Constitutionally Questionable Laws, Orders, Rules, or Regulations
By: Keith Allison
While I am not a licensed attorney, I believe I am capable of reading constitutional, statutory, and/or case laws and pretty well comprehend the meanings contained within these documents. Unfortunately, through the use of constitutionally questionable laws, orders, or regulations, special interest groups often deprive residents and/or American citizens of their constitutionally protected Common Law rights to labor at their chosen occupation. My purpose here is not to attempt to act as an attorney at law or legal council, I am merely passing on a select few pieces of legal information I have stumbled upon.
As found in Civil Rights Law Overview, “A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege that protects a person’s freedom. If another person interferes with this right, it can give rise to an action for injury. Civil rights are guaranteed and regulated at the federal level, but states, cities and counties may also pass civil right laws. However, federal civil rights either brought about through federal legislation or federal court decision must be obeyed.” That includes the judges too.
The United States Constitution guarantees civil rights to U.S. citizens and residents. The first Ten Amendments of the U.S. Constitution are the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights are specific rights that are reserved for U.S. citizens and residents that no state, city, or county can remove or modify; the Constitution guarantees these rights.
The Bill of Rights includes natural rights of liberty and property including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and association. The Fourteenth Amendment states that every person who is born or naturalized in the U.S. is a citizen and ensures that any state cannot deprive any citizen of their civil rights. These civil rights also include the right to due process and equal protection under the law.
So, according to constitutional law, each and every citizen and/or resident of this nation are protected through the Constitution and Bill of Rights as put forth by the Founding Fathers of this nation. But, what happens when you are hauled into a court for supposedly violating one of these so-called sacrosanct laws enacted at the behest of a special interest group and you are found guilty by a judge who’s ethics are, at best, highly questionable. Like it or not, there are judges who pompously pose as the ultimate arbiters of justice, all while dispensing justice as proclaimed by their neighbors and golfing friends in a special interest group. A group whose sole interest is protecting their monopolistic cartel and/or money interests. I’ve had the misfortune of running into several of this sort of judge, and have come away from the experience with a dire sense of foreboding for this nations people. Two of those judges are U.S. District Court at Seattle, Washington Judge Robart, and U.S. District Court at Spokane, Washington Judge Whaley. Both of these so-called judges’ ethics are despicable at best, but I believe Judge Whaley is no more ethically qualified to occupy any position of trust in a monkey court found anywhere in this nation. Frankly, I believe that Judge Whaley and/or his purported judicial ethics are beneath contempt. Were it left to my responsibility, I would, at the very least, strip Judge Whaley of his judicial trappings, and then ride him out of the state on a greased rail. Why? Because he is a corrupt, evil person who prostitutes the law in favor of those with the where-with-all to manipulate him into doing their judicial bidding.
Getting back to the issue of U.S. District Court Judge Whaley, I feel compelled to state that as a result of having been one of his judicial victims, I believe it to be my duty, as an American citizen, to warn others who might run afoul of his lack of judicial ethics, to refuse to allow him to adjudicate your case regardless of your innocence or guilt, or the subject matter or law you are accused of violating. Refuse to allow him to adjudicate your case, and high tail it out of his court and find a different judge to sit in judgment of you. Better yet, be certain to exercise your constitutional right to plead your case before a jury of your peers. I say that without pause, because from my own experience and opinion, “the rule of law” does not exist within Judge Whaley’s jurisdiction.
Constitutional Law 277(1) tells us: “A person’s business, profession, trade, occupation, labor, and the avails from each constitute ‘property’ envisioned in constitutional provisions that all men have certain inherent and inalienable rights, such as the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that such rights plus the right of ‘property’ shall not be taken from a person except by due process of law.” Due process of law does not provide for any judge to allow themselves to be approached off the bench.
Furthermore, it is stated in Constitutional law 81: “The fact the legislature has invoked the police power for regulatory purposes directed against an activity such as a trade, is not conclusive that power has been lawfully exercised.” And, under Constitutional Law 70(1): “Whether the police power has been lawfully used by the legislature in a given instance is a judicial problem belonging exclusively to the courts.”
From a legal standpoint, Constitutional Law 70(1) is correct, the nations courts are the arbitrators of the legality of any legislative Act promulgated through the legislative and/or executive branches of government. However, the exclusive power/authority of the court is subject to the honesty and ethical behavior of those who act in good behavior, and sit in judgment of the validity of the charges brought against any citizen, or the constitutional impact of the statute, rule, or order a citizen or resident is accused of violating. And therein my friends, is precisely where dishonesty and/or judicial corruption rears its ugly head. Despite the aura of ethics and honesty our judiciary immerses itself within, contempt for the rights of citizens is not a stranger to the judicial faction of this nations “purveyors of justice.” It is a well known and documented fact that many of our so-called judges hold their oaths of office to protect and serve the Constitution in utter contempt, and won’t hesitate to subvert that oath in order to serve the interests of moneyed entities or persons they are acquainted with.
Getting back to Constitutional Law 81, is stated: “Restraint imposed on a legitimate activity by the legislature by an exercise of police power for regulatory purposes must be a reasonable one, must be for the protection of public health, morals, safety, comfort or common welfare, and must be reasonably adapted to attain the objective intended.”
Also under Constitutional law 81, it is clearly stated: “The legislature cannot enact a lawful statute by invoking the police power on the pretense of protecting public interests when the real objective of a statute constitutes an arbitrary interference with private business, or imposes unusual and unnecessary restrictions on lawful occupations, and if such statute does not tend to preserve public health, safety, or welfare, it is void as an invasion of individual property rights.” Although not stated herein, the law also states that no one is bound to obey or comply with any unconstitutional law, statute, order, or rule.
Should you find yourself embroiled in a lawsuit where you are seeking damages from the defendant, do not forget that under the Seventh Amendment, “In a suit at common law where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty (20) dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the Common Law. Also, should the defendant fail to appear or respond to your allegations, according to the courts findings in Dispaquale vs. Wilfran Agricultural Industries, Inc., Case Number 000-3818, December 17, 2001, “Defendant filed no answer to the complaint or responsive motions. Accordingly, plaintiff obtained a default judgment in this case for failure of the Defendant to appear, plead or otherwise defend.”
Should it become obvious the judge is going to or has given you the short shrift, there is always the option to file a lawsuit against the judge who heard your case. In Owen vs. Independence, 100 S.C.T. 1398, 445 U.S. 622, it was stated: “Officers of the court (judges and attorneys) have no immunity from liability when violating a constitutional right, for they are deemed to know the law. And in Hertado vs. California, 110 U.S. 516, the Supreme Court Justices stated: “The state cannot diminish rights of the people.”
And then, should a judge do anything so inane as to deprive you of your right to have your complaint heard in a court of law, in the case of Reynolds vs. Cochran, 365 U.S. 525, 51 Ed 754, 81 SCt 723 in Am Jur P. 979, it was held: “A state or federal court which arbitrarily refuses to hear a party by counsel… civil or criminal, denies the party a hearing, and therefore denies him due process of law in a constitutional sense.”
Should any court disagree with the findings in Reynolds, you might recall that the 5th Amendment states: “The United States, equally with the States… are prohibited from depriving persons or corporations of property without due process of law. This was cited in the Sinking Fund Cases, 99 U.S. 700, 718-19 (1879).
Personal liberty or the right to enjoyment of life and liberty is one of the fundamental or natural rights which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various Constitutions, which is not derived from nor dependent on the U.S. Constitution. It is one of the most sacred and valuable rights as sacred as the right to private property, and is regarded as inalienable. 16 C.J.S. Const. Law, Sect. 202, page 987. And as found in Riley vs. Carter, 79 ALR 1018; 16 Am. Jur. (2nd), Const. law, Sect. 81, “Economic necessity cannot justify a disregard of constitutional guarantees.”
Although the 14th Amendment does not interfere with the proper exercise of the Police Power, in accordance with the general principle that the power must be exercised so as not to invade unreasonably the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution, it is established beyond question that every state power, including the Police Power, is limited by the 14th Amendment (and others) and by the inhibitions therein imposed.
Now for the big question of why I feel such revulsion toward Judge Robart and particular contempt for Judge Whaley and his capacity to function as a legitimate element on the Federal Bench.
First, from what I had heard about Judge Robart, he was an honest member of the judiciary and had to that point, never been swayed by any outside influences (commonly called bribery). In the case I had before his bench, I have no idea what or how much he may have taken under the bench that convinced him to ignore settled case and/or statutory laws along with a citizens constitutionally protected rights, but for him to have found the defendants not guilty, there is no other thing he could have done but take a bribe. Why do I say this? Well, I firmly believe he accepted some sort of bribe because the only response I ever saw from the defendants attorney’s read: “Allegations taken as admitted.” Despite that response, Judge Robart dismissed the case with prejudice with no findings of facts and/or conclusions of law. Can anyone tell me how it is that the defendants have admitted their guilt and yet the half-wit on the bench dismisses the case? Sure looks like a case of bribery to me.
Second comes Judge Whaley (frankly, I think him calling himself a judge is a disgrace to the entire judicial system). My contempt for Whaley boils down to his having dismissed the next case I filed with no findings of facts and/or conclusions of law. In doing so, he forbade me from filing any further federal lawsuits in any federal court anywhere in the state of Washington. I doubt he had the legitimate authority to do that, but he accomplished what the defendants asked of him. Whaley then took it upon himself to “instruct” every federal judge to refuse to accept any filings of any sort from me.
I suppose that is what some might refer to as justice having been served.