Theft of Petition Rights, Why I Love Dr. John E. Wolfgram, and Writ of Amparo.

I write this to honor a man while he still lives, to encourage you to follow his lead in setting America free from its Judicial Oligarchy, and to pass on an ideal for you to campaign on with family, friends, and legislators.

Why I love Dr. John E. Wolfgram

I love law philosopher, former attorney, Vietnam veteran, and former combat marine Dr. John E. Wolfgram. I love him because of the depth of emotional and intellectual commitment he makes to the ideals of good government. I love him because of the genuine goodness and yearning for ideals that makes him fight vigorously, sometimes brutally, against evils that he perceives in government. I love him because of litigation competence. I love him because he shares the values of his soul with others through carefully considered and adroitly expressed explanations of the core evils that eat away at the American Republic and the confidence of people in American law and justice. And I love him because he has suffered so terribly for you and me.

As Dr. Wolfgram himself explains, he arrives at his understandings though hard-fought internal struggles. He sees himself evolving and growing by degrees, and unlike many of his background, he actually admits to that growth. I truly relish the fact that he digs way down deep into the heart of an issue and pulls the soul of it up into the sunlight, hoping that light of public scrutiny will destroy any virus that rots it from within.

You’ll get a sense of that from the below excerpt he wrote yesterday.

Excerpt from John Wolfgram message to Arnie Rosner 10/4/2012:

I once referred you to and I refer you again to “How the Judiciary Stole the Right of Petition” to get an understanding of the breadth of what the government calls reasonable, and why I say it’s philosophy of “sovereign immunity” is absolutely unreasonable … which could mean in the context that you use and I struck the use of the word, that the government’s conduct is based on delusions of grandeur. Perhaps, if you examined the article, you might agree, IF you read that article. In fact, it has such diverse supporters as Ron Paul, Ron Branson, Gary Zerman and Bob Schultz; and even Peter Mancus and Larry Beecraft. Actually, in my original studies going back to the mid 90s, Beecraft urged me on through some pretty serious depression and while we are fighting over my present studies, I don’t forget that debt.
You see, that is what I do: Try to identify the foundational anti-constitutional wrongs: I pinpoint the foundational government usurpation to be sovereign immunity. This isn’t something that I just dream up. I study it at great length and then I fought with the government over it, adversarial, for years; ten years or more before I write about it. And I don’t just write about the Constitutional evil, but on what it takes to undo its effects. So I did both in 2,000 …. write about that foundational evil and then how to move from that world that it created to a constitutional world, metaphysically speaking, right next door. It’s not easy to identify such fundamental constitutional wrongs and expose them enough that such diverse patriotically oriented persons can appreciate them and take it as a guiding light. I mean, its one thing to identify them as an anti-constitutional evil; but it is entirely a different thing to understand its key role in undermining the rule of constitutional law.

Now I’m on my second leg, where I studied another constitutional evil for years. It is the constitutional evil that prevents the challenge to immunity from emerging … a kind of acceptance of government supremacy over the people; almost like government is god and you don’t question god or his role. While it is a systematic failure to recognize, just like immunity, that the entire thrust of the constitution is against that kind of government superiority or impunity to common ordinary human dignity, it also embodies a kind of cynical government arrogance to that particular clause in the Constitution like “it can’t mean what it clearly does mean, and a refusal to face it. The anti thesis to government superority is written; very clearly written into the Constitution in unmistakable terms, yet it has escaped notice because of that cynicism … that it can’t mean what it clearly says that it means.

Well, as a matter of fact, you have been quite helpful in pointing the facts hiding that constitutional anti-thesis; where it appears and how it works or is supposed to work, out to me and now I’m ready, I hope, I’m ready, to take in on through the adversary system which is, to my knowledge, the only way to expose it.

On the up side, I think that I’ve learned enough to do that. On the down side, I was hurt pretty bad on the first leg and i don’t know if I’m strong enough to go through it again; and I do know what is in store for me as I re-enter the adversary processes to learn what is necessary to expose that evil to the light of day.

… you don’t know how much you have contributed to the “delusion” or maybe, to the “breaking free of the delusion” which is from my perspective, what has occurred … a descriptive word that Becraft once used in this context, is an “epiphany”. It fits pretty well.

But in any event, because you are a gentleman with whom I often disagree, I wanted you to know that you are also “inspirational”; and I’ve learned some fundamentally important orientational constitutional concepts from you; and Gary; and Bob.

Wolf

I hope you will read and absorb Dr. Wolfgram’s expose’ How the Judiciary Stole the Right of Petition, attached. He learned from hard experience how judges engage in continual, random, and often whimsical violations of the Constitution and their own loyalty oaths, granting themselves immunity from their tortious behavior which law should make criminal.

Then, I hope you will write to your legislators and demand that they strip immunity from the judiciary for tortious conduct of judges, and find ways of imposing penalties on judges for making rulings that appeals courts overturn. You should push for a law that requires the legislature to clarify the law on every non-unanimous panel court ruling, and review it on all rulings that senior courts overturn.

You see, if judges cannot agree on the meaning of the law, how can the public possibly understand it as written? And how can the public obey inscrutable laws?

As for Dr. Wolfgram, he might find the Mexican invention “Writ of Amparo,” and Habeas Data worthy of his litigation efforts. Wikipedia says this about Recurso (Juicio) de Amparo.

The writ of amparo (also called recurso de amparo or juicio de amparo) is a remedy for the protection of constitutional rights, found in certain jurisdictions. In some legal systems, predominantly those of the Spanish-speaking world,[1] the amparo remedy or action is an effective and inexpensive instrument for the protection of individual rights.[2]

Amparo, generally granted by a supreme or constitutional court, serves a dual protective purpose: it protects the citizen and his basic guarantees, and protects the constitution itself by ensuring that its principles are not violated by statutes or actions of the state that undermine the basic rights enshrined therein. It resembles, in some respects, constitutional remedies such as the writ of security available in Brazil and theconstitutional complaint (Verfassungsbeschwerde) procedure found in Germany.

In many countries, an amparo action is intended to protect all rights other than physical liberty, which may be protected instead by habeas corpus remedies. Thus, in the same way that habeas corpus guarantees physical freedom, amparo protects other basic rights. It may therefore be invoked by any person who believes that any of his rights, implicitly or explicitly protected by the constitution (or by applicable international treaties), is being violated.

Dr. Charles E. Lincoln III has made an excellent point about amparo. He has suggested that litigators should demand an amparo-style protection for Americans to fill the gargantuan gap left by the Writ of Habeas Corpus, picking up where it left off. This becomes especially true where anybody, particularly government employees, violate people’s rights, especially in some systematic way such as that adverse possessors suffer at the hands of prosecutors and sheriffs in Florida. Dr. Lincoln has suggested language something like this in cases across the land:

  1. To the degree that existing law provides insufficient remedy, Plaintiffs ask this Court to extend, modify, or reverse existing law and/or to establish new law, including the provision of a civil equivalent of Habeas Corpus against the violation of civil rights which can be borrowed from the law of Mexico, Latin America, and parts of Europe and Asia known as the Petition for Writ of Amparo.
  2. Title 42 U.S.C. §1988(a) provides:
  1. (a) Applicability of statutory and common law The jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters conferred on the district courts by the provisions of titles 13, 24, and 70 of the Revised Statutes for the protection of all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and for their vindication, shall be exercised and enforced in conformity with the laws of the United States, so far as such laws are suitable to carry the same into effect; but in all cases where they are not adapted to the object, or are deficient in the provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against law, the common law, as modified and changed by the constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court having jurisdiction of such civil or criminal cause is held, so far as the same is not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, shall be extended to and govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the cause, and, if it is of a criminal nature, in the infliction of punishment on the party found guilty.

Within the meaning of both 42 U.S.C. §1988(a) and Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs submit that the laws of the State of Florida are deficient in the provisions necessary to furnish further remedies and adequately to punish offenses against the laws protecting private property and the integrity of legal processes for the acquisition of such property, including but not limited to adverse possession under the laws of the United States and the State of Florida.

Accordingly, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988(a) and Rule 11(b), Plaintiffs submit that the laws of the State as applied by the County Sheriff’s Office, as well as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and federal common law should be extended, modified, reversed, and/or new law established to govern the proceedings in this court in the trial and disposition of the present cause to invalidate the unconstitutional and illegal customs, practices, and policies having the force and effect of law in the State of Florida regarding threats of false arrest and malicious prosecution under color of law resulting in takings or seizures of private property without due process of law when such (factually abandoned) properties are properly held in adverse possession by law abiding individuals such as the Plaintiffs.
We should not neglect to recognize the effete nature of the Americans with Disabilities Act in its effect on federal courts. Judges seem to care nothing for the rights of people suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, particularly Legal Abuse Syndrome. Comments at http://www.uscourts.gov make it clear that the ADA does not apply to federal courts. A Writ of Amparo could provide the perfect tool for waking the federal and state courts up to their obligations to protect helpless litigants from raging, voracious prosecutors. The same goes for helpless housewives fighting for custody of their children from incompetent fathers the courts seem inclined to favor. Technical trappings of custody seem often to shroud and deny the child’s best interest.

Bottom line, if enough litigants start demanding protection of civil rights through a Writ of Amparo, judges might start crafting such writs, and thereby bring America into line with the rest of the free world regarding civil rights. The people need it, and God knows, so does the Constitution. And, I believe amparo could serve a paramount interest of the beloved Dr. John E. Wolfgram.

How the Judiciary Stole the Right to Petition.doc

Advertisements

Author: bobhurt

See http://bobhurt.com

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s