THE JUDICIAL REVIEW OF CASE # 01-LM-16

Evidence is further presented, that the true guilt of this corruption is the current association of Athe people with their court system/ and the need to change this behavior as well.

Subsequent to this complaint is a direct challenge to the CONSTITUTIONAL legality of Athe immunity of a judge, caught in the act of BAD BEHAVIOR!

The name of the judge presiding over this case is left out, in this writing, to preserve any aspect of libel & defamation of character as may come up to the critical examination of the 1^st amendment. YOU decide, if the name is relevant to your writing and your words/ the Atrial@ occurred in the circuit court for the fifth judicial circuit of Illinois, Vermilion County, Danville IL whose address is: Fifth judicial circuit vermilion county 7 N. Vermilion Danville IL 61832. Pursuant to the trespass, of personal bias into the realm of law, the following is presented for the purpose of CRITICAL EXAMINATION of a treasonous act.

There is nothing overly dramatic in the above statement as these words identify a legal system completely OUT OF CONTROL, and a nation damaged or being damaged or which will be damaged without doubt because of it! The issue is not about money by the simple descriptions of purpose/ The reality IS clearly and completely about the power that has replaced justice, and the arrogance and pride which controls the legal system in this nation in its place. The consequence of a failure to confront the reality of despotism, subversion, and the threat ultimately of peaceful existence and honest interactions among all members of society will become clear. It is a duty to describe these things in such detail as is necessary to produce an honest evaluation of the social deprivation and the subsequent devastation as would and is apparent in the fringe of society already. Therefore the use of poignant phrase and merciless image is merely the reality of confronting what has become an Aenemy, rather than a friend@. The Judicial system and its judges of the United States of America! Did I ask for this NO, instead repeated enumeration of the Constitution and its documents is evident throughout each trial, each piece of evidence supported, and every transgression recorded by the judges who have NO HONEST RELATIONSHIP to the definition of justice/ INSTEAD tyranny and traitor are indeed the only words which can come to mind. BUT DO REMEMBER, no one is perfect, the effect of the writing is to emphasize a reality in need of examination by the public and therefore the people involved should be considered accordingly.

Regarding the case above, this judge Blatantly and without cause, dismissed a case of property in excess of $46,000.00/ dismissed clear and certain Adamages done@ as if worthless trash/ dismissed the constitution as if it were his own personal toy.

