Rape of Justice - Eustace Mullins

Judge Not

The origin of the word "judge" is found in "juden," or, in Spanish, "juez." In the United States, the judge sees himself, first of all, as the guardian of the present legal system. While carefully cultivating his public image as the epitome of impartiality, he succeeds in letting interested inquirers know that his impartiality may be swayed by certain considerations. For this reason, it is crucial that a citizen entering an American court as a litigant should discard the assiduously cultivated myth of "judicial impartiality." If you are a farmer, a small business operator, or a wage earner in any type of business, you are already "beyond the pale," as far as the judge is concerned. You have been consigned to the Neverland of the hoi polloi—the judge will not let anyone leave his court without being convinced that he is an elitist.

During a national campaign to increase judges' salaries in 1989, it was found that judges, whose salaries range from $89,500 to $115,000 a year, reported average extra earnings from $16,624 to $39,500. An Associated Press survey found that the median 1987 income for a federal judge was from $108,000 to $130,300. In pleading for the pay raise, Robert McWilliams of the 10th U.S. Circuit CT in Colorado, stated that 'Judges' salaries, rather than being geared to the income of the average taxpayer, should be geared to the average of practicing lawyers." However, the Associated Press survey showed that median income for America's 707,000 lawyers and judges was only $45,069, (Census reports). McWilliams apparently was unaware that judges' median income was already more than double the median income for American lawyers.

The demand for ever higher salaries is part of the judges' elitist drive. The judge has attended a university; his family had sufficient funds for him to go on to graduate law school and to become a professional man; and he later became a judge because he attracted the favorable attention of even more powerful elitists, who concluded that he would serve to protect their interests in the court. The judge resides in an upper income suburb, owning a home of considerable value in an area of other elitists. He belongs to a country club whose members are strictly limited to elitists. He maintains unadvertised affiliations in one or more religious, fraternal and political groups.

Corrupting influences on Judges

Preeminent among such groups is the Masonic fraternal organization. The majority of Masonic members never go beyond the three degrees of the Blue Lodge. They are never informed that the higher degrees are forbidden, under pain of death, to disclose any of the machinations of the higher degrees to any member of the Blue Lodge. This does not mean that members of the Blue Lodge reap no advantages from their membership. On the contrary, they continually receive favorable treatment in the banks, in the courts, and from other businessmen. The courts are preponderantly extensions of the Masonic brotherhood. Most lawyers and judges are fellow lodge members. Preferential treatment is extended to all members of the brotherhood who come before the court.

In our larger cities, most judges are also Zionist collaborators; if inactive Zionists, they have been screened by a Zionist organization and have been found satisfactory. A judge is almost always a member in good standing of one of the major political parties; he is almost never a member of an "independent" political movement. He is usually a member of an established church, if Protestant, usually Episcopalian, although more than half of the judges in the United States are Roman Catholic. He may even belong to some "extremist" organization, as Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black had long been a member in good standing of the Ku Klux Klan. After he had been appointed to the Supreme Court by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Black admitted his Klan membership. The leak had come from a Communist ideologue, during the heyday of the capture of the national Democratic Party by the fanatical Stalinist wing of the Communist Party. Klan membership was anathema to these ideologues; only Nazi affiliation carried a greater stigma. Black humbly promised never to go to another Klan meeting, and served on the Court for many years. Political realists in Washington knew that Black's political career had been built on his Klan membership in Alabama. Without it, he could not have been elected to the Senate. Once in Washington, he became a loyal supporter of FDR's most socialist policies, and was rewarded by the Supreme Court appointment. With the Klan affiliation hanging over his head. Black became an ardent supporter of every violation of the Constitution, as a member of the FDR court.

The Black episode illustrates the necessity of a judge having powerful political support. Conversely, he need know little or nothing about legal problems or the actual practice of law. He is expected to show unwavering loyalty to the prevalent party line during his service as a judge. Those judges who at some point begin to believe that they are a power in themselves, and who substitute their personal views for the exigencies of the current party line (which varies from day to day, as any practical political stance must do), are the judges whom you read about in the press. They are judges who are impeached for high crimes and misdemeanours, stripped of their office, and sent to prison. This is a very rare occurrence, as the sitting judge is never allowed to forget where his real allegiance lies. The judge exercises supreme power over the parties who stand before him in civil litigation or in criminal actions. He has equal power over the lawyers who stand before him, and he never allows anyone to forget that power.

In this regard, the judge is not actually an employee of the city, state or nation which pays his salary. He is the tool of the secret entities who control all aspects of American life from behind the scenes. The servile press has made it fashionable to sneer at anyone who speaks of a "conspiracy," with the implication that anyone who believes there are conspirators is probably mentally ill, and should be secluded for the safety of society. We are often reminded that persons who claimed to have some knowledge of the inner workings of "the conspiracy" have been promptly spirited off to an asylum, where the continuous administration of mind-altering drugs soon convinces him that he was mistaken in his charges. The "agitator" is soon reduced to a helpless, drooling inmate who, whenever he shows signs of recovering his wits, is immediately given a stronger dose of Thorazine, a la KGB.

The fallacy of judicial impartiality could be denied by any practicing attorney. In our larger cities, the practice of "judge-shopping" among scheduled members of the bench is a daily occurrence. A lawyer will use any stratagem, not the least of which is the employment of carefully cultivated relationships with clerks of the court, to have a case moved from a judge known to be hostile either to the defendant, or to the type of crime he has committed, or to the lawyer himself. Throughout the legal profession, it is common knowledge that most judges with years of service on the bench are almost universally hostile to anyone who comes into a court without an attorney, and declares his intention of representing himself. The judges are also very hostile to women lawyers, and to blacks and other minorities.

Judge Susan M. Skinner of Lee County, Florida, recently resigned her judgeship, citing sexism and "petty politics" in the judicial system as reason for resigning the judgeship she has held since 1984. She made her letter of resignation public, stating that

"I have come to the conclusion that there is more to life than remaining as a part of this judicial system! I cannot envision myself emulating a number of the present judges with their infighting, envy, and dispassionate processing of their cases, nor can I further tolerate the total domination our current court administrator is allowed to exercise over the judiciary."

Judge Skinner had caused a community uproar when she learned that a defendant had AIDS. She ordered him from her courtroom, saying that she was insulted by his audacity in appearing in court, and she feared he would spread the disease to others in the courtroom. A national public outcry was raised by the powerful homosexual community, and she realized that she would no longer be able to carry out her judicial duties in the atmosphere of harassment and intimidation.

Liberal elements in Washington had sought to replace the older members of the judiciary with blacks and women, a process hastened by President Jimmy Carter, who replaced some three hundred members of the federal judiciary. Some of them have since been indicted, while others have resigned.

In 1717, Bishop Benjamin Hoadley informed the King of England, "Whoever hath an absolute authority to interpret any written laws is truly the lawgiver to all intents and purposes, and not the person who wrote them. "

Thus it is the judge, rather than the person who wrote the laws, who has been transformed from an impartial referee of the statutes into the creator of the statutes. Judges are now handing out excessive punishments, with little or no restraint on their decisions. The Wall Street Journal noted April 28, 1989 that federal judge Richard Owen had given some defendants one hundred years in a criminal case, and fifteen years in a tax fraud case, which was at least five times more severe than most attorneys thought appropriate. A federal judge ruled June 5, 1980 that the city of Parma, Ohio must provide three hundred units of low income housing annually. This was described as "the first federal takeover of a city."

The D.C. Court of Appeals ruled May 10,1989 that District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Tim C. Murphy should have withdrawn from an assault case which had been brought by federal prosecutors, because at that very time, he was applying for a position with the Department of Justice. It was ruled a clear cut violation of ethical rules, although Judge Murphy defended his action by pointing out that "I taught judicial ethics for years."

Equality of Justice

The overweening power of the judge in the American legal system has increased inversely to the decline of Constitutional guarantees of individual rights, and the concurrent rise of equity law. Equity originates from the Latin Aequitas, meaning equality of justice. Equity is defined by Sir Henry Maine in "Ancient Law" as

"Any body of rules existing beside the existing original or civil law, founded on distinct principles, and claiming incidentally to supersede the civil law in virtue of a superior sanctity inherent in those principles, principles stemming from praetor edicts."

This is a reference to the annual proclamation on administrative law which was added to each year by the praetor, who corresponded to the lord high chancellor in English law. Equitable jurisdiction had been established in England by the reign of Edward III.

"Equity has exclusive jurisdiction where it recognizes rights unknown to the common law, such as trusts; equity has concurrent jurisdiction where the law recognized the right but did not give adequate relief; and auxiliary jurisdiction when the machinery of the courts of law was unable to procure the new evidence."

Maine goes on to deplore the evils of this double system of judicature. The present writer found early on that when his opponents realized that they could not destroy him in the civil courts, they moved to have the case heard in the equity or chancery courts. At first, I was mystified by this move, although I was soon convinced of its purpose. I doggedly hung on, and was finally able to settle the case on my own terms. The existence of this double system of judicature is a powerful secret weapon, which both judges and lawyers use against the public, giving them a decisive tactic which they can deploy, just when the citizen believes that at last he will finally receive justice in the court.

