11th Mar-2009
Howard Witt / Chicago Tribune
Tenaha, Texas The tiny east Texas town is making money by pulling over black motorists and seizing their cash and property without charging them with any crime.
A lawsuit alleges that the town's police pull over motorists -- especially African Americans -- and extort money and valuables by threatening criminal charges or worse.
By Howard Witt
March 11, 2009
Reporting from Tenaha, Texas -- You can drive into this dusty fleck of a town near the Texas-Louisiana state line if you're African American, but you might not be able to drive out of it -- at least not with your car, your cash, your jewelry or other valuables.
That's because the police here allegedly have found a way to strip motorists, many of them black, of their property without ever charging them with a crime. Instead they offer out-of-towners a grim choice: Sign over your belongings to the town, or face felony charges of money laundering or other serious crimes.
* Crime or no crime, motorists pay
Crime or no crime, motorists pay
More than 140 people reluctantly accepted that deal from June 2006 to June 2008, according to court records. Among them were a black grandmother from Akron, Ohio, who surrendered $4,000 in cash after Tenaha police pulled her over, and an interracial couple from Houston, who gave up more than $6,000 after police threatened to seize their children and put them into foster care, the court documents show. Neither the grandmother nor the couple were charged with or convicted of any crime.
Officials in Tenaha, along a heavily traveled state highway connecting Houston with several popular gambling destinations in Louisiana, say they are engaged in a battle against drug trafficking, and they call the search-and-seizure practice a legitimate use of the state's asset-forfeiture law. That law permits local police agencies to keep drug money and other property used in the commission of a crime and add the proceeds to their budgets.
"We try to enforce the law here," said George Bowers, mayor of the town of about 1,100 residents, where boarded-up businesses outnumber open ones and City Hall sports a broken window. "We're not doing this to raise money. That's all I'm going to say at this point."
But civil rights lawyers call Tenaha's practice something else: highway robbery. The attorneys have filed a federal class-action lawsuit seeking unspecified damages and a halt to what they contend is an unconstitutional perversion of the law's intent, used primarily against African Americans who have done nothing wrong.
Tenaha officials "have developed an illegal 'stop and seize' practice of targeting, stopping, detaining, searching, and often seizing property from apparently nonwhite citizens and those traveling with nonwhite citizens," asserts the lawsuit, which was filed in U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Texas.
The property seizures are not happening just in Tenaha. In southern parts of Texas near the Mexican border, for example, Latinos allege that they are being singled out.
According to a prominent Texas state legislator, police agencies across the state are wielding the asset-forfeiture law more aggressively to supplement their shrinking operating budgets.
"If used properly, it's a good law-enforcement tool to see that crime doesn't pay," said Democratic state Sen. John Whitmire, chairman of the Senate's Criminal Justice Committee. "But in this instance, where people are being pulled over and their property is taken with no charges filed and no convictions, I think that's theft."
Money, minorities
David Guillory, an attorney in nearby Nacogdoches who filed the federal lawsuit, said he combed through Shelby County court records from 2006 to 2008 and discovered nearly 200 cases in which Tenaha police seized cash and property from motorists. In about 50 of the cases, suspects were charged with drug possession.
But in 147 others, Guillory said the court records showed, the police seized cash, jewelry, cellphones and sometimes even automobiles from motorists but never found any contraband or charged them with any crime. Of those, Guillory said he managed to contact 40 of the motorists directly -- and discovered that all but one of them were black.
"The whole thing is disproportionately targeted toward minorities, particularly African Americans," Guillory said. "Every one of these people is pulled over and told they did something, like, 'You drove too close to the white line.' That's not in the penal code, but it sounds plausible. None of these people have been charged with a crime; none were engaged in anything that looked criminal. The sole factor is that they had something that looked valuable."
In some cases, police used the fact that motorists were carrying large amounts of cash as evidence that they must have been involved in laundering drug money, even though Guillory said each of the drivers he contacted could account for where the money had come from and why they were carrying it -- such as for a gambling trip to Shreveport, La., or to purchase a used car from a private seller.
Once the motorists were detained, the police and the Shelby County district attorney quickly drew up legal papers presenting them with an option: Waive their rights to their cash and property or face felony charges for crimes such as money laundering -- and the prospect of having to hire a lawyer and return to Shelby County multiple times to contest the charges in court.
Apparently routine
The process apparently is so routine in Tenaha that Guillory discovered pre-signed and pre-notarized police affidavits with blank spaces left for an officer to fill in a description of the property being seized.
Jennifer Boatright, her husband and two young children -- a mixed-race family -- were traveling from Houston to visit relatives in East Texas in April 2007 when Tenaha police pulled them over, alleging that they were driving in a left-turn lane.