1. This case begins in the need to present a clear written transcript of my testimony in the matter and present it to the court/ as there was a very defined threat of Athe use of a gun@ in an attempt to get me to stop, in an effort to collect what was owed to me. Preparation therefore required a distinct evidence against the possibility of violence. My Areligion@ demands warnings to be given, not only a right but a guarantee, to assure myself that whatever happens, I have no responsibility for it/ he was warned! The testimony was clear & plain and the pleadings were more than adequate.
2. The judge alleges the plaintiff did not appear for a motion trial on the 13^th day of march and consequently dismisses the case for that cause. The plaintiff DID appear in the filings dated Feb 28, 01! A distinct and direct response to the motion to strike or dismiss filed on Feb 14, 01. The plaintiffs words were there even if the plaintiff had other needs to attend to, than a motion CLEARLY WITHOUT MERIT!
3. The plaintiff replies in this judicial review as follows:
4. Nothing could be farther from the truth, as the evidence shows, that the plaintiff did in fact appear for a motion trial/ a trial without testimony/ a trial simply based upon legal merit wherein the judge is ALLOWED only to determine if a law could possibly have been broken, and if the advocacy of both sides is sufficiently represented.
5. The filing of Feb 28 by the plaintiff provides and defends the plaintiffs position within the legal requirements of civil procedure as was contested in the motion to strike both 2-603 and 5/2-604. These demand clear and concise statements and the pleadings presented are sufficient/ IS THIS A TRIAL/ NO it is a motion hearing and the legal right to be absent in body is evident. The REALITY of my presence, by the words of my statement (the filing) did represent everything necessary to be said! The legal definitions presented in testimony filed before the motion trial PROVE my right to trial beyond question!
6. The judge rules that the written word has no place in a court room of law, for a motion hearing/ he rules the definitions of justice have nothing to do with his courtroom/ he rules Aif the written word has no place in court/ then the court is MUTE, because ALL LAW IS WRITTEN. Was there to be cross-examination? NO! Was there ANY question left unsaid or unanswered important to this motion trial? NO! IF, the judge had found fault with the pleadings filed Feb 28, he could have ruled upon that. HE found no complaint! Instead arrogance explains his purpose in law to be, the eradication of justice, by the toys of law, a lawyers game without the benefit of constitutional jurisdiction. The Constitution is VERY clear the purpose of the court is simple: its words are, AY.in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of libertyY.@
7. There is no allowance for any rule of civil procedure, to compromise justice, there is no basis for any rule of procedure to release any alien or citizen from the responsibility of their actions, the defense of our social business system depends upon a fair and legitimate response to the people who would destroy it, & the question of liberty means AIT IS your responsibility to defend each citizen (including me) from criminal actions@. My testimony is filed within the court, PROVE this is an untrue charge! If you cannot, then the judge provides collusion with the aggressor, and finds himself charged with the same action. Does he not make it possible/ HE is indeed a conspirator.
8. The assumption of legal responsibility on the part of the plaintiff to appear for a motion trial in physical form, renders a belief by the court that only a lawyer, can defend a citizen/ therefore the citizen has no place within the courtroom. The court is reminded, the courtroom belongs to the citizen, NOT the judge. Do I have a legal degree? NO! Do I deserve JUSTICE? The constitution says I DO, THEREFORE the minimum RESPONSIBILITY of the court is to insure that tyranny of rules does not interfere with justice. I am not asking the court Ato hold my hand/ I am saying to the court DO YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY@! And protect my right to participate in the reality of democracy, and do not mock each and every citizen. This dismissal IS a betrayal/ and it is the court, the judge, and the tyranny of a secret society (only the lawyer is allowed/ why do you suppose Latin is and has been used: it is ONLY because a foreign language locks the citizen out/ therefore he/ she must pay). These things are traitorous acts, not because of this case, but rather because it is a tyranny to sell the opportunity for justice. IF justice is for sell, then it is not justice at all/ It is protection, in the same vein as a Mafia organization would sell/ pay me or you will be hurt (while I watch and do nothing). SHOW ME, the difference? This is a demand to the court.
9. This action begins as a breech of contract. This action must now litigate an additional breech of contract, from the government. OUR Contract with this government is, the very specific nature of protection from all who attack us, without cause. The judicial system has indeed attacked me on three separate occasions. Each one was a very simple case/ each one provides evidence and testimony that justice does not exist. It is not Amy words@ which accomplish this/ instead the court clearly describes its values and its purpose, and its methods, and they are not constitutional.
10. This motion trial was used to displace the bill of rights section 1: That all men Y. Have certain inherent rights of which, when they enter into a state of society, they CANNOT, by any compact (such as rules of procedure), deprive or divestY. Section 2 That Y.magistrates are at all time amenable to themY. (he accountability for actions which deliberately destroy constitutional rights cannot be dismissed for Alight or transient causes@). The question to the court: is this dismissal a rule (did not the court owe me the law which says I must attend in physical form), is a rule more important to the court than a citizen? Clearly the court says I AM NOT equal to their rule/ their rule is of more importance than I / their rule is of more importance than society/ their rule is a power! The constitution provides for justice not power.
11. The written words which DID represent me, ARE the evidence of my existence before the court! The laws of libel/ the laws of contract/ the laws themselves are all based upon the written word. Therefore the court SLANDERS itself, when it says the written word has no presence within the court/ it is simply a LIE!
12. Section 3, of the bill of rights; that government is or ought to be instituted for the common benefit, protection & security of the nation or communityY. Look within the filing of this case and PROVE by the evidence, that the court and its judge are in compliance with this COMMAND. Does the bill of rights not belong in the courtroom? Perhaps the Declaration of Independence is a bore to the court (heard it all before)? Or maybe the preamble to the Constitution has no meaning to the court (merely a pacifier for the people)? Clearly the court believes they are not bound to anything the constitutional documents assert.
13. Otherwise the court will accept the demand to clarify, why the pleadings submitted by the plaintiff are UNCLEAR and to what purpose of common benefit, protection or security to the nation or community YOU the court have secured for the people through this dismissal? SHOW US ALL!
14. After all; the bill of rights section 15: that no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles. YOU ARE THE COURT/ the people who know and Asupport the law and the constitution@ are you not?
15. SHOW US the fundamental principles you say, give you the right, as you would say to me/ prove by the preponderance of the evidence that your actions are not traitorous. That you have not, by the power of your position simply become vulgar and useless.
16. From the constitution itself, amendment 4 says: AThe right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable Y.seizure, shall not be violatedY.@ I come to this government, a citizen protected by the constitution saying Athis person, has attacked me, failed to respect our legal agreement, & damaged my life and the life of my nephew@. And you the court say to me/ the written word, which could convict me, if I made libelous statements about you, are ineffective and unworthy of a courtroom/ CASE DISMISSED.
17. By what measure have you protected me, clearly you protected me from justice/ what nowY.coming to throw me in jail, Afor spitting on your shoe@?
18. The security applied to law by the constitution above, is not limited/ it applies very distinctly to a case of contract fraud/ a reality of threat, substantiated by supporting evidence/ an embezzlement of due process through blanket procedural rules.
19. Amendment 9; The enumeration in the constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people!

