Compassion and Infiltration: Parts 1-4 in a continuing series by Michael Hafter
"Compassion and Infiltration: California's Shysters Are Impeding Public Health"
Michael Hafter, Freelance Writer
First in a Continuing Series on American Just US
In the quiet little town of Hayfork, California, a seething volcano is about to erupt from its heated origins below grade. The war on drugs has now crossed a line hitherto invisible to voters, jurors and the population at large.
Working diligently to master a matrix of State and Federal laws and regulations, the Compassionate Use Alliance ("CUA") has now exposed verified evidence of widespread infiltration of The State Bar of California by all its members.
Using rules of civil procedure and evidence assembled in a copyright case commenced in Sacramento just days before 9/11/2001, founder Ed Guenette has steadily pursued diligent investigation of unlicensed attorneys appearing in State Courts and County government offices.
Yes, you read that correctly: these UNlicensed State Bar "members" are openly violating sections of the California Business and Professions Code which expressly require a certificate of oath to be indorsed on the back of their licenses to practice law.
To "indorse" is to sign on the back, as when indorsing a standard bank check. In Latin, "in dorso" means "on the back."
These licenses are not to be confused with their standard "Bar cards". Just yesterday, Guenette confirmed that a Superior Court docket record contains photocopies of the front and back sides of one such Bar card.
But, that card does not even come close to satisfying the clear requirements imposed by CBPC sections 6067 and 6068.
Section 6067 was first enacted in February 1939. California's Courts have already ruled that its requirements are constitutional, and the California Legislature does have authority to impose an oath upon all Bar members.
As such, not only does such an oath invoke lawful substance by obliging attorneys to honor 2 large bodies of Law -- the U.S. Constitution and the State Constitution. The oath requirement was elevated to supreme Law of the Land when Article VI, Clause 3 first became law on June 21, 1788 (this writer's birthday).
That Oath of Office Clause predates the Bill of Rights, first ratified in 1791, and it has never been amended, not once!
Making State Bar members even more vulnerable are standing decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court identifying them as "officers of the court", and at least one Act of Congress at 4 U.S.C. 101 imposing the oath requirement on all State judicial officers.
Guenette's first foray into this dark matrix was a written DEMAND for the licenses to practice law and certificates of oath required of former Trinity County Counsels. Smaller counties in California routinely hire private attorneys like Cota Cole LLP to perform such services.
Guenette invoked a public records law to discover County payments to Cota Cole totaling more than $300K. With the automatic triple damage multiplier authorized by the Federal Civil RICO statute, Cota Cole was served with a lawful INVOICE for almost $1 million payable to the County of Trinity.
More recently, another CUA client requested counsel with a misdemeanor citation for pot possession issued by a law enforcement officer employed by the U.S. Forest Service.
Guenette promptly invoked the federal Freedom of Information Act to request that officer's U.S. Office of Personnel Management APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS. The USFS Disclosure Officer is now in default -- by failing to produce that credential within the time limits imposed by the FOIA.
Making matters much worse, OPM published a counterfeit revision of that form in August 2002, and it stubbornly refuses to apply to the Office of Management and Budget for periodic review and approval of that form.
OPM's Standard Form 61 is a "bootleg" form because it lacks a valid OMB control number, which must be displayed at the upper right-hand corner.
And, an Act of Congress bars all such officers from being paid if they have not executed valid APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS.
As such, it is very probable that all federal personnel hired after August 2002 have executed counterfeit credentials, and the affected number could easily total a million or more.
The County Sheriffs Department is also implicated, because it routinely deputizes USFS personnel with authority to enforce State laws.
However, in that particular case, the implementing federal Regulation requires violations to occur on Postal Property, but the defendant was nowhere near USPS land or buildings when he was stopped and cited.
Guenette has also demanded licenses and oaths from the current County Counsels for the County of Trinity, and they too are in default.
The mind-boggling conclusion now warranted -- by all the evidence assembled and confirmed to date by CUA -- is that not one "member" of The State Bar of California is properly licensed. Not even one!