The abuses of our legal system are the more ironic when we learn that the traditional meaning of the scales of justice is that all things should be in harmony, weighed and establishing an equilibrium between warring opponents. Libra, the sign of the scales, is the seventh sign of the Zodiac, and is ruled by Venus; its jewel is the emerald, which represents the divine blend of colors, the blue of heaven with the gold of the sun. In tarot, the Justice card is represented by a seated and crowned Lord, who is the enthronement of the imperial dispenser of justice, King Solomon. The designation of the scales as the sign of justice was intended to decree that all worlds, and all forms of human nature, should attain a balance.

In practice, this ideal has not been achieved. The scales of justice, rather than weighing the evidence presented by the opposing forces, until preponderance occurs on one side or the other, allow the adversary system to force the scales down on one side, justifying a decision in favor of that party. Thus the idea of balance has been abandoned, not only because of the adversary system, but also because the scales of justice, instead of signifying harmony, have been converted into the scales of commerce, in which commodities are weighed to determine their price before the sale. Equity law was a tremendous move in this direction, allowing first the admiralty courts, and then the law merchant, to supersede the common law and in the United States, our Constitutional law. In the law merchant, all law is concerned merely with the handling of economic disputes, and the scales of justice have become the scales of the trader, or the broker.

Because of this development, the office of judge itself became an item of trade, to be auctioned off to the highest bidder. Just as the scales of justice are used to weigh the relative power, influence and finances of the parties, so the judicial robe became a saleable property. Although it is still offered in outlying areas of the nation as a bid for those who hold the reins of power, in the larger cities, it has been reduced to the sole element of price. This can be verified in our most reputable publications, such as the New York Times, Oct. 2, 1988. This newspaper featured a lengthy interview with Matthew Troy, who was formerly a pillar of the "system" as a New York City councilman, and a Queens Democratic Party leader. Troy served short prison sentences in 1980, after pleading guilty to filing false income tax returns. He now lectures at universities on the realities of our judicial and political system. Troy says that the public has an idea that politicians are crooked, "and usually they are right." He states that he swapped State Assembly votes for judgeships, that visitors came to his office with briefcases bulging with cash, and that he routinely turned down bribes from reporters and developers. One reporter offered to run favorable newspaper stories about him for a mere $500 a week.

Troy's most important revelation is his recounting of the current price lists for the purchase of a judgeship. "The usual price for a judgeship on the Supreme Court of New York was $75,000, with lower court posts going for $15,000. That was common knowledge that I grew up with." He continues, "A man came to see me, and he put a briefcase on my desk, loaded, absolutely loaded with cash. And he said to me, 'I'd like to be a judge.' I asked him, 'Are you a lawyer?'"

Legal System and the Masonic Order

Although money remains the ruling factor, the guiding principle of the legal system remains its allegiance to the Masonic order. In many areas, the local bench is merely a chapter of the Masonic Lodge. Because of the great secrecy maintained by the lodges, no accurate figures can be given as to the number of American lawyers and judges who are members of a Masonic lodge. Of the current total of 707,000 American judges and lawyers, it seems a good estimate that at least 500,000 are lodge members. It could be as high as 90%. Figures have been established for England, in Stephen Knight's best-selling book, "The Brotherhood." Shortly after publishing this book, which immediately became a best seller, Knight, who was a young man, died suddenly. Interested persons have been unable to obtain any details of his death. Knight states that "the Law Society (the English equivalent of our Bar Association) is one of the most masonic institutions in the world. Ninety per cent of its members are Masons." He points out that this situation itself creates grave inequities, because the Law Society is the final arbiter as to who will receive legal aid and who will be denied it. In practice, a non-Mason has no chance of receiving legal aid in a suit against a Mason.

Knight says that fifty to seventy per cent of all English judges are Masons. This figure is probably close to that in the United States. Lawyers soon become aware that if they expect to have any clients, and if they wish to win cases in court, they must join the Masons, because of most of their client referrals will come from this source. Knight cites the Unlawful Societies Act of 1799 requiring that secret societies could hold meetings only if the names of their members were submitted to the local Clerks of the Peace. He notes that although this law has been on the books for almost two centuries, the Freemasons have never complied with it. However, he failed to consult the text of the Act, which specifically exempts the Freemasons, because the English Royal Family was and continues to be the official patron of English Freemasonry. The lodges were brought to England in 1717 as the result of a conspiracy of many years, which placed the Hanover family on the throne of England. They have been consistently active in and faithful to their Masonic origins ever since that date.

Americans who become involved in the legal mazes of our courts are often astounded by the strange decisions which are handed down by the judges. In nearly every instance, the strange outcome of the case can be explained by the omnipresent Masonic influence. Thus, citizens have no way of knowing that they have been subjected to the arrant assumptions of an Oriental despotism, masquerading under color of law. How can genuine justice be administered if the judge has taken an oath under penalty of death that he must always rule in favor of his brother Masons?

The Masonic Handbook command is as follows:

"Whenever you see any of our signs made by a brother Mason, and especially the grand hailing sign of distress, you must always be sure to obey them, even at the risk of your own life. If you are on a jury, and the defendant is a Mason, and makes the grand hailing sign, you must obey it; you must disagree with your brother jurors, if necessary, but you must be sure not to bring the Mason in as guilty, for that would bring disgrace upon our Order."

The Handbook continues,

"You must conceal all crimes of your brother Masons. . .. except murder and treason, and these only at your own option, and should you be summoned as a witness against a brother Mason, be always sure to shield him. Prevaricate, don't tell the truth in this case, keep his secrets, forget the important points. It may be perjury to do this, it is true, but you are keeping your obligations."

It is also important to note that the use of the word "obligations" is a key ingredient of the Masonic code. Most persons, in referring to a moral problem, would use the word "duty," as did the Founders of our Republic; however, a Mason is certain to use the word "obligation" as a code warning to other Masons who may be present that they are now under an overriding order to carry out their obligation to the brotherhood. This obligation means that he must commit perjury in court, he must rule as a jury member in favor of a brother Mason, despite any evidence presented against him, and, as a judge, he must rule for the Mason. As a clerk of the court, or any other court official, he is obligated to alter, steal or destroy any official public records or documents which might compromise a brother Mason. This writer has frequently sent written complaints against Masonic judges and lawyers to U.S. Attorneys. In every instance, the Department of Justice has replied to documented charges of blackmail, theft and extortion, "You should hire a private attorney," meaning that you must find yourself a Masonic attorney and hope that he will handle your case against his brother Masons.

The Masonic Handbook further commands that

"If you cheat, wrong or defraud any other society or individual, it is entirely your business. If you cheat government even, Masonry cannot and will not touch you; but be very careful not to cheat, wrong or defraud a brother Mason or Lodge. Whoever else you may defraud, live up to your (Masonic) obligations."

It is impossible for anyone to understand the depths of such depravity unless one understands the very origins of the Masonic brotherhood. Its morality is dictated by the basic authority, the Will of Canaan:

"Five things did Canaan charge his sons; "love one another (of the tribe), love robbery, love lewdness, hate your masters, and do not speak the truth."

Canaan had lived out his earthly existence under the Curse of Canaan, a sentence of slavery which was fastened onto all of his descendants. The command to love one another referred only to these direct descendants; it also gave the implied command that they were to hate all other occupants of the earth. They were further commanded to seek out their living by committing robbery, by promoting sexual vice through love of lewdness, and to hate their masters, because they had been condemned to live on earth as slaves. Finally, they were not to speak the truth, a command which launched the tidal wave of perjury which has now inundated our courts.

The fact that Masonry stems from Biblical times is shown by its secret password, "Tubal Cain," which memorializes the line of Cain. Cain committed the first murder on earth, when he slew his brother, Abel. Cain's descendant, Nimrod, a demonic power, became the first ruler of the world. His reign was marked by sex orgies and child sacrifice, outrages which caused Shem, the son of Noah, to behead him, and to cut his body into pieces, as a warning to other malefactors. These pieces were sent to Nimrod's priests as a warning to desist from their vile practices and demonic orgies. Instead, the priests treasured the remains as objects of worship. They were concealed in groves, in rural areas, as the Shrines of the first "Mysteries." Albert Pike, the theoretician of the Masonic movement, notes in his definitive work, "Morals and Dogma" that all Masonic rites originated in these Mysteries.

The priests became the Gnostics, the knowing ones, that is, those who knew where the body, or the relics of Nimrod, were hidden in the groves. Throughout history, these relics, or later copies, have persisted as the symbols of the Canaanite resolve to "hate your masters" and to destroy them in such orgies as the French Revolution and the Communist Revolution. Their final objective is to seize by force all the riches of the world and return them to the rebuilt Temple of King Solomon. Although perjury and abuse of the legal system remain crucial elements of the Masonic drive for control of the world, murder and assassination continue to be the final symbol of their operations.

Thus a citizen of the United States has no idea, when he enters an American court, that he is now entering an arena in which furtive conspiracy is the dominant factor, where perjury and assassination are considered to be routine methods of operation. If he could be informed of this reality, he would be able to cite numerous precedents denying the judge's qualifications on the grounds of bias. Equal protection to all is the basic principle on which rests justice under the law. Pierrer v. State of Ln. 59 S.Ct 536, 306 U.S. 354, 83 L.Ed. 757.

"Prejudice of or bias on the part of the trial judge may constitute a denial of equal protection of the laws. " Osborne v. Purdome, 250 S.W. 2d 159.

