Friday, May 29, 2009

The Nerve of Alma Wheeler Smith

How Alma Wheeler Smith has the nerve to run for Governor and she can not stop the corruption which goes on in the family court of Washtenaw County. If Alma does nothing about it in her own district how can one think Alma will do something positive for the rest of the state? I guess there is money to be made in destroying a child's future? Title IV-D? Where has all of that money been going too? Hasn't Michigan families suffered enough?

In order to reclaim our Liberty here in Michigan

In order to reclaim our Liberty here in Michigan, we will need to awaken all Michiganders to historical documents which founded the American Republic, followed by the relearning the political history that led to Michigan becoming a state of the Union in 1837.

We need to rediscover the historical information of Michigan starting with the Northwest Ordinance enacted on July 11th, 1787. This was the federal law for governing all territory north of the Ohio River. This law preceded the Constitution of the United States. The Northwest Ordinance clearly stated the statutory provisions for governing federal territory. This federally enacted statute, was the groundwork for enabling a territory to organize itself under a State Constitution that would then empower the newly locally enfranchised constitutional polity to secure membership as a State of the American Republic.

How many Michiganders here are familiar with the history of the two conventions held in Michigan in 1836 wherein the established political class actions in September sparked a grassroots response in December, wherein the statutory enactments of the Convention from September were OVERTURNED? Why? Well Michiganders in 1836 knew well their rights were endowed by God, not a politically corrupted cadre of public servants who orchestrated the assembly that met in September of 1836.

We need to read the Michigan State constitution enacted in October 1835. Then we need to trace the deliberated changes that diminished the will of the State Citizens over the next 130 years which resulted in the Progressive (statist) Constitution of 1963. The Constitution of 1963 diminished our standing as State Citizens, and empowered the political class sitting under the State Capitol dome.

Now 174 years later few Michiganders comprehend the historical impact of the actions that occurred from May 1835 to December of 1836.

This is why we here in Michigan need to relearn the rich political history of our State. Here in Michigan, there was a time, as is now, when the State Citizens stood together to assert their God Given Unalienable Rights to command the offices of the Government. Today, the Offices of Government have successfully rewritten the history of Michigan to support their Statist Creed.

The spontaneity of the Grass roots resurgence here in Michigan and throughout America, sparked by Ron Paul, Glen Beck, and the Tea Party Protests has the political class scurrying about looking for ways to co-opt our reawakening to liberty.

If we want to hold the Federal Government constitutionally accountable, we first need to reassert our State’s sovereignty by holding the State Political class accountable.

Read the State’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Accounting Report (CAFR’s COMBINED SCHEDULE OF REVENUE AND OTHER FINANCING SOURCES

GENERAL AND SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2007) wherein for the calendar year 2007, one may take note that the State Legislature has enacted state law, known as the State Plan, which empowered the Federal Political Class to pay the State Political Class Twelve Billion dollars that year. These Twelve billion dollars comes to Michigan to fund the welfare state. The Welfare state pays Michiganders NOT TO WORK, by taxing those of us here in Michigan that work for a living.

This is why we here in Michigan need to politically restructure the legislative authority that sits under the State Capitol Dome. This will require us here in Michigan to rewrite the State Constitution to empower the State citizens. The Constitution of 1835 recognized the authority of the State Citizens to directly change the state government, wherein by 1963, this unalienable right to change a broken governmental structure mysteriously disappeared. Why? Well, the answer is that by 1963 the political class took advantage of a distracted State Citizenry to enfranchise the socialistic agenda of the fascist state of National Socialism. The political class throughout America changed every state constitution in the 1960’s to empower the socialistic agenda of a corrupted political class. We now suffer the insufferable acts of a corrupted political class that knows well, its corruption is dependent upon keeping us here in Michigan, and throughout America unaware of our constitutional history.

The State elected political bureaucracy enacts State (State plan) legislation in order to secure federal funding for administering state welfare programs. These programs are then managed by local state employees, and overseen by federal employees to subsidize Michiganders not to work. Other federally controlled state welfare programs dangle “statutory benefits” out to Michiganders in order to induce them to accept an ever expanding administrative state of dependency. This is the “Hope and Change” promoted by the Obama Administration, an ever expanding welfare state, which enlarges the administrative oversight of federal and state employees. This is political ideology promoted as “Hope and Change”. This political ideology promoted as “Hope and Change” is the fascist state of National Socialism that is brought forward under statutory enactments such as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Take note of the 52 points that require STATE (State Plan) LAW enactments by the State legislature to carry forward this statist plan enacted by the First Session of the One Hundred Eleventh Congress of the United States of America as HR 1.

We need to elect Michiganders whose first job is to repeal all the State Plans starting with Public Act 1 of 1936, followed by Public Act 280 of 1939 as the first steps to reasserting Michigan State Sovereignty, and followed by the refusing to accept the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

These two state plans from the late 1930’s, (Public Act 1 of 1936, and Public Act 280 of 1939) are federally induced state legislation that initiated the statutory disenfranchised our Liberty as Michiganders. Seventy Three years later, the Federal Political Class subsidizes the State Political Class annually with over 12 billion dollars that formerly belonged to us here in Michigan and other State Citizens throughout America.

How many Michiganders know that the State Government in Lansing operates under a Federally Issued Employee Identification Number? How many other State Citizens in the State of America know this statutory fact, that their State polity is enumerated as the American Employer? Read Title 26 USCA Subtitle F Chapter 61 Subchapter B § 6109, and Title 26 Subtitle C Chapter 21 Subchapter C § 3121(h)

How may Michigan retain its Sovereignty, when the State Legislature willingly enacts state law that puts the State Government under the administrative oversight of the Internal Revenue Service and other Federal Administrative Agencies sitting down there inside the exterior boundaries of the Beltway surrounding Washington D.C.?

If we here in Michigan want to overcome the Federal Corruption radiating out of Washington D.C., we need to start here in Lansing, with Public Act 1 of 1936. This Public Act enacted by the State legislature imposed a slew of new excise taxes which constructively enabled the state polity to feed at the federal trough of political corruption.

Today, Michigan, once the Automotive Capitol of the World, is now an empty shell, where the State Polity declares a fiscal crisis routinely every calendar year to substantiate their ever increasing tax burden which funds said state political class’ ideologically driven welfare state of Tax and Take.

The Democratic Party has taken over General Motors, and Chrysler, by controlling the Federal Congress, and the White House. The federal political class that populates the National Democratic Party is using this new found statutory authority to close down privately owned automotive dealerships, which have ties to the Republican Party. This political driven closure of private businesses is not the act of a constitutionally restrained federal government. Where is the National Republican Party? Why is the Chairman of the National Republican Party and other party members sitting in the Federal Congress failing to challenge this political act of the Obama Administration?

This political destruction of the privately owned Chrysler, and General Motor Dealerships directly affects us here in Michigan. Now the Big Three are no longer. The lone survivor is Ford. The other two former members of the Big Three, Chrysler, and General Motors are now governmentally controlled operations of law, heading down the slippery slope of industrial and financial collapse.

The solution to this political usurpation of Michigan’s automotive industry sits in Lansing under the State Capitol Dome. The State legislature has enacted socialistic legislation since the late 1930’s that has subsidized the United Auto Workers Union, and led directly to the demise of Chrysler, and General Motors. Since the UAW’s political victory over General Motor back on February 11th, 1936, the State Legislature has slowly but surely undermined the innovative automotive industry, by statutorily empowering the political desires of the United Auto Workers Union. How many State elected officials are invited to play the UAW’s Black Lake Golf Club course? How many rank and file UAW union members are invited, at no cost, to play the Black Lake Golf Club course?

Striking UAW workers have been directly subsidized with unemployment benefits, why? Why did the State Legislature enact statutory law that imposed a closed shop? What right does the State or Federal Government have to tell a business owner how to run their business, and who they may hire?

WE here in Michigan need to relearn our Political heritage, so we may then know how to politically overcome the governmental corruption that sits under the State and Federal Capitol Dome. Contrary to what the political class would like us to believe, the solution is not in Washington D.C., for without a compliant state political class sitting under the State Capitol dome, the federal statutory enactments for empowering the welfare state, have no force of law, within the political boundaries of Michigan, and the other states of the United States of America. Read Article I § 8 , the Constitution of the United States for the United States of America

Chrysler and General Motors are a perfect example of what happens when one is administratively ruled by the will and whim of state and federal legislative enactments.

