Monday, September 3, 2007

Practice of law by justices and judges
There are currently too many topics in this group that display first. To make this topic appear first, remove this option from another topic.
There was an error processing your request. Please try again.

1 message - Collapse all
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
" type="hidden">

Bob Hurt
View profile
More options Sep 1, 9:39 pm
From: "Bob Hurt">
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 22:39:59 -0400
Local: Sat, Sep 1 2007 9:39 pm
Subject: Practice of law by justices and judges

FYI – practice of law by judges… Courtesy Jack Bauer


TITLE 28 > PART I > CHAPTER 21 > § 454 Practice of law by justices and

Any justice or judge appointed under the authority of the United States who
engages in the practice of law is guilty of a high misdemeanor.

Willis v. Town of Marshall, N.C., 426 F.3d 251, 261 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting
United States v. Morison, 844 F.2d 1057, 1070 (4th Cir. 1988)).A statute can
be unconstitutionally vague for two different reasons. "First, if it fails
to provide people of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to
understand what conduct it prohibits. Second, if it authorizes or even
encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement."

PUBLIC SERVANTS IN THIS CASE ARE hereby charged with ultra vires.

11th Amendment immunity does not prevent an action in federal court against
a state official for ultra vires actions beyond the scope of statutory
authority, or pursuant to authority deemed to be unconstitutional.
Pennhurst, supra, 465 U.S. at 101-102, n. 11; Scham v. District Courts, 967
F. Supp 230, 232-233 (S.D.Tex. 1997).

Question of Aiding and abetting a lower court.

This court cannot aid and abet any case, which clearly violates the
Constitution or laws of the United States. U.S. Vs. Murphy, 768 F.2d 1518,
1531 (7th. Cir. 1985), 31 Judges were removed from the bench after a Federal
Court Ordered an investigation, it was confirmed aiding & abetting from the
inferior Courts to the Federal Court, violations at every level.

"The fact of the matter is that the judge's conduct here caused real harm.
Worse, it harmed public confidence in the fair administration of justice in
the courts of this circuit. The prohibition against ex parte communications,
rules of procedure, principles of law - all of these are not trinkets that
judges may discard whenever they become a nuisance. Rather, they are the
mainstays of our judicial system, our guarantee to every litigant that we
will administer justice, as our oath requires, `without respect to person'.
. . . [T]he majority's exiguous order seems far more concerned with not
hurting the feelings of the judge in question. But our first duty as members
of the Judicial Council is not to spare the feelings of judges accused of
misconduct. It is to maintain public confidence in the judiciary by ensuring
that substantial allegations of misconduct are dealt with forthrightly and
appropriately. This the majority has failed to do."

9. When will this judgment be overturned because of the lack of subject
matter or jurisdiction over this case because of the violation of due

10. Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1574: Void judgment. One
which has no legal force or effect, invalidity of which may be asserted by
any person whose rights are affected at any time and at any place directly
or collaterally. Reynolds v. Volunteer State Life Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 80
S.W.2d 1087, 1092. One which from its inception is and forever continues to
be absolutely null, without legal efficacy, ineffectual to bind parties or
support a right, of no legal force and effect whatever, and incapable of
confirmation, ratification, or enforcement in any manner or to any degree.
Judgment is a "void judgment" if court that rendered judgment lacked
jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner
inconsistent with due process. Klugh v. U.S., D.C.S.C., 610 F.Supp. 892,

11. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly and consistently interpreted the
U.S. Constitution as barring the violation of a fundamental right. When a
state statute violates a fundamental right, judicial strict scrutiny is
automatically invoked. Under strict scrutiny analysis, the burden shifts
from the individual defendant onto the state. To avoid having a statute
declared invalid under strict scrutiny, the state has the sole burden of
showing a narrowly drawn, compelling state interest, e.g. in protecting life
or health, advanced by the least restrictive means and with no other
reasonable alternative. In practice, the state is almost never able to
sustain its burden and survive strict scrutiny since the U.S. Supreme Court
has not declared a state interest compelling enough to justify the
impairment of a fundamental right since 1944 Korematsu v. U.S., 323 U.S.
214, 216-20, 65 S.Ct. 193, 194-95, 89 L.Ed.2d 194 (1944).



No comments:


Fractal Music

My Shared Files - Taxes Action Alerts

GAO Reports - Brief

Fight the IRS legally

Office of Management and Budget News