Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New Law Set to Sweep Across the Nation that Would Strip All Americans of their Constitutional Rights
PRNewsWire ^ | Federal Ethics Center

Posted on 05/04/2012 4:07:25 PM PDT by freeliberty21

WASHINGTON, May 2, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- The Federal Ethics Center (FEC), a watchdog organization protecting the rights of United States citizens, urges Congress to promptly hold hearings regarding troubling events occurring in the United States 5th Circuit.   FEC's letter to members of Congress outlined several examples of recent erratic 5th Circuit initiatives as follows:

  1. 5th Circuit Judge Jerry Smith, in disregard of the law, recently demanded that Attorney General, Eric Holder Jr. confirm that the rule of Marbury v. Madison applies to the President of the United States.
  2. 5th Circuit District Judge, W. Royal Furgeson, Jr., in coordination with 5th Circuit Bankruptcy Judge Stacey G.C. Jernigan, acted with disregard for the law in restricting the rights of U.S. citizen, Jeff Baron, including strangely barring him from legal counsel in defense of an unlawful proceeding against his financial interests and individual freedom, even threatening Mr. Baron with severe physical punishment by means of the combined forces of the United States military in a civil lawsuit.

After making the threats of violent punishment in this civil lawsuit, Judge Furgeson handed down an unprecedented order, imposing a federal receivership on Mr. Baron's person, literally making him the chattel property of the judge's colleague.  Furgeson's action is the first time in American history that an individual has been placed into a receivership.   If this order is not overturned, the consequences for all Americans could be far reaching.

Judge Furgeson's order transfers "possession and control" of "all receivership parties" and "assets", which specifically includes the person Jeffery Baron, to a court appointed receiver.   To date, the 5th Circuit Court has declined to stay the actions taken against Mr. Baron.  Mr. Baron has been held in a civil lockdown for the past 15 months, without counsel, without trial and without due process.

Despite no criminal or incompetency allegations, the 5th Circuit has taken away Mr. Baron's legal rights and made him a ward of the state. This dangerous precedent is poised to set in motion a rapid expansion of receivership laws against law abiding American citizens.

Part of Mr. Baron's plight may be viewed at WashingtonExaminer.com, LawInjustice.com and facebook.com/savejeff.. In addition, a petition sponsored by human rights organization NOTEGA can be found at SaveJeffBaron.com.  The transcripts of Mr. Baron's proceedings can be downloaded at FederEthicsCenter.com

The Federal Ethics Center (FEC) is a watch dog association protecting the Constitutional rights of all United States citizens.  FEC's Legal Director David Nolan is a former ethics attorney for the Office of the President-Elect and the White House.   He is a co-author of the Ethics Section of the DC Practice Manual.  He has trained federal attorneys in continuing legal education (CLE) for their respective state bar ethics requirements.

Contact:

Federal Ethics Center:

8310 Wagon Wheel Road

Alexandria, VA 22309

202–681-2730

571-277-3265

dnolan@federalethicscenter.com

FederalEthicsCenter.com

SOURCE Federal Ethics CenterBack to top


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 13thamendment; bloodofjudiciary; bloodoftyrants; constitution; courts; govtabuse; judges; law; lawyers; slave; slavery; slaves; tyranny
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-77 last
To: freeliberty21

ping


51 posted on 05/05/2012 7:03:11 AM PDT by Rich21IE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded

Constitutional Rights, sorry but you have none in a Federal Court or weren’t you aware of that fact?


52 posted on 05/05/2012 8:45:15 AM PDT by B4Ranch (There's Two Choices... Stand Up and Be Counted ... Or Line Up and Be Numbered .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: freeliberty21

From what I can tell this is a case about corporate law and the actions of someone, a CEO, a CFO, I don’t know, perhaps a single corporate owner who is refusing to follow the law.

A single, solitary federal judge does indeed have sufficient power to take down the largest corporation in the USA. Sure it will go to appeals but one judge can force you to close your doors, place soldiers outside them and block all financial transactions.


53 posted on 05/05/2012 8:51:25 AM PDT by B4Ranch (There's Two Choices... Stand Up and Be Counted ... Or Line Up and Be Numbered .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Bingo!


54 posted on 05/05/2012 8:51:44 AM PDT by SgtHooper (The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Sorry to post again. I am not defending this judge in any way, just correcting some legal notions. What makes this even more eggregious is that the person HAD due process by the fact that it was decided in court, however cockeyed the decision. So now it must be corrected (hopefully) in the upper court(s). Should even that fail, the legislature can then pass a special law to correct it - extremely rare so big fat chance of that occurring.


55 posted on 05/05/2012 9:03:19 AM PDT by SgtHooper (The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: freeliberty21
FYI on these two judges.
  1. Jerry Smith: Appointed by Ronald Reagan, 1987.

    It's old news what he demanded from Barry's sock puppet Holder, regarding Marbury v Madison and the powers of SCOTUS re the Constitution. It occurred after Barry once again tried to INTIMIDATE the SCOTUS and its ObamaDeathCare ruling.