After searching the car, the officers discovered what Boatright said was a gift for her sister: a small, unused glass pipe made for smoking marijuana. Although they found no drugs or other contraband, the police seized $6,037 that Boatright said the family was carrying to purchase a used car -- and then threatened to turn their children, ages 10 and 1, over to Child Protective Services if the couple didn't agree to sign over their right to their cash.
"It was give them the money or they were taking our kids," Boatright said. "They suggested that we never bring it up again. We figured we better give them our cash and get the hell out of there."
Several months later, after Boatright and her husband contacted an attorney, Tenaha officials returned their money but offered no explanation or apology. The couple remain plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit.
Except for Tenaha's mayor, none of the defendants in the federal lawsuit, including Shelby County Dist. Atty. Lynda Russell and two Tenaha police officers, responded to requests for comment about their search-and-seizure practices. Lawyers for the defendants also declined to comment, as did several of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
But Whitmire says he doesn't need to await the suit's outcome to try to fix what he regards as a statewide problem. On Monday, he introduced a bill in the state Legislature that would require police to go before a judge before attempting to seize property under the asset-forfeiture law -- and ultimately Whitmire hopes to tighten the law further so that law-enforcement officials will be allowed to seize property only after a suspect is charged and convicted in a court.
"The law has gotten away from what was intended, which was to take the profits of a bad guy's crime spree and use it for additional crime fighting," Whitmire said. "Now it's largely being used to pay police salaries -- and it's being abused because you don't even have to be a bad guy to lose your property."
hwitt@tribune.com
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Excessive force by Police in Victoria alleged
Times Colonist March 20, 2009
Two Victoria police officers are being investigated amid accusations they used excessive force during an arrest.
Mike Stebih of Saanich filed a complaint with police and is suing the officers and the city for false arrest, false imprison- ment and assault, said his lawyer Doug Christie.
Stebih was arrested for obstruction of justice last year when he refused to produce identification after being stopped driving a van by two plainclothes officers in an unmarked car. He demanded they show their badges to prove they were in fact police officers, but Stebih still would not hand over his identification.
The officers, a man and a woman, used force to get Stebih from his vehicle, cuffed him and searched the van, not knowing the man was recording their "salty language" during the search, said Graham.
Stebih produced the recording in court.
It revealed the testimony of one of the officers, Const. John Musicco, was inconsistent with what was recorded.
Police Chief Jamie Graham said the police department is looking into the officers' conduct.
© Copyright (c) The Province
Two Victoria police officers are being investigated amid accusations they used excessive force during an arrest.
Mike Stebih of Saanich filed a complaint with police and is suing the officers and the city for false arrest, false imprison- ment and assault, said his lawyer Doug Christie.
Stebih was arrested for obstruction of justice last year when he refused to produce identification after being stopped driving a van by two plainclothes officers in an unmarked car. He demanded they show their badges to prove they were in fact police officers, but Stebih still would not hand over his identification.
The officers, a man and a woman, used force to get Stebih from his vehicle, cuffed him and searched the van, not knowing the man was recording their "salty language" during the search, said Graham.
Stebih produced the recording in court.
It revealed the testimony of one of the officers, Const. John Musicco, was inconsistent with what was recorded.
Police Chief Jamie Graham said the police department is looking into the officers' conduct.
© Copyright (c) The Province
Sunday, March 15, 2009
WAR IS A RACKET by Gen. Smedley Butler, USMC
War is a Racket!
Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933 by General Smedley Butler, USMC
War is just a racket. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers.
I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.
I helped make Mexico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.
Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933 by General Smedley Butler, USMC
War is just a racket. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers.
I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.
I helped make Mexico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Words for de facto Judges
Friday, February 27, 2009 Important ! ~ Words for de facto Judges
Words for de facto Judges
- Before he sits down you as God's minister must set the array of the court.
" I claim this court in the name of Jesus Christ and the anointed of
God Queen Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor as defender of the Christian
faith.
If he sits he accepts your offer.
If he leaves he declines.
You may start off by avoiding subject matter Jurisdiction and dealing
with the weak spots of a de facto court thereby eliminating it's de
facto jurisdiction
Are you aware I am officiating and performing a function of my calling
as God Jehovah's minister and that I am standing in God's Kingdom?
If the Judge evades your question, simply repeat it--- If he states
something like: I am a Judge and this is my court. Then ask him
Does the semblance of this court have standing in God's Kingdom?