At last count, there are 250,000 registered State Bar members in California, and many of those are presently employed as U.S. Attorneys and Federal Judges.
And the McDade Act requires all U.S. Attorneys to obey all State Bar disciplinary guidelines "to the same extent and in the same manner" as all private attorneys in each State. This writer spoke with one of the U.S. Representatives who authored that law, and she made the intent of Congress very clear.
If you happen to notice cracks forming in the public pavements of Trinity County, please call 911 if hot molten lava suddenly shoots skyward or smoking sinkholes swallow your parked car:
The missing licenses and oaths for all State Bar members are about to explode into a statewide crisis of epic proportions that will make the Mount St. Helens eruption look like a firecracker.
Governor Moon Beam, are you reading this? Your State Bar Number is 37100: http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/37100
About the author: Michael Hafter is a freelance writer who appears briefly in the Supreme Law Library on the Internet, using a variety of stealthy pen names.
# # #
"Compassion and Infiltration: The Ironclad Law of Prohibition"
Michael Hafter, Freelance Writer
Second in a Continuing Series on American Just US
Northern California is gifted with an abundance of natural wisdom called forests. Regardless of its subtle hints at pantheism, the movie Avatar does a superb job of animating qualities of the natural world which remain beyond the awareness of certain humans who profit from aggression of all kinds.
In remote hills that dot the landscape of Trinity County, it is not unusual to encounter certain other humans who desire to escape a world that is weary of warfare and its wanton acts of genocide and environmental devastation.
In spite of limited economic opportunities, the latter arrive fully expecting to partake of a natural herb with medicinal properties fully documented in scientific literatures published on every continent. And, some even venture into agricultural cultivation of cannabis in partial appreciation of its profit potentials.
Now comes the law enforcement brigades. The ironclad law of prohibition reads like this: the best single way to increase the market value of any substance is to pass laws prohibiting the production, distribution and consumption of same. In this respect, cannabis is one of the latest but not the only victim of this law.
Imagine if you can an army that arrives not with tanks and guns, but with 3-piece suits, Italian leather shoes, and expensive limousines. They identify themselves as experts in an esoteric science they call ordinances, and they hire themselves out to local government agencies to formulate their science with the mighty written word.
Being naive about the real inner workings of this plain clothes army, local government decision makers adopt said ordinances in the false belief that the public health will be greatly enhanced, justly enforced and perpetuated ad infinitum.
The huge cost of drafting and enacting same are, of course, passed onto the people at large, including those who would profit from cultivation that is now severely restricted by each such county ordinance.
Eradication efforts are specifically accelerated during normal harvest seasons, to emphasize the status quo of powers that be.
County "counsels" will commence ex parte court proceedings, fully ignoring due process of law and every defendant's right to self-defense.
Now comes the major rub, however. These County counsels have uniformly failed to indorse a certificate of oath that is plainly required by a State law first enacted in 1939, and that oath otherwise binds them to honor two large bodies of Law: the Federal Constitution and the California State Constitution.
And, when that oath duty originates in the organic Federal Constitution, it is thereby elevated to the status of a Fundamental Right. Such Rights cannot be altered by any State or Federal government branch without a proper constitutional amendment needing ratification by three-fourths of the State Legislatures.
It does not require any rocket science, or pharmaceutical genius, to understand that every ordinance drafted by such impostors is null and void from the beginning.
All public funds expended during the creation of that ordinance must be returned by such impostors.
And, the widespread damages inflicted during police raids on cannabis fields must be compensated to damaged parties -- in order to make them whole again.
The pertinent Federal law in this regard is rather instructive: Federal officers cannot even be paid if they have not executed valid APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS, the first of which is an Oath of Office.
When findings of fact are fully discovered, the conclusions of law are inescapable: law enforcement of cannabis prohibitions in Northern California continues unabated because other ironclad laws favor a system that protects the guilty and punishes the innocent.
One has to wonder just how much actual bribery issues from super rich pharmaceutical corporations in order to protect their precious cash flows. If you want a shock, shop around for a good deal on prolonged chemotherapy.
