Monday, December 26, 2005

Courts Criticize Judges' Handling of Asylum Cases

By Adam Liptak - December 26, 2005 - The New York Times
In the Philadelphia decision in September, Judge Julio M. Fuentes of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit had this to say about Annie S. Garcy, an immigration judge, or I.J., in Newark: "The tone, the tenor, the disparagement, and the sarcasm of the I.J. seem more appropriate to a court television show than a federal court proceeding."

Judge Garcy ordered Qun Wang returned to China, where he said his wife had been forcibly sterilized. "He's a horrible father as far as the court's concerned," Judge Garcy ruled, saying Mr. Wang was obsessed with having a son and did not pay enough attention to his daughter, who is disabled.

All of that was irrelevant to the issues before Judge Garcy, Judge Fuentes wrote, returning the case to the immigration system for a rehearing before a different judge. "The factual issue before" Judge Garcy, Judge Fuentes wrote, had been only "whether Wang's wife had been forcibly sterilized and whether, if he returned to China, the Chinese government would inflict improper punishment on him for leaving the country."

You need to read this article with a sensitivity to court abuse to understand what these judges mean when they express the need to "criticize" the rulings. What they are criticizing is the dastardly practice of not giving judges totalitarian control over who gets into America. If anyone wants to come to America, these judges are completely in agreement with the philosophy that any liberal judge should have the right to grant them admission if there is a belief they "might" be at risk in some other coutry. Granting admission is called asylum. It is a right under our constitution that is granted to the executive branch, not the judiciary. But judges find this too restrictive. They cannot interfere in these foreign countries unless the right to grant asylum is taken away from the executive branch and granted to them.

Guess what? They have already created a temporary asylum system by illegally seizing this right. It is the reason that our criminal justice system is swamped with criminals from foreign nations. Why is no one from the executive branch complaining?

Saturday, December 24, 2005


T'was the night before Christmas . . .

. . . and not a creature was stirring around Colerain . . . on the Chowan River . . . in Bertie County, North Carolina. The family is gathering tomorrow though, and it is the best time of the year.

God bless you all!

Friday, December 23, 2005

Court: Driver Can Sue Developer

By Patricia Farrell Aidem - December 23, 2005 - Santa Clarita Daily News
A driver who had been drinking and admitted he took a curve too fast can sue The Newhall Land and Farming Company because his car skidded off a Valencia road and hit a berm on the firm's land, causing his sports car to overturn.

In a ruling issued Wednesday by the state Court of Appeal, justices overturned a lower-court decision relieving the Valencia-based development company of liability. The court did not find the company at fault, but reversed a judgment that summarily relieved it of responsibility.

Motorist Douglas Domel of Santa Clarita also has legal action pending against the city of Santa Clarita and the manufacturer of the 2001 Dodge Viper he was driving.

The trial lawyer defense association, i.e. appeal court judges, once again defended the assumption that being innocent of any wrongdoing will not protect you from America's system of corruption and extortion, the courts. All stockholders of Newhall Land and Farming Company, even widows whose sole source of income is a small portion of this company's stock, were just found guilty of "having deep pockets".

In the minds of the totalitarian socialists on our appeal courts who are determined to turn our courts into a government "of the judges, by the judges and for the lawyers", that is the most evil situation that can occur. Having money and not being a judge or a socialist is unacceptable in our current political climate. Actually I may have mis-spoken. It is not unacceptable to have it. It is just unacceptable to KEEP it.

Thursday, December 15, 2005

Idaho Suit Over Illegal Immigration Tossed

By Rebecca Boone - December 14, 2005 - Associated Press

BOISE, Idaho (AP) -- A federal judge on Wednesday tossed out a southwest Idaho county's lawsuit against local employers accused of hiring illegal immigrants - an attempt to recoup money the county says it has spent on the workers.

The judge said Canyon County's claimed higher expenses for social services such as indigent medical care, schools and jails were simply the costs of being a government entity. The judge dismissed the case with prejudice, which means it cannot be refiled.

The lawsuit marked the first time a government tried to use the federal Racketeering and Corrupt Organizations Act to demand damages from businesses for the costs of allegedly illegal employees.

More and more attempts are being made to stop the illegal invasion of Mexicans into America. One major motivation of the judges to subvert these efforts is simple. Now that three strike laws have effectively ended the criminal coddling subversion of justice that judges had inflicted on America, the courts have found a new way to increase their power over our society.

They have expanded their alignment with people hostile to our culture and nation by extending "rights" to those who are invading our nation. The court campaign to embrace illegals is not popular. It would never be permitted if federal judges were elected. The unelected tyrants of our federal judiciary are quite creative in ways to subvert any form of justice when that justice is desired by the society they hold in such contempt. As an example, illegals are granted admission to our society with no bail even if caught. The pretense is that they have a "right" to their day in court. Therefore the judge grants them the very entry they sought, but now with the protection that they are temporarily "legal".

Our Constitution does not grant courts the right to create "temporary citizens". Yet that is exactly what has been created. A "temporary citizen" is legally entitled to welfare, health care, unemployment payments, food stamps, free schooling and illegal off the books jobs ... at least as far as judges are concerned. American citizens only have one right, the right to pay the bills. Actually, as in this case, judges assure that Americans have NO RIGHTS. That is how it works in a judicial oligarchy.

Monday, December 12, 2005

Court Rules Against Lolo National Forest

By Perry Backus - December 9, 2005 -- The Missoulian News

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has called the Lolo National Forest's efforts to log in areas burned by the fires of 2000 “arbitrary and capricious” and reversed a lower court's ruling in favor of the agency.

The San Francisco-based court likened the U.S. Forest Service's efforts to thin old-growth stands for forest health without knowing for sure how those efforts would impact wildlife to pharmaceutical companies marketing drugs without ensuring they are safe and effective.

But one justice, in a written dissent, said the court went too far in its decision, insisting it had “crossed the line from reviewer to decision maker.”

The arrogance of our judiciary continues. The problem is especially accute in the 9th Circuit. The federal judges continue to believe that expanding court power is their right. These unelected judges with lifetime tenure are out of touch with citizens and have lost any respect for the very concept of repesentative democracy. Having established the premise that they can make law and superced the legislature, the latest program to expand power is to replace the executive branch and make all decisions of government.

This must be stopped now. If the judiciary becomes a single branch of government with all power, totalitarianism is not far behind.