While I still have respect for true constitutionally appropriate laws, orders, rules and such, my opinion of how our legislative and judicial bodies function has plunged into the local sewer system whenever I re-read the documents ascribed to this nation on how our Republic is supposed to function.

For all intents and purposes, many of our judges, occupants of the Whitehouse, governors, legislators, and bureaucrats appear to me to have taken great pains to prostitute their positions in government in which they were elected or appointed to serve. Basically, I believe most legislators are inherently corrupt prior to being elected to office, and the judges become corrupted when their friends and/or moneyed interests ask them to disregard settled case and/or statutory laws that would otherwise bring about the incarceration of someone they golf and/or hobnob with.

I base my opinion upon the instances I’ve observed through the years of our legislators pandering for under the table money to ensure their voracious appetites for “campaign contributions” won’t be disrupted by mistakenly acting in a manner beneficial to the general public. While speaking to various Washington State legislators, I also took the time to speak with various governors, attorneys general, and bureaucrats safely ensconced within government service. But, like all of my other attempts to have our public servants act in an ethical manner, these attempts to wring a small amount of ethical behavior from our legislators, judges and/or bureaucrats always met with failure.

As my numerous attempts with government entities failed to produce any positive results, I finally decided the only method that would possibly have any chances of succeeding, was by presenting the issues I was concerned with in front of a jury, and leaving it to the common sense of the citizens of this nation. However, my numerous attempts to achieve my goal through the judiciary were also frustrated; this time by corrupt judges who took it upon themselves to ignore settled case and/or statutory laws. And, when I tried to employ the power of our U.S. Department of Justice to file the matter in a criminal court, those efforts also failed. The Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the Department of Justice all ignored my requests for assistance and the evidence I placed in their hands. As a result of my failure to obtain any assistance from our government, I then attempted to place the matter before a jury through the use of private attorneys. However, that too failed because as some of them informed my wife and I, “I cannot work on this case for you because I have been informed by the local Bar Association that if I don’t drop off this case, they will disbar me.”

That of course left me with no alternative but to attempt to file a case of fraud, restraint of trade and civil rights violations against the defendant American Dental Association as a pro se litigant. I researched the laws pertaining to fraud, restraint of trade, and civil/constitutional rights issues, and then wrote a civil lawsuit to be filed in the U.S. District Court. In my initial attempts to obtain justice through our federal courts, I ran into opposition from Judge Robart in Seattle, and Judge Whaley in Spokane. My opinion of why they refused to allow my case to be heard boils down to one thing, and one thing only; that being bribery. As far as I can determine, these judges either accepted bribes from the defendants, or they held a mindset against pro se litigant filing cases in their courts. I can only assume what I have just opined, because the damages I was asking for far exceeded $20.00, and settled constitutional law specifically states that when the damages exceed $20.00, the plaintiff’s right to a jury trial shall not be infringed. There are other statutes governing this matter, but I won’t take the time right now to deal with them other than to say that the judges I’ve mentioned above are, in all probability, as crooked as a hounds hind leg.

We currently have a new civil lawsuit filed in federal court, and as soon as I find out what, if anything is going on with that case, I’ll let my readers know. Frankly though, I doubt there will be any action on that case either. I say that because when the defendants fail to respond to a lawsuit within 20 days, the judge is required by law to find them guilty as alleged; but, no such finding has been forthcoming after more than thirty days after the defendants were notified they were being sued.

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 5^th 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. (2^nd), Const. law, Sect. 81, “Economic necessity cannot justify a disregard of constitutional guarantees.”

Although the 14^th 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 14^th 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.

According to our Constitution, our government’s sole authority to enact any official order, rule, or law, is if such orders, rules, or laws do something to protect the public health, welfare, morals, or safety. Failure to meet those criteria makes them no laws at all, they are null and void as if they were never enacted, and government has no constitutional authority to enforce them. Control the people, and through subterfuge, brainwash the children into complying with official dictum at an early age, and they will be easier to manipulate later in life. Encourage the young to ignore the moral character of their parents through the encouragement of unwed pregnancies, derision toward the family unit and loyalty, and/or abortions on demand, and the moral fiber of a nation is destroyed. Reinvent U.S. History to meet the desires of the elite liberals, glamorize athletic prowess while subordinating intellectual skills.

Governmental overreach into the daily lives of American citizens appears to have reached epidemic proportions. Think about it for a minute, what can you do anymore without first obtaining some form of license or permit from some nameless bureaucrat? Let’s assume you want to travel between points “A” and “B” in your own automobile. First, you must possess a driver’s license, and your vehicle must be registered and licensed by the State in which you reside. And, even if you have an exemplary driving record with no citations or accidents against your record, you must be insured by paying an insurance company hundreds of thousands of dollars for insurance against you ever having a traffic accident. And should you desire to obtain clear, clean water from your own water source rather than rely on the cities chlorinated water, you must first obtain permission from local authorities to drill a well on your own property.

The list of permissions and/or licenses you must obtain are all but endless, but due to our compliance with official diktat, your freedoms are in dire danger of being swept out with the trash. Ladies and gentlemen, this is precisely how the likes of Hitler come to power.

Both the upper and lower valleys have an abundance of apple orchards and various other farm commodities. For the most part, the people here are a gregarious lot who seem to enjoy their lives in this Mecca of semi urban and country life. The only real draw back though, are the morons who run around the area shooting at each other, often missing their intended target and hitting some innocent by-stander.

For the most part, that shooting each other generally involves a certain element of the community, many of whom entered this country illegally, and obviously hold our laws in contempt, going about the area shooting each other for some reason known only to themselves. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not some anti-gun fanatic screeching and screaming about the need for more so-called gun control laws. I just get a bit irritated over the fact that due to these senseless shooting, innocent by-standers are often caught in the cross-fire, or an errant bullet passing through someone’s window or wall kills or injures someone at the dinner table. Unfortunately, it’s not uncommon for an innocent child to become a victim of this random violence.

For those infinitely brave individuals who think it’s cool or that it makes them a “big man” to go around shooting unarmed or innocent by-standers, I must ask this question; why don’t you join up with some nation’s military? Just think about it, the military will supply you with any number of weapon’s and all of the ammunition you can use in a life time. You never know, they may even give you your own flame thrower, tank, or armored personnel carrier to wreak havoc with. And, I’m sure they can locate a small war somewhere on this planet where you will have the opportunity to expend a tremendous amount of ammunition at random targets of interest to you. However, a minor problem you might happen upon is that some of those “random targets” just might decide to shoot back at you. Oh, I see, that’s not part of the equation you prefer; you don’t want them shooting back at you, you prefer your targets to be standing with their backs to you, un-armed and therefore unable to defend themselves.

Well, personal experience tells me that just doesn’t work too well in a real shooting war. For whatever reason, in wars, the other guys always seem to be shooting back at you. As a matter of fact, while on a battle field, it seems for all intents and purposes, that everyone on the “other side” are focusing all of their attention on you, and you alone.

Well, that’s my rant for the day; so instead of keeping the firearms and ammunition manufacturers busy, get yourselves a job, settle down with a good woman, raise a God fearing family, and become a useful element within your community. Doing as you are right now, all you’re doing is keeping the local mortuary and flower shops busy with funeral arrangements for people you often didn’t even know.

Just stop and think about this for a few minutes: Can you imagine what would happen if you or I attempted to foist off on the public the nonsense we, the general public, are required to deal with?

We have the Right through Freedom of Choice, to smack our heads against a brick wall while claiming we can knock that wall down with our bare brow. We have the freedom to get into a boxing ring and go at each other tooth and nail, all while knocking any common sense out of our heads that we may have once possessed. We can use any sort of vehicle such as a car, truck, motor-cycle, bicycle, or even roller skates and come screaming down a hill, hit an elevated ramp, and attempt to leap over whatever obstacle we determine needs to be jumped over. And as mindless as it may seem to some, we also have the freedom to hook on a parachute, climb into an airplane and soar to ten or fifteen thousand feet and jump out. Of course those of such inclination each hope the parachute will slow down their fall back to mother earth, but if it fails to open, the “jumper” died an unfortunate death because the parachute failed to deploy properly.

