by Mary W Maxwell, LLB
Somebody should arrest me for contempt of court.
There are times when a person is sent to jail for contempt of court because, for example, he refuses to cough up information that is vital to a case (and has no Fifth Amendment right to silence, as he is not charged with a crime). He must sit there until he’s good and ready to do what the judge rightfully demands.
Or he is jailed for contempt for being insulting to the judge (which is known, correctly, as being insulting to the Court.) He can sit there until he regrets what he said and agrees that the Court deserves respect. Then he can go home.
If I were jailed for contempt of court, I don’t see how I would ever get out. There would be nothing I could do to end my feeling of contempt. There would be something they could do to end it. That is, the judges could start doing justice again.
My contempt for the court is new. Until quite recently I thought the court was the living end, as we used to say. One can see in the written law that there is every possibility of making justice happen.
Whether it be the common law (case judgments accumulated over the centuries), statutory law (enacted by parliaments), or the court of equity (which urges the judge to go out on a limb for the plaintiff), you will always find a remedy.
What great minds came up with the maxims! These three will suffice to give the gist:
The law speaks to all in the same way.
The reason of the law is the life of the law.
He who spares the guilty punishes the innocent.
Sadness in Australia
Note: In this article, I will not discuss the three cases that I filed, pro se, in recent years – Maxwell v Trump, 2017; Maxwell v FBI et al, 2019; and Maxwell v Secretary of Defense, et al, 2020. Those are not the cause of my contempt of court.
Maybe contempt is not the right word anyway. It is more like discouragement or sadness. Of course it approaches anger if someone I know has been the recipient of court cruelty. But in such an instance, I feel that the judge is a plain criminal and that charges should be brought.
There are many cases in both the US and Australia where the judge, in a child protection case, is involved in the crime of child trafficking. He (or she!) is at the very least an accessory or an accomplice. How’s that for shocking!
At GumshoeNews.com, editor Dee McLachlan has written many reports of what is happening in the Family Court and in the entity known as a Children’s Court which is not a genuine court but an administrative arm of the state police and the Child Kidnapping Service. Oops sorry, the Child Protection Service, the CPS.
Due process is skirted around (often with a snicker); the normal rules of evidence are officially dispensed with; and the state law regarding the rights of the child is violated. How so? The representative of the CPS, at a court hearing or “trial” is called The Crown Prosecutor. She and the judge confer – sometimes blatantly in the hallway. It’s like one big ex parte party.
Enter, a Good Judge
I have published a book entitled Reunion: Judging the Family Court. Where possible, I included happy stories. One such happy story involved a young judge in the Iowa district court, Adam Sauer. He refused to accept the testimony of a CPS social worker, Ms Chelsea Gray, age 30, in regard to the (unnecessary) placing of four siblings in foster care.
An agent for the Division of Criminal Investigation, Scott Reger, signed the affidavit outlining how Ms Gray had given false testimony under oath. Per newsobserver.com, Reger lists three counts of perjury:
- She testified at a hearing that she had spoken with their teachers about academic and social concerns the kids were exhibiting at school. Later she admitted that she had not spoken to teachers.
- She testified that she went to the foster home to check on the children once a month, as required by law, but later admitted she did not visit them.
- She testified that she would recommend a foster care placement keeping all four children in the same home, but it was found that she had in mind to separate one of the children from the other three.
I know that the reader is thinking “Oh yeah, so what?” Indeed I hope that’s what the reader is thinking. There shouldn’t be anything remarkable about a judge noticing perjury, or a perjurer getting convicted. Zzzz, boring.
Actually what is getting boring these days is the regularity of cases in which: A. a Protective parent seeks the court’s help over the horrific fact that the other parent is sexually abusing the child, and B. the judge awards custody of the child to the abuser.
Let’s ask why this is taking place. I have only two thoughts:
- The judges (and for that matter the social workers and police) may be under threat of death from a pedophile gang;
- Word may have come down from on high (wherever that is) that sexual activity with kids, in the home, is “trending” and judges should get the public conditioned to accept it.
In either case, the judge needs our assistance to stop this.
Judicial Treason, Type 2
I consider a judge to commit treason if he kills the people’s defensive weapon, the Constitution. That won’t be discussed n this article. The focus will be on what I label “Type-2 judicial treason.” Here the judge acts against the nation by knowingly causing violence to a person (other than when meting out lawful punishment, of course).
In Pennsylvania in 2011, Judge Mark Ciavarella of the Juvenile Court was convicted of racketeering for receiving money from the builders and owners of private prisons, to which he had sent young offenders. Well, that’s a better punishment than none at all, but he should have been up for treason “levying war against the people.”
