Scheidler spends $4000 to tell the US Supreme Court “at the core of our rotten government are lawyers”.

Wednesday, April 18, 2018, Bill Scheidler, the “reluctant activist” filed his “Petition for Mandamus” in the US Supreme Court (SC). It is docket 17-1454. Scheidler admits that the odds are stacked against him that his petition will ever see the light of day. Statistically there is a 1 in 1800 chance the SC will take up his case. (As a non-lawyer seeking SC review, the odds are far worse.) But Scheidler says he has to ‘tell it like it is’ because ‘at the core of our rotten government are lawyers and it is from the ranks of lawyers we get our judges.’ What I’m alleging in my petition must be said and the costs involved should not be the measure by which we exercise our public duty. However the costs are steep. There are the cost for filing, the cost for printing in the format required by the SC, plus all the incidental costs of mailing, supplies, etc., which will exceed $4000. Yet there is no guarantee the petition will be accepted, let alone be reviewed.

The principle issues Scheidler raises concern Washington State’s “officers, elected officials, employees and agencies” who circumvent their legally obligated duties by finding judges willing to violate their statutory duties and join in an ‘I’ll watch your back if you watch mine’ scheme to render themselves “unaccountable” to the law. Scheidler summarizes the mechanism by which government officials use their office to commit crimes under color of law.

1. In 1933, the legislature created the WSBA as an agency of the state under the Washington Supreme Court, whose judges are all WSBA associates.
2. The WSBA is self-regulating by virtue in having its members occupy every judicial office. It is the ultimate and special privilege to grant associates of an agency, who may be in public and private practice, complete control of an entire branch of government. No other association, corporation, or individual can ever hope to attain such unaccountable power. The WSBA is the ultimate monopoly.
3. The Bar Act, as alleged by Scheidler, is likely unconstitutional under Article 2, section 28(6) – legislation granting corporate powers or privileges is prohibited. It is likely unconstitutional under Article 1, section 12, as “self-regulation”, to the extent enjoyed by the WSBA, is a ‘prohibited’ privilege no other association, corporation, or person enjoys. It is likely unconstitutional under Article 12, section 22 — Monopolies and trusts shall never be allowed in this state. And clearly, having its members in state judicial, legislative, executive, administrative, and even federal judicial offices destroys any notion of a “fair forum” to challenge the WSBA Act as unconstitutional because the WSBA has ensured they are the ultimate decision-makers – judges of the Washington Supreme Court.
4. It also raises an issue of ‘separation of powers’ as associates of this ‘agency of the state’ are federal court judges – a contradiction under the 10th amendment. Here again, a fair forum is unavailable to challenge the violation of the separation of powers because a WSBA associate is a federal judge.
5. Criminals looking for an established enterprise through which they can take control, commit crimes, control prosecution, control litigation, and determine outcomes and judgements by any means they want, the WSBA is the perfect answer to that dream.
6. The WSBA doesn’t hold lawyers to the law, it holds lawyers to the WSBA’s political goals at the expense of Scheidler’s rights. Scheidler has standing to sue for his injuries caused by defendants “violation of a statute intended and designed to prevent injury to persons or property constitutes negligence per se and, if it contribute proximately to injury, is actionable negligence. (and that, of course, would be a question for the jury).” Baldwin v. Wash. Motor Coach Co., 196 Wash. 117, 82 P.2d 131, 1938 Wash. LEXIS 601.

As most everyone knows, once a judge makes a ruling – any ruling — the ONLY way you can get it changed is by an ‘appeal’. Not only are ‘appeals’ costly, but they take years to resolve and the best you can hope for is to have the case restarted from the point from which the unjust ruling was made. Scheidler says such a scheme is not only unjust, but is also a violation of federal and state laws. The reasoning is simple — a judge is an “officer, elected official, employee” of either state or local governments who is obligated by the same laws as every other “officer, elected official, or employee”. A judge is not an entity beamed down from heaven with special powers and privileges. Scheidler notes Washington State’s Constitution Article 1, sections 1, 8, 12, and 28, as well as Article 2, section 28(12 and 17), which all say “special powers and privileges are prohibited” and an unauthorized or invalid act by ANY officer shall not be legalized nor civil actions limited. To say it another way, anyone aggrieved by a judge’s unjust ruling should be able to challenge that ruling in the same proceeding in which it was made. Let the “jury” decide if the judge is right or if the judge is overstepping his authority. Here too Scheidler cites to the State’s Article 1, section 21 provision that says a jury is an “inviolate” right in a civil action. If a judge’s ruling can only be challenged by “appeal”, a “jury” is unavailable — the “inviolate right is denied” — and it becomes nothing more than “judges-judging-judges”. Scheidler claims this ‘judges-judging-judges’ is prohibited by both state and federal laws that require a judge disqualify from ANY MATTER in which there may be “bias” or “conflicts of interest”. By the very consequence in “judges-judging-judges” invokes all sorts of arguments for bias and conflicts of interests because all judges are bound by the same laws, rules and fiduciary duty.

Scheidler tells the US Supreme Court that his case would have been decided in 2012 if a “jury” was permitted to do its job. However “government officials, elected officials and employees” have used their office to obstruct a jury’s duties, and to invalidate the laws that they are supposed to uphold.

Defendants’ reply is due May 21, 2018. We’ll update when the US Supreme Court takes action.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*