Sunday, October 1, 2017

Abolishing probate: Ignorance of the law and Administrative “Star Chamber” Tribunals

by Marti Oakley

“2. any tribunal, committee, or the like, which proceeds by arbitrary or unfair methods.

Is this not the definition of today’s administrative tribunals called “probate”?

They also have unlimited power to collude with attorneys, guardians, agencies and other interested parties to make sure the hearing limits any relevant objections, evidence or statements that might adversely affect the outcome of what has been agreed to behind the scenes.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It is a maxim of law, that you cannot claim ignorance of the law as any form of defense against the hundreds of thousands of laws, regulations, codes, statutes, rules and other contrivances created not to just confuse the average person, but to leave them utterly speechless at the mountains of many times nonsensical, contorted, twisted and perverted and torturous records of what is supposed to comprise our government and justice system and keep order. The lunatics are in fact, running the asylum.

The Fallacy of Judicial Immunity
Remember when they were grilling Samuel Alito prior to his confirmation for SCOTUS? I watched those hearings as he was asked repeatedly; “Will you uphold stare decisis”? Of course I had to find out why that was so important to the panel. Simply put, it means issues already settled whether they were Constitutional or not.

Stare decisis is Latin for “to stand by things decided.” In short, it is the doctrine of precedent.

Courts cite to stare decisis when an issue has been previously brought to the court and a ruling already issued. According to the Supreme Court, stare decisis\“promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.” In practice, the Supreme Court will usually defer to its previous decisions even if the soundness of the decision is in doubt. (emphasis, mine) Read more HERE:

According to the court? Really? Well, according to me , a non-lawyer, on its face this is null and void as each case is to be decided on its own merits. Instead of adhering to actual law, they revert to previous cases that many times are clear violations of law in the court’s rulings and decisions. They call it “precedence”. I call it malfeasance for starters.

Malfeasance defined: Intentional conduct that is wrongful or unlawful, especially by officials or public employees. Malfeasance is at a higher level of wrongdoing than nonfeasance (failure to act where there was a duty to act) or misfeasance (conduct that is lawful but inappropriate). https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/malfeasance

Under 42 USC 1983: State officers may be held personally liable for damages under 1983 based upon actions taken in their official capacities. Pp. 3-10.

; officials and judges are deemed to know the law and sworn to uphold the law; officials and judges cannot claim to act in good faith in willful deprivation of law, they certainly cannot plead ignorance of the law, even the Citizen cannot plead ignorance of the law, the courts have ruled there is no such thing as ignorance of the law, it is ludicrous for learned officials and judges to plead ignorance of the law therefore there is no immunity, judicial or otherwise, in matters of rights secured by the Constitution for the United States of America. https://www.casebriefs.com

See: Title 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. “When lawsuits are brought against federal officials, they must be brought against them in their “individual” capacity not their official capacity. When federal officials perpetrate constitutional torts, they do so ultra vires (beyond the powers) and lose the shield of immunity.

But what about these Administrative Executive Appointees and elected Administrative judges?

An administrative law “judge” is not a judge of law, but rather a hearing examiner who sits in place of an actual judge of the law. These individuals are not constrained by the constitutions, neither state or federal, and you have no “rights” of any kind in these tribunals.

An independent hearing examiner who presides at an administrative hearing. An ALJ has the power to administer oaths, receive evidence, take testimony, and make initial findings of fact or law. An ALJ’s findings are subject to review and modification by agency heads. Also termed hearing examiner; hearing officer; and trial examiner.

Notice the words “has the power”.

Administrative tribunals are modeled on the old English Star Chambers Courts: So what is a Star Chamber Court?1. a former court of inquisitorial and criminal jurisdiction in England that sat without a jury and that became noted for its arbitrary methods and severe punishments, abolished 1641.

2. any tribunal, committee, or the like, which proceeds by arbitrary or unfair methods.
Is this not the definition of today’s administrative tribunals called “probate”?
They also have unlimited power to collude with attorneys, guardians, agencies and other interested parties to make sure the hearing limits any relevant objections, evidence or statements that might adversely affect the outcome of what has been agreed to behind the scenes.