Class Action Lawsuit

short url to this post: http://wp.me/pGfx1-yk

By Dahni
© 2016, all rights reserved

ClassAction2

If pure law was made to protect the law-abiding (and it was) and not the lawless (and it wasn’t), why does it seem that the law-abiding are punished (and they often are) and the lawless get off FREE, (and they often do)? What is the problem? Is it the law or is it the lawyers? You can answer that for yourself.

But whether you intend to break the law (have criminal intent) or just break it because you are ignorant, unknowing or just incompetent, does this mean there should be little or no consequence? And please do not use the Bill Clinton (lawyer) response, “That it depends on what is, is.”

Dotting all the i’s and crossing all the t’s might be useful (but not necessarily, necessary to understand, in writing sentences and reading them, but it appears to be absolutely necessary; a requirement in legal terms, as is punctuation, capital letters or not, certain words, keywords, and all kinds of extraneous and a superfluity of bullshite loopholes. Lawyers make these legal terms or direct them.

I can certainly understand that punishment for ‘intent’ would be greater than the punishment, for just breaking the law, but because ‘intent’ has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, does not or should not mean that no charges are filed, there should not be a jury, or a grand jury, or judge only, should NOT hear the case, try the case and judge that consequences of breaking the law applies, convict if proven guilty and mete out a just punishment, swiftly!!!!

“Justice delayed is justice denied”

The quote above is a legal maxim— an established principle or proposition. Just like lawyers, and congress and government in general can’t agree on much of anything, no one seems to agree on where this quote came from either.

‘Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations, attributes it to William Ewart Gladstone, but it CANNOT be verified.

Some believe it was first used by William Penn in the form of, “to delay Justice is Injustice,” according to:

‘Penn, William (1693), ‘Some Fruits of Solitude, Headley, 1905, p. 86.

Mentions of ‘justice delayed and denied’ are found in the Pirkei Avot 5:7, a section of the Mishnah (1st century BCE – 2nd century CE): “Our Rabbis taught: …

“The sword comes into the world, because of justice delayed and justice denied…,”

10 Minutes of Torah. Ethical Teachings Selections’ from Pirkei Avot.
http://tmt.urj.net/archives/4jewishethics/052605.htm

The Magna Carta of 1215, clause 40 reads, “To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice.”

Martin Luther King, Jr., used the phrase in the form, “Justice too long delayed is justice denied,” in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail”, smuggled out of jail in 1963, ascribing it to a “distinguished jurist of yesteryear”.

Chief Justice of the United States, Warren E. Burger noted in an address to the American Bar Association in 1970:

“A sense of confidence in the courts is essential to maintain the fabric of ordered liberty for a free people and three things could destroy that confidence and do incalculable damage to society: that people come to believe that inefficiency and delay will drain even a just judgment of its value; that people who have long been exploited in the smaller transactions of daily life come to believe that courts cannot vindicate their legal rights from fraud and over-reaching; that people come to believe the law – in the larger sense – cannot fulfill its primary function to protect them and their families in their homes, at their work, and on the public streets.

Burger, “What’s Wrong With the Courts: The Chief Justice Speaks Out”, U.S. News & World Report (vol. 69, No. 8, Aug. 24, 1970) 68, 71 (address to ABA meeting, Aug. 10, 1970).

The courts are made up of judges and judges are first, lawyers. Lawyers graduate from law schools. Law schools are supposed to teach law and many of the professors may be lawyers or former lawyers that also, graduated from some law school. Sometimes, presidents are lawyers or have a law background. Congress has many former lawyers. The supreme court judges are all, first and foremost, lawyers. The entire government is riddled with lawyers.

Our biggest problem is not with the law per se, it is with the lawyers or the executives, legislators and the judiciary that make the laws, enforce or not enforce them and are more prone to NOT seek justice, but to win their cases, make their arguments, profit from them, protect themselves and their profession; their intuitions of law, and rather than protecting the innocent, they protect the lawless. Loopholes and interpretations, legislating from the bench and not whether one is guilty or not, but what can be proved is, their training and their focus.

No matter what side you may be on with the latest FBI conclusion that no criminal charges against the former Secretary of State and presumptive Democrat nominee for president of the United States, Hilary Clinton, with her mishandling of classified material and the Justice Department accepting that recommendation and no criminal charges will be filed, it’s not the law which is troubling, but the lawyers that wrote, write, interpret, defend or prosecute them, apparently at their discretion and their benefit.

