WHY I SUPPORT THE NEW STATE OF JEFFERSON. This map shows those counties in Northern California which have expressed a desire to create a new State. Mainstream media has been trying to foist the notion that those persons who want to create a new State out of parts of California and Oregon are gun toting rednecks who don’t have an intelligent bone in their body. Don’t be fooled. This nose in the air disdain for us normal people is the same type of crap the media originally used to write off Bernie and the Donald before we showed the media it doesn’t matter to us. Republicans and democrats scoff at the notion that California should be divided into two because they don’t want any disruption of their monopoly on power. But that monopoly must end. And we need new governmental entities which will support those constitutional principles the two party system has sacrificed over and over again for their own good and greed. I support the formation of the State of Jefferson because our federal government is not working for the people, i.e. us, in the ways our founders intended. Many have forgotten that our founders created a federal system of government so that we, the people, would be better protected from that type of abuse of power which is now rampant in the empire. The idea was that multiple republican governments inside one nation would protect the people. The goal was that each government would endeavor to protect their … Continue Reading
Media Coverage of May Day Protests illustrates Bias I don’t watch much television. But last night while attempting to watch the news I got stuck watching Channel 7’s coverage of Seattle’s May Day protests. It was obvious that their comments were scripted by those who support the empire as it is. They kept calling the protesters “anarchists”. That’s just flat out misleading. An “anarchist” is a noun defined as: 1. a person who advocates or believes in anarchy or anarchism. 2. a person who seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed. 3. a person who promotes disorder or excites revolt against any established rule, law, or custom. To protest a corrupt government that evicts millions of vulnerable people to die in the streets, incarcerates innocent people who have not committed a crime solely for purposes of keeping private prisons full pursuant to the terms of government contracts, and perpetuation of a pharmaceutical system developed to keep people sick does not mean you are an anarchist. It more likely means these people want a better government; not that they are against all government. Most of us so-called “anarchists” want governments that are more local in nature and provide a meaningful link between those who are elected to represent us. We do not want the Republican and Democratic parties filtering our access to our elected representatives. Ironically, the media has become an … Continue Reading
Why I became a Libertarian in 2016. I believe: “[a]ll political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.” Individual rights are those which are bestowed on each of us by our creator, not privileges the government can franchise to corporations to sell to us for their own benefit. We, as people, have traveled the path of civilization to a point where freedom and economic wealth have become an intersection where most us must stop because we do not have the economic resources to exercise our most basic liberties. As a Libertarian I object to the government becoming an ally of the rich in enslaving people to debt which makes it impossible to exercise their freedoms. When our country was founded capitalism provided an adequate mechanism for most people to accumulate sufficient economic resources to enable them to exercise their personal liberties. Today, the crony capitalism promoted by the republican and democratic parties has created such disparity of wealth that only a few have access to those fundamental freedoms our forefathers took for granted. I cannot continue to support the two party tyranny which has created the greatest system of injustice the world has ever seen. No longer do we engage in debate over entitlement programs; we simply evict our vulnerable and let them die unknown on our streets. Of course, there are several third parties out there I could have … Continue Reading
Why Is Non-judicial Foreclosure “Unconstitutional”? I was asked to write an article about why Washington’s Deed of Trusts Act, which allows lenders to take homes without having to go through some Court process was unconstitutional. The person who asked me to do this wanted me to keep the article to 500 words and “not sound like a lawyer.” Unfortunately, I concluded that I could not sound like anything but a lawyer, because that is what I am. So I asked my paralegal, Michael Fasset (an Iraq veteran who has a knack for law and helps me with regard to my practice) to write an article for non-lawyers on why nonjudicial foreclosure is unconstitutional. Here is what he wrote. I will follow up in a few weeks with another blog which will sound like it was written by me about why the DTA is unconstitutional and should be repealed. Introduction I have been asked by Scott Stafne to explain why non-judicial foreclosure is constitutionally unsound without resorting to legalese; I have, however, included some footnotes which will be more technically challenging for those without a legal background. I’ll start with a brief background on how non-judicial foreclosure came to Washington and how it has fared in the courts. I’ll then attempt to explain what it means for a law to be constitutional (because such things are decided by attorneys it’s not as clear cut as you might think). Finally I’ll explain why Washington’s Deeds of Trust Act’s, which I will … Continue Reading
LOVE is the universal force. I like social media because it helps me learn. That does not mean I accept everything I read there as being true. For example, I frequently see quotes attributed to people whom I presume never spoke or wrote them. This does not detract from my appreciation of the quote itself. This is the situation with the following letter purportedly written by Albert Einstein to a daughter. While it would be nice to believe that Einstein wrote this (given that his theories are being proved correct all the time) ot os not necessary for him to be the author in order for the message to be worth reflecting upon. So according to a Facebook post this is a letter, recently made public, that Albert Einstein wrote to his daughter, Lieseral: According to the post: In the late 1980s, Lieserl, the daughter of the famous genius, donated 1,400 letters, written by Einstein, to the Hebrew University, with orders not to publish their contents until two decades after his death. This is one of them, for Lieserl Einstein. [The letter reads:] “When I proposed the theory of relativity, very few understood me, and what I will reveal now to transmit to mankind will also collide with the misunderstanding and prejudice in the world. I ask you to guard the letters as long as necessary, years, decades, until society is advanced enough to accept what I will explain below. There is an extremely powerful force that, so far, science … Continue Reading
We should initiate this empire’s collapse politically now in 2016. I am on an Amtrak train riding back to Arlington, Washington from Portland, Oregon. I was in Portland from 9:00 am until 1:00 pm sharp deposing Chris Caldwell, a lawyer for 21st Mortgage servicing company. My client, Duncan Robertson, was with me. He’s become well trained in the law while fighting corrupt banks and servicers aspiring to steal his real estate in Washington State. After the deposition recessed because of the deponent’s schedule (I wanted to continue asking questions) Duncan dropped me off at Amtrak’s Union Station where I met with Kay, a concerned citizen in Oregon. We met there to discuss strategies with regard to restoring our representative republic by increasing the number of legislators responsible to the people. Kay and I discussed how the value of our votes and the votes of all Americans had been systematically devalued by the 1929 Apportionment Act freezing the House of Representative at only 435 members, no matter how much the nation’s population grew thereafter. Many, including myself, believe this decision by the republican and democratic parties destroyed the electoral accountability our founders intended members of the House would have to the constituents within their districts. By brazenly acting to facilitate their own best interests, the political powers have frustrated our founding fathers’ intentions that Congress would initiate the passage of laws and have final oversight of all government officials in each of the three branches through its the exercise of its impeachment power. As Federalist Paper #49 observed the members … Continue Reading
Full Spectrum Advocacy in 2016. The United States Constitution was devised to protect us, the people, from abuses of power by the federal government. Washington’s Constitution was written not only to protect individuals from our State government, but also from those corporations and elites which prey on the people to create and maintain their wealth. A primary means by which the authors of both the United States’ and Washington State’s Constitutions chose to protect us was by separating and arranging governmental branches and offices in such a way so that each might be a check on the other. Today, the wealthy have figured out a way around the check and balances enacted by our founders to ensure the inalienable rights of all individuals. Today, the wealthy simply purchase the government, lock, stock, and barrel. What looks like three cars is really only transportation for one; the person who owns all three cars. Similarly, wealthy corporations and people use their money to purchase the strings of government to manipulate the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of federal and state governments for their own benefit. They have become the puppeteers of each of the branches so that they can stage a tragi-comedy of government they expect us to take seriously because they have the money to get away with it. Our framers predicted tyranny would result if the checks and balances they created to protect us became corrupted. For example, Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist Paper #78 that judges needed to be … Continue Reading
Scott Stafne revisits his past and finds wisdom… Each memento comes with a soul weight that may overwhelm or be hidden from the moment in which it is revealed and recollected. The memories attached thereto are not only about me but the context of the society at that time… Sometimes we forget. It was as if I was being called to the boxes which stored my past. I really did not want to go there because my focus was on the present and how it could impact my future. But now that I am older I listen more to my callings. And so Saturday morning I opened the boxes and explored the various accumulations of a lifetime, including without limitation my birth certificate, draft card, poetry, plays, newspaper articles, and other mementos which had found their way into the boxes wedged into back of the pantry and the file boxes in my office. The first thing I noticed was that most of the papers were crinkled; some even appeared to have been snacked on. It is difficult to review mementos in the same way that I attack facts and documents when preparing to write a legal brief. Each memento comes with a soul weight that may overwhelm or be hidden from the moment in which it is revealed and recollected. The memories attached thereto are not only about me but the context of the society at that time. For example, on December 24, 2014 I wrote a blog entitled “Do we want police more devoted to one another … Continue Reading
For the past few days I have thought about the phrase “conceived in liberty”. At first I thought it might have been used in the Declaration of Independence. I checked out that document. It was not there. Then I thought the phrase might be part of the pledge of allegiance. I checked. It wasn’t there. Finally, I googled the phrase “conceived in liberty”. Turns out it was used by Abraham Lincoln in the first line of the Gettysburg Address. “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” In his next sentence Lincoln states: “Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.” Our country, so conceived and dedicated, survived the civil war. Unfortunately, it appears not to have survived the sociopaths in the Republican and Democratic parties, who continue to serve only the needs of those who can afford to make hefty campaign contributions. I went to DePauw University, a small liberal arts college in Greencastle, Indiana from 1967 until 1971. I remember back then discussing in a classroom why liberty, without the economic resources to exercise it, was not freedom at all. The example which we discussed so many years ago was that a person’s right to travel was meaningless if he could not afford to travel. While I mentally understood the … Continue Reading
