Tag Archives: Texas Constitution Article I

Question & Answer on Federal Civil Rights Claims against State Courts, Judges, & Lawyers

Question on Facebook from the Distinguished Doctor William Todd Overcash,  M.D., in Ocala and Oklawaha, Florida:
I have a question. Who would feel safe and believe they would get a fair treatment when the Chief Judge of the Florida 5th Circuit removes members of the courts ethics committee and then assigns non qualified members and incites referral of your attorney for disbarment/sanctions 3 days after your legal team files a federal lawsuit against 7 Judges and 20 State Agencies. Be the way, the previous committee 5 months earlier had cleared your attorney.

Answer from a Madman who has been studying this question for 30 years:
Who would feel safe and belief he would get fair treatment when he enters a Dragon’s Cave for the purpose of reclaiming some or all of the gold the Dragon has accumulated by killing people over the years? Whenever you invade a Monster’s lair, you pretty much have to accept that you’ll only be leaving there one of two ways:

One way is carrying the Dragon’s head after decapitating him. The other way is when the Dragon throws out whatever’s left after he’s eaten. Fairness and safety are not rights afforded to Rebels who rise up in insurrections against Monsters or against Monstrous Tyranny.

The Federal Civil Rights laws are written so that you can only invoke Federal supervision over State Courts when individual rights are systematically deprived according to a system of racial discrimination. That MAY or may NOT have been Congress’ “original intent” in enacting 28 USC 1443 and 42 USC 1981 and 1985-1986, but it is how the Supreme Court of the United States and all inferior Federal (and most state) Courts have interpreted these otherwise majestic statutes: they are basically race-based “affirmative action” programs.

So, unless you are willing to take on the question of whether you are the victim of reverse racial discrimination, you cannot enter the Dragon’s lair and expect to come out in very good shape. It may as well be said publicly: RACE defines the struggle for American (and world) CIVIL RIGHTS.

That’s why “Black Lives Matter” is the pre-eminent radical movement of 2016. That’s why non-white immigration is the biggest issue in Europe and one of the biggest issues in the USA. That’s why Donald Trump has such a strong (even if possibly misguided) support among the Far Right/Alt Right “14/88” crowd.

If you think it is a monstrous thing to allocate fundamental rights according to race and only adjudicate claims based on race, then you think that U.S. Civil Rights is Monstrous, and when you attack these questions, you are entering the Monster’s Home…..

If you disagree with the current structure and allocation of Civil Rights and the powers to enforce them under U.S. and International Law, then you need to enter the Political Fray and try to change the law by engaging in and exercising whatever political processes may be available under the First, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. Or indeed, as Donald Trump made waives for saying earlier this week, however indirectly and obliquely, by engaging in and exercising whatever rights and political processes may be available to you under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, or, perhaps Article I, Section 2 of the Texas Bill of Rights:

Sec. 2. INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.

Article 2, Section 1 of the California Constitution is similar but in no way as absolutely or powerfully phrased:

SECTION 1. All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require.

It is significant and worth noting that “protection and security” are among the purposes of government included in the California constitution but omitted from the Texas Constitution.  Providing “protection and security” has always been one of the mottos and gangster watchwords of oppressive government….

But also note that, apart from whatever may be inferred from the language of the First, Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments, no such express and explicit “right to alter, reform, or abolish…government” is clearly articulated within the United States Constitution, or the Constitution of the State of Florida.

A dialogue on Texas Family Law and Texas Family Courts……restating my oft-stated position….

▪   CEL III      …he might see how psychology is used as a tool of social oppression and control…. just as in the movie, just as in Texas Family Courts—I was hoping I’d get a reaction from you on that point since you have some experience there….

▪   
11:10pm      Ellyn Trayne  What is your specific objection to the Texas Family Code or do you object to all of it?

▪   
11:21pm      CEL III          A series of closely related and interlocking concepts:
(1) Judicial Discretion knows no boundaries in Family Court.
(2) The entire bill of rights is subordinate to this jurisdiction and “the best interests of the child” is the most cynical standard of decision in the world.
(3) Family Courts routinely suppress procedural as well as substantive due process rights.
(4) (Relating to my former friendship and deep admiration for Valorie W. Davenport): Texas USED to have the strongest protection for First Amendment rights in the entire United States (as the Texas Supreme Court affirmed in Davenport v. Garcia—her first big case). 
(5) Family Courts routinely ignore that and will punish parents (and children even) for purely expressive, communicative acts.
(6) The Family is the Template for the Larger Society, and when the rights of individuals can be trampled inside the home, as between the most private and personal relationships of one family member to another, they effectively have ceased to exist for society as a whole.
(7) On a broader historical level, I believe that the First Amendment was enacted in large part to prevent the Anglican Book of Common Prayer (my Church, oddly enough) ever from being enacted at the Federal Level—my interpretation of the phrase “respecting an establishment of religion” is that it would be construed to bar Congress from legislating on ANY topic covered by the Church of England’s Book of Common Prayer. This clearly excludes all aspects of marriage, childbirth, education, and family life: it should be absolutely outside the realm of Federal Power.
(8) If we accept the doctrine of “incorporation” of the First Amendment promulgated most enthusiastically by the Supreme Court between “Gitlow v. New York” 1925 and “Lemon v. Kurtzman” in the early 1970s (several cases, Lemon I, Lemon II, etc.) but clearly reaffirmed in the recent Second Amendment cases, “D.C. v. Heller” and “MacDonald v. City of Chicago“, the STATES are likewise forbidden to legislate in ANY are covered by the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England, which is roughly co-existensive with the Seven Sacraments of all Christian Denominations which keep to the Sacraments…
(9) And yes, this IS my “Short Answer” to your question…. if you were ever to work with me, you’d get to know the longer version…. (lol!) after about a year or so…. because I’m very passionate about it.