The Federal Government relies upon the case dicta found in Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) to overreach its constitutional limitations for what it claims is the regulation of business. The constitutional authority was to make business regular amongst the states, not to regulate private business concerns by statutory fiat.

Federal legislation is constitutionally limited, and this singular constitutional fact is what is not taught in the State Controlled educational system herein the lands of the Wolverine.

The Constitution of the United States for the United States of America is a statute of limitations imposed upon the Federal Government by the States of America. We here in Michigan need to enforce this constitutional fact, by first re-securing our State Sovereignty.

This we may accomplish within the political arena by relearning that the State Constitution is a statute of limitations authored by Michiganders to limit the reach of the State Government. Compare the first state constitution enacted in 1835, to today’s edited version enacted in 1963. Take note what is missing and what was editorially changed to empower the political class of the welfare state in 1963.




In convention, begun at the city of Detroit, on the second Monday of May, in the year one thousand eight hundred and thirty five:


We, the PEOPLE of the territory of Michigan, as established by the Act of Congress of the Eleventh day of January, in the year one thousand eight hundred and five, in conformity to the fifth article of the ordinance providing for the government of the territory of the United States, North West of the River Ohio, believing that the time has arrived when our present political condition ought to cease, and the right of self-government be asserted; and availing ourselves of that provision of the aforesaid ordinance of the congress of the United States of the thirteenth day of July, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, and the acts of congress passed in accordance therewith, which entitle us to admission into the Union, upon a condition which has been fulfilled, do, by our delegates in convention assembled, mutually agree to form ourselves into a free and independent state, by the style and title of "The State of Michigan," and do ordain and establish the following constitution for the government of the same.



Political power.

First. All political power is inherent in the people.

Right of the people.

2. Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people; and they have the right at all times to alter or reform the same, and to abolish one form of government and establish another, whenever the public good requires it.

No exclusive privileges.

3. No man or set of men are entitled to exclusive or separate privileges.

Take note how the Constitution of 1963 empowered the state political class, by empowering the state legislature. Contrast the first three clauses of the 1835 Constitution to the first three clauses of the 1963 document. The change is dynamic, as the 1963 document empowers the whim and will of the State Government.




We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom,

and earnestly desiring to secure these blessings undiminished to ourselves and our posterity, do

ordain and establish this constitution.


Declaration of Rights

§ 1 Political power.

Sec. 1. All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal benefit, security and protection.

History: Const. 1963, Art. I, §1, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964.

Former Constitution: See Const. 1908, Art. II, §1.

§ 2 Equal protection; discrimination.

Sec. 2. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws; nor shall any person be denied the enjoyment of his civil or political rights or be discriminated against in the exercise

thereof because of religion, race, color or national origin. The legislature shall implement this section by appropriate legislation.

History: Const. 1963, Art. I, §2, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964.

§ 3 Assembly, consultation, instruction, petition.

Sec. 3. The people have the right peaceably to assemble, to consult for the common good, to instruct their representatives and to petition the government for redress of grievances.

We here in America, and Michigan itself, have been grossly misled by a self servicing political class at the federal and state level; they plunder our liberty, by imposing unbearable taxes, to fund their progressive (statist collective socialist programs of administrative control) ideology which directly suborns our Liberty as Ordained by God.

"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right, from the frame of their nature, to knowledge, as their great Creator, who does nothing in vain, has given them understandings, and a desire to know; but besides this, they have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge; I mean, of the characters and conduct of their rulers."

-- John Adams (Dissertation on Canon and Feudal Law, 1765)

Reference: Our Sacred Honor, Bennett, 253.

Sunday, May 24, 2009

A video to watch

Sunday, May 17, 2009

YouTube Videos on CPS corruption

You Tube Videos:

CPS Involved In Child Trafficking Rings Explains Senator Schafer 1 of 4

CPS Involved In Child Trafficking Rings Explains Senator Schafer 2 of 4

CPS Involved In Child Trafficking Rings Explains Senator Schafer 3 of 4

CPS Involved In Child Trafficking Rings Explains Senator Schafer 4 of 4

Attorney Fine continues to sit in jail on an illegal order.

Attorney Fine continues to sit in jail on an illegal order. An order given be a judge that should have rescused himself from Fine's cases, based upon the fact that these judges took illegal money from the County while ruling on cases in favor of the County.

The money was later ruled unconstitutional, the judges, judicial council and their cohorts then ran to the Ca. State Legislature and had an emergency Bill passed which gave retroactive immunity for their criminal activity.

Unfortunately, those that have gone before these judges are stuck with the tainted decisions. Where is the fairness on behalf of those that have suffered based upon tainted decisions?

Hmmm, now they want one of the crooks appointed to the US Supreme Court!! He is a criminal, a criminal that has been granted retroactive immunity, dating back twelve years. Well, will the people receive retroactive immunity for the past tainted decisions?

A very dangerous precedence to set; meaning, whenever elected officials are caught, they can simply go to their legislatures and have emergency bill's introduced.

Hmm, what about checks and balances? It appears that they all covered up for one another, meaning that they have all become one, one against the people. This proves that Calif. has admitted that the entire state is corrupt!!

Saturday, May 16, 2009

FISCAL CRISIS: Illegal Payments Create Law For Judicial Criminal & Liability Immunity: Nominees For U S Supreme Court To Be Impacted?

Friday, May 15, 2009

Judicial Watch Attorney (Sturgeon vs County of Los Angeles)

Los Angeles, CA While counties, cities and the entire state are on the brink of financial collapse all California Superior Court Judges are fighting hard, in court and in the State Legislature, to keep the illegal payments made to them by county governments. The Judicial Watch organization successfully challenged those payments made to Judges in L A County, where over the past decade it has been estimated that L.A. Judges have received up to $300 million dollars. A Fourth District Appellate Court decision in October 2008 (Sturgeon vs County of Los Angeles) held those payments to the Judges were indeed unlawful. This action prompted the Judges to fight back.

Judges were apparently worried about being prosecuted for criminal acts and liability for taking the unearned money. At the urging of the Los Angeles Superior Court, the California Judicial Council quietly authored a provision that was slipped into the State Budget legislation SBX 211, without public debate or awareness. This provision granted retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution to all California Judges and County officials who received or made those illegal payments of public money. Depending on who you talk to the payments are referred to as "unearned benefits" or "Judicial Benefits".

Full Disclosure Network ® inteviewed Judicial Watch attorney Sterling Norris in April 2009 as part of an on going "special series" entitled Judicial Benefits and Court Corruption. We asked Norris what motivated the California Judicial Council to change the law giving themselves retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution? His response was:

"they would not have sponsored the legislation unless they really felt the Judges needed immunity from criminal prosecution and liability".

Ironically, Richard I. Fine, a former prominent anti-trust attorney is still sitting in the Los Angeles County Central Men's Jail, in isolation, for more than 70 days. He was held in contempt of court, after he attempted to disqualify Superior Court Judge David Yaffe from sitting on a case that involved the County of Los Angeles. According to Fine , Yaffe failed to disclose to the parties in the case (Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Association vs County of Los Angeles) that he had been receiving $46,000, on top of his State salary, from the County for years. Yaffe defended the practice of "coercive confinement" in response to a Writ of Habeas Corpus for Immediate Release filed by Fine in the Federal Court on March 29, 2009.

Sterling Norris of Judicial Watch had these comments regarding unearned payments to Judges and their failure to disclose.
"There is no question that the judges should have disclosed they were receiving $46,000 from the County of L.A. , there is no way the judiciary, ethically, could get around it....""

"$46,000 each year is not a small amount, many people don't make that much all year and this, from the County, is on top their $200,000 State salary. In California they are the highest paid court judges in the nation".

"If (the Judges) are on the up and up, you go get a declaratory judgment (in court) saying, in spite of court consolidation, we are entitled to the money"

"We have never seen people excused from liability retroactively"

"There is a criminal doctrine of law that if you received money you are not entitled to, and you keep it, that is considered theft"

Without immunity for criminal acts, a complicating factor associated with the illegal payments to Judges is that a number of Los Angeles Superior Court Judges have been appointed to higher courts during the past two decades . They now sit on the Supreme Court and the Appellate Court. The question is, does the fact they have accepted unearned money from other than their employer disqualify them from higher appointments? In his request for investigation and complaint to the U.S. Department of Justice Richard I. Fine points to both Appellate and Supreme Court Justices who have received illegal payments from the County and who have been granted criminal immunity. The California Constitution (Sec. 17, 19, 20) states that Judges may not receive money from other parties than their employer, the State of California, and the Legislature has the sole responsibility for setting compensation and retirement benefits. On page 4 of the Fine request for investigation he names California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno, who has been mentioned as a possible nominee to the U. S. Supreme Court by President Obama.

