Last year I shared with you the viability of using the Grand Jury against government agents who act as criminals in their fanaticism to arrest, prosecute and convict the guilty as well as the innocent. Since then I have been besieged with requests for assistance and advice of similar strategies for use in both the criminal and civil arenas. The following article tells of another such strategy; even more powerful than using the Grand Jury against agents. This strategy goes after the judges themselves; not merely to recuse, but to impeach! While judges are immune from suit, they are not immune from impeachment. This is a strategy I am employing in regards to my federal cases, and already realizing direct rewards. Indeed, this is a strategy that I expect to exercise at the highest levels of judicial corruption.
With the assistance of their confederates in Washington, and rulings in their own behalf, federal judges float contentedly within the protective womb of absolute immunity --are not accountable nor liable for their actions while clad in black robes and perched atop their ivory towers. No other profession enjoys such total freedom to do as they please while answering to no one: politicians are the adopted chickens of the wolf pack, and dare not stimulate the natural instincts of such predators; the mainstream media sold out long ago, and are now but sucker fish with lips firmly attached to their hosts. With their life appointments, friends in high places and complete unaccountability, judges appear omnipotent. Not quite. Their high fortresses are assailable. Their armor, forged of arrogance and corruption, can be penetrated. Be assured, there are means by which the monster may be torn from the womb. Not long ago I was sitting in a gymnasium on an overturned trash can pondering the conundrum of an entire district court, every judge and magistrate therein, leering down upon me in all their arrogance and corruption, recalcitrant to vacate my recently invalidated (‘nonexistent’) federal convictions. From the seeds of such musing grew the realization that judges, like Achilles, are vulnerable. Following is the truth that led me to the strategy of impeaching judges.
In May 2000, the United States Supreme Court decided a case that defined Title I8 of the United States Code, Section 844(i). 18 U.S.C. �844(i) is the federal statute prohibiting the destruction of property affecting interstate commerce. The octopus that is � 844(i), the Supreme Court ruled, may only reach up from the depths in narrow instances where the property affected was itself "used in" interstate commerce. Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. --- ---, 146 L.Ed.2d 902, 909, 120, S.Ct, 1904, 1909 (2000) ("... � 844 contains the qualifying words ‘used in’ a commerce-affecting activity,"). Mere peripheral association with interstate commerce does not suffice to feed the leviathan. For example, the arson of a personal residence, while possibly violating state law, is not a federal crime under � 844(i) ("Arson, after all, is an artificial crime .. a large number of houses deserve to be burnt." H.G. Wells). And, blowing up your spouse’s automobile may not be, in itself, a federal offense. However, doing a torch job on a rental property or blowing up a taxi cab do affect interstate-commerce, therefore, in such instances you will find yourself entangled within the tentacles of federal prosecution. The JONES holding invalidated my two 1988 �844(i) convictions, because the property affected of those charged offenses were not "used in" interstate commerce. The Supreme Court’s holding established that the federal government never had the requisite subject matter jurisdiction to prosecute what were, if anything, violations of state law. Furthermore, there are few axioms of jurisprudence as well-settled than that subject-matter jurisdiction can never be waived: cannot be conferred unto the court by agreement of the parties; is not lost upon conviction or plea; never abandoned for failure to raise the question at any earlier stage of the proceedings; nor can it be forfeited by the passage of time. A conviction by a Court lacking subject-matter jurisdiction is null and void --such a conviction is the stillbirth resulting of a rape of the Constitution.
Now, fourteen years later, does it matter that the bogus and resulting convictions are null and void? The Due Process Clause of the Constitution says it DOES matter. In fact, not long ago the Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals reiterated that "[a] conviction based on a ‘theory of culpability that did not exist’ violates due process", and further held that "[n]owhere in this country can any man be condemned for a nonexistent crime." See, Kleve v. Hill, 243 F.3d 1149, 1153-54(9th Cir.200l). From the circumstances --the facts and law described above --it would reasonably follow that the judges of the San Diego, California, district court, the Court of my � 844(i) prosecutions and convictions, would be spirited in their efforts to vindicate my rights and correct such a horrendous miscarriage of justice; to uphold the Constitution they have Sworn an oath to.
