Article six , clause 3, part (a), of the United States Constitution mandates all officers of courts in
the United States, both attorneys and judges, to swear to an oath to protect and
defend the constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic. The
requirement was the Founders' hope the Constitution could be safeguarded and
protected by those who knew the law and worked within it. Unfortunately those
same Founders had no idea that clause 3(b) of the same Article they wrote
created a disjoint that would allow the constitution to be perverted by those same
court officers who may have a higher sworn allegiance to a religious notion
that overshadowed their allegiance to the Constitution. Indeed, but for that
clause 3 part (b), they might not have been able to be appointed or elected to judicial
office.
While part (a) required the oath, part (b) forbade a religious test to any person being appointed or elected to public office, which includes the courts. The Founders had no idea that a purely American religion would be created some 43 years after the Constitution was adopted that deemed itself to be the future entity that scriptures foretold would be the stone cut out of the mountain without hands that would role forth and politically control the world. Yet that is exactly what happened. It is known as the Mormon Church but with the formal name, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" or LDS. I was a member of the church for some 47 years until I parted with it due to personal conflicts with doctrines that no longer made sense to me. While church racism of the time was one, the quest for empire was the most objectionable.
The oath taken by Mormons who have been through the temples and received their endowments [secret underwear] is known as the law of sacrifice. "We (I) covenant to sacrifice all that we (I) possess, even our (my) own lives (life) if necessary, in sustaining and defending the Kingdom of God." As has been pointed out by several writers critical of the church quest, the use of semantics of the term "kingdom" interchangeably as defining the church as well as the secret political quest leaves members somewhat dumbed down if they have not learned of the quest, which few have. I happened to be one who did.
The problem with Mormons in government is that the oath of sacrifice is to them superior to the mandated constitutional oath. That fact makes for a conflict of interest whenever an issue arises in which the church is mentioned or its quest is concerned. So the lawsuit that I filed in late March 2012 denominated WALLACE VS. ROMNEY, et al, RENO, US DISTRICT COURT NO. 3:12-cv-00167-MMD-VPC, fell into the supervisory hands of a Mormon who was Chief Judge of the Reno U. S. District Court at the time. His name is Robert Clive Jones and he is a former missionary of the church, the same as I. The prospect of winning my case was at his mercy and only a fool would have thought otherwise. While Judge Jones was not the designated judge for the case his supervisory impact was felt when there was a delay in a response to a document I filed on Valentine's day 2013 that clearly blew the defense tactic out of the water.
Originally
I had included Mitt Romney but following the 2012 November election I dismissed
him without prejudice leaving only Eric Holder, Attorney General of the United
States, and Lynn M. Halbrooks, Acting inspector General of the Department of
Defense. All that was asked of them was to investigate the allegations of the
complaint as to the reason for building the NSA spy data-storage facility in
Utah with the political quest for empire of the Mormon Church as a background and
for the court to act accordingly to that discovery.
However, the U.S. Attorney's office in Reno as defendant's counsel attempted a fabricated defense based on bad case law that the complaint was so "unbelievable" it should be dismissed even if "later proven to be tr ue". That kind of defense smelled of break-room politics and improper ex-parte contact between the court and the defense attorneys. At this point of time I suspect, but cannot prove, that Mormons also were employees of the U.S. Attorney's office defending the church more than the defendants. We do know that the Nevada U.S. attorney, Daniel Bogden, is a Mormon and it is easy to get paranoid in that kind of situation but it made no sense whatever for the government to avoid doing that which is its job in any event, especially when the issue concerns a threat to the Constitution!
All my filings opposing the motion for summary judgment were ignored and I then filed the Valentine's Day material, which was a memorandum in support of my opposition to summary judgment. That document was written by a former Mormon woman, Janis Hutchinson, who also had served some twenty years as a legal secretary. It was/is a complete and thorough documentation of the Mormon quest for empire from the beginning in 1844 to the near present time and the role of the Council of Fifty organized by church founder Joseph Smith, JR., in 1844 shortly before his death. Pages of references were cited, making the document boiler-plated.
Sixty-two days later, Judge
Jones removed the original judge, Larry Hicks, who had not ruled on the motions
during that time. My assessment was that Judge Hicks could not rule to please
the bias of Judge Jones and was removed from the case, substituting a woman
judge, Miranda M. Du, who had, as an
attorney before the court, been sanctioned by the same court for dishonesty
some time earlier. Even Nevada Governor
Sandoval had signed off on her sanction when he was still a judge of the same
court, yet he welcomed her appointment as did Senator Harry Reid [another
Mormon] who had named her as a candidate for that office. My assessment of that
move was that she would be malleable to the wishes of Judge Jones.
Almost immediately the case was dismissed with prejudice [meaning I could not ever re-file] based on a new defense of "frivolousness". I filed a post order of dismissal motion to clarify as to what facts were considered by the court in that ruling, which took another long period to deny. So a fabricated defense was foisted in the case with a refusal by the District Court to state what facts constituted the "frivolous" judgment.
After the first order of dismissal was entered and I filed the motion in the above paragraph, I was made aware that the District Court Clerk had prematurely sent my notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court in San Francisco even though my notice of appeal was conditional on the ruling of the most recent motion, which should have caused a delay by the Clerk's office. I had begun to distrust what to expect of the clerk's office, as I knew every time I appeared at the clerk's plate-glass window there was a look of disdain on faces! [Paranoid? Yes, like Jews in Hitler's Germany.]
In the meantime the Appeals court was hung up waiting for the response of the District Court before it could take jurisdiction. To make the story shorter, the Appeals court followed the same tactic in which I was ordered to show cause why the Appeals Court should not dismiss the appeal on the same grounds. I timely answered that order and I again filed the Hutchinson Memorandum, supra, which the court ignored and followed suit in dismissing the case on November 21, 2013. Again I filed a motion for reconsideration under local court rules that took until January 23, 2014, to deny, again without any stated facts to support the court's action.
After having spent $805.00 in filing fees, at no time did the District Court or the Appeals court set a hearing date at which time I could orally argue my case or have the courtesy of a face-to-face ruling against me! See: WALLACE VS. ROMNEY, et al, NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS NO. 13-16233.
Why this discourtesy? Simply because a face-to-face hearing would expose the two major judges, Mormons Jones and Bybee*, to my presence, a plaintiff with the courage to bring legal action against the religious nonsense of a "Kingdom of God" espoused by the church they have both taken solemn oaths to protect in a Mormon Temple the same as I. They both know that I am fully aware of the "Kingdom" nonsense and are cowards hiding inside the black robes they wear holding the office they have defiled and the mandatory Article 6 oath they have violated!
It is my present intention to petition the Supreme Court for a writ of Certiorari [I have until April 27, 2014] to expose the Mormon Quest for empire and put an end to such nonsense. In the meantime, I will be actively seeking the impeachment of these two judges along with three others who have consciously or otherwise failed to meet their obligations under Article Six to protect the Constitution.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
1
1