In a trial situation, the judge faces two imperatives; first, he must conceal the existence of his Masonic allegiance; second, he must impose by imperial decree his commands upon all who come before his court. There are many decisions which reflect these imperatives, such as U.S. Judge Thomas MacBride's decision in Case #9909, May 2, 1967, under Lord Coke's ruling of 1608 in Peter vs. The Crown, that "no Officer of the Crown could be charged with a crime, even if he were guilty.' Judge M. L. Schwartz dismissed Case S 83-699 -MLS, April 11, 1984, under the Magna Carta of 215, that we had no right to file charges against public officials or members of the Bar because the Constitution of the United States did not apply in the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Judge R. A. Ramirez dismissed Case # 84-03 0503RRAR July 23, 1984, under Bell v. Hood, which was also based on Lord Coke's ruling of 1608, citing the Magna Carta's stand that persons of a lower caste cannot present charges against members of the titled peerage class.

Ideas of Justice

These rulings in our federal courts ignore the first statute ever passed by the U.S. Congress in its first session, 1791. This statute concerned the punishment of judges and other public officials who failed to enforce the law. The statute commanded that the people be guaranteed the citizens' rights. The failure to do so was termed Insurrection.

Sydney Smith, in his "Fallacies of Anti-reformers," noted that

"If the law be good, it will support itself; if bad, it should not be supported by irrevocable theory, which is never resorted to but as the veil of abuses. All living men must possess the supreme power over their own happiness at every particular period. When a law is considered immutable, instead of being repealed, it is clandestinely avoided, or openly violated; and thus the authority of the law is weakened."

Sir Francis Bacon noted in his "Judicature":

"Judges ought to remember that their office is jus decere, and not jus dare; to interpret law, and not to make law, or to give law. Judicius officium est, ut res, ita tempora rerum. A judge must have regard to the time as well as to the matter."

Ralph Waldo Emerson, in "Worship," states that

"We owe to the Hindoo Scriptures a definition of Law which compares well with any in the Western books; Law it is, which is without name, or color, or hands, or feet; which is the smallest of the least, or largest of the large; all, and knowing all things; which hears without ears, sees without eyes, moves without feet, and seizes without hands."

Of Emerson's definition, the one most readily applicable in experiences with our court system is that it does indeed seize without hands. Seizure is always its prime moving force.

Adam Smith notes in his "Wealth of Nations":

"Justice, however, was never in reality administered gratis in any country. . . . In order to increase their payment, the attomies and clerks have contrived to multiply words beyond all necessity, and to corrupt the law with language."

Robert Ringer notes in his "Looking Out For Number One,"

"The practical consequences of government are that it uses the threat of violence either to force you to stop doing something you want to do or to force you to do something you don't want to do, or to force you to give up something that is rightfully yours."

Daniel Webster stated on March 10, 1831 in New York City,

"The judicial power comes home to every man. If the legislature passes incorrect or unjust general laws, its members bear the evil as well as others. But juridicature acts on individuals. It touches every private right, every private interest, and almost every private feeling. What we possess is hardly fit to be called our own, unless we feel secure in its possession, and this security, this perfect system, cannot exist under a wicked or even a weak and ignorant administration of the laws.' There is no happiness, there is no liberty, there is no enjoyment of life, unless a man can say when he arises in the morning, 'I shall be subject to the decision of no unjust judge today.'"

In retrospect, when Daniel Webster made this statement, the powers of the judiciary were almost nonexistent, compared to the powers which they exercise today. What would he say if he were now alive, and confronted with the dictatorial powers which the judicial system has assumed over every aspect of American life? We have seen the seizure of the schools, the decision as to how our earnings shall be spent, what sort of neighborhoods we are to live in, and a judicial system on which the government agencies depend to enforce their decrees.

A defense filed by Alan Stuart in Arkansas on July 3, 1978 noted that a Hearsay Substitute had filed the complaint against him, in violation of the United States Constitution, and that a Hearsay Substitute was his accuser, whereas he had the right to face his accuser. Stuart pointed out that the District Attorney served both as an "Officer of the Court" under the judiciary, and as a law enforcement official under the executive department, which placed him in flagrant violation of the doctrine of separation of .powers, and the system of checks and balances set up by the Constitution. Stuart also pointed out that the title, "Officer of the Court" is an unconstitutional title of nobility, that all lawyers are automatically a part of the Judicial Branch of the Government, whether elected, hired, or appointed. Article 1, Sec. 9 and 10 forbid Titles of Nobility. With the Hearsay Substitute being a lawyer, and the judge also a lawyer, a Conflict of Interest exists by having lawyers, or Officers of the Court, representing both sides. Stuart deposed that all lawyer judges have to disqualify themselves because of conflict of interest, which prevents them from presiding over a fair trial. This would seem to provide a useful alternative to the present abuses committed by judges who claim to be operating under "due process of law."

Dr. Felix Cohen wrote in the Columbia Law Review, June, 1935:

"Due process of law" means nothing in the light of recent judicial decisions that it is a metaphysical cover up phrase. . . Legal concepts (for example, corporations or property rights) are supernatural entities which do not have a verifiable existence except to the eyes of faith. Rules of Law, which refer to these legal concepts, are not descriptions of empirical social facts but are rather theorems in an individual system. Jurisprudence. . . is a special branch of the science of transcendental nonsense."

Thus Dr. Cohen, who has labored for many years in the field of jurisprudence, comes to the inescapable conclusion that his lengthy experience has really been in the realm of fantasyland. Few Americans realize that while they are sitting in court listening to their paid counsel "defend" them and their interests, the judges are hard put to keep from grinning at the nonsense they are paid to listen to. As Alan Stuart points out in his complaint, everyone and everything that is taking place in the court is Hearsay and Substitute, which is actually governed by abstruse concepts from the Kabbalah or from other mystical formulae which the citizen is never aware of.

Black Robes of Babylonian Justice

The present writer has heard much "transcendental nonsense" in our courts, precisely what Dr. Cohen describes, and was finally able to define its origin in "The Curse of Canaan" as the modem day presentation of the ancient Cult of Baal, as refined in the Kabbalah and the present statutes. It is not accidental that this "transcendental nonsense" is overseen by a judge who wears black robes. This itself in legal terminology is referred to the "cult of the Robe." Since man's beginnings, the garb of justice has traditionally been white. We have never asked ourselves when or how the robes of justice suddenly became black, but at that moment, the rape of justice began. Instead of the color of unsullied purity, we now have the black robe as the sign of Babylonian justice, of the Canaanite precepts originated by Nimrod, presented against the backdrop of the sexual orgies and the madness of child sacrifice which were the hallmarks of the "religious" rites of Baal and Ashtoreth. However, we must admit that there is no attempt to deceive anyone. The judge appears before us in his robe of Babylonian black, as the high priest of the rites of Nimrod. It is we who offer no objection, or ask the judge whatever became of his white robe. The dome of the courthouse itself is another symbol of Babylonian law, and is purposefully designed to confirm that we are now entering the jurisdiction of Babylonian justice, which is inflicted upon us by a Byzantine maze of secret intrigue and worldwide conspiracies.

The character of those who put on the black robe is amply documented by public records. Time magazine reported July 18, 1977 on the exploits of Associate Justice Yarbrough of the Texas Supreme Court.

"Yarbrough was taped making a statement about a man who had testified against him, 'I want Kemp wiped away . . . the best thing would be to do it myself if I had a gun and silencer.' Yarbrough was referring to a 1974 fraud scheme, in which Kemp had testified against Yarbrough and his associate, John Rothkopf, after they had received a $30,000 payment for a collection of rare coins, which they never delivered. Yarbrough then used his judicial position to obtain forged papers and a new identity for Rothkopf, who hid out as a fugitive in Louisiana and Texas for several years. Yarbrough was subsequently indicted by an Austin Texas grand jury for soliciting murder, forgery, obstruction of justice, and perjury.

The Texas Supreme Court has been much in the news for the procedure by which its members are chosen. They campaign like any other politician for election to office, and must spend millions of dollars on their campaigns. Traditionally, most of their campaign funds are provided as donations from the Texas Trial Lawyers Association, with individual lawyers contributing as much as $25,000 to the campaign of a single candidate. Chief Justice Thomas Phillips, although running unopposed, managed to raise a $1.1 million campaign fund from some 4500 donors. The record-breaking $10.5 billion judgment which Penn/oil won against Texaco was followed by public consternation, when it was revealed that the lawyers who represented Penn/oil had contributed more than $355,000 to the nine Texas Supreme Court justices from 1984 to 1987, preceding the announcement by the court that it would refuse a hearing to review the $10.5 billion judgment against Texaco. Three of the justices then resigned from the court, although a present candidate for the court has also raised $1.1 million in campaign funds, nearly all of it donated by lawyers who will subsequently argue cases before this same judge, if he wins the election. If not, they will argue before another judge to whom they have also contributed substantial amounts in campaign funds.

Since the end of World War II, there has been increasing public criticism of judges, for abuse of power, corruption, and their arbitrary decisions, but little has occurred which improves the situation. The dirty secret of the judiciary is that their appointments always come from politicians, and that the moral or intellectual backgrounds of neither the judges nor the politicians is ever taken into consideration. Thus President Harry Truman was described by poet Ezra Pound in The Cantos: "Truman was loyal to his kind, the underworld."

This was a direct quote from longtime Washington journalist Rex Lampman, whom I had taken to visit Pound. However, Pound was merely restating what most Americans already knew. Truman remained loyal throughout his career to Boss Pendergast, who was sent to prison for a multi-million dollar insurance scam. The New Republic noted March 10, 1952 that Truman's appointment of some one hundred and twenty-five federal judges "has weakened the federal judiciary and lowered its prestige.

The political handshake gained its greatest triumph when Tom Clark was appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States." Clark was described in the New Republic as an oil lobbyist from the Texas State Legislature, and a protege of Senator Tom Connally. In retrospect, the cronies whom Truman appointed to the federal bench probably were no worse than the dreary procession of legal hacks and lobbyists, ward heelers and bondsmen, who have been named to the bench by subsequent Presidents. President Carter probably sunk the prestige of the bench to a new low with his naming of some three hundred political activists from the ranks of feminists and minority class agitators, a club of lunatics which turned the federal courthouses into asylums.

In Harpers, Sept. 1934, Mitchell Dawson wrote, "Judging the Judges,"

"His Honor and his confreres on the bench have authority to rule upon the rights, duties, privileges, and immunities of everybody and everything within their respective bailiwicks. The aggregate power and responsibilities thus residing in the judiciary are appalling."

Dawson went on to comment upon the moral attributes of such power. He noted that three judges were noted among the pallbearers of Big Jim Colosimo, "the first of the big shots in the liquor trade and bootlegging." Big Jim was the protege of Edward G. Robinson's characterization of the gangster, Rico, in his famous picture, "Little Caesar." Two judges and an ex-judge joined the cortege of city and state officials who followed the solid silver casket containing the body of Angelo Genna, the noted convict and killer. The Chicago Crime Commission said, 'A certain municipal judge was familiarly known to the criminal trade as 'cash register.' One magistrate was removed from office for accepting a 'loan' of $19,600 from Arnold Rothstein, the noted gambler. Evidence showed that the fixing of cases in the magistrates courts was an established business.

So much for the judicial situation in 1934. The American Law Journal noted in its issue of February, 1988 that a Wisconsin trial court judge and the senior partner of the state's largest law firm, the 278 lawyer firm of Foley and Larder, now faced sanctions for holding ex parte discussions in the fall of 1986. As we have pointed out, ex parte discussions, in which opposing lawyers and/or judges, hold secret conferences to discuss cases without the parties being present, constitute one of the gravest problems of a legal system which pits the lawyers against the rest of the citizens.

In Texas, a judge was severely criticized because he had given a relatively light sentence to a criminal who shot two men. The judge responded with surprise, "But they were only queers." This brought a national protest from the powerful homosexual lobby. In Seattle, Judge Gary Little, judge of the King County Superior Court, shot himself after learning that a Seattle newspaper planned to run an expose of his twenty year sexual abuse of male defendants who came before his court. The local media had deliberately suppressed the story for decades. A reporter finally admitted that he had opened the door of Little's office in the state attorney general's offices, in 1968, and found Little kissing a blond, blue-eyed male student. Taped accounts had been available for years from juveniles who complained that Little had molested them while their cases were being deliberated in his court. Some of them were invited to stay overnight in his Seattle home, or at his weekend cottage on an island.

In New York, a sensational trial of former Miss America Bess Myerson dragged on for weeks, before her acquittal. Myerson, who called herself "the Queen of the Jews" had faced sentences of up to thirty years on charges of obstruction of justice, mail fraud, bribery-related charges, and conspiracy. She and her lover, a contractor, had involved Judge Hortense Gabel in her lover's divorce proceedings. The chief witness against the judge was her own daughter, whom the press described as "eccentric" and suffering from depression.

The politically influential State Supreme Court of New York Justice Louis Fusco Jr., who was under investigation by U.S. Attorney Rudolph W. Guiliani on accusations that he had improperly directed business to an insurance company operated by a friend, announced that he would not seek renomination. The president of the insurance company in question was known as a longtime friend of the judge, whose nephew was named vice president of the company. Another prominent Bronx judge, former Surrogate Bertram Gelfand, was ousted last year for misconduct.

Persecution of Good Judges

On Aug. 24, 1986, the Las Vegas Sun warned of "the ominous implication that federal judges—or any other citizen—will remain a subject to malicious prosecution for merely speaking out against injustice." The matter under discussion was the malignant persecution of Federal Judge Harry Claiborne, which finally wound up before Congress. Congress then voted for his impeachment. What was behind this case? The Nevada High Court had already rendered a decision, State Bar of Nevada v. Claiborne, 756 P2d 464 (1988) that Claiborne had been guilty of nothing more than "mere negligence." Judge Claiborne, the bearer of a proud Southern name, had served with distinction in the U.S. Air Force during World War II. He later became one of the most respected defense lawyers in the West, devoting more than thirty per cent of his time to pro bono cases for the public good, probably a higher percentage then than any other lawyer in the United States. After being named to the judgeship, Claiborne continued to come down hard on the side of the public. He excoriated both FBI agents and IRS agents who brought cases before his court with fantastic, poorly prepared charges, which were usually based solely on information provided by their paid informants. In the paid informant business if you don't come up with something damaging against the subject, you don't get paid. This provides a constant stimulant to the imagination.

Department of Justice agents launched a concerted campaign to block Claiborne's nomination to the federal bench in September, 1978. Failing in their objective, they then began a campaign to destroy him. An editorial in the Reno Gazette Journal was quoted with approval by Justice Steffen,

"The Justice Department and the FBI were so incensed at Judge Claiborne that the need for revenge blinded them to everything but one burning desire. The federal government could not rest after Claiborne denounced its strike force lawyers as 'rotten bastards' and 'crooks and liars.' It could not bear Claiborne's insinuations without retaliating."

The retaliation of the federal agents was balked when they could find no bases for bringing any charges against him. They were forced to dredge up one of the nation's sleaziest characters, Joe Conforte, the world's most famous brothel keeper. For thirty years, Conforte had operated the famous Mustang Ranch, which never had any mustangs. In May 1976, a well-known Argentine boxer was shot and killed outside of Conforte's Mustang Ranch. Three Reno Gazette Journal editorial writers won Pulitzer prizes for their stories exposing Conforte's operations. In 1977, both he and his wife were indicted for income tax evasion. He then fled the country to escape tax jeopardy assessments of more than twenty-six million dollars, as well as two lawsuits filed after the Argentina boxer's death.

IRS agents realized that Joe Conforte would be the ideal vehicle to get Judge Claiborne. They offered him a deal to testify about alleged "bribes" to Judge Claiborne. In return, he would be allowed to return to the United States, all but three and a half million of the twenty-six million dollar assessment would be forgiven, he would be guaranteed that he serve no more than one year in a country club type of prison, and all other charges against him would be dismissed. It was an offer he could not refuse. The fact that IRS agents would be willing to forgive over twenty-two million dollars in overdue taxes proves that they are not serious about collecting taxes; it is much more important that they maintain the legal dictatorship over American citizens, invoking Lenin's 1917 rule, "confiscation of all assets as punishment for concealing income." In effect, federal agents were paying Conforte more than twenty million dollars in a conspiracy to commit perjury and to obstruct justice—standard procedure in our "legal system." In fact, Conforte' s testimony against Judge Claiborne was subsequently documented as being perjured. Nevertheless, Judge Claiborne was indicted, convicted, and impeached by Congress. He served a short prison term, and is once again practicing law in the State of Nevada, despite threats from federal agents that they will "get" him again. The point had been made. The federal government had sent a message from the District of Columbia to judges in every state—cooperate with Washington, or else.

Coddling of Bad Judges

Establishment judges have been treated much more kindly in prosecution, notably Judge James M. Landis. A former law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, the leader of the Zionist movement, Landis later was named dean of the Harvard Law School, the private preserve of Viennese revolutionary Felix Frankfurter. Landis became one of the original Brain Trust in EDR's New Deal. He was named chairman of the Securities Exchange Commission, and became the eminence grise of President John F. Kennedy. Like many prominent Washington officials, he did not bother to pay income taxes. As a member of our "Nomenklatura," he saw no need to conform to the standards enforced against the peasants and the hoi polloi. It was revealed that he had paid no income taxes for the years from 1956 through 1960. The press hastened to defend him as "a longtime crusader for ethics in government." While being charged with five years' delinquency in paying taxes, he was also named corespondent in a Washington divorce suit. Landis pleaded guilty to the tax charges, and paid back taxes on income of $410,000.

In the Chicago court system, which was still in the hands of the remnants of the Capone mob, a sting operation netted ten judges in a ring of some sixty officials, who were convicted of corruption. A Cook County judge, Earl Strayhom, was accused in 1974 of not filing federal income tax forms for 1966 through 1968, failing to declare $49,000 in income, and failing to pay $26,000 in taxes and penalties. He resolved the charges with a bargain payment of $1 1,000.

In Austin, Texas, an AP release dated Nov. 6, 1988 noted that a Texas judge had been reprimanded by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct for "allowing her child to run around her courtroom during proceedings." She also called litigants and others "pure trash," and threatened to shoot a lawyer. She finally left the bench, crying and shouting threats at attorneys. She told one lawyer that she had a gun, and that she could shoot two holes in his back before he could leave the courtroom. The Commission sternly noted that, "The comments of Judge Anthony are not consistent with the temperament required of a member of the judiciary."

During this same period, Mariposa County, Ca. District Attorney J. Bruce Eckerson was reported to have resigned under pressure of continued lawsuits and criminal allegations of corruption and misconduct; the chancery clerk in Rankin County, MS. faced nine counts of embezzlement, and Middlebury Vt. county prosecutor Robert Andres was charged $400 for "kicking man in face." Meanwhile, Dr. Elizabeth Morgan piled up twenty-one months in jail after being jailed by District Court Superior Judge Herbert Dixon on contempt of court charges. Dixon is black; Dr. Morgan is white. Dixon had ordered her to turn over her six year old daughter Hilary to her ex-husband, whom Dr. Morgan claimed had been sexually abusing the child since she was two. Testimony from doctors and psychiatrists that the child had been abused had been ruled "inadmissible." Dr. Morgan has spent her time writing children's books, and becoming engaged to a Circuit Court Judge.

Abuse of Habeas Corpus

One avenue open to Dr. Morgan would be habeas corpus. Kent's Commentaries points out, 1619, "Every restraint upon a man's liberty is, in the eyes of the law, an imprisonment, whatever may be the place or whatever may be the manner in which the restraint is effected." Kent hardly expected that a woman could be locked up for almost two years without conviction.

Corpus Juris Secundum 39A HC 159 states that a petitioner for habeas corpus has the right to represent himself in prosecuting the proceedings; the presence of the petitioner in court is not necessary to argue issues of law, but the presence of the petitioner is necessary where questions of fact are to be litigated. In the federal courts, habeas corpus provides a remedy for jurisdictional errors without limit of time. Dr. Morgan could cite CJS 39A, sec. 163, "A person whose detention is illegal, or a third person on his behalf, generally may present an application of habeas corpus; since it is intended for all who may be deprived of their liberty without sufficient cause and such person having standing to question their detention or deprivation of other rights." The writ must be brought against the proper person, generally whoever has actual custody of the prisoner. The title is Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The writ should state some reason for granting the writ, usually that

"Adequate relief is unavailable from other courts or in other forms; government intrusion upon petitioner's First Amendment rights to political expression, invalidating the prosecution and resultant confinement; that petitioners Fifth Amendment right to due process is denied by his confinement. WHEREFORE your petitioner prays that the Court issue an order that the respondents show cause why this Petition should not be granted and the petitioner discharged; that the Court set out in the order a return of three days. That the Court set the matter down for hearing within five days after the return; that the Court hear and determine this matter, and upon final hearing issue Writ of Habeas Corpus and an order directing the respondents to discharge the petitioner from their custody."

Because the law has established that any "restraint" is grounds for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, not merely physical restraint or imprisonment of the petitioner, but any governmental oppression or "restraint" is similarly grounds for a writ of habeas corpus, the respondent named being the government agents who are responsible for such restraint. Thus a writ of habeas corpus may be filed against any federal agent, whether IRS, FBI, BATF, CIA or UN, who is imposing stress upon any citizen of this nation, whether it be extortion, intimidation, or threats against one's occupation of family members. Section 171B, CJS 39A states that the writ must be made before the proper inferior court or judge; sec. 172B states the writ must be issued, or the court must show cause why it is not being issued. Sec. 179 states

"The writ of habeas corpus is paramount authority over all other writs. Idaho; in re Dodd, 241 P 2d. Under a federal statute, state court proceedings pending proceedings in a federal court for a writ of habeas corpus will be null and void."

Thus, a prisoner who applies for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court, in theory, can halt state court proceedings against him.

CJS 39A notes that habeas corpus is a prerogative common law writ of ancient origins directed to a person detaining another, commanding him to produce the body of the designated prisoner at a designated time and place, to do, submit to, and receive whatever the court shall consider in that behalf; it is called 'the great writ' and is a 'civil remedy.' The term derives from the Latin, "You have the body."

CJS 41 notes that "A person imprisoned for committing an act that does not constitute any offense may be released on habeas corpus. Hill v. Sanford, C.C.A. Ga. 131 F 2d 417. This also applies to a person detained under an unconstitutional or invalid statute or ordinance; this is grounds for a writ of habeas corpus."

Thus we find that any unconstitutional oppression or pressure against any American citizen is grounds for a writ of habeas corpus, that is, an order to relieve such pressure and to cease and desist. Habeas corpus is enshrined in the Constitution, Article 9, and cannot be suspended for any reason.

CJS 39A sec 37 states "Habeas corpus may be allowed where there has been a deprivation of fundamental or constitutional rights. It has been held that questions decided by court having jurisdiction thereof may not be considered in habeas corpus proceedings in another court, whether or not constitutional principles are involved. Craig v. U.S., C.A., C.C.A. Cal. 89 F 2d 980."

CJS 39A sec 39, "The writ of habeas corpus is designed to give a person whose liberty is restrained an immediate hearing to determine the legality of the detention. Walker v. Wainwright, Fla. 88, S.Ct 962, 390 US 335, L.Ed. 2d 1215. Habeas corpus provides a prompt and speedy remedy or adjudication of a person's right to liberation from illegal restraint, or to be free of whatever society determines to be intolerable restraint." Bland v. Rodgers, D.C. 332 F.Supp. 989.

Thus the widespread impression that the writ of habeas corpus applies only to persons detained in prison is merely one application of the writ. It can and should be used to apply to every instance of illegal and unconstitutional oppression by any government agent against any American citizen, "whatever society determines to be intolerable restraint." Note that it does not say "whatever the court determines." The people have the final jurisdiction and determination in the matter of "intolerable restraint," and they must exercise their jurisdiction in determining that restraint. It applies not only to the forcible and illegal detention of a person's body, but it also offers an immediate legal remedy for any undue restraint upon any citizen of the United States in his pursuit of life, liberty and property. For the first time, our citizens now have a weapon which enables them to take action against any act of oppression by government agents, or power-crazed federal officials, many of whom are secretly in the pay of foreign powers.

FREEDOM NOW! This is the message which the writ of habeas corpus brings to us. If any federal, state or local agent is acting to oppress you, now is the time to file a notice with the proper court, naming that person, the nature of the restraint, and requesting a writ of habeas corpus which will free you from that restraint. If the judge responds to your plea by dismissing it on the grounds that you are not actually being held in detention, you must refile the writ, stating the exact nature of the writ, and noting that the statutes do not require that you are being held in actual physical detention. The writ may be issued upon receipt of any governmental order which restrains you from any legal act or which attempts to deprive you of your personal property. The income tax functions as the primary restraint upon all citizens of this nation, because it sets up a primary lien upon all of our income and personal property, at the behest of the Federal Reserve System, which is the secondary lien upon all income and personal property in the United States. Thus the writ may be filed against the IRS or against the Federal Reserve System, or both; its ramifications may be extended to each and every restraint imposed upon us by King George and the Bank of England. The writ should state that " ________, acting in his capacity of agent for ________, has willfully and intentionally sought to deprive you of your Constitutional liberties, and has thereby restrained you from exercising your privileges of citizenship in the United States (of the states)." The judge must then allow you to argue in his court the nature of your restraint; he must then decide if it is a restraint, which, in the light of the facts presented, would be difficult to deny. If so, he has no recourse but to grant you the writ of habeas corpus.

The Genocide Convention

The Genocide Convention adopted by our Congress also offers opportunities for our citizens to seek relief under its provisions. For instance, the present writer was prevented from marrying or raising a family by the malicious acts of federal agents, who continuously had me discharged from gainful employment, thus effectively ending my line, and further sought to have me detained in an insane asylum, which they were unable to effect. This clearly constitutes an act of genocide under the terms of the Convention, because the actions taken against me by these federal agents were solely inspired by my presence by act of birth as one of a group of American citizens singled out for punitive action and eventual extermination by said federal agents, as part of the federal goal to commit genocide against my racial grouping.

The Genocide Convention was actually drafted after World War II to protect Zionists and Zionists only; it has never been invoked for any other group. The Zionists sought to use it to punish, outlaw and exterminate all of their present and potential enemies, which encompassed all other groups in the world. However, the language of the Convention could not be written expressly to limit to the Zionist conspirators, thereby opening the door for anyone to invoke it in protection of other groups.

In Dec. 1948, the United Nations advised the convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the resultant legislation then being sent by President Truman to the Senate for ratification in the Senate, Senator Percy of Illinois led the fight to ratify the Genocide Convention. Hearings were held in 1950, 1970, 1971, 1977 and 1981. It was officially ratified by the American Bar Association in 1976. The British Parliament ratified it as the Genocide Act of 1969. Canada then followed suit. Act II of the Act states that

"In the present convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: a. killing members of the group; b. causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; c. deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; d. imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group. e. forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

The last provision was designed solely to bring about the recovery of any Jewish children adopted by gentile families during World War II to save them, sec. 3 being intended to force these families to return the children to the Jewish group. However the other four provisions of the Act do apply to the present writer's experience, as documented in "A Writ for Martyrs," which reproduces 120 pages of my FBI file, and which establishes by official government documents that said acts of genocide were committed against my person. The Genocide Convention states unequivocably that intent to destroy any part of the group, that is, any single member of the group, is the same as the intent to destroy the entire group. Thus, sec. d is proven by government documents in my case, as are sec. a, b, and c.

The term "genocide" was coined by a Zionist propagandist named Rafael Lemkin, who intended, in his book, "Axis Rule in Occupied Europe," that genocide should be used solely as a term referring to the conditions of Jews under Nazi occupation during the Second World War. Thus it could have no application to any other racial group, and theoretically would no longer be valid at the conclusion of this war. It was a temporal designation for a specific historical situation, and was never intended to be applied for anyone else's benefit. Zionist collaborators encysted all over the world then conceived the idea of a worldwide prohibition against "genocide," which was intended to stifle any criticism of their subversive activities, and to enact dictatorial measures to eliminate any future criticism. Because no nation could possibly enact a measure which stated it was solely to protect Zionists, the wording had to be broadened to apply to all people. It now covers any group whose future existence is threatened by genocidal government measures, the most threatened target today being the middle class citizens of the United States, who have as yet undertaken no measures in their self-defense. As it was ratified by the United States, the Genocide Convention states:

"Whoever, being a national of the United States or otherwise under the jurisdiction of the United States, willfully without justifiable cause, commits within or without the territory of the United States in time of peace or in time of war, any of the following acts with the intent to destroy by means of the commission of that act, or with the intent to carry out a plot to destroy, the whole or a substantial part of a national ethnic, or racial or religious group, shall be guilty of genocide."

Note that the Act establishes jurisdiction throughout the world, "within or without the territory of the United States," thus extending the authority of the District of Columbia to the entire world. The American Journal of International Law notes that substantial questions are raised about implementing legislation. However, a complaint charging genocide can be charged in any federal court, and those questions of implementation can then be addressed.

Conflict of Interest

In recent years, there have been increasing charges that the personal involvement of judges in the cases which they are hearing, the classic dilemma of "conflict of interest," are being ignored. The Wall Street Journal noted, Aug. 3, 1988, that "A federal judge refused to disqualify himself in an important patent case against Hewlett-Packard even though his son is employed by the computer giant." The suit, involving patent rights, had been brought by Apple Computer against Hewlett-Packard.

A case involving much greater stakes surfaced when the investment firm of Drexel, Burnham and Lambert requested that Judge Milton Pollack remove himself from the trial of securities fraud which originated with the SEC (Wall St Journal Oct 18, 1988). Drexel alleged that Judge Pollack would be unable to rule impartially because his wife, Moselle Pollack, stood to gain about $30 million from a leveraged buyout of her family firm, Palais Royal, which Drexel was financing. They claimed that Judge Pollack might be biased as a result of his family interests. Mrs. Pollack was selling her inherited interest to Bain & Co., with Drexel placing the securities.

A feature article in the American Lawyer, the trade publication, disclosed that Drexel dreaded an appearance before Judge Pollack because of his reputation as overwhelmingly "pro-government," as are practically all judges in the United States, with the exception of the ill-fated Judge Claiborne. American Lawyer quoted descriptions of Judge Pollack as "prosecutors' favorite judge," who conducts a "kangaroo court." The article went on to say "he chooses sides early. . . Pollack almost always chooses the government's side; once he does, even-handedness all but vanishes." There were accounts of Pollack's calling in the U.S. attorneys and discussing pending cases with them ex parte (which is strictly forbidden by law) and even advising them on how to handle the case. "Does anyone consider this 'impartiality'? The devastating American Lawyer critique continued, 'Pollack is known as a judge who holds grudges. His wife Moselle will gain thirty million dollars if Bain Venture Capital of Boston buys Palais Royal from Mrs. Pollack, who, under the law of judicial conflicts, is considered to be the same person as her husband."

After Drexel filed a writ of mandamus requesting that Pollack disqualify himself, the Securities Exchange Commission launched a vicious smear attack against Drexel' s lawyers, in which they strongly defended Judge Pollack. In so many words, this government agency stated, "We want this judge because he is our judge." Likewise Drexel wanted Pollack off the case because of his reputation as the government's judge. American Lawyer concluded,

"The system will have been disgraced by the charade played out in this case. . . . in which government lawyers have smeared other lawyers, misstated the facts, taken legal positions (on judicial conflicts). . . fallen all promises to provide anything but the justice these lawyers are being paid for."

Realizing that their ship had been sunk at the dock, Drexel gave up any hope of an impartial trial under Pollack, and caved in, agreeing to pay some $650 million in fines and penalties, which probably had been the goal of the SEC all along, to force Drexel into payment without trial, knowing that they could not win before Judge Pollack.

The Wall Street Journal ran another front page story about another famous federal judge, Feb. 16, 1989, "hot-tempered 79 year old David Edelstein" who presided over the federal government's landmark case against IBM in the 1970s. IBM's lawyers were the aforementioned firm of Cravath, Swaine and Moore. The Journal took note of:

"The enmities among the judge, IBM, and Mr. Barr's pugnacious New York law firm, Cravath, Swaine and Moore. The enmities are deep. In the thirteen year anti-trust case, one of the most bureaucratic legal quagmires ever, Judge Edelstein became famous for raging against Cravath lawyers. Cravath twice sought to remove the judge from the antitrust case, a drastic step that rarely succeeds in any court."

In fact, a request that a judge remove himself from a case for prejudice is a kamikaze move, because prejudiced judges are the norm in our courts, and is a suicidal move for both the lawyer and his client. Not only does the judge refuse to remove himself, as occurred in this case, but he now has even more reason for his deeply rooted prejudice. Cravath declared in its brief, "Judge Edelstein's mind is bent against IBM. No court has ever had before it such a long and consistent record of bias as that of Judge Edelstein's conduct." Cravath then backed its brief with two cartons of documents detailing its grievances, contending that Edelstein, among other things, "routinely abused IBM witnesses, helped the government conduct its cross examinations, and secretly altered the trial transcript in the earlier antitrust case." Is this bias? Are government judges routinely prejudiced in favor of the government and against anyone who dares to question the tyrannical acts of government agencies and their agents? Is the sky blue? And more importantly, does justice exist in the United States? Famed lawyer Gerry Spence replies in his latest book, Absolutely not! Early in this work, the present writer noted that lawyers and judges routinely conspire to obstruct justice by altering transcripts, deleting documents, and suborning perjury, as IBM has found, to its dismay.

The Journal notes that "Judge Edelstein, a wry New Yorker, has long been considered an irascible and impatient force in the courtroom. Appointed by Harry Truman, he is entering his thirty-eighth year on the federal bench." The Journal also notes that "Judges normally can only be removed for their conduct outside the courtroom."

Zionists, ADL, and 'Campain Financing'

Thus Judge Edelstein is one of those judges whom the New Republic pointed out March 10, 1952 had by Truman's appointment "weakened the federal judiciary and lowered its prestige." Yet there he is, some 38 years later, one of the Zionist judges whom Truman appointed as part of his re-election compact in 1948 to recognize and support the State of Israel. The Masonic B'nai B'rith nominated these judges, and Truman routinely appointed them as a burden which the entire nation must bear. Edelstein is merely one of the many choleric, acerbic and biased judges serving in New York and many other states because of their political and fraternal associations. The Zionist connection governs their choice because of the overriding Masonic connection.

It has long been a truism on New York that the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, the terrorist arm of this organization, nominates and passes on ALL CANDIDATES for judgeships in New York and all other metropolitan areas of the United States. So feared is the ADL that no American politician dares do anything which might be interpreted as offensive by its omnipresent and ever vigilant agents, who have fastened like leeches onto every aspect of American life. The fury exhibited by most judges in the United States when any citizen appears before them charged with being a "tax protester" or who is affiliated with any group suspected of patriotism, is aroused because the presence of any such American in his court is a direct affront to the Zionist and Masonic affiliations of the judge. In most cases, the American is unaware that he has offended the judge, or of the violent prejudice which will be shown against him. He is even more unaware that if he is a non-Mason, he is to be given as short shrift before the court as possible. No force in America dares to challenge the ADL domination of our process of judicial selection, which is then given even more routine approval by the selection committee of the ABA, after their assurance that the candidate meets with the approval of the ADL.

The glittering career of the late Roy Cohn, whose meteoric rise was cut short by AIDS, contacted from one of his many $500 a night call-boys, was based solely on the fact that his father was a prime mover in the New York ADL, and was himself appointed a judge. With this family sponsorship, Roy Cohn could do no wrong, despite his many years of tax evasion, drug use and sexual promiscuity, none of which ever tainted the unabashed admiration which his friend, CIA propagandist William Buckley, exhibited for him in the pages of his organ, the National Review.

Because the secret bias and behind the scenes loyalties created by the furtive conspiratorial affiliations of the ADL and Freemasons has now poisoned the entire judicial system of America, we have become inured to the most despotic acts of our judges.

Oliver Wendell Holmes

Much of the pernicious influence exercised by the judiciary can be traced to the career of Oliver Wendell Holmes, a scion of the New England banking and Abolitionist One World conspirators. Holmes was responsible for the new direction in American jurisprudence, the growth of an iconoclastic liberal movement which challenged the traditional concept of judicial impartiality. Holmes' revolutionary doctrine was expressed when he wrote,

"It appears to me that it has not always been sufficiently borne in mind that the same-thing may be a consideration or not, as it is dealt with by both parties."

Note that this is a direct contradiction of the traditional concept that "law" is a fixed concept. Holmes is saying that there is no genuine basis for deciding whether anything in a legal matter is a consideration or not; this opens the door for all sorts of deviations, as well as making the way clear for the concepts of admiralty law, the law merchant, in which individual rights are no longer of concern. The damaging effect of Holmes' dictum may be seen in the erosion of the traditional sanctity of the law of contracts. Presser and Zwineldon's definitive work, "Law and American History" states that "the classical theory of contract has ended." Other authorities write of "the death of contract." But how is this possible, if the law merchant has been enshrined in our courts? Surely the law of contract is basic to the law merchant. Not at all; the law merchant ignores individual rights and responsibilities in favor of dedicated service to the greater influence and the greater power. Any contract can and will be overridden, if a party can bring enough money and influence to bear in his support.

Holmes also states, "The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience." This opposes Lord Coke's definition of the law as reason, and justifies the constantly c hanging court decisions of our era, in which courts first rule in favor of something, and a short time later, deny its own precedent by ruling against it. In effect the rule of law has ended, because the concept of the law as a fixed force has been superseded by the Holmesian doctrine that there are no fixed principles or ethics in law; there is only "experience."

"Experience" has opened the door for the Pollacks and Edelsteins to seize control of our courts; for the principles of the American Revolution to be superseded by the blood-soaked aims of the French Revolution, in which the courts become kangaroo courts for a brief stop on the way to the guillotine; for Revolutionary Tribunals to try Americans, not for any legal offense, but because they have opposed the dictatorship of the Committee of Public Safety. Jacques Bainville has written that to write an exact history of the Third Republic of France, it would be necessary to know the official minutes of the Masonic assemblies. This necessity also applies to the history of such organizations as the League of Nations and its present day successor, the United Nations. M. Leon de Poncins published a full review of the Corps of Freemasons Congress of the allied and neutral countries which was held in Paris, June 28 through 30, 1917, which resulted in the League of Nations proposal being inserted en blanc into the conditions of peace agreed upon at the Versailles Peace Conference.

A director of a great New York bank was asked how it was possible for high finance to protect Bolshevism, a system hostile to that movable property whose existence is necessary to the banking industry, and also to those riches which are represented by land and buildings, not less a necessity for banks. The banker replied:

"Those who are astonished at our alliance with the Soviets forget that the nation of Israel is the most nationalist of all peoples, for it is the most ancient, the most united, and the most exclusive. But its eyes are turned to the future rather than to the past, and its kingdom is not of this world. First comes this sentence; like the papacy, it is ecumenical and spiritual. But then, you will say that Marxism is the antithesis of capitalism, which is equally sacred to us. It is precisely for this reason that they are direct opposites to one another, that this puts into our hands the two poles of the planet and allows us to be its axis. We are kings that the prophecies may be fulfilled, and we are prophets that we may not cease to be kings. They take us for birds of prey, but we are carrion birds. Israel is the microcosm and the germ of the City of the Future."

The arrogance of our judges stems from their assurance that they represent a higher power than the lawful government of the United States. No wonder they sneer at the Constitution and revile any citizen who comes before them citing the protection of the Constitution. The Masonic arrogance of these judges is epitomized by the name of Judge Irving Cooper. Time Magazine noted March 30, 1962 that Congressman Manny Celler, whose political career reeked with corruption and double dealing, had sent the name of his old friend and ally, Judge Irving Cooper, ADL approved, as federal judge for the prestigious South Side District of New York. Cooper had been born in London, the son of Max and Ruth Shimansky. Celler anticipated an easy confirmation of his friend, and was stunned when many witnesses came in to give page after page of damning testimony against him. One witness testified that when she used the word "we" in her testimony before Judge Cooper, he screamed "we! we! we!" about five times, meaning that "I had dared to put myself in his class. How dare you say we? Then he started to rave. His eyes started popping. His face turned purple; he looked like a reincarnation of the devil, or something." Many other witnesses testified that Judge Cooper excoriated and publicly humiliated lawyers and others who appeared before him. "He turned his back on us and berated the group.' Many other potential witnesses feared to testify about his notorious behaviour, for good reason. Despite this overwhelming testimony against him, Cooper was unanimously confirmed as a federal judge. Twenty-five years later, Who's Who still lists him as the federal judge for the Southern District of New York.

The fact that a judge could win confirmation after such damaging testimony is proof that the Masonic influence overrides all other considerations in naming a judge to the bench. The press has carried hundreds of stories about apoplectic, cursing, and obscene judges who abuse anyone unfortunate enough to come into their court, but nothing is done. There is the constant fear engendered in their subjects by these tyrannical judges; there is the myth of "judicial immunity" which has no Constitutional basis; and most important of all, there is the terrible hidden Masonic power behind the bench.

The stranglehold which B'nai B'rith maintains over our courts leads to extreme financial abuses, a continual extending of bribes, favors, and undue influence, which the practitioners of the Will of Canaan exercise against all who come before them: The New York State Chamber of Commerce analyzed 3500 foreclosure cases, and found that 75% of the receivers who were paid fees of over $2500 were "either active political workers or personal friends or relatives of judges" Reader's Digest, Nov. 1948.

Of the courts which produce a steady stream of revenue for its intimates, none is more notorious than the probate court, of which the king is the notorious Surrogate Court of Suffolk, New York. The scene of many historic family battles, this court probates the wills of the nation's wealthiest families. The fees run into the hundreds of millions of dollars. This writer attended sessions in this court concerning a will which the lawyer prolonged over eight years, merely because he wished to maintain the case in his books. At these conferences, I was often supposed to be an attorney, and was taken aside by attorneys for some of the nation's largest firms, who delicately hinted they would "appreciate" any help I could offer in bringing the case to a conclusion. I could hardly admit that we maintained the case so that we would have an excuse for daily drives to the beach, a much less sinister reason than the determination of most lawyers to squeeze the last dollar from their clients.

When one enters a notorious court such as the Suffolk Probate, one can only smile at Plato's naive statement, "Justice is the supreme virtue, which harmonizes with all other virtues." The administration of justice in America warns us that the most idealistic system can in a short time become a nightmare. Jeremy Bentham denounced "the most grinding of all grievances—the tyranny of judge-made law." The outcries of the people against legal abuses resounds throughout history. Magna Carta XIV promised that "We will not make any justiciaries, constables, sheriffs or bailiffs but from those who understand the law of the realm and are well disposed to observe it." Amos 5:7 criticizes those who abuse the process, "Ye who turn judgments into wormwood." One of the underlying causes of the French Revolution was a plethora of lawsuits, dragging on for generation after generation, and impoverishing everyone but the lawyers. Alas, the people exchanged these oppressive courts for the summary justice of the Revolutionary Tribunals. Charles Dickens was moved to write about the terrible ordeals endured by Englishmen embroiled in lawsuits for many generations in his famous case of Jamdyce v. Jamdyce, which was based on actual occurrences in English courts. Although Dickens' rendition of the behaviour of lawyers and judges was written as satire, it can be observed in any American court today.

Lord Campbell complained in his lives of the Chief Justices of the eighteenth century, that the bench was occupied by "legal monks, utterly ignorant of human nature and of the affairs of men." The decisions of these legal monks show not so much ignorance of human nature, as unalterable opposition to it, because their decisions are dictated by their secret allegiances and their hidden agenda.

A respected American judge, Judge Learned Hand, was never nominated for a seat on the Supreme Court, despite the general acknowledgement that he was our most distinguished jurist. In his memoir, "Fifty Years of Service" he says

"I confess when I look at my service it seems to have been for the most part trivial . . . As a litigant, I should dread a lawsuit beyond almost anything else short of sickness or death." (Speech Aug. 10, 1959, U.S. Court of Appeals).

Judge Samuel Rosenman, former adviser to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, told the Bar of the City of N.Y., Oct. 1964,

"Let us face this sad fact; that in many—in far too many—instances, the benches of our courts in the United States are occupied by mediocrities—men of small talent, undistinguished in performance, technically deficient and inept."

Yet these are the men who continue to serve on the bench, because no one can remove them. Chief Justice Arthur Vanderbilt of New Jersey said,

"In the eight centuries or more in which the judicial office has evolved in the Anglo-American system of law, three essentials stand out in the definition of a true judge; these are impartiality, independence, and immunity."

The 1961 Hardbook for judges, (American Juridicative Society, Chicago), cites Jud. Canon 3,

"It is the duty of all judges in the United States to support the federal constitution, and that of the state whose laws they administer; in so doing, they should fearlessly observe and apply fundamental limitations and guarantees."

This canon contrasts sharply with the conduct of judges whose fury is aroused by a citizen pleading his constitutional rights. Jud. Canon 4 states

"A judge should not allow his name to be used for solicitation and charitable contributions."

This is the most abused of judicial canons. Not only do judges constantly solicit, but they let it be known that a contribution to their favored charity might well affect their decision in some future litigation. The most obvious perversion of this canon is the practice of judges to sentence hardened criminals to "community service," to work free in a charity personally chosen by the judge. This is in itself both a solicitation and a contribution. A person who is judged guilty of a crime is expected to go to prison, not to become a social worker. Robert McFarlane, who was found guilty of a political offense, was sentenced to 200 hours of community service. Oliver North, also a political offender, was sentenced to 1500 hours of such service.

