Press release Update| Andy Ostrowski sues “American System of Justice” as corrupt …”many thousands across the country who have suffered through the courts.”

Update: 8/11/2017, Andy Ostrowski files Brief Reconsider Fee Waiver Ostrowski v ASJ 2

Andrew J. Ostrowski/Pennsylvania Civil Rights Law Network has filed a Ostrowski v. American System of Justice (Filed) (1) in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, naming the “American System of Justice” as a
Defendant, along with the Federal Reserve, the Rothschilds, Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, and others who are alleged to have compromised our access to justice, and the loss of basic rights and protections.

The lawsuit claims that the American System of Justice, as reflected by the Pennsylvania Unified Judicial System, lacks constitutional checks and balances by the other two branches of government, and has failed its self-disciplinary feature, making it impossible to achieve justice in certain cases and classes of cases.

It further identifies, and sues, corrupting influences alleged to be behind the culture of secrecy in the courts.

The kids for cash, Penn State/Sandusky, and porngate email scandals are cited as examples of these influences.

These “Justice Day” filings were made on May 2, 2017, and were combined with a public worship and political demonstration filmed by Ostrowski at the Pennsylvania Judicial Center in Harrisburg.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XuWIiv7DS4

The lawsuit also includes the Federal Reserve as a Defendant, and seeks to have the Federal Reserve System declared unconstitutional. In other words, it seeks to end the Fed.

The multiple additional persons and entities identified as Defendants, or possible Defendants are widely recognized in the alternative media as being the source of the corrupting influences on and in our government, with abundant research and anecdotal evidence to support these claims, and the lawsuit simply seeks to get to the source of some of these matters, and present the evidence to support the claims.

The importance of the courts in resolving these matters is addressed in the separate media statement attached.

The lawsuit is part of a combined media and political effort to shed light on the centrality of the judiciary to the loss of our rights and freedoms, and the proliferation of government corruption, which was Ostrowski’s campaign platform when he ran for United States Congress in 2014, and as he has blogged about extensively at www.pennsylvaniacivilrightslawnetwork.com since 2011.

Ostrowski and his law partner/colleague of over 15 years, Don Bailey, have both been suspended by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and Ostrowski has recently been denied reinstatement. Don Bailey may be the most prolific civil rights litigator in the history of the country, and he and Ostrowski have a combined nearly 50 years of experience in civil rights.

The claims are also be supported by over 100 hours of interviews done by Ostrowski on his “Justice Served with Andy Ostrowski” broadcast testing and trying various of the theories relevant to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit is part of a long-term plan to address core issues in our country, fist announced by Ostrowski with a February 26, 2013 “Occupy for Justice” article addressing these matters, and built in since that time.

http://pennsylvaniacivilrightslawnetwork.com/2013/02/26/ostrowski-settlement-demand-reform-the-system-call-goes-out-to-occupy-for-justice/

Since April, 2015, Ostrowski/PCRLN has been further developing and implementing a plan to give alternative access to persons who believe they have been subjected to injustices through the courts. It will be part of a print and video media effort to shed light on these issues, and urge for political reform.

http://pennsylvaniacivilrightslawnetwork.com/2015/04/09/pennsylvania-civil-rights-law-network-project-proposal/

It is further supported by a May 2, 2017 letter to President Trump, with specific proposals to seek judicial reform, with a one-year forecast.

The deceptively simple lawsuit reflects the combined experience of Ostrowski/PCRLN and Bailey, and their witness to many thousands across the country who have suffered through the courts.

It cannot be denied that there is a political problem that needs to be addressed in the judiciary – there are too many email chains, google groups, facebook groups, and letters with all public officials’ names on them, and protests, office visits, etc., to credibly deny it. The question is what can be done.

The answer, due largely to the construction of the judiciary across the country, is nothing, because there are no adequate checks and balances, and it can only be done by exposing the problems to create the political will to address it fundamentally.

The lawsuit historically seeks to have the courts litigate their own fairness.

It is as aggressive, deliberate, researched, and strategized lawsuit as has ever been filed, and could encompass domestic courts issues, mortgage foreclosure cases, guardianship abuse cases, and all of those multi-billion dollar legal industries that are destroying lives and families in service of the almighty dollar.

In the end, it is the only way the people can take back their government, and it begins with taking back our courts, which have been overtaken by the big banks, multi-national corporations, and lawyers.

The courts really are the center of self-government, and they need to be returned to the people.

4 Comments

  1. Just wondering if there will be an updated post/ article or press release letting the readers know why this case was dismissed?

    • Yes we will update this story as information becomes available. The case has been dismissed ‘without prejudice’ for failure to pay the filing fee. The Order reads as follows: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 6 Amended Complaint, filed by Andrew J. Ostrowski, 1 Complaint filed by Andrew J. Ostrowski.We recommend that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to pay the requisite filing and administrative fees and that the Clerk be directed to administratively close this case. See Lindsey v. Roman, 408 Fed. Appx 530, 53233 (3d Cir. 2010) (per curiam); Parker v. Harrisburg City, Civil No. 1:17-CV-00653, 2017 WL 3015880, at *2 (M.D. Pa. June 7, 2017) (report and recommendation), adopted by 2017 WL 3008583 (M.D. Pa. July 14, 2017). Objections to R&R due by 8/10/2017Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr on 7/24/17. (ms) (Entered: 07/24/2017)

  2. Ostrowski v. American System of Justice – A Court System Within a Court System – Explained

    An understanding of the “litigation vortex” is key to understanding the breakdown in the courts, as cases can be engineered to sit and spin and spin on and on, and never get to the real issues that need to be addressed, and it is all through due process violations, which is the essential feature of the claims against the system of justice.

    This may be helpful for you to understand what I mean, and how it works.
    .
    My essential contention is that if we can prove that there is one case in which it is impossible for a litigant to get justice, then the entire system fails, because God’s Justice, which is what it is all about, is available to all, and it is an evil result to deny anyone.

    This is why it should begin at the federal district court level, which is the “trial court” level in the federal system, and why it is available to as many people as want to be involved, to provide relief in your individual case, in your name, through use of the Declaratory Judgments Act, as laid out in one of my posts, to prove that there is a systematic deprivation of due process by the state courts – and there are reasons for it, due, in Pennsylvania, to the design of Article 5, Section 10(c) of our Constitution.

    If you believe you have been denied due process in a state court, as many thousand, or tens or hundreds of thousands, or more, have, the federal courts have full power and authority to review your claim, despite their use of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and other means the federal courts use to deny you that right – they misapply Rooker-Feldman in simple to understand ways that I’ll get into down the road.

    My idea is to find one person in each of the 92 federal judicial districts in the country to file a case along the lines of what I filed, and I would volunteer to join each and every one of them, as I have challenged the licensing of the occupation of law, and I would be able to, and would, assert my representation in each case, at least as co-counsel.

    This is why it did not matter to me that they dismissed the original case I filed, and I even said it wouldn’t matter on video before it was dismissed (the day before I was picked up while on facebook live (coincidence?), because I am on record with the issue, and will always have that as any defense to any charge on unauthorized practice of law, so come at me, bro.

    The vehicle to do it would be to establish an association, such as the Pennsylvania Civil Rights Law Network, which I used in my case, and a similar organization in each state – it does not need to be a formal corporation or business organization, but just a pure association of people united for a common purpose. In fact, it should not be organized under any statutory scheme for reasons I’ll get into later.

    I already have people committed in Pennsylvania, Maryland, New York, Colorado, Washington, and a few other states tentatively.

    All anyone would have to do is say they are a member of the organization, and be sincere, and then they would have standing to bring in their individual claims under the umbrella lawsuit, and litigate them under the Declaratory Judgments Act.

    Representation of the Body of Christ is related to this concept, as I’ll explain later.

    This would effectively allow every person in the country who believes they have suffered a due process violation in a state court, i.e, a loss of a family right (child custody), or property right (mortgage foreclosure), or a liberty right (wrongful arrest, etc.), to have a federal court litigate their individual due process claim under the umbrella lawsuit. The possibilities are endless, as are the scope of the issues, which could include anything you believe is a due process violation, such as a loss of a right to a jury trial, and even the common law grand jury issues could be litigated first in the courts, giving them a chance to weigh in on the procedure to make it .even more legitimate.

    Under the Declaratory Judgments Act – 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202, each individual claim in each Motion for Declaratory Relief could be separately litigated by an individual motion as its own case – that’s the simple elegance of the statute, and even an individual right of appeal to the respective Circuit Court independent of each and every other claim, and each, conceivably, could end up in the Supreme Court.

    This is what I mean when I say we could create a court system within a court system, and there is no way this system could survive this kind of onslaught without acquiescing to our demands for serious reforms, or else the whole thing would collapse under the weight of the federal courts’ proven failure to enforce due process protections, and our system would stand as the national Justice Network, as I have called it.

    When you add to this the End the Fed claims, there is no reason, apart from apathy, that millions of people should not be on board, and apathy is a huge obstacle in this country – as is the sheep factor.

    This is why it is the most significant lawsuit ever filed, and people will see it one day, as I keep saying.

    • Andy, why must we start at the “district level”? If it is, and I believe it is, that we cannot find justice in using our courts to ‘fairly’ address grievances … then we are doomed to see all are “district court cases” dismissed just as your case was dismissed. It seems to me we should take this issue up right to the US Supreme Court under 28 USC 1251(a) and (b)(2) seeking the court original [and exclusive jurisdiction]. You cite Rooker Feldman — and you claim it is being misapplied in every state. We can also cite federal cases that show how each federal district “adopts” ruling from other federal districts and how the state courts cite to these cases to support their misconduct. For example in Ashelman v Pope, 793 F.2d 1072 (US 9th Circuit) the 9th Circuit cites to the 2nd Circuit, the 5th circuit, the 10th circuit, the 11th circuit … And then the Washington State Supreme court cites to Ashelman in Babcock v. State, 116 Wn.2d 596, 809 P.2d 143, 1991 Wash. LEXIS 179, 116 Wn.2d 596, 809 P.2d 143, 1991 Wash. LEXIS 179. Clearly the schemes the courts are utilizing to deny citizens “due process” are [state v state v federal issues that violate the 5th, 10th and 14th amendments to the US Constitution.

4 Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. Judicial Reform Activist And Attorney Abducted By Police While Broadcasting | From the Trenches World ReportFrom the Trenches World Report
  2. Judicial Reform Activist Arrested Live On Facebook, Taken To Psych Hospital For Evaluation  – BREAKING NEWS
  3. How To Disappear An Activist (Or, Where IS Andy Ostrowski?) - International News Agency
  4. Andy Ostrowski Judicial Reform Activist and Attorney Abducted by Police While Broadcasting. | F.A.C.E.U.S.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*