This applies very distinctly to the dismissal of the case 01-LM-16, wherein the judge uses a rule of procedure to dismiss a legal right not only of property, but of true social significance. The reason Athe judge rules the courtroom/ a king in his own mind, presiding over his/her kingdom@! It is a right of the court to maintain order & dignity. The court refuses order (the social distinction, of justice), The court refuses dignity (the social reality of Amy life has value@) and instead uses an assumption of Aetiquette@ as the means to commit what is a traitorous act. The evidence is The constitutional decree requiring justice is embattled by the court/ the court is its attacker, and terrorist!

20. By its definition treason is not a foundation of the government/ therefore even the hint of treason, confronts the institution of government and asks; what do you intend to do about this?
21. I come to the court 3 times now, as a citizen depending upon the foundations of the law (there is no law, outside of these foundations). The law is not a legal or lawyer Atoy@, therefore trust that justice as a nation dependent upon the constitution applies the question to you: IS this the definition of appropriate judicial behavior?
22. I am assaulted by the alliance of a judge, in this case, with the actions describing criminal and civil complaints, these complaints are clearly and deliberately set before the judge because of a implied threat of violence/ there is property taken from me by legislative rules of criminal distinction/ there is clear contractual breech of contract & it is not even contested by the defendants lawyer in the amount of $46,000.00. And still the judge Alooks up his ass@ and registers dismissal even though my words and my testimony appear before him.
23. I asked for a transcript of the preceding/ the court says, quote $46,000.00 dollars is too insignificant to provide a $20 dollar tape recorder to monitor what transpires! Perhaps it interferes too much with bribery?
24. The collusion of a defendant and judge, through his lawyer/ the collusion of a judge with a lawyer for personal gain could at least be done outside the courtroom. Close the doors and the law becomes a tool, not an honor.
25. The honor of those who stood with me in the courtroom that day (Irregardless of the lack of my physical presence, and apart from the words I sent to represent me) : They were the men & women & children who sacrificed their lives, their bodies, or simply their time for the words I have depended upon/ Constitution, bill or rights, & Declaration.
26. There will be those who say Athis is only for dramatic effect, it is irrelevant@! I say; the reality of war, loss, or death/ the demand for readiness/ IS NEVER Airrelevant!
27. To the court itself; IF you fail to see this relationship, IF you fail to accept the written words do represent not only me, but those who gave them to me, TO USE! Then you yourselves are MUTE! Because you have no law & no position without them.
28. WE the people, says it all, regarding the authority of the government. We the people, have selected, the written words which define the authority of those who are our Aemployees@. Remember this, it is NOT your courtroom, it is OURS! It is not your law, it is our right of JUSTICE! And Reality states; NO Law, exists that is greater than its foundation.
29. To Abastardize@ the process of democracy,, IS A TREASON. Because we do depend upon justice for freedom, for liberty, and for peace. When it fails, there is war, because hatred grows. The evidence is already evident in many fringe groups, and when the reality of fake money brings a depression those groups will swell.
30. The deliberate actions, the responsibility to accept the testimony and pleadings given, the reality of no appropriate due process or no acceptable jurisprudence all exist as the evidence to identify, a traitorous action has occurred. Simply, the most appropriate illustration: Alike a black man in centuries past, I have been lynched by the court, for no more than the color of my words@.