I assume that in any line of work, there are work activities which are preferred more than others. I like writing briefs and taking depositions much more than I like defending depositions. On Tuesday I had to defend a deposition of a client against three lawyers, one of whom I consider particularly loathsome. As you might expect he represents Mortgage Electronic Systems a/k/a MERS, which I believe is designed to facilitate the redistribution of the wealth of America’s middle class to already wealthy elites. Now I want to make it clear that in this blog I am primarily stating my own observations and opinions pursuant to those rights I believe I have under the First Amendment. So now let’s return back to what happened at the deposition. At some point counsel for MERS made a point of stating that I had never won a motion against him. I wondered what he was talking about because less than a couple of months ago my office, in a brief I participated in writing, had clearly prevailed against MERS with regard to a motion he had brought. A copy of that decision against MERS, in which he was lead counsel, can be found at: Knecht v Fidelity National Title Insurance Company. After his strategic and dishonest attempt at an insult , I leaned back in my chair and looked hard at the MERS attorney questioning the witness. I do not recall having any animosity toward him as that is not a good trait for … Continue Reading
For most of our history lawyers have thought of themselves as the unofficial fourth “arm” of the government. Hurst, pp. 598-601. This view is more understandable from lawyers’ past role as “trial advocates”; than from the present relationship between the bench and bar, which reduces the significance lawyers have with regard to the administration of justice. Under the law in effect in most colonies at the time our Constitution was written, lawyers were advocates who had the right to argue the merits of their client’s cases directly to a jury. Juries, not judges, had the right to decide most cases as they saw fit both with regard to the facts and law. “In 1789, juries occupied the principal place in the administration of justice. They were frequently in both criminal and civil cases the arbiters not only of fact but of law.” Galloway, at 399. The King’s denial of the right to a trial by jury was one of the reasons stated by the colonists in the Declaration of Independence justifying separation from England.
The Webster-Merriam Dictionary defines the verb “corrupt” to mean: : to cause (someone or something) to become dishonest, immoral, etc. : to change (something) so that it is less pure or valuable : to change (a book, computer file, etc.) from the correct or original form Upon ratification of the Constitution, the States entered the Union “with their sovereignty intact.” Sovereignty means: “a country’s independent authority and the right to govern itself.” The United States Constitution divides authority between federal and state governments for the protection of individuals. Indeed, a principal benefit of our federalist system is a check on abuses of government against the liberty and property of citizens. The United States Constitution is a short document. Three of its seven articles are devoted to establishing the federal framework of our government. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution makes clear the purposes of our federal structure. It states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The powers afforded the federal government under the Constitution are defined and limited. In contrast, the powers reserved to the several States were intended to “extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” J. Madison, The Federalist No. 45, pp. 292-293 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). “In the compound republic of America [both the federal and State republics] a … Continue Reading
Does the Separation of Powers continue to provide the checks and balances contemplated by our founders so as to protect this nation’s citizens from the federal government’s abuse of power? Are the powers of the federal government still separated? Has each branch of government simply been purchased by the wealthy, causing the branches to act together in a way our founding fathers would have found to be unacceptable? The Webster-Merriam Dictionary defines the verb “corrupt” to mean: : to cause (someone or something) to become dishonest, immoral, etc. : to change (something) so that it is less pure or valuable : to change (a book, computer file, etc.) from the correct or original form I read an interesting article sent to me by my law partner, Josh Trumbull. It is written by Y. Falkson and was posted on the zerohedge.com web site. It is titled “The Purchase of our Republic” The author suggests that each of the branches of our government has been purchased in such a way that the owners can orchestrate an abuse of federal governmental power to the detriment of the people. In my view, the government’s support of entities like Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, federal banks and servicers routine evictions of persons from their homes is an example of this abuse of power. Falkson makes his point and utilizes Constitutional history to support it: Acknowledging where we are as a country, it is often helpful to look to where we started for some perspective. Unsurprisingly, this type … Continue Reading
Has the Supreme Court corrupted American homeowners right to a jury trial against lenders and servicers in federal courts? The Webster-Merriam Dictionary defines the verb “corrupt” to mean: : to cause (someone or something) to become dishonest, immoral, etc. : to change (something) so that it is less pure or valuable : to change (a book, computer file, etc.) from the correct or original form When I grew up in Iowa in the mid twentieth century we learned in high school “civics” class that our freedoms were preserved through a number of Constitutional checks and balances designed to protect the people from the arbitrary exercise of governmental power. Two of the most basic checks on governmental power, i.e. “the separation of powers” in and “dual sovereignty” nature of our government, are derived directly from the governmental framework established by the Constitution. Shortly after it was ratified, the Constitution was amended by ratification of ten amendments, which are known as the Bill of Rights. The right to a jury of one’s peers was one of the basic structural provisions our founders enacted pursuant to the Bill of Rights. The Fifth Amendment grants the right to trial by jury in criminal cases. The Seventh Amendment grants the right to trial by jury in civil cases.