What do you say to a rubber stamp?

While I have been very, very busy this week helping out as many of you as I can and trying to find litigation funding for a class action in probate, because it seems that for a very long time, Probate has been ignoring jurisdictional requirements such as 1) summons and complaint properly served upon the Respondent (Bedin, Tyler, Sykes, Wyman,etc.) and 2) it further has decided in many, many cases to skip requiring the Petitioner to send out written notice to all adult children and siblings 14 days in advance of an incompetency petition (seems the court is often far more incompetent that the accused senior standing before it), I just received the latest rubber stamp from the ARDC “inquiry board.”

Ken thinks all the ARDC needs is a lesson in first amendment rights (as well as copyright lawy, because the complaint is bogus and the continued pilfering of Ken’s fine writing constitutes garden variety copyright infringement.)

First, take a look at what a rubber stamp from the “Inquiry Board” looks like

Rubber Stamp from ARDC against JMD

I thought we might consider today the Pentagon Papers case or this article from Wikipedia:

Prior to publication, The New York Times sought legal advice. The paper’s regular outside counsel, Lord Day & Lord, advised against publication,[5] but house counsel James Goodale prevailed with his argument that the press had a First Amendment right to publish information significant to the people’s understanding of their government’s policy.

President Nixon’s first reaction to the publication was that since the study embarrassed the Johnson and Kennedy administrations, not his, he should do nothing. However, Kissinger convinced the president that not opposing publication set a negative precedent for future secrets.[5] The administration argued Ellsberg and Russo were guilty of a felony under the Espionage Act of 1917, because they had no authority to publish classified documents.[17] After failing to persuade the Times to voluntarily cease publication on June 14,[5] Attorney General John N. Mitchell and Nixon obtained a federal court injunction forcing the Times to cease publication after three articles.[5] Times publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger said:

Newspapers, as our editorial said this morning, we’re really a part of history that should have been made available, considerably longer ago. I just didn’t feel there was any breach of national security, in the sense that we were giving secrets to the enemy.[18]

The newspaper appealed the injunction, and the case New York Times Co. v. United States (403 U.S. 713) quickly rose through the U.S. legal system to the Supreme Court.[19]

On June 18, 1971, The Washington Post began publishing its own series of articles based upon the Pentagon Papers;[5] Ellsberg gave portions to editor Ben Bradlee. That day, Assistant U.S. Attorney General William Rehnquist asked the Post to cease publication. After the paper refused, Rehnquist sought an injunction in U.S. district court. Judge Murray Gurfein declined to issue such an injunction, writing that “[t]he security of the Nation is not at the ramparts alone. Security also lies in the value of our free institutions. A cantankerous press, an obstinate press, an ubiquitous press must be suffered by those in authority in order to preserve the even greater values of freedom of expression and the right of the people to know.”.[20] The government appealed that decision, and on June 26 the Supreme Court agreed to hear it jointly with the New York Times case.[19] Fifteen other newspapers received copies of the study and began publishing it.[5]

On June 30, 1971, the Supreme Court decided, 6–3, that the government failed to meet the heavy burden of proof required for prior restraint injunction. The nine justices wrote nine opinions disagreeing on significant, substantive matters.

Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.
—Justice Black[21]

Thomas Tedford and Dale Herbeck summarize the reaction of editors and journalists at the time:

As the press rooms of the Times and the Post began to hum to the lifting of the censorship order, the journalists of America pondered with grave concern the fact that for fifteen days the ‘free press’ of the nation had been prevented from publishing an important document and for their troubles had been given an inconclusive and uninspiring ‘burden-of-proof’ decision by a sharply divided Supreme Court. There was relief, but no great rejoicing, in the editorial offices of America’s publishers and broadcasters.
—Tedford and Herbeck, pp. 225–226.[22]

Ellsberg surrendered to authorities in Boston and admitted that he had given the papers to the press. He was later indicted on charges of stealing and holding secret documents by a grand jury in Los Angeles.[12] Federal District Judge William Matthew Byrne, Jr. declared a mistrial and dismissed all charges against Ellsberg [and Russo] on May 11, 1973, after several irregularities appeared in the government’s case, including its claim that it had lost records of illegal wiretapping against Ellsberg conducted by the White House Plumbers in the contemporaneous Watergate scandal.[5] Byrne ruled: “The totality of the circumstances of this case which I have only briefly sketched offend a sense of justice. The bizarre events have incurably infected the prosecution of this case.”

I felt that as an American citizen, as a responsible citizen, I could no longer cooperate in concealing this information from the American public. I did this clearly at my own jeopardy and I am prepared to answer to all the consequences of this decision.
— Ellsberg on why he released the Pentagon Papers to the press.[12]

Times v. United States is generally considered a victory for an extensive reading of the First Amendment, but as the Supreme Court ruled on whether the government had made a successful case for prior restraint, its decision did not void the Espionage Act or give the press unlimited freedom to publish classified documents. Ellsberg and Russo were not acquitted of violating the Espionage Act; they were freed due to a mistrial from irregularities in the government’s case.[5]

In March 1972, political scientist Samuel L. Popkin, then assistant professor of Government at the University of California, San Diego, was jailed for a week for his refusal to answer questions before a grand jury investigating the Pentagon Papers case, during a hearing before the Boston Federal District Court.[23] The Faculty Council later passed a resolution condemning the government’s interrogation of scholars on the grounds that “an unlimited right of grand juries to ask any question and to expose a witness to citations for contempt could easily threaten scholarly research.”[23]

Gelb estimated that the Times only published about 5% of the study’s 7,000 pages. The Beacon Press edition was also incomplete. Halperin, who had originally classified the study as secret, obtained most of the unpublished portions under the Freedom of Information Act and the University of Texas published them in 1983. The National Security Archive published the remaining portions in 2002. The study remained formally classified, however,[5] until 2011.

From JMD:

Okay, I’m not a newpaper, I am a blog, but I think blogging has fast taken over where “official news outlets” have left off.  Blogging is a huge cottage industry fueled by the fact that 1) some people just can’t stop investigating and publishing what they find out and 2) there are readers out there that are interested in extraordinary blogging.

This blog is well over 14,000 hits and it’s hard to say it simply isn’t covered by free speech.  It is linked to other blogs and that’s where probate victims and their families find companionship, consolation, sympathy, empathy, and most of all hope.

Even if the ARDC doesn’t “get it’–the first amendment, and thinks that they can stop out the lawyers that are now involved in probate court watching and noting corruption and mis-steps.

Ken and I speak for those that have no voice–those that have been stripped of their due process rights, and then their liberties, property and civil and human rights.

We need more lawyers that are not afraid.  I am not afraid.

Not even after my “rubber stamp” letter.

Justice Connor got promoted to the Appellate Court because she ignored due process and jurisdiction rights of grandma and grandpa and their families, perhaps LB is looking for a position next to her on the Second District Court of Appeals?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s