Prejudice is a treason, and the consequence of its appearance within a courtroom demand removal of that judge & punishment as if the court intended to make an example of Aany other person@ without regard to the damage done to their lives.

Judicial review is also bound by the pleadings & testimony given:

31. Their is described in clear & certain detail exactly what is disputed as a monetary cause/ the breach of contract. This is not a disputed action, in the motion to strike, filed 02/14/01. A distinct constitutional obligation under the amendment 7.
32. The question raised in pleading 1; AIf more than one cause of action is alleged, it must be a separate count@.
33. The plaintiff responded, and provided pleadings to clarify, & justify the question raised 02/28/01 filed. NO response was given in reply to me. Of the issues of contractual obligation, NONE were contested, not in the motion, not at all. The pleadings also contain the clear & deliberate count, establishing the defendant held $3200.00 of the original contract, this is MY MONEY! NO possibility exists to say the contract was unfinished on my part, this is money left, held in trust I EXPECTED by the bank, to allow me to contest the money allowed in the contract/ I could not collect without signing a full waiver/ therefore it had to stay.
34. The court IN COLLUSION with the defendant, by the apparent law which the legislature provides/ provides the Agun@, for the defendant to rob me of this money/ the legislature aids and abets this thievery. Should I be, annoyed?
35. Defendants motion, also suggests Airrelevant and immaterial issues raised@, yet neither his lawyer nor the judge are witness to the reality of the defendants conduct, and NO trial has existed to support any statement against my own.
36. The matter of Airrelevant@ has already been accounted for/ each and every Airrelevant issue@ has already been raised and is now in front of the press and the legislature and the court! The lawyer proves wrong, and uneducated within the confines of this trial.
37. The matter of Aimmaterial@ has yet to be determined, according to the actions which Selimi does take in this matter/ CAUSE has been given me to believe violence is a possibility. Therefore, the relationship of my life, Ato my religion@ examines the matter; and demands the warnings given. Do YOU know what he will do? Since you DO, by the evidence of this dismissal, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED of the appropriate lawsuit, of many millions of dollars, shall occur if violence or cruelty is used against me. YOUR resolution, that I am nothing, That Selimi is trustworthy cements your obligation to be correct.
38. Do you accept the judges claim is prejudiced, biased, and without merit? If so then the lawsuit is refused by me.
39. Pleading 2; of the motion to strike, asks for specific details, as would appear at trial/ these are provided as described in 735 ILCS 5/2-604 purpose, section #1. Specifically Acomplaints are to be liberally construed with an eye toward doing justice between parties@. The judge fails the basic premise of law: that JUSTICE IS the intent of law.
40. The actions of a judge, who deliberately rules against justice/ stating but not upholding the rule by defining what portion of the law, the rule exists within. Deliberately and with intent has become a malicious thief. As was written in the Declaration of Independence A he has made us dependent on his will alone@. By what method is the law supported, if I have only his word on the matter. It is unsupported testimony!
41. THE JOB, as an employee of the people, is: Aa quotation by John R. Schmidhauser, The judiciary serves as a neutral arbitrator of relations between equals before the law. It assumes the responsibilityYY..@
42. The court is also reminded of supreme court rule 10, section A (4) Aa judge should accord to every person who is legally interested in a proceeding, or his lawyer, full right to be heard according to the law@ The question involved in this case: IS the law greater than a rule of procedure? The law is the agreement between the people of what is fair and just/ a rule of procedure is a command of the judge. The PEOPLE ARE GREATER, than a judges command. A judge who does not understand this should be DISBARRED!
43. The court is reminded according to judicial conduct & ethics rule 2.04 toward litigants AYthat tyranny is nothing more than ill-used power.@ And AYa judge, must lean over backward and err on the side of making sure that he does not intimidate the parties from pursuing legitimate claims..@
44. This judge leaned over and all that came out was CONTEMPT! The words of my testimony clearly & distinctly and with NO room for error define a legal RESPONSIBILITY, a requirement to intervene by the court. The words & the motion I presented clearly indicate tax evasion, is all but a certainty/a further legal responsibility of the court. The Airrelevant@ words & warnings filed have served to establish a witness against this judge/ that failure to recognize this is an important matter would have consequences!