    Nothing 'unethical' about it.

  2. W. Royal Furgeson, Jr.: Appointed by William J. Clinton, 1994

    Surprise, surprise. Billy Jeff's leftist judges strike again. It's no wonder he considers people chattel owned the state. They know less about the Law and Constitution than Obama. And that's a LOT!

So that's it one these two opposites.
One knows the Law, the other wants to make it.
56 posted on 05/05/2012 10:08:22 AM PDT by Condor51 (Yo Hoffa, so you want to 'take out conservatives'. Well okay Jr - I'm your Huckleberry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Condor51

Thank you for posting this.

(OT: I don’t enjoy many movies these days but I did like Tombstone a lot. Val Kilmer’s finest Daisy of a performance, IMO.)


57 posted on 05/05/2012 10:18:47 AM PDT by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: freeliberty21

——could result in a higher mortality rate for judges. Unfair treatment by a judge is a definite career shortener. In the same fashion that presidents do their dirtiest work on the last day in office maybe this judge is about to retire to Aruba?


58 posted on 05/05/2012 10:23:44 AM PDT by cherokee1 (skip the names---just kick the buttz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero
'Tombstone' is or will be an all time Classic Western.
And IMO that was Val Kilmer's best performance ever.

His 'Huckleberry' line really got me. Reminded me of similar sayings we had 'way back when' in Chi before we'd fight. BUT was much snappier than: 'Okay. When you feel froggy, jump.'

And I researched it (NOT Wiki) to see if it was used and correct for that era, and it was. So I used it when that punk Hoffa threatened conservatives.

59 posted on 05/05/2012 10:38:37 AM PDT by Condor51 (Yo Hoffa, so you want to 'take out conservatives'. Well okay Jr - I'm your Huckleberry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

>Sure it will go to appeals but one judge can force you to close your doors, place soldiers outside them and block all financial transactions.

Hm, wasn’t there a city where some soldiers were stationed to “keep the peace” and enforce such mandates... I think it was... no, it couldn’t be... Boston, and then there was the whole riot/massacre thing, and then John Adams defended the soldiers in court... but the whole incident poured fuel on the fire for independence.

My point, rulings like you describe WILL feed CWII sentiment.


60 posted on 05/05/2012 11:04:08 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: SgtHooper
Sorry to post again. I am not defending this judge in any way, just correcting some legal notions. What makes this even more eggregious is that the person HAD due process by the fact that it was decided in court, however cockeyed the decision. So now it must be corrected (hopefully) in the upper court(s).

I would disagree about due process; here is text [apparently] from the Receiver Order.:
First, you are expressly prohibited from retaining any legal counsel. Should you retain any legal counsel, the Receiver may move the Court to find you in contempt of the Receiver Order.

The 2nd Amendment clearly states that in ALL criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to counsel; therefore, this prohibition is clearly in violation of the court's scope of authority, there by violating due process.

Furthermore, there is this portion of transcript[?] which is quite disturbing:
THE COURT: [...] So any failure to comply with that order is contempt, punishable by lots of dollars, punishable by possible jail, death.

So then, the judge is literally saying "I can declare you in contempt, and then order your death" despite the 5th Amendment saying that no person should be held to [answer for] a capital crime UNLESS on indictment or presentment of a grand jury. The judge has declared himself above the constitution, and above the grand jury, and therefore should be found in violation of US CODE, Title 18, Sec 242 (a felony), disbarred, and prosecuted.

This order is so egregious that it violates multiple portions of the Constitution on its mere face, and I'm sure that I (having no legal training) am missing even more violations thereof.

61 posted on 05/05/2012 1:34:40 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
...punishable by lots of dollars, punishable by possible jail, death.

This busts this whole article for me. This was not written by any judge, IMO. "...Lots of dollars..." shows this is not a serious ruling. Possible jail? What kind of legalese is "possible jail"?
62 posted on 05/05/2012 2:21:18 PM PDT by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero

I took it from the PDF someone linked on the thread; that portion was in transcript format (that is that portion wasn’t in any [court] order).
I don’t know a lot of legalese (haven’t been trained), but some of the stuff I’ve read (like the Indiana supreme court’s “the state no longer recognizes the [legal] right to use lethal force to resist illegal [police] entry” decision**) I can’t rule it out.

** This decision flies in the face of 4th Amendment decisions by the USSC; the Indiana Constitution has a word-for-word copy of the 4th... therefore the state’s supreme court must either a) be asserting that the USSC’s decisions do not bind them, or that b) it is a state matter, and they have the ability to alter the state’s constitution.


63 posted on 05/05/2012 2:43:40 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

>>My point, rulings like you describe WILL feed CWII sentiment.<<

Yes, they will. Are they intentional, to me that is the question.

