times.
This page was last updated on March 10, 1998
QUESTIONS:
HOW DO YOU PROPOSE TO DO AWAY WITH SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY?
Sovereign immunity does not exist in nature. It is a tool used by one group of people (through force) to oppress another group. At one time white people were immune for what they did to black people. Abe Lincoln ended the immunity of whites over blacks with the help of millions of good people. Today, the powerful, both socially and economically, rule over the rest of us. This false power exists simply through the “Oz Effect”. There is no innate superiority of one human over another. All people are entitled to justice before the law, no matter the “status” of the other party.
QUESTION:
THERE HAVE BEEN A LONG LINE OF U.S. SUPREME COURT CASES THAT HAVE ADDRESSED THE ISSUE AND CONTRADICT WHAT YOU SAY. HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THESE COURT RULINGS?
Any ruling by a court that is not sovereign, that takes away the rights of the sovereign people is unconstitutional. Our constitution makes it clear that the people are sovereign and that the government is the servant of the people. The Supreme Court must rule the will of the people, otherwise, it is assuming sovereignty over the people, which is beyond its power.
When our nation was founded, the people were sovereign in all three possible situations.
1) The people were sovereign over the government by the vote. They elected their representatives to suit their needs.
2) The people held sovereign power over the government for criminal wrongs through the criminal law of impeachment.
3) The people held sovereign power over the government for civil wrongs though the civil court system.
These are undeniable facts.
The power of the people over the government for civil wrongs of the government was stolen to protect powerful people.
Any person that tells you otherwise is not being truthful to you. Just use your common sense about our founding fathers. Did they want to be ruled by a sovereign? All of the documents of the period support what I have told you.
My beliefs are based upon the truth at the time our constitution was written. Anyone can read in the constitution about their right to equal justice, due process, and the balance of power. When judges without the authority to take rights away from citizens, take away our rights, then it is simple to expose the injustice. You can see it with your own eyes. Our constitution makes it clear that the people are sovereign. As a sovereign people we may have anything we want.
The truth is that at the time our constitution was written, there was no such thing as sovereign immunity. Several kings in England had attempted to claim immunity for their civil wrongs, none were successful. In fact the last King to claim immunity was King Charles I. As a result of his claim, he was tried before a court, and then beheaded. From that time forward no King has claimed to be immune from the acts of his servants or himself.
The truth is that prior to 1890, the Supreme Court recognized that the people were sovereign. They changed their ruling as a result of a paper before the American Bar Association in 1883. In that paper Texas Judge Robert G. Street made a forceful presentation to take away the rights of the people. Judge Street suggested that if the Judges, the Legislators, and the Executive were to claim to be immune, then the people would have no choice in the matter. Judge Street was successful.
Judge Street in a subsequent paper (Texas Bar Assn. 1904) suggested that it would be in the interest of attorneys to submit to this new order of society. Judge Street knew that if no attorney would challenge this system, then there would be no way for the citizen to defeat the system. *** It is an undeniable truth that each man is entitled to equal justice before the law. It is my intent to give that right back to each person. ***
QUESTION:
HOW DO YOU PLAN TO PROVIDE AN ATTORNEY FOR THOSE WHO CANNOT AFFORD ONE WITHOUT DIPPING INTO THE TAXPAYERS’ POCKET?
The suggestions that I make are based upon thousands of years of law and have been tested by mankind through out history. History shows that if a person goes before a court without legal representation then he is unlikely to receive EQUAL justice. Therefore, our forefathers solved this problem by furnishing an attorney for every citizen, without having the public pay for the attorney.
A citizen that needed an attorney simply went before a judge and requested one. The judge appointed the attorney who carried the case to its conclusion. The judge then awarded damages to the winning party AND ALSO AWARDED ATTORNEYS’ FEES TO A FUND THAT HE SET UP. From the fund legal fees were paid. Some times the losing party could not contribute to the fund. In that case it was the duty of the judge to keep the fund solvent by taking more from the next litigant that could afford to pay. In this way all legal costs were paid by those that caused problems and not by those who were victims.