45. The evidence presented demands NO possibility exists, to legally allow a failure of the court to intervene. Show me the frivolous nature of my complaint/ but remember a freedom of RELIGION is not a matter for the court to decide/ it is a guarantee of the court.
46. The Aincoherent@ nature of my complaint, which never existed/ resides in my preference NOT to examine Selimi to closely and allow room to simply get out! His arrogance now makes this impossible.
47. The filing of 02-28-01 sufficiently describes the purpose of the pleading and leaves no room for doubt/ the judge SHOWS; a arrogant bias, and a level of corruption Alike a tainted gambler/ the same as Selimi@.
48. He has gambled that the power of a Aclosed courtroom@ was sufficient to reduce my plea, to a file for those considered Aworthless people@. He gambled NO consequence could exist from me, a non-lawyer. He gambled that the immunity judges claim for themselves (which does not exist in any form for bad behavior, in the constitution) would simply protect him against any accusation of illegal conduct. HE LOSES!
49. The Airrelevant@ words, that clearly depict a congress, senate, and governor in collusion against the common citizen by orchestrating Abank fraud, and legalized theft@ now comes to the political arena, as a legal question; WHY did you do this?
50. The State of Illinois DID commit a robbery against me/ By allowing a ruling to strip me of the $3200.00 (the remainder of the contract in its original amount). I completed the work, and had to leave money in Athe security of the bank@. To avoid signing a final waiver (that I had collected all the money owed to me). The situation of a surprise attack, at the end of the job/ the necessity of continuing on, made it impossible to approach the court at an earlier time/ I HAD NO WARNING, that the state would simply allow the bank to take MY MONEY/ MY PROPERTY/ MY POSSESSIONS, and give it to my thief. DEFEND yourselves!
51. There is no dispute/ can be no dispute that the money was earned. There is no dispute it was an agreed upon amount specific to the contract without argument. The State of Illinois BURGLARIZED my right through their court/ my property (money undisputed).
52. The Constitution amendment 7 states AIn suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.@
53. The rules of common law; may be defined simply as JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY are the rules which matter.
54. The reality of this is a treason, a purposeful abuse & usurpation of our most basic guaranteed rights/ a violation of simple RESPECT between the government & the citizen: the very thing rebellions & revenge are born from. This writing examines the reason and finds a tyrant. It is the job of the court, it is your oath, it is your responsibility TO DO THE OPPOSITE, ?
55. The Aimmaterial@ warnings, as presented to Selimi for his benefit are yet to be shown as needed, by the actions of Selimi not yet known.
56. Either way, what is Amy religion@ requires of me that I must give them when possible! Any assumption by the court in accepting the assertion of anything less, IS a destruction of the first amendment & my absolute right, to proceed accordingly.
57. The court has proven a pitiful example of absolute failure. The state of Illinois, if it choose to discard these Unconstitutional acts of depotism. Would then be a Arogue@ state, precipitating a clear & certain destruction of the entire American belief that we DO live under the guarantee & by the rule of right & by the honesty of a Constitutional decree THAT WE ARE EQUALS IN LIFE AND LAW!
58. Warnings were given in the papers filed to the judge. Did you not receive a clear & distinct warning: described as 3 federal appeals judges who gamble their dignity, and commit perjury & its consequence Aa disgrace, & a dishonor@ to the nation itself.
59. Reality states that although their gamble was allowed/ the facts of this case NOW bring their subversion of the integrity of the justice system to the forefront, to ask the question/ should these be considered Atraitors@ because they used the power of their position against the will of the people? If so, are they not worthy of being Athe example@ for the rest/ OR is such actions reserved ONLY for the poor & powerless?
60. This is NOT your government/ THIS IS OUR NATION.
61. I am here for the money owed to me & now the money which represents a power provided by me to Selimi (as money) to abuse and use even more people. I am not anyone=s hero, I am not your villain, I am not your leader, and I am not going to help you further in this matter BECAUSE it is a matter of the will of the people/ NOT my will or my distaste/ if you cannot find a way to fix these problems, the result as it increases is also yours. I have done my part/ now its your turn for yourselves.
62. What does the court owe the citizen? It is apparent they Abelieve, they owe me nothing@. Is that not what they will give you as well? Where is the press/ the protectors of the constitution and American way of life? The answer is held back, by the rich and powerful/ its my business, its my way, or your fired!

