Monday, February 1, 2010

Tyranny of the Courts?

Are US Courts a vestige of a monarchy?

5-4 Fascism -" One Court, One Man, One Vote, One Tyranny

By Kent Welton (about the author) Permalink

5-4 Fascism One Court, One Man, One Vote, One Tyranny

"The Democratic party participated in condoning a takeover of the Supreme Court, or a near takeover, by a fascist organization called the Federalist Society! That fascist organization is built around the ideas of Carl Schmitt, the man who designed the Hitler dictatorship! Are they Nazis? Of course they're Nazis."

Lyndon LaRouche

"This vision of Corporations Ubber Alles was first advanced by Milton Friedman in the "50's. More recently, the ultra-reactionary Grove Norquist, demanded that government be shrunk down to the size that it could be drowned in the bathtub. The open corporate goal is a totally privatized society, in tandem with the absolute dispossession of the public as an entity having any legal standing whatsoever. These ideologues argue that every single thing in society should be controlled by corporations and offered to people at a price."

Steven Miller, Daily Censored

"I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of our country."

Thomas Jefferson, 1816

Larouche was right on regarding the Federalist society. In his day Jefferson also clearly realized the dangers of the Corporate State - this being the latest gift from "our" Supreme Court.

To understand the court"s 5-4 decision giving all power and freedom to corporate money, we need to understand the philosophy of the Federalist society and the mentality of the money-as-speech Supreme Court Justices. In the words of the Federalist society:

"The Harvard Law School Chapter of the Federalist Society is a group of conservative, libertarian, and moderate law students who believe in three main principles.
1. The state exists to preserve freedom
2. The separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution
3. The province and duty of the judiciary is to say what the law is, not what it should be."

Contrary to the above, in the view of five justices, the state apparently exists to preserve freedom for corporations, and not for the great majority of citizens.

Clearly, the Federalist Society's majority-bench has just proclaimed what the law should be despite 100 years of precedent against their decision, and the fact they supposedly revile "judicial activists." In addition, they say they also believe in "limited government" so that must explain why they just gave it away. In effect, now there is no government, only corporations and democracy is privatized out of the hands of the public.

Hypocrisy is too kind a word for these judges who have put the final nail in the coffin of our once, fairly effective, democracy.

Can't say we weren't warned. The dangers of the Supreme Court and its powers were well outlined by the Anti-Federalists at the Constitutional Convention and during the early years of our government. Unfortunately, the Anti-Federalists papers are largely unknown and unread, even among those familiar with the Federalist papers of Alexander Hamilton.

In the Anti-Federalist tract, Brutus, in 1788, warned of the dangers of the perverse powers of the Supreme Court:

"The judges in England are under the control of the legislature for they are bound to determine according to the laws passed by them. But the judges under this (US) constitution will control the legislature, for the Supreme Court are authorized in the last resort, to determine what is the extent of the powers of the congress; they are to give the constitution an explanation, and there is no power above them to set aside their judgment... In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven."

So the founders screwed up on the court issue, fearing as they did that someday slaves might run free, and actually vote. As a result of this new democracy-crushing decision what corporate-money-fed legislator will vote to give the people a National Initiative process - by which they might control their economy and society, and overrule their Supreme Court and corporate overlords? What re-election-seeking state legislator will move forward a Constitutional Amendment in their state to overturn money-as-speech and corporations-as-persons dogma? What corporate media company will refuse the new billions about to be spent on election advertising?

In any case the outrage and protests from around the country are mounting over this 5-4 decision. But will we see this momentum come to a halt due to re-electable politicians realizing who's in charge, and what they must now do to get nominated or elected given their need for positive corporate media attention?

What will they not do to satisfy the dictates of the privatized black-box voting machines? Lastly, we can surely expect corporate media to blackout discussions of this seminal issue and more due to their ownership of the "weapons of mass distraction."

Are the ways out of this mess blocked? Have we entered the "roach motel" of societal predicaments? Is peaceful protest now a silly hope? Is corporate fascism cemented into our future? Will the next presidential candidate be a flat-out Mussolini?

The implications of this 5-4 decision should be understood by everyone: In effect, the court overturned 100 years of precedent, rendered state campaign finance laws void, and paved the way for large corporations to buy up all the media time and sponsor/nominate their candidates or disappear any "populist" dissenters as they wish. Without public financing of campaigns, the necessity to raise money from the billion-dollar war chests of corporations will effectively mean legislation is for sale, and now more than ever.

In short, democracy has been privatized, sold to the highest bidder as the right of the public to control the election process has been taken away. We are now a fascist state, controlled by our corporate overlords.