The on-going controversy over the State's fiscal crisis, Judicial benefits and appointments is playing out in yet another court hearing on July 2, 2009 when Appellate Justice Richman will preside in an L A Superior Court to rule on the Judicial Watch motion for injunctive relief, to prohibit the county from making futher illegal payments to the Judges. At that time Sterling Norris will have an opportunity to raise thie issue of Constitutionality of SBX2 11 granting Judges retroactive immuity for liability and criminal acts without public discussion or debate.

The Judical Watch organization, has been been faced with formidable opposition from County of Los Angeles and their private lawfirm Jones-Day and the Superior Court of Los Angeles who retained Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher who successfully obtained "Intervenor" status in the case. The "unearned benefits" going to the Judges, not the public raises the issue who will pay the big law firms? Will it be the taxpayers or the Judges who personally benefit from the payments? Win or loose it is going to cost a lot of money.

The Full Disclosure® Host Leslie Dutton contacted Judge Mary Wiss, president of the California Judges Association for an interview for this two-part with Sterling Norris, Judge Wiss referred us to their lobbyist, Mr. Mike Beliote, who declined an interview saying "the Judges have decided not to be interviewed on this subject" The Full Disclosure series is to be released to 40 cable systems and on the Internet in June 2009. This is part three and four of the on-going series. # # # #

For the children

4/24/2009 12:10:00 AM

Globe Staff Writer

IRONWOOD -- A Gogebic Community College psychology major is planning more than just a presentation for her final class project.

In memory of a murdered child and missing, abducted and murdered children everywhere, she and her psychology class will release balloons at GCC Monday.

Bekki Sowerby, a life-long Ironwood resident, has taken a keen interest in abnormal psychology. From that stemmed a voracious interest in the Caylee Anthony case from Florida. Caylee was murdered at the age of 2. Her mother, Casey Anthony, has been charged with the murder. The case received a vast amount of media attention.

Sowerby was interested in the Anthony case on two fronts -- she is an activist for missing, abducted and murdered children and is interested, psychologically, in why the murderer committed the act.

"I want to know why people do the things they do," Sowerby said.

For her final class project Sowerby will present the Anthony case to her class, first how the abduction and murder was portrayed in the media, and then she will present evidence and testimonies. Sowerby will give three possible diagnoses of Casey Anthony for discussion.

Sowerby has talked to Cindy Anthony, Caylee's grandmother, to gain insight on the case. They've become Internet friends, Sowerby said. The balloon release will be videotaped for Cindy Anthony.

Following her presentation, the class will release pink balloons, Caylee's favorite color, near the sculpture behind the liberal arts center at GCC at 11:45 a.m. Sowerby ordered balloons from Balloons Over the U.P. She and her classmates will either write messages to Caylee or a pledge to their own child on the balloons.

In addition to the balloon release, Sowerby hosts an online talk show called "Justice for Children" Fridays at 8 p.m. Through the talk show and balloon release she hopes to spread awareness about missing, abducted and murdered children.

"We have a false sense of security in this area because it doesn't happen that much here," Sowerby said. "We don't have a high number of missing kids and abductions but people need to realize this is happening and it can happen here."

Sowerby isn't involved in just one cause. Though the talk show started as a forum to help children in need, it has taken on a life of its own.

"We just try to talk about issues with children," Sowerby said.

The show is controversial and some people don't like the discussions, she said. Sowerby has had people post negative comments on Web about her show because of the topics.

"It's weird to see people try to hinder someone who is trying to help people," Sowerby said.

Through the talk show, Sowerby met Charles, a man in Washtenaw County who has been fighting to get his children out of what he claims is an abusive home with his ex-wife.

Charles has hit a brick wall in the court system and has not been able to see his children since last fall, Sowerby said. She has contacted the governor, senators and state representatives to assist Charles in his fight.

"It's not just in Michigan, it's all over the place," Sowerby said.

Finding justice for children is her passion, she said. Sowerby hopes that other people will take an interest in children's issues and become more involved, even if it just means pledging to become a better parent.

Everyone is welcome to join in the balloon release, Sowerby said. A limited number of balloons were ordered. Those wishing to participate should bring a balloon to release.

Washington Senator Pam Roach and Former Georgia Senator Nancy Schaefer: “CPS is Corrupt”

Tax idea would crush the middle class

Letter: Tax idea would crush middle class
by Charles Wright | Ypsilanti
Friday May 01, 2009, 11:37 AM
In response to taxing the middle class some more: It seems that the middle class has been on the defense for the last five years.

Now we have state Rep. Alma Wheeler Smith trying to trim the middle even thinner. Auto plants closing through the state. Small and large entities have been disappearing throughout the state, yet Ms. Smith says "The proposal would cost a household earning $50,000 a year more than $500 in additional annual income taxes before deductions."

Why didn't Ms. Smith try to stop the retirement packages for state representatives during June 1997, like what happened to any other state workers who hired in after this date?

Ask Ms. Smith what type of medical package she and her family get when she retires.
Yet teachers, civil-service workers, autoworkers, nurse, etc., will take a loss if this happens.

Alma's sister likes to ignore the law; maybe Alma has joined the bandwagon to destroy families in Michigan because no one is trying to challenge them. Do they think the public is dumb enough to support their ill-will plans of action?

We are the taxpayers who voted them in, but they do not have to worry about a retirement like the rest of the state of Michigan workers. Now they really show what they feel about honest, hard-working Michigan families.

Do these two sisters know what can happen if the middle class collapses?

Or maybe they do not care because they have already padded their pockets.

Where is the money going now, which the state of Michigan was giving in aid to the colleges? Maybe it is time for the both of them to step down.

Here's a quote by Samuel Adams:

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”

Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) Austrian physician. Founder of Psychoanalysis.

I cannot think of any need in childhood as strong as the need for a father's protection.

Something to think about

“A father is a fellow who has replaced the currency in his wallet with the snapshots of his kids.”

From the Courtroom of Nancy C. Francis of Washtenaw County

THE COURT: No. It is a debt that's due and if you don't have it paid by Monday at four o'clock, the Court will hold a hearing at that time on contempt of court.
Now as regard to these other issues, the DVDs. The Court finds that the DVDs that you're trying to get admitted sent to the Court of Appeals were not included in the trial. That they are hearsay and there are hearsay there was no proper presentation under the catchall hearsay rule. They were not connected with any hearing. And the Court is finding that for the purposes of this Court they are not admissible into evidence. That there was not a question that was posed to Ms. Wright in which she testified that in a way that was that could be shaken by the admission of these tapes. That this is not directly relevant to any answer that she gave in the court. That


THE COURT: the Court of Appeals has every power in the world if they want to get these DVDs. I'm sure they'll come up in the arguments. And if they want them, they can get them from you I'm quite sure, but I'm going to have them removed from the court file because they were never a relevant part of any evidence that was that the Court took into account in making its decisions. So they can certainly be returned to you, Mr. Whitfield, but I'm going to say that all of these tapes are to be removed from the court file and so I will sign an order to that effect. Now-- FROM THE 12-13-07 HEARING STARTING ON PAGE 23

Corruption the family courts of Washtenaw County

A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All Activities
B. A judge should respect and observe the law. At all times, the conduct and manner of a judge should promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Without regard to a person’s race, gender, or other protected personal characteristic, a judge should treat every person fairly, with courtesy and respect.

The Plaintiff was admonished for reporting what required of him by state law by Honorable Francis. Yet Honorable Francis never admonished the Defendant for failing to report what was required by state law. The Plaintiff also recognizes Honorable Francis was appointed to a special task force by Governor Jennifer Granholm on “Children’s Justice”. The Child Protection Law requires certain professionals to report child abuse and neglect under section 3(1) of the Child Protection Law.