 

Here begins the response Athis is too much@ JUSTICE demands a fair attitude as well, as a right! And so it does/ let us review: Of the 12 judges or so that have established decisions legally destroying protected constitutional rights/ one was fair, respectful, honorable, or honest (he did me no good/ but I have no complaint with him) HOWEVER I brought a reporter to that trial, insufficient evidence exists to support the descriptions above, had the reporter not been there. I have complained to the judicial board of review, and they said: Do it yourself, we have no authority, no legal means of any kind to intervene in any case. I complained to the court of appeal and supreme courts of the state and nation and it was plainly indicated to me Aa constitutional defense is WORTHLESS@. I complained to the Judicial oversight committee of the National government and received NOTHING.

What was I asking: I complained of an initiating trial so filled with BIAS & contempt, that when the judge was caught by his own actions in the recorded transcript/ that transcript disappeared from the record. The second initiating case involved a trip to the emergency room of a hospital, there I was treated with such a pitiful prejudice, told to GET OUT by the doctor who never came within 5 feet of me, injected with drugs when I said NO, and was then suddenly admitted to the hospital because they decided the drugs were given in error, and simply abandoned by the doctor. FOR THIS the bill was thousands of dollars/ I paid half and said NO MORE/ the second trial begins!

This third trial represents an outright theft, and a VERY distinct disrespect. The court adds an assault, by aiding and abetting this ass. The court becomes a conspirator to do harm against me, WHY? My suggestion would be, there is a rebellion in the courtroom by the judges/ that to protect each other is preferable to justice! PERHAPS, that the Constitution, Declaration, & Bill or Rights ARE NOTING, so long as the legal toys of subversion, denial, & silence can be use to control their grasp upon power.

What is power: it is the demand & the tyranny to control someone else=s life. This is the opposite of all Constitutional documents/ This is an oppression, not an equality/ this could be a treasonous act.