▪   
11:30pm          Ellyn      The Family Courts, like all other courts, and lawyers are for the most part corrupt. It is no longer, or maybe never was, about the “best interest of the child.” Judges need money for elections. Lawyers that give lots of money to a judges reelection campaign typically get the law contorted in whatever manner to their favor, regardless of facts or best interests.

▪   
11:36pm       CEL III       It’s just that the standard of decision, “Best Interests of the Child” is so vague and amorphous it gives maximum free reign, I think to that omnipresent tendency towards corruption. In some fields there are still fairly rigorous standards of proof, although it seems that those fields are pretty much only occupied by those fields of law controlled exclusively by extremely large and wealthy law firms like the first one I worked for when I first finished my judicial clerkships (Cadwalader, Wickersham, & Taft) or the ones that two Tulane (2L) girls sitting next to me at Kyoto at 4920 Prytania were talking about last night at dinner—one was going to Jones Day and the other to Hogan & Hartson…. they made me positively ill talking about the rigors of shopping to impress their bosses and colleagues at these firms. “To hell with the law, to hell with justice, to Hell with absolutely everything we’re working for $10,000 a month this summer so that we can go SHOPPING.”

▪   
11:38pm     Ellyn         What legal standard would you consider more reasonable in determining child custody?

▪   
11:43pm      CEL III      Don’t you get it? I don’t think the State Courts have any business being involved at all, with the sole exception of where there is a contract between the parties—an actual, written contract. I want to go back to a world where people have to depend on their parents, and on each other, for honorable behavior. In this sense, I guess, I am a true anarchist: I simply do not believe that State Court Judges should be able to invade the private precincts of family life at all. I think these are the realms of life left up to the people, and such “Non-Governmental Organizations” as they might voluntarily imbue with dispute-resolution power, and I guess by “NGOs” in this case I mean primarily Churches. I take a radical position because I believe that the Family Courts do only harm and no good. I really and truly, honestly and sincerely, have never seen a Family Court right any wrong or make any bad situation better. I have seen Family Courts drive people to do bad things who would not have done them otherwise. Effectively, these Courts were the first front, I think, for trying to drive ordinary people stark raving mad….

▪   
11:46pm       CEL III        When I say that “the Texas Family Code is Unconstitutional,” I basically mean that, in addition to being incompatible with the Federal Bill of Rights, the existence and practice of the Texas Family Code and the Texas Family Court system are even more incompatible with Article I, Sections 1-29 in particular. (Some of the recent amendments are pure crap, I admit…)

▪   
11:46pm          CEL III       But the Texas Bill of Rights really is MUCH stronger than the US Bill of Rights, incorporating as it does many provisions of the English Bill of Rights Adopted in 1689…

▪   
11:48pm            Ellyn Trayne     Well, I am afraid I think a lot of children would not be alive today, if the fathers were not ordered to pay child support.

▪   
11:49pm             CEL III     Well, you know, that’s because of the general breakdown of the Family, isn’t it? When a woman’s parents are divorced, and she has no home to return to for whatever reason, the Family Code becomes incorporated into Title 42 of the United States Code as an element of the Welfare System…

▪   
11:49pm             CEL III       Can you name, perhaps, the most famous Deadbeat Dad in all of Texas History, revered in song and story, mythologized in movies?
Possibly the most famous deadbeat dad in all of United States/North American history?


(Hint, he died in March 1836….. )

▪   
11:52pm         Ellyn      Bowie, Crockett? I’m guessing here.

▪   
11:54pm         CEL III        Well, you’re very close, but no…. I think it would have to be Colonel William Barrett Travis of South Carolina. His children all survived because their mother went back to live with her family on their farm/plantation—that’s just how people lived back then. It goes to the root definition of the relationship between Freedom and Responsibility. When the people depend on government to arrange their most private affairs, they are no longer free….

▪   
11:55pm         Ellyn Trayne      But with the breakdown of the family, some protections needed to be put in place to protect the mother’s rights.  
Hey you said Texas.


  Scratch that, you said Texas History.

▪   
11:56pm            CEL III     Question of chicken and egg: the breakdown of the family was CAUSED by governmental regulation promoting the same…. the family could possibly begin to regenerate if the State were kicked out of the home…. What do you mean by “Hey you said Texas.” ?? …


11:58pm           CEL III     William Barrett Travis is most famous as commander of the Alamo, author of the letter “We are besieged by six thousand Mexicans…. I will never surrender or retreat.”