Yes my friends, all of the above we are “allowed” to do with little, if any, government interference. Yes sir, that’s really freedom. But, if we are presumed to be intelligent enough to determine our chances of surviving any of the above events, why aren’t we given credit for having enough sense to determine what sort of light bulb we want to use in our own homes? No, we aren’t allowed to continue using the tried and true incandescent light bulb invented by Thomas Edison. Nooooo, our benefactors in government are demanding we toss out Edison’s invention and use a “new” lighting fixture which if broken in the house, will either kill you or cost tens of thousands of dollars to clean up the residue from the inside of the light bulb. We can even swallow swords and knives for fun or entertaining others if we decide to.

Along with those I’ve listed above, there are undoubtedly hundreds upon thousands of other methods government has approved of that we can use to further abuse our bodies and brains. For instance, we can drink ourselves into stupors whenever we wish, we can smoke cigarettes with reckless abandon, as well as adle our brains with any number of hallucinatory drugs our illustrious leaders are bent upon legitimizing for our daily use and/or pleasure.

While our potential for self destruction appears all but endless, there is one thing we are forbidden to do, and that is to occupy a position in an automobile traveling down our highways and by-ways without benefit of being strapped into place with a seat belt.

I believe the mentality of our government overseers are missing a few nuts and bolts, and each and every one of them needs to be put in padded cells.

In Budd vs. New York, Justice Brewer declared: “The paternal theory of government is to me odious. The utmost possible liberty to the individual and the fullest possible protection to him and his property, is both the limitation and duty of government.”

And to implement this point of view, the Court (Supreme Court) next undertook to water down the accepted maxim that a State statute must be presumed to be valid until clearly shown to be otherwise.

In contrast to the presumed validity rule, under which the Court ordinarily is not obliged to go beyond the record of evidence submitted by the litigants in determining the validity of a statute, the judicial notice principle, as developed in Mugler vs. Kansas, carried the inference that unless the Court, independently of the record, is able to ascertain the existence of justifying facts accessible to it by the rules governing judicial notice, it will be obliged to invalidate a police power regulation as bearing no reasonable or adequate relation to the purposes to be sub-served the latter, namely, health, morals, safety, or welfare.

This advantage was enhanced by the disposition of the Court, in litigation embracing the latter type of legislation, to shift the burden of proof from the litigant charging unconstitutionality to the State seeking enforcement. To the State was transferred the task of demonstrating that a statute interfering with the natural Right of liberty or property was, in fact, authorized by the Constitution, and not merely that the latter did not expressly prohibit enactment of the same.

For all intents and purposes, I don’t believe it takes a high priced Philadelphia lawyer to comprehend the significance of the Court’s ruling here. It appears to me the Court clearly comprehends that American Citizen’s are not illiterate fools, and are more than capable of determining for themselves the constitutional legitimacy of any governmental edict.

First, let’s understand one thing; we do NOT have constitutional Rights. Our Rights come from those granted us by God, not the Constitution. What the Constitution does is guarantee us that those Rights are unalienable, or inalienable, whichever term you prefer.

Also, under constitutional law, there is no such thing as a mere law, act of the legislature, etc. that can delete our God given Rights which again are protected by the Constitution. The only way any of our constitutionally protected Rights may be deleted or “taken away” from us, is through the amending process of the United States Constitution. That’s it folks, read up on our Constitution and the laws formulated under it, and you will find that mere acts of the legislature CANNOT deprive you of any of your Rights, no matter how badly some in the U.S. would prefer you to believe.

As the title of this article states, we have Panic Mongers out there who will do anything in an attempt to drag you kicking and screaming into their protective fold. And in most cases, their sole purpose is to give themselves the appearance of power and/or authority by the numbers of “converts” they can bring into their camp. Of course the money and/or other assets they require you to put in their “safe keeping” adds to this self perceived power. Be they Republican’s, Democrat’s, or sta worshipers, their intent is the same; and that is to build a perceived power base from which they can rule we mere mortals through some fear factor they have dreamed up and placed in what they believe to be our mindless orbs.

Enough said about that, I’ve got to get back to reality and that means raking leaves, picking up the rocks and limbs the grand-kids have broken from the trees and deposited in the yard, then mow the lawn. That’s my level of reality and power base.

Let’s face it folks, when the members of our judiciary openly and without remorse are allowed to freely turn the courts into dens of iniquity, whorehouses for those of that line of thinking, our Republic stands little chance of retaining its historical respect for the law, and every man and woman’s Rights to individual freedom and liberty. Although I personally have lost most all of my respect for the judiciary, I have yet to have lost any respect for the Rule of Law; for without the Rule of Law, the future of this nation and her people is bleak.

Today in America, it appears that our judicial system and its inherent justice are open to the highest bidder. I say that because I’ve too many times witnessed members of the judiciary failing to comply with settled case and/or statutory laws, but using their court rules as being of greater importance than the laws and rules the citizenry relies upon for their very existence.

Under 5 U.S.C., Section 702, it is clearly mandated that “a person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof. An action in a court of the United States seeking relief… and stating a claim that an agency or an officer or employee thereof acted or failed to act in an official capacity under color of legal authority shall not be dismissed nor relief therein be denied on the grounds that it is against the United States, or that the United States is an indispensable party….”

42 U.S.C. Chapter 21, Subchapter I, Section 1985 (2),(3) – Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights. Subsection (2) deals with “Obstructing Justice, intimidating party, witness, or juror. If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified, or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being or having been such juror; or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstruction, or defeating in any manner, the due course of justice (also known as due process of law) in any State or Territory, with intent to deprive any citizen of the equal protection of the laws, or injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce the Right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protections of the laws.”

Subsection (3) tells us: “Depriving persons of Rights or Privileges. If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws;… in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any Right or Privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.”

What you have just read is a citation from 42 U.S.C. Chapter 21, Subchapter I, Section 1985 (2) and (3); did anyone notice an exemption from prosecution for any public employee such as the police, governor, mayor, or a judge? You’re right, there is no such thing as any inherent Right to freedom from prosecution solely due to one’s position as a public employee, a well financed donor to political and/or judicial election/appointment campaigns, or be they part of any administration or holding any office of judicial authority. Unfortunately though, that, in too many instances appears to be the way things work in the administration of justice in the U.S.A.. No, justice seldom appears to be the Court’s priorities these days; not unless you have the where-with-all to cross the right corrupt palms with significant amounts of “coin of the realm.”

I could reel off the names of numerous federal and/or state/county judges in the state of Washington who, in my opinion, don’t deserve to occupy “the bench,” and serve up a brand of justice our Founding Fathers would find repugnant to their labors in founding this nation. I know I’ve mentioned the name of the following miscreant before, but U.S. District Court judge Whaley is without doubt one of the most corrupt I’ve had the distinct displeasure of running into. He is by far the most corrupt federal judge I’ve see despoiling the honor and sanctity of any federal bench. If you don’t believe me, what do you think of any judge who is a defendant in a lawsuit acting as a defendant, juror, and judge in a lawsuit?

Earlier this morning, I watched an equestrian and her mount proceeding up the road and past my home. About 200 yards further down the road and in front of my neighbor’s home, I noticed the horse leaving several deposits alongside the road and I couldn’t help myself, but those “deposits” reminded me of judge Whaley.

Take this current scandal with politician Weiner. The vast majority of our current stable of politicians are remaining ominously silent about his recent “photo op.” Is that because they too have much to hide from their constituents, or is it because they see nothing wrong with his poor choices of where, when, and to whom he mails apparently “x” rated pictures of himself. Or, is it because they too have been holding dalliances with women of the street rather than their own wives. Frankly, I’ve got more respect for the women of the street than I do for both federal and/or state politicians riding herd over our legislatures. At least those women don’t attempt to conceal what their true occupation is, while our politicians and some judges act more like $20.00 street prostitutes than the pro’s do. From what I’ve seen, it appears to me that many of our less than illustrious legislators and judges hold off making decisions on important matters until such time as one party or the other in the debate has “made their final offer.”

One of my favorite targets among the corrupt judiciary is one U.S. District Court Judge James L. Robart; that being due to his total lack of judicial or personal ethics; I factor personal ethics into the equation because it appears to me that when a judge loses his/her judicial ethics, their personal ethics had to have been the first victim of the swamp they’ve been wading through. And, once they’ve lost their all important ethical standards, what good are they on the bench; how can they be trusted to ever again make an unbiased or bought and paid for decision in any case brought before their bench.

In Robart’s case, his was where I filed my first claim of Restraint of Trade and violations of denturists civil and/or constitutional Rights against the American Dental Association, et al. The defendants did not bother to respond to the lawsuit during the 21 day “grace period” they have to respond to any lawsuit, so I filed for a “Default Judgment,” but received no response from Robart. This went on for quite a while with me filing motions for Default Judgments due to the defendants failure/refusal to respond, all while Robart sat on the case sans any response from him also. Finally, attorneys for the defense filed an item stating “there was no need for the defendants to file anything because ‘the allegations were taken as admitted.’” To me, that was a clear admission of guilt on the part of the defendants. Because of this, I filed another Motion for Default Judgment; but, to my chagrin, Robart continued to sit on his back side until a few months later when I received a notice from his court that my lawsuit was “denied with prejudice.”

Can you imagine that? Here you have a seated federal judge with what amounts to an admission of guilt in his grubby little paws, and he dismisses the case with prejudice in order that it couldn’t be re-filed.

I don’t know how my readers look at the facts I’ve just laid before them, but to me, it appears that Robart might have held an auction with the defendants to see how high he could “bid up” his decision on the case. Frankly, nothing else makes any sense to me as to why he would declare the defendants innocent when their counsel had already stated they were guilty as alleged.

As some literate wag once said, It Ain’t Over Til The Fat Lady Sings!

I do not believe that all of our judges need to be tossed into the same rubbish heap; I do believe there are yet a select few who still believe in the Rule of Law, and justice for one and all. To that handful of judges who still believe in the principles of our Constitution and the Amendments thereto, I offer my heartfelt respect and thanks.

As a student of history, I must opine that having judges with no respect for their fellow man or the concept of law and order makes me nervous. It makes me nervous because they are precisely the sort of judges throughout Nazi Germany who turned their collective backs on the plight of European Jews as Hitler set his plot in motion to wipe the Jewish race from the face of the earth. Ladies and gentlemen, that is all it takes for another Hitler to take power in America or any other nation. When the law no longer means anything to those who are charged with its enforcement and the protection of the people, there will always be another Hitler ready to slither from whatever personal hellhole he lives in, for the sole purpose of eliminating those he holds in contempt as being inferior to himself.

Accept what I write or not, but I have lived in post war Germany, and I have seen American judges here in the United States who reject the Rules of Law and the constitutional Rights of American citizens when it becomes beneficial to their own well being. That personal well being may be something along the lines of “financial considerations,” or it can emerge from an unsolicited offer for a higher position within the judicial system. And all it takes to obtain the proffered money or higher position is for a judge to turn his/her back on the intent of the law.

As a practicing denturist, I have seen this loss of judicial ethics too many times when it comes to judges caving in to pressures from the dental community to aid them in their efforts to deny denturists of their Right to practice their chosen occupation. I’ve seen this despite United States Supreme Court decisions where the court held: “Nothing is more clearly settled that it is beyond the power of a State, under the guise of protecting the public, to arbitrarily interfere with private business or prohibit lawful occupations or impose unreasonable and unnecessary restrictions upon them.” Or, how about the court decision stating: “The Right to hold specific private employment and to follow a chosen profession free from unreasonable governmental interference comes within the ‘liberty’ and ‘property concepts of the Fifth Amendment.” That first court decision came about in 1932, while the second was aired in 1959.

Even with such recent Supreme Court decisions, I have observed judges throwing those and other higher court decisions to the wind, all while allowing government prosecutors who are purported to know the law, to deny denturists of their Right to practice their chosen occupation of denturitry; an occupation which has been empirically proven to represent no known potential for harm to anyone.

Well, I’ve had my say for the day, but I advance this cautionary statement to the public, maintain a close watch on your judiciary; it’s bad enough to have our legislatures crawling with vermin with no ethics, but when that lack of ethics slithers from beneath the rocks and stones of every-day life, and rears its ugly head from under the protective cover of the judiciary, beware, you may become its next victim.