PART 1 of 2
July 27, 2009
� 2009 - NewsWithViews.com
"This member of the government... has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining, slyly, and without alarm, the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114, on the Judicial Branch
I recently wrote two columns on the Sotomayor nomination regarding Dr. Richard Cordero's evidence implicating her in a cover-up in concealing assets as part of a judicially run and tolerated bankruptcy fraud scheme. She also lied on the required documentation submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee. According to one member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sotomayor is allegedly completing the questionnaire that was supposed to be done before any vote.
Another potential bombshell has surfaced regarding the pattern of dishonesty by Sonia Sotomayor:
Sonia Sotomayor: The Florida Homestead Exemption. Investigators at webofdeception have uncovered proof, backed up by public records, that Sotomayor has claimed a homestead exemption on a condo in Florida to which she is not entitled:
"The following is from the web site of the Broward County Tax Appraiser's Office. This condo does not qualify for a Homestead Exemption because Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor does not provide the required support of the mother and the other occupant of the property, Omar Lopez: "You are entitled to a Homestead Exemption if, as of January 1st, you have made the property your permanent home or the permanent home of a person who is legally or naturally dependent on you"
"The 2008 tax bill show Celina Sotomayor and Omar Lopez as owners of property even though the true owner is Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. This document shows that this property enjoys an Homestead Exemption. The Warranty Deed of 2001 was not reflected on the tax bill as required showing the ownership of the property by Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor on December 13, 2001."
As far as I can tell from Sotomayor's submission to the Judiciary Committee, she does not list this Florida condo as an asset; see here. The only condo listed is one in Greenwich Village. Yet, this document shows she is the owner of the condo in Florida. The Real Estate Reservation Life Estate Deed gives Sotomayor's address as the condo in Florida; she was living in New York at the time this document was executed.
If you read my two previous columns on Judge Sotomayor (see links section), there is no question she should never be confirmed to the highest court in the land. Her conduct in an official capacity has now been exposed and no political wrangling or partisan game playing can put the truth back in the bottle. There is a stench seeping out of our Federal Judiciary that can no longer be permitted.
and the other judges who have participated in this conspiracy are not
the only corrupt judges on the bench. Ask constitutional attorneys out
there who are in the trenches everyday who have to battle these men and
women on the bench who have become so powerful, they fear no one, not
even Congress. Let me give you another example and pay attention because
what is happening IS important to every American. There are two separate
cases, but both involve the same issue courts have been ducking for decades.
One is the Bill Benson case, which I have covered many times. The second is a case down in Florida which has come to my attention because of the same behavior by judges that can no longer be tolerated in our constitutional republic.
The government sued Benson to silence him from exposing that the 16th Amendment was not ratified and therefore the income tax is unconstitutional. The complaint in that case alleged he was falsely and fraudulently telling people the 16th Amendment was not ratified.
After the United States Supreme Court, in 1894, declared the income tax unconstitutional as an unapportioned direct tax (Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust), Congress proposed the 16th Amendment to remove the requirement of apportionment. The proposed amendment was sent to the states for their decision to ratify or not.
The states sent back to the United States Secretary of State, Philander Knox, their "certificates of ratification" consisting of a certified copy of what each state ratified, the certified copy being signed by the appropriate official of each State's senate and house. According to the United States Supreme Court, this document is known as an "enrolled bill," and is conclusive upon the courts as to exactly what was passed. The "enrolled bill rule" is announced in Field v. Clark, Leser v. Garnet and Coleman v. Miller.
The clerk at the Secretary of State's Office advised Knox that the states ratified language different than proposed by Congress. Knox asked the Office of the United States Solicitor for an opinion as to whether Knox could declare the proposed 16th Amendment ratified. The solicitor's opinion acknowledged that states cannot change the language, and because they cannot do so, he "presumed" they did not, and "presumed" the enrolled bills contained typographical, spelling and punctuation errors which could be ignored. These presumptions violate the "enrolled bill rule."
Article V of the Federal Constitution requires actual ratification by 3/4th of the States. The states that changed the language did not ratify, and when those states are subtracted, the number of states that voted to ratify is less than the required 36 states.
Knox was under a duty to examine whether or not each state ratified the proposed 16th Amendment. If they had, he was required to so proclaim, and that proclamation was to be conclusive upon the courts. This duty and conclusive presumption was the result of a statute passed by Congress, Revised Statute 205. Thus Knox was under a legislative duty, which duty is fully reviewable by the federal courts (Marbury v. Madison.)
Based upon the solicitor's legal opinion, Knox declared the 16th Amendment ratified. There is no record of Knox examining the legislative journals of the states to see if the various states intentionally amended the proposed language of the 16th Amendment.
My dear friend, Bill Benson, traveled to the capitols of all 48 states in 1984, and the National Archives in Washington, D.C. and obtained certified copies of the legislative journals regarding the States' 16th Amendment ratification actions, and the documents of the Secretary of State. These documents conclusively prove that several states did, intentionally, amend the language of the proposed 16th Amendment, and the "presumption" relied upon by Knox and the Solicitor are false.
Bill presented this evidence to the court, thereby proving his statements were true, not false and fraudulent. The government cannot disprove the facts; therefore, they moved to strike Bill's proof from the record as immaterial and irrelevant on the grounds that the "enrolled bill rule" prevents the court's from examining the record. Several problems with this approach: First, the Supreme Court has ruled that the "enrolled bill rule" does not prevent the court from examining the record to see if enough votes were cast for passage (U.S. v. Balin decided the same day as Field v. Clark); Second, to the extent Revised Statute 205 allows the constitution to be amended by false presumption rather than actual ratification, it is an unconstitutional amendment by Congress of Article 5; and Third, conclusive presumptions of facts to find guilt has long been declared by the Supreme Court as a violation of due process of law (Sandstrom v. Montana and Stanley v. Illinois).
The court granted the government's motion to strike Bill's evidence, and found him guilty of making false and fraudulent statements.
Bill appealed to the 7th Circuit court of appeals and raised eight specific legal arguments. The thrust of the appeal was that it violates the inherent right of a person to present facts to prove his innocence, and the prosecutors and courts are precluded from interfering with this right by the due process clause of the constitution. The government did not brief seven of the eight arguments. Under the rules of the 7th Circuit, Bill should have won these seven arguments. Rather than declaring Bill the winner, the three judge panel of the 7th Circuit not only also ignored the seven arguments, but found Bill guilty of making another false statement rather than the one he was charged with making!
Bill went back to the 7th Circuit with a petition for rehearing of his case by the entire 27 judges of the circuit court of appeals. Bill argued that the panel denied him due process of law by not addressing seven of his eight arguments. Petitions for rehearing are distributed to each of the 27 judges, and at least one must vote to rehear the case. Not one of the 27 voted to rehear the case. The question presented for rehearing was:
"Is it the official position of the Seventh Circuit that defendants, charged with unlawful conduct by the government, are no longer entitled to present evidence and defend against the charges?"
The answer of the 7th Circuit is "YES!" That is the official position. If these judges don't like that you have to say, they will simply declare what you say is false and will not consider any evidence. You will be found guilty of violating the law. If that doesn't send chills up your spine, it should.
This, of course, is the same principle applied during the Roman Inquisition to Galileo. The court there found Galileo's contention that the earth was not the center of the universe to be false, ignored the facts, and found him guilty. Such court action is an unethical and immoral abuse of power. Bill has an absolute right, protected by the First Amendment, to discuss the fraudulent ratification of the 16th Amendment.
Federal prosecutors of the Department of Justice Tax Division, Robert Metcalfe and Robert Fay, their superiors in the Department of justice, Federal District Court Judges Filip and Der-Yeghiayan, and the 27 judges of the 7th Circuit are all flagrantly guilty of covering up the fraud of the federal income tax, and of conspiracy to violate the First and Fifth Amendment rights of Bill Benson. Take notice that such action is a felony under Title 18, Section 241.
Now, I recently became aware of another case, United States v. Hirmer. This is a multi-defendant, multi-count indictment in the Northern District of Florida. The defendants in this case, Mark and Claudia Hirmer, are represented by Jeffrey Dickstein. Due to the rules of the Court in the Florida jurisdiction, Dickstein cannot comment on the case.
are the facts in United States v Hirmer. The defendants have
been charged with conspiracy to defraud the IRS and to commit wire fraud
(Count 1), conspiracy to commit money laundering (Count 2), evasion of
the payment of income tax (Count 3), and several counts of wire fraud
in counts 4-15). The government also alleged criminal forfeiture. In typical
tyrannical fashion; the IRS has seized all of the Hirmer's money, precluding
them from paying for their defense.
According to the indictment, the Hirmer's operated PQI, which sold a set of audio tapes on numerous subjects, including taxation, and sold tickets to off-shore events where people would assemble to hear speakers on a wide variety of subjects, including taxation. According to the indictment, espousing the notion that the 16th Amendment was not ratified is "un-American." Well, so is judicial corruption in my humble opinion.
In law there is a principle called stare decisis. It basically stands for the concept that if a case has been fully adjudged on the facts, and another case is before the court with the exact same facts being present, the second court can cite to the first case as authority for the legal principle adjudicated in the first case. The Supreme Court has warned, however, that the principle is not to be used if different facts are before the court and a different argument is being made (Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust).
The prosecutors, Michael J. Watling and Adam F. Hulbig, Trial Attorneys, United States Department of Justice, Tax Division, Tiffany H. Eggers, Assistant United States Attorney for the Northern District of Florida and Thomas F. Kirwin, Acting United States Attorney, cited to case law that did not address any of the several points raised in pleadings submitted by defense counsel. Judge Rodger's noted the government had cited to these cases and simply denied the Hirmer's motion. The specific arguments of the Hirmer's were not even addressed!
Is it unreasonable to state that when it becomes "un-American" to exercise one's right to suggest the federal government is violating the law, and proof of the alleged violations are not to be considered, factually or legally, then for all intents and purposes the federal republic embraced within the Constitution has been overthrown?
The next step in Bill's case is to petition the United States Supreme Court. The next step in the Hirmer's case is to ask the district court judge to reconsider her opinion denying the Hirmer's motion.
Now, what we have is another monstrous mess on our hands that has been ignored by Congress for decades. Yours truly has written about this for more than a decade. One of the most important jobs of the U.S. Senate is confirming judges. Once confirmed, however, Congress has simply turned a blind eye to the legitimate complaints of attorneys and the American people regarding corruption on the bench. As Dr. Richard Cordero, wrote in a recent letter to me, history tells the story; see part II. For part two click below.
Click here for part -----> 2,
Dickstein's web site
2 - Dr. Richard Cordero's web site
3 - How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary by Dr. Edwin Vieira
4 - The Croasmun Memorandum
5 - GOP Senators Ignore Sotomayor's Criminal Activities
6 - Sotomayor's confirmation vote rescheduled - here's why
7 - Sotomayor Overlooks All 14 Supreme Court Self-Defense Cases
� 2009 - NewsWithViews.com - All Rights Reserved
Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale
Devvy Kidd authored the booklets, Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty; 2 million copies sold. Devvy appears on radio shows all over the country as well as her own; ran for Congress and is a highly sought after public speaker.
She left the Republican Party in 1996 and has been an independent voter ever since. Devvy isn't left, right or in the middle; she is a constitutionalist who believes in the supreme law of the land, not some political party. Her web site contains a tremendous amount of information, solutions and a vast Reading Room.
Devvy's website: www.devvy.com
It isn't possible to respond to 20,000 emails a month. Before you send Devvy e-mail, please take the time to check the FAQ section on her web site; it has been updated and filled with answers to frequently asked questions and links to reliable research sources
E-mail is: firstname.lastname@example.org