63. The 14^th amendment states AYno state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United StatesY.@ It is the use of rules of privilege (lawyers are taught/ not citizens), and the reality of BILLIONS of words of law simply become an escape from simple justice. All these words have altered the concept of HONESTY into a creation of defense by harassment and the inevitable Amafia-like hypocrite@. The judge tends to fall victim to this/ therefore the blame is shared by the lawmakers of the government, in this next association of shared responsibility: Aare these laws & rules which clearly have destroyed fundamental rights belonging to me, not an abridgment of rights & privileges/ Do these not band together for their own protection/ do they not us the words of the law/ rules, RATHER than protect it?
64. The Bill of Rights section 4 states no man or set of men are entitled to exclusive benefits or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, for their action..@
65. These judges in the various cases have selected an immunity for their action; AWHO else is immune? These judges claim a job for life/ who else is entitled to a job for life? Particular, as it regards BAD BEHAVIORS? These judges claim, the place of their employment is their own: WHO else can seize the property of the citizens of the United States and ABUSE those same citizens and not be compelled Alegally responsible@ for their actions? Bad Behavior is bad Behavior; indicating in this case a criminal conspiracy occurs when AI won=t testify against you/ IF you won=t testify against me@ Has this not occurred in the first 2 cases/ follow the appeals. The evidence is flagrant.
66. This latest case again resides in the 14^th amendment: wherein I am denied DUE PROCESS of law (there is no sufficient cause for dismissal/ yet I am dismissed). Therefore not only do I not have EQUAL PROTECTION under the law/ I am less, by the reality of this judges decision than a man who choose to be an alien in this country. OR, Athe tyranny of lawyers banned together to protect their own lucrative extortion of the citizens of the nation@. How so? Do I not have to pay for the privilege of not being attacked in court, by the judge/ I have been attacked many times. If I must pay the average lawyer many times the average salary of the common citizen, just to purchase a say in court/ then what have I purchased?
67. The answer is: I have paid for protection from the court/ how is this different than an extortionist who says pay me, or I will hurt you/ or let you be hurt?
68. The reality is not a question of justice; instead the law has become a toll bridge & the legal license to practice the new definition of troll. Should I not complain?
69. Peace comes at a price, because any power corrupts. Corruption does mean, Awe are under attack as a nation, even if you do not see the enemy/ the weapons & damage already done do exist as this partial list of evidence presented, testifies.
70. Change and supervision is always necessary to preserve & renew the true intent & purpose of such realities as the Constitution.
71. Judges need term limits/ public review of their decisions or constant supervision through multimedia (broadcast the trial/ put senior citizens in charge of supervision, something)/ and judges as well as political officials DO need limits upon age & time served. This is a political statement because it is a necessary political statement.
72. A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES under the first amendment as allowed by the Constitution is the proper political tool for any such process/ or any such grievance. Remembering America is OUR society WE THE PEOPLE is our right/ the legal system therefore comes under our supervision as a nation by vote as well, for this reason. THEREFORE CHOOSE?
73. For clarity, my absence from the motion trial was selected (I could have gone), the reason for my decision was a simple one: I have been in court before and know the judge would not appreciate the warnings or religious matters. Therefore reality states from experience/ the judge would find a way to excuse me if he could. IF this were his plan, had I gone, it would be said to me Ahe had his chance@. IN REALITY this was not a trial/ I presented my words/ & I Know no reasonable or legal excuse exists for dismissal. Therefore this trial for the judge, simply gave him the option to be biased. And he chose it without my help/ I simply did not go because I did not believe I had to.
74. The process of appeals demands AI PRAY to them for relief! I refuse, therefore we are not equal, they believe they are more. I AM EQUAL, only the law expresses a difference/ and they do not own the law or their position legally. We own the law, We did not give it away. Therefore any other comprehension of the law gives rise to; AIt must be stolen, if they possess it/ possession becomes the evidence to convict.
75. Possession means to remove from the rest, the opportunity to share or to control or to use according to your own purposes. YOU decide this question.
76. As for me I DID NOT do or intend ANYTHING, but to bring a legitimate cause before the court! I DID NOT ever tempt any judge, I asked only questions, and gave only constitutional answers. They obstructed and made a mockery of justice in my cases & therefore in my mind a mockery of the entire system/ and we need to change this.
77. There are NO calls for rebellion or revolt or even to be sad or confused or other/ THESE words present a reason to examine the evidence, ask others, and participate in a clear & simple desire to RENEW & therefore REVIEW, the HONOR & DIGNITY of what true law is suppose to be for this nation. The Constitution law is the foundation upon which UNITY & STRENGTH are formed/ the words which formed the nation/ the words which generations have fought to protect. THESE WORDS ARE: WITH LIBERTY & JUSTICE FOR ALL. Am I less?
78. I am not your leader, not a hero or villain, I DO NOT want political office, don=t want money not my own, and I am not fodder for the gossip or talk shows (although the words may be used there).

79. To dissolve the problem with drugs SIMPLY REAPPLY the incentive: if you take confiscated drugs & let the police give them to registered drug addicts IN SMALL ONE-DAY doses/ then these addicts do not have to buy or steal. THE TRUE PURPOSE, of the plan is, Awhen the drugs are gone/ the addict WILL turn in the dealer so that the police will have more FREE drugs, to give away@. NO purchase shall ever be made by the police, when the drugs are gone they are gone until the next dealer is turned in/ UNTIL there are no dealers left/ Because there is NO MORE MONEY to be made. The legal attitude will be the Aconfiscated materials are used to fight an epidemic@/ rather like Marshall law Anot intrinsically fair, but necessary@ THATS REALITY!
80. If you want money & power removed from the political system, SIMPLY demand every media ad/ every promotional spotlight of ANY kind MUST INCLUDE the opposing candidate and his/ her view, in that same ad or promotion. An opposing candidate is someone who collected no less than 7 percent of the primary votes. In this way all money spent represents both sides of an issue (at least as the candidates see it). Therefore the power is minimized, unless collusion to do the public harm exists/ because BOTH SIDES are represented at the same basic time. You already do this on presidential speeches/ the opposing side gets an opportunity to respond immediately/ and that levels the possibility of undue influence. The money & power lose their influence/ the days of Aa sale of politics@ is reduced, and the public and government benefit. The legal assertion, IS TO CREATE A MORE PERFECT UNION, and reality says this cannot be done unless all reasonable discussion has EQUAL opportunity!

3. School defenses; the reality of vulnerability, has become apparent/ and it appears an epidemic of violence is possible. The clear & unfortunate definition of the typical student criminal is very simple: the life has been reduced to AME, ME, ME, ME, ETC. When the MIND, becomes convinced, life has been taken from me, Athey have made me, a walking dead person@/ then and only then the excuses are formed to surrender their own lives to prove SIMPLY; AI AM dying, and no one cares/ so then you too can die@. The critical example of a mind out of control, relies on 3 separate realities: The constant expressions of AIY..am, IY..need, IY.. want, IY..am very sad, IYYam wounded (and no one cares), IYYhate, & IY.. WANT POWER! The second: AI have NO ONE (except maybe a person as miserable as me, or a person easily influenced by me/ a slave who I do NOT respect)@. These descriptions DO include parents who have NO true time or energy for this person, parents who do not listen INSTEAD they intend to control, & other students which play GAMES and end up stealing SELF-RESPECT. The 3^rd a future where there is NO HOPE, this last IS the most important, becoming the single BIGGEST factor in the decision: Ato surrender, a future, and discard not only your own life, but others as well.@ NO ONE would help me, is the plea. NO one could or did show ME, a reason to go on. I AM SACRIFICED. Each of these is a mental decision representing a reason to proceed with their INSANITY, it is when they combine to produce a FANTASY, that time becomes measured by the thoughts of punishments and then Athought of infamous glory/ in their mind@. It is the fantasy that removes the obstacles, and performs the act. Therefore FANTASY, is the most dangerous of all the mental collapses involved. The primary fantasies ARE created as thoughts of AI can, control this@. The most simple method of creating these Athoughts of power@, is through violent games/ the game most visible is computer driven, followed closely by visual murder as seen in TV/ movies & the simplest form of a socially acceptable violence Aas reasonable@ would be wrestling for entertainment only. WITHOUT the fantasy of a reason for violence, violence does NOT occur, the relationship of hypnotic suggestion through music also disappears. IF you confront these issues Ahuman to human@, IF you confront the fantasy by documenting the lives of those now in prison correctly, then you will lessen the occurrence. ESTABLISH a future, any reasonable way you can. Including the promise of sexual contact, IF you must. It is not a sin, to suggest sexuality is WORTH WAITING FOR. HELP THEM WITH THEIR SOCIAL SKILLS! There are a variety of ways to introduce a desire for living, USE student ideas.

The statement of merit, issued for the prior two cases represented here: I DID NOT, begin these cases. But that does not mean I didn=t use them to assert a more proper definition of fair play. Treason is a word without a statute of limitation, & examination allows the charge can be applied, in a perfect world. In this world, the judges CHOSE, because the cost was high, in their minds/ the power of the government was at stake/ therefore they lied. I too have made poor choices & if their records prove reason & compassion, then I bear no grudge/ let them go.