Consider the treason committed by several judges in the leadup to the execution of Troy Davis of Savannah Georgia in 2011. It looked like an ordinary case. Troy was present at a party in Cloverdale, near which a man was drive-by shot. Troy was also in the parking lot of Burger King when off-duty cop McPhail was shot. Nine witnesses claimed to see him do it.
We have all heard of cops coercing testimony, especially in exchange for not pressing charges. Years later, 7 of the 9 recanted. That made them liable for perjury, so it was daring of them to do so. One of the non-recanting ones, Silvester Coles, is suspected of being the shooter but was never interrogated in any way, shape, or form.
Troy Davis — What the US Supreme Court Did
The accused, being on Death Row, had the right to appeal to the highest court. SCOTUS chose to send the recantation statements back to a Savannah judge, William Moore, for examination. Nothing wrong with that. But I claim that this judge “saw to it” that Troy would die.
I‘ll print below just the examination of Darrell Collins’ recantation. Darrell was age 16 on the night of the shooting of 27-year-old Officer McPhail (who was working as a security guard at Burger King). Troy Davis was 20.
Darrell Collins, said “After a couple of hours of the detectives yelling at me and threatening me, I finally broke down.” Collins is not to be confused with recanter Antoine Williams who said the officers “gave me a statement and told me to sign it. I signed it. I did not read it because I cannot read.”
Judge Moore’s Report for SCOTUS
Here is just one example of how the judge dealt with recantations – that of Darrell Collins. Comments in square brackets are mine, written angrily at the time. Troy was executed on September 21, a day for death in the occult calendar, which may or may not be relevant.
“Mr. Collins also told the police that Mr. Davis was responsible for the Cloverdale shooting, but recanted this testimony at trial. [Judge knows that Cooper the victim at Cloverdale said Troy didn’t shoot him.] …
“Specifically, he claims that he simply parroted what the police told him to say. [Indeed.] However, he did not recant his earlier testimony that Mr. Davis was wearing the white shirt on the night of the shootings. [Note: SCOTUS could allow Moore to have Collins clarify this matter now.]
“At the hearing, Mr. Collins did not recant his testimony regarding the white shirt. Instead, he testified that he presently had no memory of what color shirt Mr. Davis was wearing that night [I call that a recantation!] but would assume that whatever he told the police about the color of Mr. Davis’s shirt would have been a lie because all inculpatory testimony he provided is presumptively false in his mind. Of course, that statement is very different [No, it isn’t] from stating that, as a matter of his own knowledge, he is sure that he was lying.
“Mr. Collins’ testimony is neither credible nor a full recantation. [Shame on you, Judge] First, regardless of the recantation, Mr. Collins’s previous testimony, that has never been unequivocally recanted [I would say it has been “comprehensively recanted”, wouldn’t you?] still provides significant evidence of Mr. Davis’s guilt by placing him in the white shirt. [Excuse me, “significant?”? He said he lied.]
“Second, if Mr. Collins’s claim that he simply parroted false statements fed to him by police is truthful, query why Mr. Collins never directly identified Mr. Davis as Officer MacPhail’s murderer. Surely, this would have been the best available false testimony [Mother of God!]. … Third, there was credible testimony from Officer [!!] Sweeney and Mr. Lock [saying] that Mr. Collins’s testimony was not coerced.” — end of excerpts
Regulatory Capture and Copsuckery
Note: Donald E Wilkes, Jr, Emeritus Professor of Law at the University of Georgia offers the word ‘copsuckery’:
“I am concerned about the judge’s practice of methodically accepting the police versions of disputed events while simultaneously rejecting citizens’ versions of these events. This verges on what is called ‘copsuckery’ — slavish or excessive deference to law enforcement personnel – and may be another manifestation of regulatory capture in the criminal justice system, under which many judges view themselves not as protectors of the rights of citizens but as cheerleaders for police and prosecutors.”
The Lockdown – Any Type-2 Judicial Treason?
If ever there were a treasonous act in the United States – or any country – it is the Lockdown that is leading us to the Takeover. As far as I know, there has been very little response from the Courts to pleadings by citizens over various parts of the pandemic and the Lockdown.
At least one judge declared unconstitutional the Lockdown for the week prior to the date the legislature passed a relevant law. That was a help. My disappointment is not that cases have gone unanswered but that no judge is speaking out against the Takeover that will put an end to the US Constitution.
If a case is before them, and a judge botches it, that is proof (to me) of his/her across-the-board perfidy. They know what I mean. A judge or legal scholar can’t pick and choose. It’s all or nothing. You love the law. You kiss the law. You would not let law down.
Unlike a soldier or a cop who finds himself in a bind, having to obey orders that he does not agree with, the judge is not in a bind. She does not have to obey anyone but her conscience and the law.
Judex est lex loquens – the judge is the law speaking.