Prior to donning black robes and ascending to their ivory towers every judge swears an Oath Of Office.
"I  do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all duties incumbent upon me as  under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.
See, 28 U.S.C. � 453. Gilmore v. People Of The State Of California. 220 F.3d 987, 998 (9th Cir.2000) ("... Congress,. like this Court is bound by and swears an oath to uphold the Constitution."). Each judge and magistrate of the San Diego district court has been served with notice of his/her sworn Oath Of Office to do equal justice and uphold the Constitution, thus their duty --ministerial in nature and so plain as to be free from doubt --to vacate my erroneous convictions. So why have those judges and magistrates joined in recalcitrant refusal to entertain my proper and just petitions asking nothing more than the vacation of my invalidated convictions?
Partisan relationships, career damaging exposure and ill- agendas each play their part to explain why those judges and magistrates have chosen deliberately not to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States, and to violate their Oaths Of Office. At the core of it all is ex-Assistant U.S Attorney, Larry A. Burns, who prosecuted my � 844(i) cases, and then brazenly prostituted himself upon the State Of California so as to prosecute me for a murder that (a) I am 100% innocent of, (b) the state declined to prosecute, and, (c) he boasted to defense counsel his "moral  certain [ty ]"I did not commit but "bet" he could "win" a conviction (despite many opportunities, including in recent months, Burns has never denied his boasting). To win the federal and state convictions Burns concealed evidence, both exculpatory to me (including all evidence of the government administered polygraph test proving my innocence of the murder; again, despite years of exhaustive efforts, Burns unscrupulously refuses to disclose the test results) and material to the impeachment of government witnesses, suborned perjury, fabricated evidence and destroyed evidence. Burns' gross illegalities reeked throughout the federal and state cases, and remain to this day under scrutiny in various courts of appeal. Burns is now a magistrate judge in the San Diego district court. Notwithstanding the fact that a number of judges virulently opposed the hiring of Burns due to his well known lack of ethics, moral failings and illegal conduct in securing convictions, he was voted in; not so much of a promotion, as being kicked out of the U.S. Attorney Office for such inherent characteristics. Therein is the answer to the question: Those judges and magistrates as a united body, having taken the rogue in, fear to vacate my erroneous convictions lest they serve Burns up for sacrifice in civil litigation they, perhaps too quickly, assume would follow. But neither the Constitution, laws of the United States nor their Oaths Of Office make allowance for partisan relationships, concerns about career damaging exposure nor ill-agendas of protecting rogue hirelings. Respectability doth cloth the ugliness of hypocrisy, and serve to perpetuate the raping of the Constitution. Our form of government is intended to suppress injustice, but its effect in this case has been to embody it and perpetuate it. Such judges and magistrates are no longer in "good behavior" as required for them to hold office. Do you see how the bare bones of my pondering have risen up to take on the living, breathing shape of a strategy for impeaching judges? Let us continue.
Article III, Section I, of the Constitution states that judges " ..shall hold their offices during good behavior..." Where judges join together to thwart justice for the purpose of protecting a rogue within their ranks, those judges, I soon established from my research, can no longer be considered in "good behavior" and must be impeached. The judges in my case would leave me convicted for offenses the federal government never had subject-matter jurisdiction to prosecute; nonexistent crimes. The strategy holds that any judge who fails his/her Oath Of Office to uphold the Constitution is subject to be impeached. The strategy does not suggest that any time a judge makes a ruling that is simply to your dislike, or fails to rule quick enough to suit your desires, that he/she is subject to impeachment. But judges do have a sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. Accordingly, when a judge fails that duty he/she is no longer in "good behavior" and must be impeached. Under such circumstances any individual may petition the Judiciary Committee in Washington, presently chaired by Senator Patrick J. Leahy, for investigation and impeachment of the offending judge. It is a strategy I hope will reward you as it is now rewarding me.
The above article is a selected excerpt from my upcoming book Slaying The Dragon (Tactics For Beating The Government) due for distribution in July. 2002. Slaying The Dragon explains numerous detailed and comprehensive mechanisms, strategies and procedures that may be used against the worst of government personnel --whether they wallow in the sewers, be perched in ivory towers or crow from fancy Washington offices --and provides instructive documents, actual court filings and government forms necessary to your efforts.