Now this one he's Not going to say Yes or No, simply because he cannot
admit to operating in God's Kingdom and he sure as hot/spot isn't going
to admit he's operating Outside of God's Kingdom ,So we have a problem:
Where? Is this a lying, evil, fascist, dark hearted soul? Is there a
lawful court that we can find?
Do you deny I am standing in God's Kingdom?
Do you as a man, oath sworn as a true allegiant to a Christian monarch
styled as defender of the Christian faith, recognise the supremacy of
God Jehovah as absolute authority in the semblance of this court.
Again, no Judge, man or monkey of the court can even begin to disprove
or deny your not standing in God's Kingdom and again he sure as Hell is
NOT going to agree, because he therefore states that he is not a Judge
and only a man, and no man can Judge another in God's Kingdom. So, your
standing on rock solid ground and at this point he is on a very
slippery slope back to where he came? from. Have patience now and we'll
take another stab at locating this lying, evil fascist bastards
Illegitimate, illegal and unlawful de facto kangaroo court that we
cannot seem to find.
Stay cool, calm and collected because, by now, this black robed devil
is liable to be screaming at you to give him your NAME. I know your
getting edgy, what, with all his ranting and raving, But your faith in
Christ tells you that your safe standing in God's Kingdom. Your reply
should go something like this:
Are you aware My name is a private, not for commercial use, Christian
name and that I officiating and performing a function of my calling as
God's minister cannot submit to those who are not in the Kingdom of God
as I believe they are not of God but act as false gods?.
Do you have a name of your own?
Can you lawfully intimidate me to violate my Christian faith and the first command of God that the Queen defends?
Do you have any lawful authority to neglect your oath to God in being truly allegiant to the Queen.
In awareness of corruption with in the government system of law is it
lawful to determine who I, officiating and performing a function of my
calling as God's minister, am submitting to, and to in honor ask for
proof that their claimed authority is legitimate?
Can you deny your duty or make up your own definition of what it means to be truly allegiant to a Christian monarch?
By now you've blown the lying, evil, fascist, egotists mind,and if he
has'nt had you thrown out of his court by now, you might as well thank
him for his understanding of God's Kingdom and bid him farewell…..
Minister Jackie G.V.Harper
Words for de facto Judges
- Before he sits down you as God's minister must set the array of the court.
" I claim this court in the name of Jesus Christ and the anointed of
God Queen Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor as defender of the Christian
faith.
If he sits he accepts your offer.
If he leaves he declines.
You may start off by avoiding subject matter Jurisdiction and dealing
with the weak spots of a de facto court thereby eliminating it's de
facto jurisdiction
Are you aware I am officiating and performing a function of my calling
as God Jehovah's minister and that I am standing in God's Kingdom?
If the Judge evades your question, simply repeat it--- If he states
something like: I am a Judge and this is my court. Then ask him
Does the semblance of this court have standing in God's Kingdom?
Now this one he's Not going to say Yes or No, simply because he cannot
admit to operating in God's Kingdom and he sure as hot/spot isn't going
to admit he's operating Outside of God's Kingdom ,So we have a problem:
Where? Is this a lying, evil, fascist, dark hearted soul? Is there a
lawful court that we can find?
Do you deny I am standing in God's Kingdom?
Do you as a man, oath sworn as a true allegiant to a Christian monarch
styled as defender of the Christian faith, recognise the supremacy of
God Jehovah as absolute authority in the semblance of this court.
Again, no Judge, man or monkey of the court can even begin to disprove
or deny your not standing in God's Kingdom and again he sure as Hell is
NOT going to agree, because he therefore states that he is not a Judge
and only a man, and no man can Judge another in God's Kingdom. So, your
standing on rock solid ground and at this point he is on a very
slippery slope back to where he came? from. Have patience now and we'll
take another stab at locating this lying, evil fascist bastards
Illegitimate, illegal and unlawful de facto kangaroo court that we
cannot seem to find.
Stay cool, calm and collected because, by now, this black robed devil
is liable to be screaming at you to give him your NAME. I know your
getting edgy, what, with all his ranting and raving, But your faith in
Christ tells you that your safe standing in God's Kingdom. Your reply
should go something like this:
Are you aware My name is a private, not for commercial use, Christian
name and that I officiating and performing a function of my calling as
God's minister cannot submit to those who are not in the Kingdom of God
as I believe they are not of God but act as false gods?.
Do you have a name of your own?
Can you lawfully intimidate me to violate my Christian faith and the first command of God that the Queen defends?
Do you have any lawful authority to neglect your oath to God in being truly allegiant to the Queen.
In awareness of corruption with in the government system of law is it
lawful to determine who I, officiating and performing a function of my
calling as God's minister, am submitting to, and to in honor ask for
proof that their claimed authority is legitimate?
Can you deny your duty or make up your own definition of what it means to be truly allegiant to a Christian monarch?
By now you've blown the lying, evil, fascist, egotists mind,and if he
has'nt had you thrown out of his court by now, you might as well thank
him for his understanding of God's Kingdom and bid him farewell…..
Minister Jackie G.V.Harper
Monday, March 2, 2009
Secret Law / American Slave Doctrine
Secret Law / American Slave Doctrine.
How can one prove to themselves that they are mere property of a government of unknown origin?
A man (we'll call him Jim) and two friends were facing a municipal judge (David R. Koss) in Longview, Washington in
February of 2002.
The claim by the State of ashington was that these three men were guilty of "illegal sport fishing." They had been accused of having too many pounds of smelt.
A charge that was later dropped because the 'judge' admitted that "the State of Washington forgot to set a limit on smelt fishing."
The D.A. even admitted that he didn't even have any evidence, but that was not considered a bar to prosecution, as they
had a "State" game warden who accused them, as such evidence was not required.
These men entered the courtroom and waited until the municipal (muni-corp) judge entered. The 'judge' entered in his black dress to a silent standing ovation and then gave everyone permission to sit down.
He then started his monolog about his duties and the duties of the court, with included a statement of the (so called)
rights of the defendants.
Jim, actually the one who got the group into this mess, had been studying his constitutions and the processes of the
courts and how they differed from the law as set down by the framers.
Jim, when approached by the game warden started asking him questions on his lawful authority and then made the
mistake of cornering him in a lie. This irritated the game warden so he wrote them all up on misdemeanor charges
out of spite.
Now back to the secret law / slave issue.
The 'judge' stated that he was required by law to read everyone their rights and to make sure that they understood them.
He stated, "You have the right to plead guilty. You have the right to plead not guilty. You have the right to plead 'no contest' and pay a fine, and you have the right to an attorney.
Do you all understand thes rights as 'I have given them' to you?"
Everyone except Jim and his two friends raddled their heads in a manner to indicate that they did.
The court them proceeded in its process of raping the public at the threat of imprisonment for any objection made.
One by one the victims were raped and sent on their way - until Jim and his friends were called. Even though Jim
was last, he still had an audience, as he had told some of the other slaves that were complaining of the actions of
the State, that if they stayed around, he would prove that this (muni-corp) court was a slave processing court
operating under secret slave law.
Jim, being very polite after his name was called, stated, "Your honor, may I ask a question?
Judge: "What is your question Mr. Smith?"
Jim: "I'm confused about my rights and would like to ask a question."
Judge: "What is it that you don't understand about your rights? Would you like for me to read them to you again?"
Jim: "No, your honor, I understand the ones that you read, but I have been studying this document called the
constitution and it has this section called the Bill of Rights. I notice that you didn't mention any of those rights
and I was wondering if you would go over all those with me and make sure that I understand them?"
Judge: "No I won't."
Jim, polite and hesitant: "Please forgive me your honor, but I'm confused, are you saying that I don't have any of
the rights listed in the Bill of Rights?"
Judge: "You have the rights that I said that you have."
Jim. "Your honor I'm confused, so please bear with me, because I'm just trying to understand exactly what you are saying.
Are you saying that none of the rights secured to me by the constitutions apply to me?"
Judge: "I'm telling you again, you've got the rights that I told you that you have."
Jim: "Your honor, I'm even more confused now. You've just stated that you are not proceeding under the constitutions
and the common law in which I have rights.
Would you please tell me what system of law you are proceeding under.
Judge: "No, I will not."
Jim: "Your honor, please bear with me because I'm even more confused now. By denying me any knowledge of
the law that you are proceeding under, you are denying me the right to a defense.
Your honor, since (Jim now speaks very fast to make the record) only a slave can be denied a defense, are you
making a declaration of slavery against me?"
Judge: As he stands up and literally runs out the side door of the court room. "I'm not going there."
Jim: "But your honor, I have more questions."
Courtroom side door is slammed shut.
After a few minutes the 'judge' comes running back to his desk.
Jim: "Your honor, I still have more questions."
Judge, while banging his little wooden hammer frantically: "Court is dismissed!"
Jim: "But your honor, I still have more questions."
Judge, still pounding his little wooden hammer: "I said court is dismissed. I can't answer any more questions."
Jim in order to get a copy of the record: "Your honor, I would like a copy of the record. How do I get a copy?"
Judge: "This isn't a court of record, there isn't one available."
A friend points to the recorder and says: That sucker's lying, that's the recorder right there still recording."
Jim: "Uh, your honor..."
