Wednesday, January 13, 2010


For legal research go to:

1. Dictionary with pronunciations:

2. Legal Dictionary online:

3. Fair Debt Collection Practices Act:

4. USC Fair Credit Billing Act:

5. State Code Publication, limited number of states:

6. Versus Law - search for court cases, $14.95 per mo. plan will serve most people:

7. Cornell University Law Library - search for court cases, codes and more:

8. Judicial Accountability Initiated Law a.k.a. Jail4Judges

9. Meet Richard Cornforth - video
Meet Richard Cornforth - Video

10. See "Does the judge..." then "#3"- disqualify for active participation in "THE BAR!"- Wat'cha think?!
Federal Judge's checklist for disqualification

11. Code of conduct for [federal court] U.S. Judges
Code of Conduct for Federal Judges

12. Mandatory Judicial Notice under FRCivP Rule 201 - Judges must follow the rules
Mandatory Judicial Notice under FRCivP Rule 201

13. Supervoid Memoranda laid out by State
Void Judgements By State

14. Order your Debt Collection needs here.
Buy your debt collection needs, including affidavits and monthly statements

15. Looking for something or someone (debt collector, affiant or notary)
Start your searching here

16. Tracking new and intriguing Web sites for the legal profession.

17. Fastcase Unveils 'Largest Free (1st 24hours free, billable thereafter) Law Library.' Fastcase unveiled an even larger free library of cases, statutes, regulations, court rules and legal forms.

18. The Public Library of Law it claims in an announcement to be "the most comprehensive free resource for legal research online."

19. Paralegal Research Advocates."

21. Justia :: Law & Legal Information for Lawyers, Students, Business and the Public.

Statutes and Cases of Interest

1. What the U.S. Supreme Court has said Standing is.
U.S. Supreme Court On Standing

2. What brought down Leahman according to 9th Circuit Court of Appleals.
Predatory Lending

3. McKee v. IRS - Code too Confusing, Court Reverses, McKee Wins. Code too Confusing. ( Take notice: Judges Order is set as "Not for Publication." ) Paul Harvey on McKee Win

4. Ballard v. Commissioner - Supreme Court takes 25+ pages to say the want of Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law deny access to Court and Deny due Process, ergo judgment is void.

5. MERS declared a Sham by the 11th Judicial Circuit Court (in and for Miami & Dade County, Florida), MERS ='s Mortgage Electronic Registry Service.

Videos that may be Interest

1. Rae & Loma taking on Douglas County (Oregon) Council over Improper IRS property Liens,

Articles Written for Publication

764 Judges Oklahama Sued By Citizen Acting as Private Attorney General Under RICO

Citizens Criminal Complaint

Colorado Housewife Sues Wells Fargo Bank Under RICO as Private Attorney General

Tax Lien Fraud: " . . see how deep the rabbit hole goes . . "
Companion Video

" . . see how deep the rabbit hole goes . . " -- Continued
and Companion Video Links

" . . see how deep the rabbit hole goes . . " -- the Saga Continues

Debt Collection Industry Collapse Approaches


Void Judgments Memo by: Gary Bryant

Void Judgments Case List by: Richard Cornforth

Supervoid - memoranda by STATE! keep handy! by: J'Accuse Ltd.

The real issue in Void Judgments is: SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION! by: Jeff

Title 18 USC - Criminal - is a nulity and has been since 1947/1948:

Tax Cuts Explained!

Ever Wonder How DOJ goes about winning Tax Cases?

One person writes to their Congressman and Senator demanding to know the law/statute that authorizes IRS to sieze real property and money. Good template for a letter writing campagne. May be the only route to take to stop the IRS's campaigne of domestic terrorism.

One person presses IRS to settle their financial claim for IRS violation of their Rights. Another good template for a letter writing campagne. If you cost them more than they can get from you, they just may leave you alone.


Or more appropriately, the lack thereof...

“[T]he judicially fashioned doctrine of official immunity does not reach so far as to immunize criminal conduct proscribed by an Act of Congress.” See SUING JUDGES, A Study of Judicial Immunity, Abimbola Olowofoyeku, Clarendon Press Oxford, at page 77. “Absolute immunity from criminal liability involves immunity even in cases of alleged malice and negligence. Fraud, corruption, and other inherently criminal acts…. are not covered. SUING JUDGES, id supra at page 78. See also, United States v. Hastings, 681 F. 2d 706 at 711, n.17 (11th Cir. 1982), Oshea v. Littleton, 38 L.ed 2d. 674 at 688 (1974), and Cooke v. Bangs, 31 F. 640 (US Cir. Ct. Minnesota, (1887) at page 642.

“ No man in this country is so high that he is above the law.” No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the Government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it. It is only supreme power in our system of government, and every man, who, by accepting office, participates in its functions, is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives. See INTERNATONAL POSTAL SUPPLY COMPANY v. BRUCE (05/31/04) 194 U.S. 601, 48 L.Ed. 1134, 24 S. Ct. at page 609. But immunity from suit is a high attribute of sovereignty – a prerogative of the State itself – which cannot be availed of by public agents when sued for their own torts. The Eleventh Amendment was not intended to afford them freedom from liability in any case where, under color of their office, they have injured one of the State’s citizens. To grant them such immunity would be to create a privileged class free from liability from wrongs inflicted or injuries threatened. Public agents must be liable to the law, unless they are to be put above the law. See OLD COLONY TRUST COMPANY v. CITY SEATTLE ET AL. (06/01/26) 271 U.S. 426, 46 S.Ct. 552, 70 L. Ed at page 431. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. See United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220 and Burton v. united States, 202U.S. 344.

“The objection is that, as the real party cannot be brought before the court, a suit cannot be sustained against the agents of that party; and cases have been cited to show that a court of chancery will not make a decree unless all those who are substantially interested be made parties to the suit. This is certainly true where it is in the power of the plaintiff to make them parties; but if the person who is the real principle, the person who is the true source of the mischief, by whose power and for whose advantage it is done, be himself above the law, be exempt from all judicial process, it would be subversive of the best established principles to say that the laws could not afford the same remedies against the agent employed in doing the wrong which they would afford against him could his principle be joined in the suit.” See IN RE AYERS.; IN RE SCOTT.; IN RE McCABE. 123 U.S. 443, 31 L.Ed. 216, 8 S.Ct at page 512.

The liability of state judicial officials and all official participants in state judicial proceedings under § 2 was explicitly and repeatedly affirmed. The notion of immunity for such officials was thoroughly discredited. The Senate sponsor of the Act deemed the idea “akin to the maxim of the English law that the King can do no wrong. It places officials above the law. It places officials above the law. It is the very doctrine out of which the rebellion [the Civil War] was hatched.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 1758 (18660 (Sen. Trumble). Thuse, § 2 was “aimed directly at the State judiciary.Id., at 1155 (Rep. Eldridge). See also id. At 1778 (Sen. Johnson, member of the Senate Judiciary Committee).There was “no difference in the principle involved” between a civil remedy and a criminal sanction. Ibid. See BRISCOE ET AL. V. LAHUE ET AL. (03/07/83) 460 U.S. 3325, 103 S. Ct. 1108, 75 L.Ed. 2d 96, 51 U.S.L.W. at page 359.

The Court in Yates v. Village of Hoffman Estates, Illinois, 209 F. Supp. 757 (N.D. Ill. 1962) held that “not every action by a judge is in the exercise of his judicial function. it is not a judicial function for a judge to commit an intentional tort even though the tort occurs in the courthouse. When a judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does not follow the law, the judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judges’ orders are void, of no legal force or effect.”

The United States Supreme Court, in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S. Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974) stated that when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner volative of the Federal constitution, he comes into conflict with the superior authority of the Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. A judge’s private, prior agreement to decide in favor of one party is not a judicial act. Although a party conniving with a judge to predetermine the outcome of a judicial proceeding may deal with him in his “judicial capacity,” the other party’s expectation of judicial impartiality is actively frustrated by the scheme. It is the antithesis of the “principled and fearless decision-making” that judicial immunity exists to protect. Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844 (9th Cir. 1980) cert. DENIED, 451 U.S. 939, 101 S. Ct. 2020, (1981), Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554, 87S. Ct. 1213 (1967), and Gregory v. Thompson, 500 F. 2d 59 (9th Cir. 1974).