This transformation of our country, and most of the world, into appointive-body ruled states (a nice name for ruthless oligarchies) has been under way for several decades now thanks to the efforts of phony Republicans and traitorous "New Democrats." The sell-out of the Supreme Court is just the coup de grace, the finishing touch on Corporate Oligarchy.

We were warned, however, as to the Supreme Court's dangerous powers, and even before Marbury v. Madison. Once again Anti-Federalist Brutus got it right:

"There is no power above them that can correct their errors or control their decisions... They cannot be removed from office for any error in judgment... The power of this Supreme court is in many cases superior to that of the legislature... The Supreme Court then have a right, independent of the legislature, to give a construction to the constitution and every part of it, and there is no power provided in this system to correct their construction or do it away... in this respect their power is superior to that of the legislature."

With an operating assumption that the Supreme Court is superior to the legislature(s) that can only mean it is superior to our representatives, and to the people.

Think how long it took the Supreme Court to outlaw slavery, to advance women's rights? Will another appointment undue this travesty? In any case, our civil rights must surely include the right to determine the nature of one's political process, without 5 guys in a one vote majority ruling saying its all about money. The upshot is shut up and don't complain about your job going to China, or those trillions to Wall Street. Savor your impotence.

As for money and politics, political scientist Samuel Huntington once observed, "Money becomes evil not when it is used to buy goods but when it is used to buy power... economic inequalities become evil when they are translated into political inequalities"

Welcome to the world of evil money-speech.

Kent Welton,

Author, Exec. Dir. The Center For Balance. Websites:,,,, FascismUSA.COM & more

* * * *
* * * *

The number one problem I see with America is the lack of a real "justice system". If you lodge a complaint against an official involved in public corruption, crimes against humanity, war crimes, judicial, official, or police misconduct, authorities will go after the "Big Mouth" or whistle blower and the official thefts and abuse only continue.

My beef is with the State of Connecticut. Connecticut power players might be the key perpetrators acting with New York City Banksters and others all abuse "Corruptikourts", such as the Los Angeles area court system. This style of justice has put us all in the whole worldwide mess we're now in.

Maybe the whole banking scandal could have been avoided ten years ago. Maybe 200 plus Los Angeles area judges taking bribes for the last ten years, or so, allowed for a worldwide Depression. Countrywide Home Loan, Bank of America, and others were allowed to loot, plunder, and sink our legal system and government to its lowest levels. Attorney Richard I. Fine who is 70, and in solitary confinement to shut him up, might be the key whistle blower to that monumental, purple and swollen, banking fraud.

A Minneapolis, Minnesota, area millionaire can be reduced to a pauper due to a Judge, allegedly named Montgomery, who aligns with a bankster, Tom Petters and others, so the judge can also profit as a member of organized crime. The victim was stripped of his freedom, whisked off to prison to cover up the judge's and bankster's crimes. Law enforcement held guns to the victim's head, threatening him with death, to not turn in Judge Montgomery for her crimes. [video testimony] Should this be "business as usual" in America. If not, share this post with your local and national elected officials asking them to fix what is wrong.

Bankster, Tom Petters

This blogger's email:

I complained about Judge Jonathan J. Kaplan, to the clerk's office, writing the docket number for Haas vs. Steven G. Erickson, on my complaint against the judge. I alleged that Kaplan helped cover up insurance fraud and acted for a woman who may have had a past using courts to steal from others and to commit insurance fraud. The woman also allegedly has political connections. I believe that, and my criticism of police in the State of Connecticut for misconduct, put me on their [target list] to arrest, ruin my life, break up my family, make me lose my business and home, and to discredit me, railroading me to prison.

Police informants were encouraged to harass and terrorize me and my daughter. I received a year in prison for resisting being beaten up on my own property. I continue to suffer daily due to the rigged court case and Connecticut State Police Officer perjury at the rigged trial. Should a judge, such as Jonathan J. Kaplan, sentence a citizen to a year in prison AFTER the citizen tries to have the judge removed for bias in previous civil cases, lodging judicial misconduct complaints? Shouldn't that raise red flags with legislators who were told of the judicial and police misconduct before the rigged criminal trial for retaliation? Should Connecticut State Senators John Kissel and Tony Guglielmo act for justice and their constituents, or for a retaliation system?

A son of a politician who has a history of breaking the law, dealing drugs and committing other crimes, can either commit, or try to commit armed robbery and gets no prison! [story of possible Democratic Candidate for Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy's son, Benjamin Malloy ]

No comments: