“CONSTITUTION” v. “LEGAL ESTABLISHMENT”

In the continuing and expanding lawsuit against the “legal establishment”, Scheidler will file an Amended Complaint to add lawyers Jennifer Forbes, Esq.,(who is abusing her power as judge to save her fellow associates) Kirsten M. Schimpff, Esq., Mary M. Tennyson, Esq., Dionne Padilla-Huddleston, Esq., to the previously named defendants J. Reiko Callner, Esq., and Felice Congalton, Esq.

All across this country is a growing anger in how our “Justice System” has been commandeered by the “legal establishment” of lawyers, Bar associations, and those that server these lawyers and Bar associations.

Having our “Justice System” hostage to the “legal establishment” leave very few avenues for a “fair” redress of our grievances. Earlier in time “grievances” were adjudged by a “jury of ones peers” unless a “jury is waived”. Today “grievances” must pass through the “legal establishment” before it even makes it into a courtroom of one’s peers. This “selective process” conducted by the legal establishment is driven by all the “MONEY” at stake and who may be liable.

1) What “insurance” company is on the hook;

2) Is the state’s or the counties’ ‘risk pool funds’ in jeopardy and thereby its “credit” worthiness;

3) is the lawyer’s ‘trust fund account’ at risk; or

4) who’s assets can a lawyer steal through probate, or what person can be arrested or extorted in child custody or divorce, so as to increase the cash flow to the “legal establishment” and maintain the ability to absorb future risk and maintain a good “credit rating”?

Today it isn’t “justice” that is of concern, it is the “management of RISK” and the “financing of future risk”! And the big law firms and their clients are the only “litigants” that matter – whether or not they are even in court.

This “kidnapping” of our justice system by the ‘legal establishment’ so as to manage risk is “inciting” a growing population of concerned citizens to take action. Some of these ‘grassroots’ movements trying to rescue our ‘justice system’ from the stranglehold by the ‘legal establishment’ are many… The Tea Party Org. and The National Liberty Alliance. Founder, John Darash, feels the only way to reclaim our ‘justice system’ is to re-constitute the Common Law Grand Jury. Another movement with the same idea is the Common Law Grand Jury movement.

All these movements say, “People have the right to act as a balance of power against a corrupt government that tries to usurp their Constitutionally limited powers.”

Other grassroots groups are more focused on those who ‘betray our trust’, and are causing the need for these “common law grand jury” groups to go to such measures to ‘rescue our justice system.’ Right at the TOP of the kidnappers are Judges who “legislate from the bench” or use their power to protect and enrich their own power and wealth or protect and enrich the power and wealth of the judge’s friends and colleagues. Such groups working to make “judges” accountable for their misconduct, in addition to CorruptWA.com , are Jail for Judges, which has chapters spring up in other states such as in Oregon

And of course, there are people who are doing all they can with the limited resources they have to ‘rescue our judicial branch’ from the strangle-hold by the legal establishment. One such person is Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq. His effort has spanned years and his research into the workings of the “legal establishment’s” corruption shows a well-orchestrated and wide-spread network of “well connect” people, even up to the highest levels of our Judicial Branch. Dr. Cordero’s work is on-line and can be accessed at Judicial Discipline and Reform.

In WA State Superior Court, the case, State of WA, ex rel William Scheidler v J. Reiko Callner, Esq., Felice Congalton, Esq., is in its early stages in trying to get facts before a jury of the corruption and collusion within the legal establishment. But of course the “judges” are preventing a jury from hearing ‘evidence.’ At this point in the case additional “lawyer-defendants” are being added in a proposed amended complaint. These additional lawyers who are using their total monopoly of “justice” so as to “protect their monopoly of justice” are Judge Jennifer Forbes, Esq., Kirsten M. Schimpff, Esq., Mary M. Tennyson, Esq., Dionne Padilla-Huddleston, Esq.

This case brings up fundamental issues central to constitutional rights versus the complete POWER of the lawyers who sit in positions of public trust.

From the proposed Amended Complaint that adds the WSBA lawyers noted above concern these issues.

1. All Defendants have violated their Constitutional oath and/or statutory oath to uphold the Constitution when they dismissed Scheidler’s case against their fellow Bar members, Felice Congalton, WSBA# 6412 and J. Reiko Callner, WSBA# 16546 and thus denied Scheidler his Article 1, Sec 1, inherent right for a redress of government’s (defendants) misconduct. Scheidler’s inherent rights are self-executing and not subject to defendants’ interpretation, manipulation or modification.

“The broad language of the constitutional provision is self-executing and needs no legislation to vest this power…” STATE EX REL. CLARK v. HOGAN 49 Wn.2d 457 (1956); “All constitutional provisions are self-executing to the extent that they void all action taken in violation of them and preclude enforcement of any statute violating them.” PEDERSON v. MOSER 99 Wn.2d 456, 662 P.2d 866

2. All Defendants have violated their Constitutional oath and/or statutory oath to uphold the Constitution when they dismissed Scheidler’s case against their fellow Bar members Felice Congalton, WSBA# 6412 and J. Reiko Callner, WSBA# 16546 and thus denied Scheidler his Article 1, Sec 25, inherent right to prosecute by an ‘information’ government’s (defendants) misconduct under RCW 7.56. Scheidler’s inherent rights are self-executing and not subject to defendants’ interpretation, manipulation or modification. Id., STATE EX REL. CLARK v. HOGAN 49 Wn.2d 457 (1956); PEDERSON v. MOSER 99 Wn.2d 456, 662 P.2d 866

3. All Defendants have violated their Constitutional oath and/or statutory oath to uphold the Constitution when they dismissed Scheidler’s case against their fellow Bar members Felice Congalton, WSBA# 6412 and J. Reiko Callner, WSBA# 16546 and thus denied Scheidler his Article 1, Sec 30, inherent right for a redress of government’s (defendants) misconduct. Scheidler’s inherent rights are self-executing and not subject to defendants’ interpretation, manipulation or modification. Id., STATE EX REL. CLARK v. HOGAN 49 Wn.2d 457 (1956); PEDERSON v. MOSER 99 Wn.2d 456, 662 P.2d 866

4. All Defendants have violated their Constitutional oath and/or statutory oath to uphold the Constitution when they dismissed Scheidler’s case against their fellow Bar members Felice Congalton, WSBA# 6412 and J. Reiko Callner, WSBA# 16546 and thus denied Scheidler his Article 1, Sec 21, inherent right to a jury. Scheidler’s inherent rights are self-executing and not subject to defendants’ interpretation, manipulation or modification. Id., STATE EX REL. CLARK v. HOGAN 49 Wn.2d 457 (1956); PEDERSON v. MOSER 99 Wn.2d 456, 662 P.2d 866

5. All Defendants have violated their Constitutional oath and/or statutory oath to uphold the Constitution when they dismissed Scheidler’s case against their fellow Bar members Felice Congalton, WSBA# 6412 and J. Reiko Callner, WSBA# 16546 and thus denied Scheidler his Article 1, Sec 1, inherent right to challenge the Common Law as provided by RCW 4.04.010. Scheidler’s inherent rights are self-executing and not subject to defendants’ interpretation, manipulation or modification. Id., STATE EX REL. CLARK v. HOGAN 49 Wn.2d 457 (1956); PEDERSON v. MOSER 99 Wn.2d 456, 662 P.2d 866

6. All Defendants have violated their Constitutional oath and/or statutory oath to uphold the Constitution when they applied the wrong law; defined for themselves the laws that apply to them; added words or removed words from statutes to render a false law; rendered applicable statutes irrelevant; applied laws that were unconstitutional on its face being “special grant of privilege” – a violation of Art 2. Sec 28(12 and 17); applied common law doctrines that were unconstitutional on its face for being “special grant of privilege” – a violation of Art 2. Sec 28(12 and 17)’; and in failing to correct any “issues of form, procedure, or court rule.” “The judicial system and the administration of justice is dependent on the honesty of attorneys as officers of the court”. In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Poole 156 Wn.2d 196, 201 (2006); Id., STATE EX REL. CLARK v. HOGAN 49 Wn.2d 457 (1956); PEDERSON v. MOSER 99 Wn.2d 456, 662 P.2d 866

7. All Defendants committed a fraud upon the court. FACTS: Scheidler argued the Court Lacked subject matter jurisdiction for the following reasons: An “impartial court” had not been assembled — there is Prejudice of the Court, Prejudice of Judge Jennifer Forbes, Disqualification of any lawyer of the WSBA sitting on this case due to their inherent interest in defining for themselves the scope of the power of the office of the WSBA and of the office of the Commission on Judicial Conduct who are defendants. Scheidler argued that the motions to deny intervenor and to dismiss were moot as defendants had “defaulted” for failing to answer. Scheidler noted that the “proceedings” are set by Special Statute RCW 7.56.050 which unambiguously states “The defendant shall appear and answer, or suffer default, and subsequent proceeding be had as in other cases.” Scheidler also cited CR 81(a) and STATE v. VERHAREN 136 Wn.2d 888 894 (1998).

“The common law on [quo warranto] has been supplanted by the statute-the state has legislated on the subject-and it is to the statute we must look, not only for the practice of the court, but for the qualifications of the relator”