The Jack Bull - Part Three

Judges have created court rules that allow for "summary judgments" so that the judge decides, and not a jury. In the movie The Jack Bull, Judge Wilkins issued what amounts to a "Summary Judgment" when he dismissed Myrl Redding's case and based his dismissal on lack of evidence. It was wrong then and it is wrong now. How can there be any truthful judgment unless the evidence is allowed to come out in the open? People say all kinds of things that contradict the known truth once they are under the spotlight and scrutiny of deposition and sworn testimony. To issue Summary Judgment negates the opportunity for the evidence to become open to the public, and it is an easier legal technique that serves the lawyers and not We the People.

In an environment that the judge holds power in contrast to what the individual has right to, and over the attorneys on both sides of the case, and without fear of reprisal of discipline, the only hope against injustice from the bench lies in the character of the individual judge. Has he had a bad day? Is his wife or her husband giving them a hard time on something that compromises the ability to rule evenly? Are there worries going on inside the judge's mind or conscience that influence the patience level of the judge? It isn't a long stretch to understand that these sorts of human issues should not have a place in the issuance of justice. Justice should not be contingent on the way the judge feels, and certainly not on his allegiance to anything but delivering to We the People that which his agency demands of him - fair and right adjudication according to the law. When as much power, as that of a judge, is given to any man, it is highly unusual that good is done with any measure of consistency. In this current time in Minnesota it is nigh unto impossible to find many examples of proper judicial action at all.

In the movie The Jack Bull, notice that when there was a trial, it involved a jury of 12 and the judge (portrayed by John Goodman, whose acting was superb) did not have authority to overrule what the jury had decided, even though on a personal level he was inclined to do. His judgment and sentencing was without recourse and carried out properly and in accord with the law that bound him. Myrl Redding was no corporation, licensed by the state for anything. Therefore, it would have been improper for the judge to act as though he were anything but a man entitled to the fair hearing of justice that was demanded.

In today's world, we are viewed as, and treated like we are "corporations." The view from the bench is that we have licenses, such as a driver license, or a marriage license and therefore we can be denied a trial by jury and become subject to summary judgment. Our Natural Right as an individual to the equal status guaranteed by our Creator has been subjugated to the whims, mood or allegiance of the judge on any given day. That is a plan that will never work for our good, and neither can justice come from it. Without the hope of justice we have no hope as We the People.

In reality, when we go into our courts, the power we gave the judges is very limited. The judge is to insure order in the courtroom, to protect our due process rights, and make certain that the parties have all gotten notice of what is happening and an opportunity to respond. The judge does not have the power to determine the law. It is only the Citizens, in the form of a jury that can judge the law and another Citizen. When we give that away, we give away the most important tool we have to keep our public servants - agents of our compact - in check and accountable for what they do.

But the Minnesota Judicial branch has systematically taken the power away from the Citizens. The judges determined that when you get a marriage license, your marriage is "incorporated" into the state, so the judges have power over your marriage. If you divorce, the judges have appointed "referees", unelected people, to determine the outcome of your divorce.

Just in case you are reading this in doubt and wondering where this is coming from, we are going to be publishing a case story very soon about a divorce that exemplifies this exact thing that we are proclaiming.

Openly and blatantly, the judges announce that the "opinion" of the court is above the legislated laws of the Citizens. The judges decide they have the power to determine if a statute is "unconstitutional". We did not give them this power. If the judges question whether a legislated law is "unconstitutional", then the question should be brought directly to the People to vote upon, because it is OUR constitution and OUR statutes. We decide how we will be governed.

The Minnesota Judicial branch is cloaked with secrecy. The "board" that disciplines the judges is controlled by judges and attorneys, and operates in secret. The Judicial branch is NOT subject to the "Freedom of Information Act" (Data Practices) even though all other government must be "open to the People".

To protect the "special interest group" known as attorneys, the bar association, the judges require all judges to be attorneys. The attorneys and judges have changed the courts into a confusing mess that the average Citizen cannot understand. The attorneys all benefit from the mess and the traffic and divorce cases, which come before judges and not juries. The Minnesota Judicial branch has become a multi-billion dollar industry that feeds off of the People.

The judges have formed a union that collectively bargains with the Legislature for benefits, lobbies to change laws and holds "non-public" meetings with the judges to discuss how cases will be handled. The activities of this union are "private", we are not allowed to see what they are doing and how they are controlling OUR government.

For decades the judges have run a scam on the People, trying to prevent the People from electing them. There is a clause in the Minnesota constitution that says if there is a judicial vacancy less than one year before an election, then there is no election and the Governor appoints a judge to fill the vacancy. If a judge thinks that there might be someone that will be running against him in an election, the judge simply "retires" less than a year before the election. The Governor then appoints another judge, who sits on the bench for over 6 years until the next election. The judge that "retires" gets a full pension.

In the current system the Minnesota Judicial branch has taken over our law. They have openly proclaimed that they are "in charge" of the courts and the law. They refuse to listen to the People and have overstepped the powers that We the People have granted to them.

The Minnesota Judicial branch wrote rules that prevented people that ran for the office of judge from creating literature and letting people know why you should vote for them. This is why, when you went to the voting booth, you had no information concerning the people that were running to be a judge. Greg Wersal and the Republican Party challenged these rules of the Minnesota Judicial branch in federal court. After 10 years, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled for us, the People of Minnesota, and declared that the People have the right to know information about judicial candidates. This U.S. Supreme Court case is known as the White case.

The Minnesota Supreme Judiciary is now alarmed. The empire that they have built will be exposed to the People. And they are trying to convince you that they have a "better solution" than the open judicial elections that we, finally, are going to have this fall. They want to convince you that it is better for a "committee" (appointed judges and attorneys) to select judicial candidates, and then the Governor would "pick one". After years (8 years? 6 years? 4 years?) another committee (appointed judges and attorneys) would evaluate the performance of the judge. The criteria to evaluate if the judge has done a good job, is if he/she showed up to work on time, was good at getting the paperwork done, was nice to people...but NEVER evaluating whether the rulings by the judge were done according to our law.

Now is the time for the People to stop the Minnesota Judicial branch. This is our government, our law, and our courts. Any law that our legislature passes is now controlled by the judges, and not by the People. If we do not change what is happening, then the Minnesota Legislature should pack up their bags and go home. The dogs (judges) are running the household (the state).

Nancy Lazaryan
Citizen of the state of Minnesota

back 1  2  3  4  next