It has been almost one year since Bill Scheidler, the Reluctant Activist (RA), asked the US Supreme Court to exercise its legal and fiduciary duty and compel federal judges to apply the law and not use ‘court rules’ as the means to abridge, modify or enlarge substantive rights. The US Supreme Court said – DENIED! So the ‘RA’ sued the United States for its willful negligence in refusing to hold its employees (judges and lawyers) to their duty — to the law.
Under the US Tort Claims Act, which is the basis for RA’s lawsuit, the US Attorney General (AG) must defend government’s conduct. Of course, as expected, the AG immediately filed a motion to dismiss — citing court rules! And as expected, this motion will be decided by a judge who is bound to follow it’s rules and not the law.
What “LAW” you ask? When the US Congress passed 28 USC 2072, they gave the courts the power to make its own rules of procedure. However, with that power came limits. Under 28 USC 2072(b), Congress made clear “Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right”. The problem occurs when 28 USC 2072(b) is violated and substantive rights are “abridged, modified or enlarged”, WHO DO YOU CALL? How can any person obtain justice when their rights are being ‘abridged or modified’ by judges misusing their court rules if your only avenue is to face the very people who are interested in their own powers that they claim under their court rules.
This ‘circular-scheme’, which RA coins “judges-judging-judges” concerning the powers judges claim under their self-created rules is the crux of the complaint. Said another way, “we the People” need a “fair and impartial forum” to have our “petitions for redress” concerning corrupt judges, and their violations of law, decided by an “impartial” decision-maker. And RA cites to another law, 28 USC 455, which mandates a judge disqualify from presiding over ANY matter in which the judge has ANY interest. Clearly “judicial claims of power” is a matter in which judges have an interest!
RA has just filed his response to the scheme concocted by judges where judges use “court rules” to circumvent our constitutions and laws. Of course, a judge stands in the way on RA’s path to a jury. It is the “JURY”, which is the ONLY impartial decision-maker, our constitutions have established so violations of 28 USC 2072(b) are decided fairly. And it, the right to a jury, is the very “substantive right” judges are ‘abridging, modifying’ so they become the ultimate decision-maker – not a jury! It is a fraud upon RA, the Courts and Society.
Here is RA’s Response to the AG’s motion to dismiss. Let me know your thoughts.