The Plaintiff acknowledges Honorable Francis violated her position on the bench and the judge’s knowledge of the law by ignoring what the Defendant had even admitted to making several different violations during a two day trial for 05/16/07 and 05/23/07. The Child Protection Law requires certain professionals to report child abuse and neglect under section 3(1) of the Child Protection Law. Section 8(5) of the Child Protection Law provides:
Involvement of law enforcement officials under this section does not relieve or prevent the department from proceeding with its investigation or treatment if there is a reasonable cause to suspect that the child abuse or neglect was committed by a person responsible for the child’s health or welfare. MCL 722.115E2A; MCL 750.1227A; MCL 750.1227A; MCL 750.1227B; MCL 750.1227C; MCL 750.136B; MCL 750.136B1; MCL 750.136B2; MCL 750.136B4; MCL 750.136B5; MCL 750.145; MCL 750.149A; MCL 750.219; ; MCL 750.422; MCL 750.423; MCL 750.425MCL 750.505B; 750.520B1D; MCL 750.520C1D; MCL 750.483; MCL 750.483A; MCL 750.483B

Something to think about

Rule 804 Hearsay Exceptions; Declarant Unavailable
(a) Definition of unavailability. "Unavailability as a witness" includes situations in which the declarant–
(1) is exempted by ruling of the court on the ground of privilege from testifying concerning the subject matter of the declarant's statement; or
(2) persists in refusing to testify concerning the subject matter of thedeclarant's statement despite an order of the court to do so; or
(3) has a lack of memory of the subject matter of the declarant's statement; or
(4) is unable to be present or to testify at the hearing because of death or then existing physical or mental illness or infirmity; or
(5) is absent from the hearing and the proponent of a statement has been unable to procure the declarant's attendance (or in the case of a hearsay exception under subdivision (b)(2), (3), or (4), the declarant's attendance or testimony) by process or other reasonable means, and in a criminal case, due diligence is shown.
A declarant is not unavailable as a witness if exemption, refusal, claim of lack of memory, inability, or absence is due to the procurement or wrongdoing of the proponent of a statement for the purpose of preventing the witness from attending or testifying.
(b) Hearsay exceptions. The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness:
(1) Former testimony. Testimony given as a witness at another hearing of the same or a different proceeding, if the party against whom the testimony is now offered, or, in a civil action or proceeding, a predecessor in interest, had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination.
(2) Statement under belief of impending death. In a prosecution for homicide or in a civil action or proceeding, a statement made by a declarant while believing that the declarant's death was imminent, concerning the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be impending death.
(3) Statement against interest. A statement which was at the time of its making so far contrary to the declarant's pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far tended to subject the declarant to civil or criminal liability, or to render invalid a claim by the declarant against another, that a reasonable person in the
Michigan Rules of Evidence Last Updated 6/23/2006
declarant's position would not have made the statement unless believing it to be true. A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.
(4) Statement of personal or family history. (A) A statement concerning the declarant's own birth, adoption, marriage, divorce, legitimacy, relationship by blood, adoption, or marriage, ancestry, or other similar fact of personal or family history, even though declarant had no means of acquiring personal knowledge of the matter stated; or (B) a statement concerning the foregoing matters, and death also, of another person, if the declarant was related to the other by blood, adoption, or marriage or was so intimately associated with the other's family as to be likely to have accurate information concerning the matter declared.
(5) Deposition Testimony. Testimony given as a witness in a deposition taken in compliance with law in the course of the same or another proceeding, if the party against whom the testimony is now offered, or, in a civil action or proceeding, a predecessor in interest, had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination.
For purposes of this subsection only, "unavailability of a witness" also includes situations in which:
(A) The witness is at a greater distance than 100 miles from the place of trial or hearing, or is out of the United States, unless it appears that the absence of the witness was procured by the party offering the deposition; or
(B) On motion and notice, such exceptional circumstances exist as to make it desirable, in the interests of justice, and with due regard to the importance of presenting the testimony of witnesses orally in open court, to allow the deposition to be used.