The idiocy of this arrangement was lampooned by Ezra Pound more than fifty years ago, in his book, "A Guide to Kulchur," Samuel West's Election Sermon, 1776, notes,

"The imbecility of America from 1900 onwards was loss of all sense of borderline between public and private affairs."

The eradication of this line is a crucial goal of the Marxist State. An earlier editorial by Pound in his magazine, The Exile stated,

"The republic, res publica, means, or ought to mean 'the public convenience': when it does not, it is an evil, to be ameliorated or amended out of, or into, decent existence."

This definition of the republic should strike terror into the hearts of all bureaucrats. The thought of doing something for the public convenience would indeed amend them out of existence.

Samuel West's Election Sermon, 1776, notes,

"But though I would recommend to all Christians, as part of the duty that they owe to magistrates, to treat them with proper honor and respect, none can reasonably suppose that I mean that they ought to be flattered in their vices, or honored and caressed while they are seeking to undermine and ruin the state; for this would be wickedly betraying our just rights, and we should be guilty of our own destruction. We ought to persevere with firmness and fortitude in maintaining and contending for all that liberty that the Deity has granted us."

An ancient legal adage says, "Blessed are the trouble-makers." An even more ancient one claims that if there is only one lawyer in town, he will starve to death, but let a second one arrive, and both will become wealthy. A Spanish proverb says that "a peasant between two lawyers is like a fish between two cats."

De Tocqueville states in "Democracy in America" that

"In America there are no nobles or literary men, and the people are apt to mistrust the wealthy: lawyers consequently form the highest political class and the most cultivated portion of society. If I were asked where I place the American aristocracy, I should reply without hesitance that it is not among the rich, who are united by no common tie, but that it occupies the judicial bench and the bar."

Rule 11: Against Self-Representation

One of the first precepts of an American judge is that he will exercise all of his power to harass and disqualify the bane of the legal profession, a citizen who refuses to hire a lawyer, and who chooses to represent himself in court, as is his Constitutional right. These mavericks, appearing as "attorney pro se," or more recently, as "In Propria Personae" cause consternation among lawyers and judges. A person who appears as his own lawyer threatens the entire financial operation of our legal system, "Let's Make a Deal." A lawyer cannot make a deal with a layman in litigation, because it would scuttle the system. In some forty years of representing myself, I have encountered every reaction from judges, ranging from supercilious tolerance to outright hostility. Early on, I was standing outside judge's chambers when I heard the judge raising his voice for my benefit,

"You can be sure of one thing," he informed the opposing lawyer, "as long as I'm a judge, you will never see a favorable opinion from me for anyone who tries to represent himself in my court."

This judge, like his colleagues on the bench, remained true to his resolve. I never obtained equal treatment in his court. He seemed determined to teach me a lesson when I appeared, and always was disappointed when I came back for more. One lawyer actually tried to help me when I was still unaware of legal dodges. I had no idea what was going on when the judge asked me, "Are you going to file a motion, Mr. Mullins?" I didn't know what a motion was, and this lawyer nudged me, "Tell him you'll file the motion." I let the opportunity pass. This attorney, who was obviously not cut out for the conspiratorial world of legal practice, soon abandoned it for a political career.

Philip Stem quotes the edict of a professor at Harvard Law School when a student questioned the fairness of legal techniques, "If you believe in fairness and justice, you should be attending a divinity school." Law professors notify their students that once they have taken legal training, they will never be the same. Their outlook on everything, from morals to social life, undergoes a complete change, as they commit themselves for life to legal monkhood and the cult of the black robe. They have now joined the mystical world of Babylon, and have put aside the decencies of normal life and American citizenship for a stranger calling.

Both Philip Stem and Professor Fred Rodell of Yale University agree that the person acting as Pro Per has little chance of ever having his case actually tried by a jury. Rule VII, Sec. 2, U.S. Appellate Court states, "Briefs not signed by counsel who are members of the bar of this court and fully qualified under the provisions of this rule will not be considered by this court." When I filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals, the decision proved that it had not even been read by the judges; a law clerk had probably notified them that it didn't qualify, and they signed a pro forma denial of the appeal. In 1977, Chief Justice Berger issued an order that the U.S. Judiciary should not accept cases where the plaintiffs had no legal standing under the rules of court.

The judge has two effective weapons against persons appearing as attorney pro se; he can award attorney's fees against them, which can be ruinous, or he can invoke Rule 11, which sets up a number of conditions, that a pleading be "well grounded in fact," "warranted by existing law" and other factors, which give the judge enormous leeway in invoking Rule 11 against persons representing themselves. U.S. District Judge Richard L. Williams invoked Rule 11 against a retired professor, J. Carl Poindexter, assessing him $11,202 for bringing a case against Virginia officials on a tax matter. Poindexter termed the sanctions "Soviet-style oppression," particularly when government defendants are granted attorneys' fees from citizens bringing a civil rights action. He stated,

"Rule 11 violates the most essential of all civil rights—the right to enforce one's civil rights through free access to the courts. If lawyers are intimidated by this threat, they will not take any case from civil rights defendants if there is a chance of their being sanctioned."

The present writer sued a city and county for violation of jury selection rules, which was dismissed in federal court without argument, but not before the government attorney had leaped to his feet three times, shouting for "attorneys fees." In this case, they would have amounted to some $25,000, a sum which I did not have. The judge refused to grant attorneys' fees, because he had not adjudicated the case, and ran the risk of a reversal if I appealed, as I would be forced to do rather than pay $25,000 which I did not have.

Charles Ashman's excellent work, "The Finest Judges Money Can Buy," cites hundreds of pages of documented corruption among judges, beginning with Sir Francis Bacon's statement while Lord Chancellor of England, "I usually accept bribes from both sides so that tainted money can never influence my decision."

Deuteronomy states that "Thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift; for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous."

On June 11, 1973, the California Judicial Qualification Commission recommended only censure of two Los Angeles judges who had issued numerous blank, pre-signed release forms to bondsmen friends. Judge Mitchell Schweitzer, who served twenty-six years on the Court of General Sessions with the support of both the Democratic and Liberal parties, was described in these words, "Some lawyers regarded Schweitzer's court as a circus. The judge shouts and he snorts and he huffs and puffs and he cajoles frightened lawyers and their clients to cop pleas to save time. But I must admit it's entertaining.

In Congress, fixer Nathan Voloshen used Speaker of the House John McCormack's office as his private headquarters to fix income tax cases. Dr. Irving Flelpert, a Dayton urologist, gave him $300,000 to fix a case, and never heard from him again. Flelpert was convicted and fined. Abe Fortas graduated from Yale Law School and became the protege of FDR cabinet member Harold lckes, who appointed Fortas Undersecretary of the Interior. Fortas later became the confidant of Lyndon B. Johnson, representing him in a Senatorial primary case where Johnson had been ordered off the ballot. Fortas saved Johnson's political career by winning the case, making possible Johnson's later ascendancy to the Presidency. As President, Johnson named Fortas to replace Arthur Goldberg on the traditional Jewish seat on the Supreme Court. Fortas, who was to be named Chief Justice, accepted $15,000 from Troy Post to lecture at American University, and then became involved with wheeler dealer Louis Wolfson, who paid Fortas $20,000, and put him on a life retainer of $20,000 a year. On May 14, 1969, Fortas resigned from the Supreme Court.

Justice William Douglas of the Supreme Court married his fourth wife at the age of 66 after his third wife divorced him. Congressman Gross prepared articles of impeachment against Douglas, who was being paid $12,000 a year from the Parvin Foundation, a three million dollar foundation set up by Parvin when he sold the mob-connected Flamingo Hotel in Las Vegas; Parvin had been named as a co-conspirator with Louis Wolfson. Congressman Gerald Ford also called for Douglas' impeachment after he wrote an article for the Evergreen Review which appeared in an issue of the magazine replete with pornographic photos and articles. Unlike the earlier case of Sir Francis Bacon, Douglas was never impeached. Bacon was impeached after evidence that he had taken some 12,230 pounds in bribes, with twenty-eight charges against him. The judgment was that "The Ford Chancellor hath given way to great exactions by his servants, both in respect of private seals, and otherwise for selling of injunctions."

The invoking of Rule 11 by federal judges is intended to seal off the courts from redress by private citizens, and to allow their secret aristocracy, with its hidden agenda, to continue its practices of bribery and other corruption. Lysander Spooner wrote in 1952,

"The legal effect of these constitutional recognitions of the rights of individuals to defend their property, liberties and lives, against the government, is to legalize resistance to all injustice and oppression, of every name and nature whatsoever, on the part of government. But for the right of resistance, on the part of the people, all governments would become tyrannical to a degree of which few people are aware. Constitutions are utterly worthless to restrain the tyranny of governments, unless it be understood that the people will, by force, compel the government to keep within the constitutional limits. Practically speaking, no government knows any limits to its power, except the endurance of the people. . . Tyrants care nothing for discussions that are to end only in discussion. Discussions, which do not interfere with the enforcement of their laws, are but idle wind to them. Suffrage is equally powerless and unreliable."