If this is purely political theater (as was said by those who seek to keep this matter going), the Republican Party response seems to go to yet another law and associate it with what the FBI and the Justice Department views as, a closed case. And what law is that? Did the former secretary lie to congress, but not the FBI? But the FBI did not include that testimony in their “comprehensive” investigation. When asked why not, the Director of the FBI said that Congress had not sent them a formal request. To this the person asking said, “You will have one shortly!” So, if this continues, it could only end in a charge or charges of perjury. But perjury will be difficult to prove. The entire matter is laden with corruption and perversion. If the “careless” mishandling of classified material were not concerning on its own, as it is, the lawyers or lawyer-directed legalese that have corrupted and perverted the intent of the law, the law of the land— which is, to protect US, WE the People, from the lawless and punish  the lawless, to me is even more egregious an a threat to national security!

I will give you an example of this corruption and perversion from my own state of New York and my own personal experience.

About a year ago, I was pulled over on the ramp of an entrance to a highway. It was an obvious traffic stop, looking for drunk drivers or to see if people were wearing their seat-belts, I supposed. This was, seat-belt related. After I stopped, an officer approached me and gave me a ticket, as he was told to do, by his supervisor. His supervisor said, that he saw me NOT wearing a seatbelt and to ticket me. Now of course, I would, as most people charged with anything would say, “I’m innocent.” And it does not matter if I really was or not, as you will shortly understand. But I had two choices. I could pay whatever fine was required by my state and county and etc. or try to fight it in court. I decided to go to court.

On my court date, I was given two more choices. I was to either plead guilty and pay whatever the judge said or I could have a trial. Ooops, and I thought I was at trial and the officer would be there? Nope.

OK, I wasn’t there because I was guilty, but before I said I wasn’t, I asked the judge a question, which he allowed. “If I come to trial and plead innocent and win, will they drop all charges and any costs to me, except for my time wasted in coming to court twice? Well the judge informed me that there are no court costs, but there is an administrative fee, which I would have to pay, one way or another. Sure, label that jar of peas, peanut butter, but it’s still peas! Costs or fees, it’s still monies. That’s legalese and PC (political correctness) all rolled into one lump court cost that’s not?

So, let me see if I have this straight? Plead guilty to something I did not do. Pay whatever fine the judge decides. Points are deducted from my license. Enter a plea of guilty that become public record. My insurance most likely will go up. AND I still have to pay the (about) $100, the administrative fee? Yes. And if I go to trial and lose, I may have to pay a larger fine and the $100 administrative fee? Yes. Oh, and one more thing. The police can give me a ticket, even if they know I’ve done nothing wrong because, one way or another, I’m going to have to pay that $100! Is this messed up or what? Does this sound like extortion, racketeering and collusion to you? Is it the law or the lawyers that wrote it or directed it? Well, my prosecution rests! 🙂

WE the People, should ALL file a class action suit against the law profession?! WE the People should just sue the legal profession, sue the hell out of them! But who would do it for US? Who could WE get to represent US?????

ClassAction

click image to enlarge

Another maxim—

“He who represents himself has a fool for a client.”

A supposed quote by Abraham Lincoln?

This proverb is based on the opinion, probably first expressed by a lawyer, that self-representation in court is likely to end badly. As with many proverbs, it is difficult to determine a precise origin, but this expression first began appearing in print in the early 19th century. An early example comes in ‘The flowers of Wit’, or a choice collection of bon mots, by Henry Kett, 1814:

…observed the eminent lawyer, “I hesitate not to pronounce, that every man who is his own lawyer, has a fool for a client.

In the play, King Lear, by William Shakespeare, In Act I, Sc. 4, the king’s fool makes a lengthy rhyming speech, containing a great many trite, but useful moral maxims, such as:

Have more than thou showest,
Speak less than thou knowest, &c.,

The king found that testy and flat and tiresome.

Lear. This is nothing, fool.
Fool. Then, ‘tis like the breath of an unfeed lawyer: you gave me nothing for it.

Representing oneself in Latin is, acting pro se, which means, for oneself.

If WE could find among US, a lawyer(s) that could and would represent US, would they be a fool, in representing themselves as well? And their profession might think them a fool, if they dare go against them? Are WE then just shite (old English term, you figure out its current meaning) out of luck? Are WE, without representation? Are WE, without a prayer? Are WE, up a creek without a paddle? NO!

WE the People have two, to represent us— The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America. One these two documents, all the law and all the laws of the United States are supposed to be based on. The legal profession does NOT view them like that!

Regardless of what the courts might rule, the Declaration of Independence is not some past historical writing of its time and just some relic to be archived in a museum. I was then and remains a legal document, an affidavit  of fact and conclusions. In logic, it presents its factual premises (whereas) and its conclusions (therefore). It is the the foundation of Our Republic. It is Our raison d’être (reason to be). It is (WE are), The Apple of Gold in a picture of silver. It is Our Constitution which is the picture of silver, made of , by, and for WE the People, to protect, defend and preserve for ourselves and our  posterity, Our unalienable rights! The picture was made to serve US, WE the Apple of Gold, and NOT US, for the picture of silver!

Regardless of what any court might rule, the preamble to Our Constitution and the entirety of Our Constitution is relevant, essential and inseparable to the Declaration of Independence and to US, WE the People, the Apple of Gold! WE the people do have standing, and state, and original jurisdiction, to bring this case before them! Consider the following excerpts.

                                                                                                              

“The word “Unalienable” appears in one of the greatest phrases of The United States of America’s history.”

“We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men [all-inclusive noun] are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Excerpt from the Declaration of Independence 1776

“The Kansas City Court of Appeals for the State of Missouri quoted verbatim the above language of 1776 with approval in Morrison v. State, 252 S.W.2d 97 (Mo. Ct. App 1952), and then went on to say (also quoting):”

Inalienable is defined as incapable of being surrendered or transferred, at least without one’s consent.”

Webster New International Dictionary, Second Ed. Vol. 2,
Page 1254. 252 S.W.2d at 101.

Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred.”

Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

“You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances, be surrendered or taken. All individuals have unalienable rights.”

Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, 252 S.W.2d 97 (Mo. Ct. App. 1952).”

“You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons (not individuals) have inalienable rights.”

“Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights. Here we have the so-called same defined words of unalienable and
inalienable being separated, not as the same thing, but differently and by an appellate court judge.”

“You and I may think inalienable and unalienable mean the same thing, but apparently, courts and states do not. Therefore, what is unalienable cannot be taken or transferred and relates itself to rights, and what is inalienable, could be surrendered or transferred if by consent and relates itself to privileges. Words have meaning and carry rights and results or privileges and consequences.”

“In U.S. vs. JOHNSON (76 Fed, Supp. 538), Federal District Court Judge James Alger Fee ruled that,”

“The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, not to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one who is indifferent thereto. It is a fighting clause. Its benefits can be retained only by sustained combat. It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a belligerent claimant in person.”

McAlister vs. Henkle, 201 U. S. 90, 26 S.Ct. 385, 50 L. Ed. 671; Commonwealth vs. Shaw, 4 Cush. 594, 50 Am. Dec. 813; Orum vs. State, 38 Ohio App. 171, 175 N.E. 876.

Here again we find a federal court judge using both the words “privilege” and “rights.” From the context, this is referring to the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Did you ever think that a judge would make such a ruling?”

“OUR privileges and inalienable rights could be taken or transferred, but if you or I want OUR unalienable rights protected, WE have to fight for them and become “belligerent.” WE out of necessity, to protect OUR rights, must stand in contempt of court. Words have meaning and they carry results or consequences.”

Here in the ruling is, but one example of division, or separation and in essence, an adversarial relationship.”

“If WE the People do not know OUR rights and fight for them, who will?”

Excerpts from: ‘RESET’ (An Un-alien’s Guide to Resetting Our Republic)
Copyright © 2012 by Dahni & I-Magine – All rights reserved.

                                                                                                      

Just imagine, just suppose we were able to actually get a court to hear this case. What do you think their decision would be? Yes, for themselves, the defendants! OK, so what if we get it appealed, all the way to the United States Supreme Court? What would be their decision? Would they allow US, WE the People, to RESET our Republic or rule in their favor, to keep their jobs appointed for life? Most likely to keep their job, but for US? Probably— NOT!!!!

Let’s sue the Legal Profession? Let’s bring a class action suit against the legal profession? Let US, WE the People, sue the legal profession, sue the hell out of them? Probably NOT!

Do you know why Lady Justice is blindfolded? Well, I used to believe she could see, but she blindfolded herself on purpose or purposefully, for equality; for equal justice. Now, I’m really starting to think the legal profession poked her eyes out so, she would not know the scales were being tipped (imbalanced) and the whole legal profession rigged the system, for their exclusive benefit!

ClassAction3

There must be a better way? There is! It involves bypassing the legal profession entirely, but it is legal and the legal profession must YIELD, to the authority and power of, WE the People! Another Blog post on another day. Look for, The Thirteen Coming Soon!
1 of WE,

Dahni

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


%d bloggers like this: