Judges-judging-judges is the unlawful consequence when a judge refuses to allow a case go to a jury. This consequence violates both constitutional and statutory authorities.

There is only one institution to assure government accountability — the JURY! Otherwise it is simply government deciding the scope of their own powers and privileges. I am, at this very moment, in US District Court for the DC Circuit in a claim against the US (judicial branch – Justice Roberts) for its failure to supervise its employees (judges) who DENY JURY DEMANDS, which has an obvious consequence – judges decide everything. Of course, I’m demanding a JURY Trial in this case against judges who deny jury trials. You should follow this case to see how government lawyers, with the blessing of judges, deprive us of our most important institution- the JURY! Case # 1:19-cv-00373.

From the complaint …

                 First. In Washington, the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate. A “jury” is the sole institution (as RCW 4.04.010 specifically requires) by which the “People” exercise their Article 1, section 1 plenary powers within the judicial branch. It is the people who decide governments’ “just powers”. Government (aka, judges, lawyers, state agencies, employees, and surrogates — DEFENDANTS) cannot determine for themselves the extent of their delegated powers.  When a judge denies a jury, that judge denies the PEOPLE their powers over government and the consequence is government deciding the scope of their own powers.

Second.  If Judges can deny a constitutional jury trial, the judge must necessarily comment on the facts because the judge has eliminated the only ‘fact-finder’ the jury! This is prohibited by Article 4, section 16 – ‘judges shall not charge juries with respect to matters of fact nor comment thereon but shall declare the law’. Clearly a ‘jury trial’ is the only mechanism by which a judge can escape violating Art 4, sec 16.

                  Third.  When judges deny a jury they also deny the constitutional right to justice without unnecessary delay as Article 1, section 10 mandates. Under the United States 7 amendment “no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States”. No such “finality” exists when a jury has been prevented from ‘trying the facts’. Rather a litigant is trapped within an unconstitutionally created scheme. It is a hamster wheel intended to prohibit and deprive both the plaintiff and the People of their rights and powers, and assures judges-judge-judges concerning the power judges claim for themselves.

                  Fourth. “Privileges and immunities” are prohibited, and “hereditary powers”  have been abolished by Washington’s Constitution – Article 1, sections 8, 12 and 28.  Said another way, if judges can determine their own compliance with the laws that apply to judges, then EVERYONE can decide for themselves the scope of their conduct under the law. These constitutional provisions make clear – if a privilege is bestowed upon one, it must apply to everyone. To decide, as judges decide, the scope of their own authority, then that privilege must be given to everyone.

                  Fifth. A judge commits the ultimate act of bias and conflict when the judge denies a jury demand. In effect the judge has declared that only he possesses all powers. Once judges declare themselves all powerful all subsequent proceedings, such as appeals, are doomed to a process that is simply a process of judges-judging-judges. To orchestrate a scheme that assures judges-judge-judges concerning the laws, powers, and ethical obligations imposed upon judges is, on its face, a violation of 28 USC 455 and RCW 2.28.030 – deciding matters in which the judge has an interest, bias, and conflict.

1 Comment

  1. Wow. Am I glad I read this ! Our second lawyer came down with by polar and depression and forgot to pay for transcripts.We wanted to appeal the ex judge Cornwell s decision on my grandson. Thanks
    Patti McAllister

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.