It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Tyranny of the Bench - The story of Linda Kay Spitler

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Judges are above the law, and our entire "archist" system of enslavement revolves around this fact.

The story of Linda Kay Spitler and the power of judges.

Read and be amazed just how unaccountable Judges really are.


The eminent Murray Rothbard explains in this 1978 Libertarian Review article:


One of the fatal flaws in the concept of "limited" government is the judiciary. Endowed with the compulsory monopoly of the vital power of deciding disputes, of ultimately deciding who can wield force and how much can be wielded, the government judiciary sits as an unchecked and unlimited tyrant.

Pledged to preside over the rule of law, law that is supposed to apply to everyman, the judges themselves are yet above the law and free from its sanctions and limitations. When clothed in the robes of his office, the judge can do no legal wrong and is therefore immune from the law itself.
...
the United States Supreme Court ruled, in 1872, that judges were immune from any damage suits for any "judicial acts" that they had performed — regardless of how wrong, evil, or unconstitutional those acts may have been. When clothed in judicial authority, judges can do no wrong. Period. Recently a case of an errant judge has come up again — because his action as a judge was considered generally to be monstrous and illegal. In 1971, Mrs. Ora Spitler McFarlin petitioned Judge Harold D. Stump of the DeKalb County, Indiana, Circuit Court to engage in a covert, compulsory sterilization of her 15-year-old daughter, Linda Kay Spitler. Although Linda was promoted each year with her class, Mrs. McFarlin opined that she was "somewhat retarded" and had begun to stay out overnight with older youths. And we all know what that can lead to.

Judge Stump quickly signed the order, and the judge and mamma hustled Linda into a hospital, telling her it was for an appendicitis operation. Linda was then sterilized without her knowledge. Two years later, Linda married a Leo Sparkman and discovered that she had been sterilized without her knowledge. The Sparkmans proceeded to sue mamma, mamma's attorney, the doctors, the hospital, and Judge Stump, alleging a half-dozen constitutional violations.

All of these people, in truth, had grossly violated Linda's rights and aggressed against her. All should have been made to pay, and pay dearly, for their monstrous offense. But the federal district court ruled otherwise. First, it ruled that mamma, her lawyer, and the various members of the "healing professions" were all immune because everything they did had received the sanction of a certified judge. And second, Judge Stump was also absolutely immune, because he had acted in his capacity as a judge, even though, the district court acknowledged, he had had "an erroneous view of the law." So, not only is a judge immune, but he can confer his immunity in a king-like fashion even onto lowly civilians who surround him.
...


I might also add that the federal Supreme Court decides all cases dealing with state's rights and over-reach of federal power.

Obviously there is a conflict of interest here.

How can a FEDERAL court decide on limitations of FEDERAL power?

To quote Jefferson:

"It is a fatal heresy to suppose that either our State governments are superior to the Federal or the Federal to the States. "



[edit on 6-7-2010 by mnemeth1]




posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Alexander Hamilton made a promise of a neutered Court, but like jesters stealing thorny crowns, Chief Justice Marshall looked deep into the meaning of a Constitution and found the power of judicial review. Not to be outdone, Thomas Jefferson issued Executive Orders, and Congress shook their fists with rage, the day the music died.

Poor Mr. Scott Dred the day the Supreme Court demurred and claimed no jurisdiction, and sometime later Andrew Jackson sang; "They've made their ruling, now let them enforce it!" But, Civil Wars are not for courts, and priest class lawyers wearing silly robes told the bailiff to have them rise, and with a hallelujah, the congregation bowed their heads, and Angel's cried, the day the music died.

So, bye bye, this American lie, drove our Chevy's propped up on cinder blocks, while them good ol' boy's where wondering why, the good ol' days were not what they seemed, everybody singing this will be the day that I die.

A great depression came and went, and when FDR tried to pack the Court, those Archbishops of the highest court paid tribute to the king, and let the social order be what it will, and from that day forward, federal force rode roughshod like a pony express, and we the people remember well the sad look on his widowed bride, the day the music died.

So, bye bye, this American lie, drove our Chevy's propped up on cinder blocks, while them good ol' boy's where wondering why, the good ol' days were not what they seemed, everybody singing this will be the day that I die.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 11:54 AM
link   
I totally agree. The Supreme Court has been legislating from the bench according to their own whims for a long time. One reason they can do this is because they are appointed for life. I think there should be term limits, and they should be elected by the vote of the people.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Starbug3MY
I totally agree. The Supreme Court has been legislating from the bench according to their own whims for a long time. One reason they can do this is because they are appointed for life. I think there should be term limits, and they should be elected by the vote of the people.


Populist Justices would only make things worse. The SCOTUS upheld the 18th Amendment as Constitutional. The Executive Branch did everything in their power to enforce it, but the people said go to hell and drank anyway. If we the people are willing to defy a federal government just to get drunk, you would think we the people would sober up at some point and defy the federal government where it really counts. Apparently not though, so drink to me, drink to my health, you know I can't drink anymore.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Starbug3MY
I totally agree. The Supreme Court has been legislating from the bench according to their own whims for a long time. One reason they can do this is because they are appointed for life. I think there should be term limits, and they should be elected by the vote of the people.


That's not going to solve anything.

What needs to happen, at the minimum, is for state supreme courts to begin over-riding the federal supreme court when it comes to laws that clearly violate federal limitations of the constitution.

For example, all the rules and regulations enacted by the federal executive branch.

The states also need to begin protecting their citizens from federal taxation for programs that violate the federal governments limits of Constitutional power.

For example, payroll taxes.

That's the absolute minimum that needs to happen.

The states need to put the feds back in their place pronto.


[edit on 6-7-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Starbug3MY
I totally agree. The Supreme Court has been legislating from the bench according to their own whims for a long time. One reason they can do this is because they are appointed for life. I think there should be term limits, and they should be elected by the vote of the people.


You mean like in West Virginia where the Supreme Court is bought and owned by Massey Energy with campaign contributions? www.law.cornell.edu...



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

Originally posted by Starbug3MY
I totally agree. The Supreme Court has been legislating from the bench according to their own whims for a long time. One reason they can do this is because they are appointed for life. I think there should be term limits, and they should be elected by the vote of the people.


You mean like in West Virginia where the Supreme Court is bought and owned by Massey Energy with campaign contributions? www.law.cornell.edu...


Great point.

I'd also like to add that in 1913, the federal powers conned the people into having senators elected by a popular vote.

Prior to 1913, senators were appointed by the states - which means it took almost no money to campaign for a senate seat. You simply needed to lobby the state congress for an appointment.

The states naturally selected senators that most represented their interests as a state.

The senate was the least corrupt body of the federal government prior to 1913 - today it is by far the most corrupt.


The country was losing its liberties prior to 1913, but 1913 was really a hallmark year of our decent into tyranny.

1913 was the year the income tax was enacted and the year the federal reserve was founded.



[edit on 6-7-2010 by mnemeth1]



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join