Freedom1Man
Regular Member
View attachment PROLAWS.pdf
This is the idea, what are your thoughts on it?
I have the PDF linked in case you like it and want to share it.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
How about a law to keep judges, honest?
- Thread starter Freedom1Man
- Start date
View attachment PROLAWS.pdf
This is the idea, what are your thoughts on it?
I have the PDF linked in case you like it and want to share it.
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
Just want something so that the people can hold the judges accountable. Or do you prefer them running rough shod over your rights and legislating from the bench?
davidmcbeth
Banned
I have seen older judges who are clearly and literally crazy.
Age catches up with many elderly ... judges are no different
Age catches up with many elderly ... judges are no different
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
I think it has nothing to do with age after having been before some of the judges (sic) in Seattle.
Either way, let's start holding them accountable. Let's take away their immunity so we can have fare and just rulings again.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Who then judges these new laws?
davidmcbeth
Banned
Just get a spinning wheel .... innocent or guilty are options ... spin it and guilty, the guy's guilty; spin it and not guilty, then the accuser is guilty of the crime.
I did not say it was a perfect solution..
And how would this be different from the present situation? [/grammar Santa
]The problem is that judges without immunity are prone to more manipulation and mischief than are judges with immunity.
What we seem to need is a change of mindset in the higher (appellate) courts. There is a great reluctance to call out a judge and say s/he was flat-out wrong, which is why we have a systenm that considers the severity of wrongness as opposed to wrongness per se.
[preaching to the choir]And yet if we do something just a teeny-tiny bit wrong8 we are just as guilty as if we had trampled the law on prime-time TV.[/preaching to the choir].
stay safe.
* - such as using the USPS-approved abbreviation instead of writing out the name of the locality/county/state.
OC for ME
Regular Member
Judge Roy Bean.
wittmeba
Regular Member
What we need is consistency in our entire system and remove the "attitude - bad day" factor.
countryclubjoe
Regular Member
We need to simply get back to the Constitution and Common Law jurisprudence.
CCJ
CCJ
color of law
Accomplished Advocate
The story goes back in the thirties in Vevay, Indiana there were two corrupt judges. One Sunday morning when the locals were headed to town for church, passing in front of the court house where the two corrupt judges hanging from the old oak tree. Both judges had a feed bag over their head and their hands tied behind their back.
The locals all agreed that it was clear cases of suicide.
P/S I think that is the definition of common law.
The locals all agreed that it was clear cases of suicide.
P/S I think that is the definition of common law.
Last edited:
davidmcbeth
Banned
Don't blame me ... I voted for the other guy ...
davidmcbeth
Banned
Look ! Judges censored ... wow, we do this and we get fired, right?
https://news.yahoo.com/two-california-judges-censured-sex-chambers-234659770.html
Both Woodward and Steiner were allowed to remain on the bench despite the censure. In both cases, the commission cited their acknowledgement of wrongdoing and expressions of remorse.
See? The system works.
https://news.yahoo.com/two-california-judges-censured-sex-chambers-234659770.html
Both Woodward and Steiner were allowed to remain on the bench despite the censure. In both cases, the commission cited their acknowledgement of wrongdoing and expressions of remorse.
See? The system works.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
That's the thinking, anyway.
Our society abounds with mechanisms by which those in positions of extraordinary responsibility are isolated from the consequences of their decisions. Judicial immunity is one of these mechanisms, as the governing structure of a modern corporation.
I have yet to see any of these mechanisms which function as claimed.
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
I re-read it and went over my notes again.
In short, if a judge makes a ruling that has to do with the law, the judge MUST state the law being used to make the ruling and how they are applying the law with a clear explanation as to how their ruling is consistent with the law.
How would this be a bad thing?
It would really help our open carry cases. If a judge could not cite the law that they are using for their ruling then they can be help civilly and criminally liable for their ruling(s).
They would not be allowed to give out convoluted rulings like in the Spencer case. They contradicted themselves so much in that case that it was sickening.
Or my friend's tax case, he wanted the law shown that required that his commission have any sort of tax withholding from it. The judges first admitted that he was a 1099 contractor and then called him an employee and thus subject to withholding without ever once citing the law that they were getting this BS from.
Or my trespassing case where the judges made up laws and claimed that there are words there that cannot be seen but must be there because they said so.
Grim_Nights Obstruction case where the officers admitted that he was innocent but the judge (pro-tem) told the jury he was guilty despite the law and the officers testimonies showing otherwise.
This would hold the judges to the laws (the constitution first) as written.
Explain how this would be a bad thing.
In short, if a judge makes a ruling that has to do with the law, the judge MUST state the law being used to make the ruling and how they are applying the law with a clear explanation as to how their ruling is consistent with the law.
How would this be a bad thing?
It would really help our open carry cases. If a judge could not cite the law that they are using for their ruling then they can be help civilly and criminally liable for their ruling(s).
They would not be allowed to give out convoluted rulings like in the Spencer case. They contradicted themselves so much in that case that it was sickening.
Or my friend's tax case, he wanted the law shown that required that his commission have any sort of tax withholding from it. The judges first admitted that he was a 1099 contractor and then called him an employee and thus subject to withholding without ever once citing the law that they were getting this BS from.
Or my trespassing case where the judges made up laws and claimed that there are words there that cannot be seen but must be there because they said so.
Grim_Nights Obstruction case where the officers admitted that he was innocent but the judge (pro-tem) told the jury he was guilty despite the law and the officers testimonies showing otherwise.
This would hold the judges to the laws (the constitution first) as written.
Explain how this would be a bad thing.
OC for ME
Regular Member
Judges should only talk when spoken to. Also, judges should only play referee for the defense and prosecution.
The desired judges instructions to a jury.
Judge: Jury, ya heard all there is to hear from the two sharks. Go with that cop and decide. Tell the cop when you have come to a decision.
The desired judges instructions to a jury.
Judge: Jury, ya heard all there is to hear from the two sharks. Go with that cop and decide. Tell the cop when you have come to a decision.
OC for ME
Regular Member
Or, a good judge would simply say, cuz he has immunity.
"So, cop Jones, you arrested this guy cuz he was packing heat."
"Yessiree judge."
"OK, is this guy done broke any other laws other than packing heat?"
"Nope."
"OK, thanks, case dismissed."
But, we know that ain't gunna happen.
davidmcbeth
Banned
Most judges do this with their memorandum of decision. They are not required to ..
Some issue out a decision and include a statement that a memo is forthcoming (yeah, in about 6 months ~ where the aggrieved party has to wait for before filing an appeal and has to ask for an extension of time).
Some issue out the decision and memo together.
Some just issue out a decision w/o a memo (sometimes no memo is needed)
One can motion for articulation if planning an appeal, noting that its for an appeal may push the judge into writing one.
I never had an issue where a memo or lack of one stopped me from filing an appeal to an appellate court.
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
It should not be optional for judges to include the explanation as to how their ruling was based on the law.
davidmcbeth
Banned
Why?
Many times I have seen reviewing courts rule that the reason why the lower court reached its decision was based on bad application of the law and still affirm the lower court's ruling based upon their view of the law that leads to the same conclusion.
It would be clear in a guilty decision that the lower court found that all of the required elements of the crime were met and evidence supports a conviction. Aside from due process issues, this is going to be the mountain one must climb to overturn the lower court; one would not need a memo for that.