Judge: "I didn't say that there wasn't a record, I said this isn't a 'court of record', you'll have to contact the clerk
to see if it's available to the public."
Can we say "OOPS?"
What more can anyone do to prove that the courts are operating under secret slave law?
How can one prove to themselves that they are mere property of a government of unknown origin?
A man (we'll call him Jim) and two friends were facing a municipal judge (David R. Koss) in Longview, Washington in
February of 2002.
The claim by the State of ashington was that these three men were guilty of "illegal sport fishing." They had been accused of having too many pounds of smelt.
A charge that was later dropped because the 'judge' admitted that "the State of Washington forgot to set a limit on smelt fishing."
The D.A. even admitted that he didn't even have any evidence, but that was not considered a bar to prosecution, as they
had a "State" game warden who accused them, as such evidence was not required.
These men entered the courtroom and waited until the municipal (muni-corp) judge entered. The 'judge' entered in his black dress to a silent standing ovation and then gave everyone permission to sit down.
He then started his monolog about his duties and the duties of the court, with included a statement of the (so called)
rights of the defendants.
Jim, actually the one who got the group into this mess, had been studying his constitutions and the processes of the
courts and how they differed from the law as set down by the framers.
Jim, when approached by the game warden started asking him questions on his lawful authority and then made the
mistake of cornering him in a lie. This irritated the game warden so he wrote them all up on misdemeanor charges
out of spite.
Now back to the secret law / slave issue.
The 'judge' stated that he was required by law to read everyone their rights and to make sure that they understood them.
He stated, "You have the right to plead guilty. You have the right to plead not guilty. You have the right to plead 'no contest' and pay a fine, and you have the right to an attorney.
Do you all understand thes rights as 'I have given them' to you?"
Everyone except Jim and his two friends raddled their heads in a manner to indicate that they did.
The court them proceeded in its process of raping the public at the threat of imprisonment for any objection made.
One by one the victims were raped and sent on their way - until Jim and his friends were called. Even though Jim
was last, he still had an audience, as he had told some of the other slaves that were complaining of the actions of
the State, that if they stayed around, he would prove that this (muni-corp) court was a slave processing court
operating under secret slave law.
Jim, being very polite after his name was called, stated, "Your honor, may I ask a question?
Judge: "What is your question Mr. Smith?"
Jim: "I'm confused about my rights and would like to ask a question."
Judge: "What is it that you don't understand about your rights? Would you like for me to read them to you again?"
Jim: "No, your honor, I understand the ones that you read, but I have been studying this document called the
constitution and it has this section called the Bill of Rights. I notice that you didn't mention any of those rights
and I was wondering if you would go over all those with me and make sure that I understand them?"
Judge: "No I won't."
Jim, polite and hesitant: "Please forgive me your honor, but I'm confused, are you saying that I don't have any of
the rights listed in the Bill of Rights?"
Judge: "You have the rights that I said that you have."
Jim. "Your honor I'm confused, so please bear with me, because I'm just trying to understand exactly what you are saying.
Are you saying that none of the rights secured to me by the constitutions apply to me?"
Judge: "I'm telling you again, you've got the rights that I told you that you have."
Jim: "Your honor, I'm even more confused now. You've just stated that you are not proceeding under the constitutions
and the common law in which I have rights.
Would you please tell me what system of law you are proceeding under.
Judge: "No, I will not."
Jim: "Your honor, please bear with me because I'm even more confused now. By denying me any knowledge of
the law that you are proceeding under, you are denying me the right to a defense.
Your honor, since (Jim now speaks very fast to make the record) only a slave can be denied a defense, are you
making a declaration of slavery against me?"
Judge: As he stands up and literally runs out the side door of the court room. "I'm not going there."
Jim: "But your honor, I have more questions."
Courtroom side door is slammed shut.
After a few minutes the 'judge' comes running back to his desk.
Jim: "Your honor, I still have more questions."
Judge, while banging his little wooden hammer frantically: "Court is dismissed!"
Jim: "But your honor, I still have more questions."
Judge, still pounding his little wooden hammer: "I said court is dismissed. I can't answer any more questions."
Jim in order to get a copy of the record: "Your honor, I would like a copy of the record. How do I get a copy?"
Judge: "This isn't a court of record, there isn't one available."
A friend points to the recorder and says: That sucker's lying, that's the recorder right there still recording."
Jim: "Uh, your honor..."
Judge: "I didn't say that there wasn't a record, I said this isn't a 'court of record', you'll have to contact the clerk
to see if it's available to the public."
Can we say "OOPS?"
What more can anyone do to prove that the courts are operating under secret slave law?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)