Get in contact with your state senators and your attorney general, move them into (pre)reviewing your state constitution as to just what happens if Zero tries to declare martial law from coast to coast. What authority does your Governor have to keep the Feds out of your state. With a little (pre)planning we could shut him down to where his national declaration of martial law will encompass the District of Columbia and a couple of Democrat led states.


64 posted on 05/05/2012 3:40:00 PM PDT by B4Ranch (There's Two Choices... Stand Up and Be Counted ... Or Line Up and Be Numbered .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded

Study the word: “Usurpation” Congress does that all the time with the predictable support of their hand picked employees in black robes.


65 posted on 05/05/2012 4:54:36 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded

Study the word: “Usurpation” Congress & the president do that all the time with the predictable support of their hand picked employees in black robes.


66 posted on 05/05/2012 4:55:20 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

Be sure to ask only for a plan with the assurance that we desire a plan to be better safe than sorry. That we will not simply walk away from our rights and we expect our State to do its Constitutional job in protecting them.


67 posted on 05/05/2012 5:01:37 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

After I sent that, I had reservations about that specific point. I should have put due process in quotes to indicate a bastardized version for this particular case. Thanks!


68 posted on 05/05/2012 5:44:05 PM PDT by SgtHooper (The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: MeganC

There is a problem with the Bill of Rights- it can lead to the belief that those are our only rights.


69 posted on 05/05/2012 7:16:46 PM PDT by PghBaldy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GeorgeWashingtonsGhost

“Maybe they’re getting away with something because no one can friggin’ understand what this means!”

The Defendant was reduced to the status of mere chattel property.

Let’s look at the logic of this situation
1. A slave was once chattel property under US law.
2. The judge reduced the this Defendant to chattel property.
3. Therefore, the judge made a de facto slave of the Defendant.

SLAVERY IS BACK! - DA’ JUDGE SEZ SO! ! ! !

Clear, isn’t it?

AND made the Defendant the de facto property of the Receiver.


70 posted on 05/05/2012 8:39:32 PM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon freedom, it is necessary to examine principles."...the public interest)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Future Snake Eater

“Things are not always what they seem, Grasshopper”.

;-)


71 posted on 05/05/2012 8:41:29 PM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon freedom, it is necessary to examine principles."...the public interest)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero

Those posting this are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Probably. They provide no background, so it’s really hard to tell what is at issue.

The disturbing parts of the transcript are exactly that. Part of what the judge said during discussion in court. They are not part of any ruling and have zero force in law.

Much of what he said, however, is exactly right. The full force of the government does indeed stand behind a federal judge’s ruling. If resisted, that means up to and including military force. As it should.

Which is not to say the ruling in question is correct, as with no background that’s impossible to tell.

That said, the judge really needs to tone down his hyperbole a bit. There is no death penalty for contempt of court, though the judge can lock you up essentially indefinitely.


72 posted on 05/06/2012 4:06:46 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: GladesGuru
Let’s look at the logic of this situation
1. A slave was once chattel property under US law.
2. The judge reduced the this Defendant to chattel property.
3. Therefore, the judge made a de facto slave of the Defendant.

Sorry, but that is not logic. Consider:

1. A cat has whiskers.
2. I have whiskers.
3. Therefore I am a cat.

A textbook fallacy.

73 posted on 05/06/2012 6:47:29 AM PDT by Moltke (Always retaliate first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Moltke

1. A cat has whiskers.
2. I have whiskers.
3. Therefore I am a cat.

A textbook fallacy.

Corrected to:
1. A cat has whiskers.
2. I have a beard.
3. Therefore I am a cat.

A dictionary deficiency.

;-).


74 posted on 05/06/2012 9:05:09 AM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon freedom, it is necessary to examine principles."...the public interest)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: GladesGuru
Are you sure? Seems like it applies to humans as well:

Noun

whisker (plural whiskers)

1. That part of the beard which grows upon the sides of the face, usually of the male, or upon the chin, or upon both.
2. A hair of the beard.
3. One of the long, projecting hairs growing at the sides of the mouth of a cat, or other animal.

But never mind. I just see that the socialist has won in France. :-(

75 posted on 05/06/2012 11:03:15 AM PDT by Moltke (Always retaliate first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Moltke

Some have commented that a judge has control of the US military. This is not true. If it were, we would all be part of a complete dictatorship of judges. Separation of powers provides the president as commander in chief of the military, not random judges (remember, judges are lawyers).

The case at issue in the article is a breach of contract case. A judge is not allowed to enforce a contract dispute by death and is not allowed to make a US citizen chattel property.

Those that care about rule of law and the Constitution should be very concerned about this.


76 posted on 05/06/2012 4:30:08 PM PDT by freeliberty21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Alas Babylon!; All

Bingo! Exactly what I noted upon reading this drivel.

The author has his panties in a wad because Obama said something stupid and the court asked the AG to confirm that the traditional understanding of judicial interpretation still held.


77 posted on 05/07/2012 9:50:38 PM PDT by bt_dooftlook (Democrats - the party of Amnesty, Abortion, and Adolescence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-77 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson