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor to our mutual endeavors of restoring liberty and economic opportunity to WE THE PEOPLE as our Founding Fathers envisioned and intended. [Last sentence, US Declaration of Independence

(http://bit.ly/ruPE7z )

This article is written with the same intentions as Thomas Paine http://ushistory.org/paine. I seek no leadership role. I seek only to help the American People find their own way using their own “Common Sense” http://amzn.to/kbRuar

Keep Fighting the Good Fight!

In Liberty,

Don Mashak The Cynical Patriot

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s