It gets worse: alternative journalists who now populate the Internet have repeatedly reported the untimely deaths of wholistic doctors who have honestly arrived at similar conclusions in their own medical practices.
To argue that the war on drugs is a failure is to miss the mark. That war would not have persisted so long, were it not for the benefits it provides to its perpetrators.
Take, for one example, the U.S. Bureau of Prisons (BOP). This writer is an eyewitness to documents proving that all BOP personnel have failed to execute valid APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS.
Nevertheless, those personnel are paid handsomely for managing BOP's major asset -- live human bodies exceeding 2 million in number.
If we corral that entire Bureau within a single circular perimeter, the obvious result is a massive bureaucratic parasite on the American population at large.
Money must flow into that perimeter from outside, otherwise inmates will be unable to purchase toothpaste, tennis shoes, or time on BOP's CorrLinks email system. Even laser printer paper is charged by the page.
Why is the American prison population so large? Answer: the war on drugs. The percentage of drug offenders in State prisons and County jails is no different.
About the author: Michael Hafter is a freelance writer who appears briefly in the Supreme Law Library on the Internet, using a variety of stealthy pen names.
# # #
"Compassion and Infiltration: Where the Rubber Meets the Road"
Michael Hafter, Freelance Writer
December 21, 2015 A.D.
Third in a Continuing Series on American Just US
In a nation governed by the rule of law, those responsible for enforcing the law are expected to honor and obey laws that apply specifically to them. This is not the situation in contemporary America, however.
Contrary observations make it painfully obvious that law enforcement organizations are too often populated with habitual hypocrites who elevate power and money above all else, to feather their own nests.
Consider the verified facts now being assembled to impeach The State Bar of California and all 250,000 of its registered "members".
During the past year, the Compassionate Use Alliance ("CUA") wrote to the Clerk of the California Supreme Court with a routine request to identify the proper legal custodian of all licenses to practice law in that State.
The Clerk promptly replied in writing to say that the State Bar is responsible for handling all inquiries concerning licenses to practice law and certificates of oath. This was a rather misleading reply, for several well documented reasons.
For one, The State Bar of California was served with a Federal SUBPOENA back in March 2004 for all licenses to practice law and all certificates of oath duly indorsed by all Bar members during the ten years beginning January 1, 1994. Proof of compliance was required to be filed with the Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court.
State Bar officials responsible for complying with that SUBPOENA failed to produce a single license -- not one -- and their failure to comply has left all of them, and all of its members, in contempt of Court.
For another, careful scrutiny of the State Bar Act in California has convinced CUA that the State Bar is not the designated legal custodian of any licenses to practice law, nor of any certificates of oath.
In a recent written rebuttal to that same Clerk of Court, CUA's Founder justified in great detail the obvious conclusions which any reasonable American can draw from Section 6064 of the California Business and Professions Code.
That law explains the chain of possession in very clear terms: the California Supreme Court issues an order admitting an attorney to practice law; the Office of Clerk issues a certificate of admission, also known as a "license"; and, each certificate of admission is then given to the attorney by the Clerk.
The State Bar is not mentioned anywhere in that chain of possession.
Moreover, Section 6067 clearly requires each licensed attorney to indorse a certificate of oath upon each license. In Latin, "in dorso" means "on the back", as when indorsing a standard bank check. Therefore, all certificates of oath must be signed by all California attorneys "on the back" of their licenses.
The exact language of that Section is worth repeating here:
Every person on his admission shall take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California, and faithfully to discharge the duties of any attorney at law to the best of his knowledge and ability. A certificate of the oath shall be indorsed upon his license.
Section 6067 was enacted in 1939, and its predecessor statute contained almost identical language. In February 1851, not long after California was admitted to the Union, the State's Legislature enacted the following Act concerning Attorneys and Counsellors at Law:
Section 3. If upon examination he be found duly qualified, the Court shall admit him as Attorney and Counsellor in all the Courts of this state, and shall direct an order to be entered to that effect upon its records, and that a certificate of such record be given to him by the Clerk of the Court, which certificate shall be his license.
. . .
Section 5. Every person, on his admission, shall take an oath or affirmation to support the constitution of the United States and of the state, and to discharge the duties of Attorney and Counsellor to the best of his knowledge and ability. A certificate of such oath or affirmation shall be endorsed on the license.
One of the fundamental principles of American Law is that Acts of Legislatures retain today the same meaning they had when they were first enacted into law. Even though slight changes can be confirmed when Section 6067 was enacted in 1939, the important elements have remained unchanged: each certificate of admission shall be the license, and each certificate of oath shall be indorsed "on the back" of each license.
The rubber has met the road in recent State court litigation, however. One CUA client succeeded in serving a civil plaintiff's two counsels with separate SUBPOENAs for proof of their compliance with Sections 6067 and 6068 of the State Bar Act.
Instead of producing copies of their certificates of admission and certificates of oath, both attorneys filed copies of their "Bar Cards" into the official records of the California Superior Court.
Both sides of one Bar Card were disclosed, and only the front side of the other Bar Card was disclosed. The one back side displayed some telephone numbers, and a signature line for the Bar member to certify that his dues were up-to-date and paid in full. No signature was evident.
CUA's client then filed a timely MOTION TO COMPEL their compliance with those two SUBPOENAs, with a companion MEMORANDUM in support of same.
In a recent hearing where this question arose, a Superior Court Judge attempted to dispose the matter summarily: she ruled that a "Bar Card" is sufficient proof of a valid license to practice law, these license questions were "not meritorious", and no "Points and Authorities" had accompanied that MOTION TO COMPEL.
Clearly, that summary ruling was plainly erroneous on each point: "Bar Cards" are not valid licenses to practice law; the absence of valid licenses to practice law in the State of California implies multiple State and Federal criminal offenses, like mail fraud and wire fraud; and, the MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL did recite numerous legal authorities justifying a Court order compelling SUBPOENA compliance.
At a minimum, attempting to appear in court on behalf of private clients without a valid license to practice law is willful misrepresentation, violating at a minimum Sections 6126 and 6128 of the State Bar Act: both are misdemeanor crimes.
At this writing, CUA's Founder has mailed his detailed rebuttal to the Clerk of the California Supreme Court, complete with certificates of mailing, and courtesy copies were also mailed to the Governor of California, the State Attorney General, the Superior Court's Presiding Judge, and the local County Sheriffs.
It requires no stretch of the imagination to realize that the membership of The State Bar of California appear to be engaged in a pattern of racketeering activities, in violation of the RICO laws first enacted by Congress in October 1970 at 18 U.S.C. 1961.
It is not too difficult to prove that each such UNlicensed "member" has committed at least one count of mail fraud, one count of wire fraud, and one count of bank fraud. Each count qualifies as a RICO "predicate act" and the fine is one million dollars for each count.
An agent of the U.S. Treasury under the Federal civil False Claims Act has now billed all 250,000+ members for $9 Million each, after applying the automatic triple damage multiplier expressly authorized by 18 U.S.C. 1964(c), also known as the Civil RICO statute.
Launch CALCULATOR: a total of $2.25 TRILLION U.S. Dollars are now owed to the Treasury of the United States, minus Management Fees, plus interest.
A hunt is now underway to discover all insurance companies that have agreed to indemnify State Bar members for their own "errors and omissions". CUA's Founder reserves the right to examine those insurance contracts, to determine whether or not they do indemnify criminal conduct.
Stay tuned: the insurance giants of this world did not become enormously wealthy by agreeing to underwrite criminal conduct. They already know the sky's the limit on damages caused by serious crimes, like a pattern of felony criminal offenses that threatens to continue with no relief in sight.
In the medical field, a doctor may be asked to take his own medicine. We may soon learn how California's UNlicensed attorneys react to the prospect of looming civil, and criminal, prosecution for their own manifold crimes.
# # #
Michael Hafter, Freelance Writer
December 23, 2015 A.D.
The Compassionate Use Alliance encountered the Credential Investigation about ten years ago, the same year a Federal Court SUBPOENA was served upon The State Bar of California. In retrospect, the State Bar's reply to that SUBPOENA was quite revealing, in more ways than one.
Calling it "burdensome and oppressive", an Assistant General Counsel for the State Bar tried in vain to claim that said SUBPOENA was not proper because the copyright case from which it issued had been "dismissed" at all three levels of the Federal Judiciary.
This, of course, was another sorry instance of calling the kettle black. Federal Court personnel at all 3 levels had come up through the same State Bar, and they too had failed to comply with important sections of the State Bar Act.
Notably, after receiving a lawful NOTICE AND DEMAND to exhibit valid licenses to practice law in the State of California, Associate Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor and Stephen Gerald Breyer all fell silent.
Their silence turned out to be a very serious matter, because the question of missing licenses was a major point in all pleadings that had reached the U.S. Supreme Court in that case.
The District Court had issued seven more subpoenas to defense attorneys, and all seven had failed to produce any evidence of compliance with the State Bar Act.
For readers who are not entirely familiar with legalese, a blatant conflict of interest is the correct legal language to describe the legal consequences of that silence. And, Federal law requires Judges to disqualify themselves whenever such conflicts are disclosed. Even the mere appearance of bias or prejudice is sufficient to "recuse" any Federal Judge.
There were other missing credentials for high Court personnel. Luckily, the U.S. Department of Justice was persuaded to agree that the Office of the Attorney General in Washington, D.C., is the designated legal custodian of the requisite PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSIONS for all Federal Judges.
In response to a timely request under the Freedom of Information Act, DOJ admitted they had no PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSIONS for Ruther Bader Ginsberg, Clarence Thomas or Stephen Gerald Breyer (again). Absent valid COMMISSIONS, no other credentials can be valid.
Three plus two equals five.
This was a rather fatal admission, because Federal law requires at least six duly credentialed Justices to constitute a legal quorum at the U.S. Supreme Court. Nine minus five equals four, depriving that entire high Court of a quorum in all cases, not merely the copyright case where these discoveries came to light.
The same pattern had already emerged at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and at the Federal District Court in Sacramento. In particular, all full-time U.S. Magistrate Judges must have been members of a State Bar in good standing for at least five full years.
The Magistrate assigned to that copyright case was a State Bar "member" but he too failed to produce any evidence of a valid license and certificate of oath. And, about a fourth of Ninth Circuit Judges had also come up through The State Bar of California and all of those were likewise disqualified by the same conflicts of interest.
On the merits, the State Bar officer's off-point answer to the SUBPOENA tried to characterize it as a request for certified copies of ten years of attorney registration cards. This was like asking your grocer if he has any apples in stock, and he replies they have no bananas today.
CUA's extensive research has now amassed a mountain of evidence proving that Bar Cards are not valid certificates of admission, and they are not valid certificates of oath either.
The State Legislature's original Act of 1851 clearly equates the terms "certificate of admission" and "license": the two terms are equivalent.
The back sides of Bar Cards display some telephone numbers and a line for signatures certifying that Bar members have paid their dues.
There is no mention on either side of any oath, no mention of the Constitution of the United States, and no mention of the Constitution of the State of California.
These two large bodies of Law are matters of substance, not a mere formality.
In particular, the State Bar Act in California implements Article VI, Clause 3 in the Federal Constitution, that Clause predates the Bill of Rights by three years, and that Clause has never been amended.
After obvious obstruction at all levels of the Federal Judiciary, that copyright case was then re-filed in the California Superior Court by invoking the civil remedies provided by Congress in Federal racketeering laws.
This effort was proper, chiefly because Congress had already added criminal copyright infringement to the list of RICO "predicate acts" which constitute a pattern of racketeering activities, and the U.S. Supreme Court had already ruled that State courts also enjoy jurisdiction of Civil RICO cases.
It was then no surprise when that Superior Court case was shunted back to the very same impostors who had already obstructed the Federal copyright case.
Nevertheless, by that time a very thick stack of formal documentation had already been assembled, complete with a comprehensive criminal complaint charging all State Bar members with multiple State and Federal felonies, including of course a conspiracy to engage in a pattern of racketeering activities.
The implications of that criminal complaint are very far-reaching.
For example, all U.S. Attorneys must obey all State Bar disciplinary guidelines in each State where they are stationed.
This means that all U.S. Attorneys appointed to offices in California must comply with all the same requirements imposed on all other attorneys in this State -- "to the same extent and in the same manner".
They have not done so, however.
As such, poking huge holes in routine Federal prosecutions is now a simple task. Lacking powers of attorney, they cannot legally represent the Federal Government in any American courts.
In one recent misdemeanor case, CUA helped the defendant appreciate the importance of credentials required of the Federal prosecutor and the Federal magistrate.
At a preliminary hearing, no one appeared for the government i.e. the U.S. DOJ failed to prosecute. And, the magistrate was disqualified on three counts: no valid license to practice law, no valid certificate of oath, and no APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS, all of which are mandated by applicable State and Federal laws.
Further fraud upon that Federal court occurred when an officer of the U.S. Forest Service turned up without any APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS. That one credential is required of all new Federal employees, without exception.
The U.S. Office of Personnel Management's "Entry on Duty Process for New Employees" makes that credential a mandatory requirement, and another Act of Congress prevents Federal officers from being paid if they have not signed that credential in a timely fashion.
When all of this evidence is placed on the table for adequate deliberation, one has to wonder if California has been the target of widespread subversive activities.
This is not an idle question. It is certainly one that should be considered by a statewide grand jury convened specifically to consider all the evidence.
The Credential Investigation has also amassed proof that all Judges seated on the California Courts of Appeal and on the California Supreme Court are also registered State Bar "members".
And, all have failed to produce proof of compliance with the State Bar Act, after being served with proper DEMANDs for same.
Being the largest State in the Union, it would seem logical that advocates of some New World Order would attempt to implement their ominous plans in one advanced industrial society, by way of demonstrating proof of concept.
Call us a "test case".
In short, if these subversives can impose their aims upon 30+ million Californians, by any means available, doing the same to less advanced civilizations should then be a piece o' cake.
Ask yourself this one key question: if world government is the essential goal of all this infiltration, will anyone on planet Earth have an opportunity to vote for or against this radical reorganization?
The People of California are guaranteed a Republican Form of Government, which mandates that all American government personnel at all levels must honor fundamental democratic principles.
Any conspiracy to violate that Guarantee is a felony Federal offense.
Stay with us as we explore local efforts to expose these ugly skeletons that now proliferate in government offices throughout the State of California.
# # #
Bernard von NotHaus is FREE! | LIBERTY DOLLAR ALERT: December 09, 2015
LIBERTY DOLLAR ALERT:
December 09. 2015
Judge Voorhees Orders Early Termination of BVNH from Probation
Dear Liberty Dollar Supporters!
For the first time since being arrested for counterfeiting and conspiracy on June 4, 2009, I am off probation and free! Earlier today, Judge Richard Voorhees issued a Court Order for early termination of my three year sentence.
Please click HERE for the Court Order.
I light of the fact that I was facing 22 years in federal prison, the three years of probation is the closest I or the Liberty Dollar will ever come to a vindication.
Meanwhile, the forfeiture case has been moving at light speed with 265 Petitions approved in record time and the balance have moved along very well. I am soo pleased that soo many Liberty Dollar supporters refused to let the government steal their property.
And of course, one of the most unique turn of events, is that the actual Gold and Silver Liberty Dollars are being returned! In a time when seized property is rarely ever returned and if so, it is in the form of those dreaded non-Federal non-Reserve Notes The Petitioners will receive actual Liberty Dollars! How cool it that!?
Words cannot express my sincere appreciation for all of you who took a stand for a value based currency and supported the Liberty Dollar. My heart goes out to those who have been harmed or not lived long enough to enjoy the blessings of their activism.
Many many thanks for your staunch support of the Liberty Dollar!
Bernard von NotHaus