(6) Statement by declarant made unavailable by opponent. A statement offered against a party that has engaged in or encouraged wrongdoing that was intended to, and did, procure the unavailability of the declarant as a witness.
(7) Other Exceptions. A statement not specifically covered by any of the foregoing exceptions but having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, if the court determines that (A) the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact, (B) the statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence that the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts, and (C) the general purposes of these rules and the interests of justice will best be served by admission of the statement into evidence. However, a statement may not be admitted under this exception unless the proponent of the statement makes known to the adverse party, sufficiently in advance of the trial or hearing to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to prepare to meet it, the proponent's intention to offer the statement and the particulars of it, including the name and address of the declarant.
Monica never responded whether she had knowledge of the abuse during the two period after the trial. Once new video evidence was introduced then Monica remain mute on the subject. Monica had lied through out her deposition and trial about her knowledge about the two incident but once we had the children on film then she remained mute. Notice Reed's response to your motion. He even lied and said the video were the same that we tried to introduce during the trial

Michigan Rules of Evidence Last Updated 6/23/2006
MRE 804 is identical with Rule 804 of the Federal Rules of Evidence except:
(1) MRE 804(a)(3) is identical with Federal Rule 804(a)(3) except that the word "has" is substituted for the phrase "testifies to."
(2) MRE 804(a)(5) is identical with Federal Rule 804(a)(5) except for the addition of the phrase: "and in a criminal case, due diligence is shown."
(3) MRE 804(b)(3) is identical with Federal Rule 804(b)(3) except that the phrase "reasonable person" is substituted for the phrase "reasonable man."
(4) The Michigan Rules of Evidence contain no catch-all hearsay exception such as found in Federal Rule 804(b)(5).
(5) Subrule (b)(5) defines several hearsay exceptions for deposition testimony. The new subrule combines a part of former subrule (b)(1) with parts of former MCR 2.308(A), which has been amended concurrently.
Note to amendment of January 19, 1996:
The 1996 adoption of MRE 804(b)(6) incorporated into the Michigan Rules of Evidence the residual or "catch-all" exceptions to the hearsay rule that are part of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Note to amendment of May 21, 2001:
MRE 804(b)(6) was added and is almost identical to FRE 804(b)(6), which was added to the federal rules effective December 1, 1997. The new subrule creates a hearsay exception for prior statements by a witness who has become unavailable due to wrongful acts committed or encouraged by the party against whom the statement is to be introduced.

Everyone, please contact Sen. Feinstein's office and tell her your thoughts on nominating Judge Carlo Moreno for US Supreme Court.



May 14, 2009

In today’s Los Angeles Times, a story (,3,3950692.story) mentions Senator Diane Feinstein’s nomination of California Supreme Court Justice Carlos R. Moreno for the U.S. Supreme Court seat being vacated by Justice Souter.

Carlos Moreno was previously a L.A. County Superior Court judge, and was a recipient of the illegal payments, for which he later received retroactive immunity.

Carlos Moreno is the judge who denied Richard’s Petition For Review. He knew well the case against Richard, which included the charge that Richard had made a “frivolous” claim by saying that judges got illegal payments. But Moreno knew that the underlying lawsuit, Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, was upheld … and the payments to judges were illegal. (And there would have been no reason for Moreno to have received retroactive immunity if the payments he received were legal, and the corresponding dive in cases lost by Los Angeles County before its Superior Court judges was not evidence of wrongdoing requiring immunity.)

Further, Moreno voted in favor of Richard’s disbarment, knowing Richard was being deprived of his First Amendment rights.

No person of Moreno’s character is fit to sit on any court, much less the U.S. Supreme Court, the highest court in the land.

In contrast, two honest judges in Richard’s Federal case challenging the law (Judge Dale S. Fischer & Judge George H. Wu, also former L.A. County Superior Court judges), properly recused (disqualified) themselves from presiding over Richard’s case against the State Bar seeking to have his disbarment reversed. Moreno should have recused himself from Richard’s case as well, but failed and refused to do so, despite his obvious complicity and bias.

Richard feels confident that getting this information out, in light of Moreno’s recent nomination and during the resultant publicity, will bring much-needed public exposure to Richard’s disbarment and the fact that he’s being held in jail. This will bring total attention to Richard’s situation, total attention into what they did in his disbarment, and total attention to the California judicial situation.

So, team, please spread the news however you're able. AHRC raised the issue last week in its newsletter, and Richard will speak to Leslie Dutton. In addition, Richard asked me to disseminate this to the L.A. Times and our contacts at the Daily News. If you have contacts with other outlets, your help in sharing the above is appreciated!!