Bill Scheidler, chief activist at www.corruptWA.com, has been critical of those legislators who seem to disregard their oath by representing government employees rather then the people they should serve. Senator Angel didn’t escape Scheidler’s criticism and she invited Scheidler for a face-to-face to address any misunderstandings.
The discussion concerned the following points and hopefully made an impact on Senator Angel. That is yet to be learned. I know, in my learning the “hurdles” that legislators face by their self-imposed procedural rules made an impression on me — a negative impression. For this reason, “we the people” must hold our legislators to their “rightful role” and not let them be manipulated by the “procedures” that control them.
MEETING: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 at 2:30PM.
Senator Jan Angel meeting with Bill Scheidler
Talking Points Presented by Scheidler
JUDICIAL CORRUPTION AND WHY THE LEGISLATURE IS ‘ASLEEP AT THE HELM
A judge is to perform his duty as prescribed and proscribed by law – constitutions and statutory. See CJC 1.1
Here is the exact law that validates this statement:
Judicial officers — Powers.
Every judicial officer has power:
(1) To preserve and enforce order in his or her immediate presence and in the proceedings before him or her, when he or she is engaged in the performance of a duty imposed upon him or her by law;
(2) To compel obedience to his or her lawful orders as provided by law;
(3) To compel the attendance of persons to testify in a proceeding pending before him or her, in the cases and manner provided by law;
(4) To administer oaths to persons in a proceeding pending before him or her, and in all other cases where it may be necessary in the exercise of his or her powers and the performance of his or her duties.
[2011 c 336 § 40; 1955 c 38 § 13; 1891 c 54 § 6; RRS § 57.]
If the law, RCW 2.28.030(1), mandates the “disqualification” of a judge to hear a case in which the judge has a “direct interest”, under what theory did the “judicial immunity doctrine” find its justification?
In other words, there was some case decided by a judge in a manner that spawned “judicial immunity.” Clearly the judge ruled so as to protect “judges” – it is the most perfect example of how judges rule in their own self-interest — CONTRARY TO LAW.
Once “judges decide for themselves the meaning of the laws that govern them” NO LAW will contain them! And EVERY LAW can be manipulated to suit their own notions of “right and wrong” rather than having a “jury or the legislature” make those determinations.
The tools judges’ use, besides the unlawful way in which they act as judge in matters that they have a direct interest, are by using their self-created “Court Rules.”
Said another way, “court rules” are rules established by the judges. One particular rule, CR 12(b)(6), provides for the dismissal of a “petition (complaint, lawsuit, grievance…) for failure to state a claim for relief.
Who decides whether the “facts of the petition” support the CR 12(b)(6) dismissal? Again, it is the “judge,” who has a direct interest in their OWN court rules. Judges create the court rules, interpreted the court rules and apply the court rules according their own “determination of the facts” — they are DIRECTLY INTERESTED in their own power created by the rules they make and are THEREFORE “DISQUALIFIED”, by LAW, in deciding those facts. (NOTE: questions of fact should, in any case, be determined by a jury — by law, RCW 4.40.060-070).
Every case that has been decided upon a court rule, by a judge, has been decided by a “disqualified judge”! We citizens have been defrauded of our rights because judges “invent for themselves” a pathway to make rulings they should not be making. The “legislature” or the “people” make public policy – NOT JUDGES!
This “encroachment” into the powers of the legislature or powers “retained by the people”, by allowing judges to determine their own conduct, is resulting in the erosion of fundamental rights of the people.
This is the crux, the center of judicial corrupt – their violation of RCW 2.28.030(1), and the reason why people are growing more and more angry with lawyers and judges for their blatant violation of law and of people’s constitutional and statutory rights and protections.
SUGGESTIONS ADDRESSING JUDICIAL BRANCH CORRUPTION AND SEPARATIONS ISSUES.
1. Zero Tolerance declaration. The constitution is clear, governments derive their “just powers” from the consent of the people. See Article 1, Sec 1. Any conduct beyond “just powers” violates the WA State Constitution – PERIOD, and must be prosecuted in the courts (judges therein must obey RCW 2.28.030; the courts must provide a “qualified judge” if necessary) or by the legislature or both.
2. Members, “associates” of the WA State Bar Association may NOT hold office in the legislature or executive branches. Nor shall any legislator be required to seek “legal advice” or have the legislator’s opinions modified, challenged or influenced by any WA State Bar Associate, regardless of the Bar associates position within the judicial branch. Legislators are the “peoples voice” and not the voice of a special interest association that is an agency under the WA State Supreme Court. See delegation of power
3. Lawyer discipline is to be separated from the judicial branch and administered by a citizen board (elected) with grievances judged by an empaneled jury. The grievant may represent his own case or have a spokesperson of their choice provided at the expense of the WSBA. See RCW 2.48.210 – a lawyer MUST take the cause of the oppressed. Lawyer misconduct is an “oppressive act inflicted upon the legal system” and the WSBA must bear the cost as the law requires.
4. Once the ‘citizen discipline board’ is formed, all WSBA grievances from the proceeding 5-years will be re-examined, de novo, by the empaneled jury – if the grievant requests such de novo review. The WSBA must inform all grievants of the past 5-year period.
5. All WSBA grievances “implicate” both those lawyers and judges who are witness or had contact with the lawyer who is the subject of the grievance. Said another way, lawyers and judges are to “serve the law” and therefore share in any violation in which they could have “prevented or corrected” that would make such grievance unnecessary. See RPC 8.3 and CJC 2.14 – 2.16
6. Three strikes rule – any lawyer or judge who has 3 grievances filed (whether culpable or not) receives mandatory probation … a fourth grievance is grounds for disbarment and removal from the bench and disbarment by the citizen disciplinary board.
7. Declare the “immunity doctrine” in any flavor – absolute, qualified…, is unlawful in the state of WA and all cases that were decided on this unlawful doctrine must be retried and decided on the merits. See Article 2, Section 28. Also Article 2, Section 30 — immunity is a ‘special privilege granted to a public servant, by a public servant, so that the public servant can keep a job or salary at public expense’. See RCW 42.52.020 and RCW 42.52.070.
8. All statutes that grant “immunity to public officials” must be repealed. See RCW 2.64.080 for example of the grant of unlawful immunity.
9. All cases that were decided upon a Court Rule are in violation of law. RCW 2.28.030(1) and must be retried on the merits. See initiative to the legislature 651 (2014)
10. Impeach and or remove judges, prosecutors, who violate the law – ZERO Tolerance policy! See Article 4, Section 9; Article 5, Sections 1-2. See CJC 1.1, See RPC 8.4
11. Declare Judges and Lawyers are “officers” subject to an “information” under RCW 7.56, by any person who is aggrieved by the lawyer or judge. Further, declare any person filing an “information” is acting as a ‘private attorney general’ in such matters and the case must be heard by a jury as all judges and lawyers, being associates of the WA State Bar are “disqualified” to act as judge under law – RCW 2.28.030.
At the end of the meeting I believe Senator Angel understood my concerns. And my take-away view is that “we the people” need to exert our power upon our “public servants.” So please forward this “web page” to your legislators and demand they support the reforms discussed, plus any additional reforms of yours, needed to fix our ‘out of control’ public servants.