In Re: US District Judge John Walter & Inferior Remke (Bill Lerach sample)
Judge Walterr:
This is a quick note relating a matter of national concern. First, some reminders:
A) Article 3 Standing elements – A case or controversy requires named adverse parties. Without that, the case may not be entertained, period, & must be dropped, like IF an Article 1 banned State trooper is a no show for a ticket tax.[1]
In that landmark case, Madison, Mr. Marshall, again verbatim, said: The judicial power of the United … extends only to all cases arising under the [U.S.] constitution.[2]
BILL LERACH
A) Lerach specialized in suing Silicon Valley companies, and his abrasive ways and aggressive tactics – always for … defrauded [people] – earned him CEO hatred.[3]
B) The plea deal does not involve Lerach’s cooperating with the government [stet].[4]
C) Stuck in the middle of way deeper stuff, Mr. Lerach spoke on my behalf at the sentencing part of my tag team fed/state persecution, by proxy, verbatim:
1) “… I do not believe he was physically threatening….”;
2) “Mr. Bonas is an extremely kind & gentle person.”; &
3) “There should not have been [stet is not] a conviction….”[5]
About that (A.G.-D.A.), after learning of some disclosure crimes, T. Lave said, verbatim:
A) … I was not told … fact[s] by the prosecutor (that it had) … which … reflects … how political … this whole thing is….[6]
Unlike Mr. Walter’s corporate clients, Mr. Lerach always had a named, injured client. With respect, A.G. advancing Wall Street Ponzi Scheme interests, to assure that We bottom 40% of the population remain with under 1% of the wealth, via standing-less strike suits sponsored by the U.C.C. A.G.-D.A., does not “arise under.” This is too extravagant to be maintained. [7] Here, the creed statute’s PLAIN LANGUAGE is CONCLUSIVE.[8] The intelligence contained on the enclosed CD is for your info!
Date: 11-27-07
Godspeed
[2]MARBURY v. JAMES MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (FEBRUARY, 1803).
[3] http://www.laobserved.com/biz/2007/09/new_indictment_in_le.php
[4] September 17, 2007, 7:34 pm, Lerach Set to Plead Guilty, Posted by Nathan Koppel
[5] 3-22-04 Hearing Transcript, page 19 (Emphasis)!
[6] 3-22-04 hearing transcript, P. 19, lines 12-14.
[7]MARBURY v. JAMES MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (FEBRUARY, 1803).
[8] Cal. Franchise Tax Bd. V. Jackson (In re Jackson, 184 F.3d 1046, 1051 (9th Cir. ’99).
Bar, Inc Wort Removal Services:
State Bar Husler’s – Remke’s Rig Cover & Liablity For Censorship, Slander, Libel, Breaking & Entering Confidential File Plants, lying about facts & lots more:
“[A] function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger.”
“Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. “
“That is why freedom of speech . . . is . . . protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest. . . .”
There is no room under our Constitution for a more restrictive view. For the alternative would lead to standardization of ideas either by legislatures, courts, or dominant political or community groups.” EDWARDS v. SOUTH CAROLINA, 372 U.S. 229, 237-238 (1963).