Some Dare Call It Tyranny

            Has the history of the United States come full circle? After 227 years, is it now time for another Declaration of Independence to help us break free from forces that, like those prior to 1776, are “designed to bring us under absolute despotism ... by changing our form of government”? Let us check both history and recent events to assess the situation.

            The Declaration of Independence, adopted on July 4, 1776, is undoubtedly one of the most important political documents in history. As such, it is unique in both content and intent.

            Drafted by Thomas Jefferson between June 11 and June 28, 1776, it is America’s most cherished symbol of freedom and liberty. Here, in unforgettable phrases the author expressed the heartfelt convictions of those who were blessed to live in a new land that had been settled by people who had fled the political and religious tyranny of the Old World. Most of the inhabitants of the 13 Colonies had learned the lessons of history and, with the right leadership, wanted to establish a nation that was free of tyranny.

            The Declaration of Independence laid out those truths in no uncertain terms, detailing the almost endless grievances and persecutions that people had suffered at the hands of the British Crown. These were “design(ed) to reduce them under absolute Despotism.” It was thus the people’s  “right, it (was) their duty to throw off such Government, and Provide new Guards for their future security.” Jefferson summarized this philosophy of “self-evident truths” in order to justify before the world the breaking of ties between the Colonies and Britain. “The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid word...”

            Among the many grievances listed were that: “He (the King) has erected a multitude of new offices and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat up our substance.” He had “combined with others to subject (the people) to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution ... giving assent to their Acts of pretended legislation.” He “deprived (the people) in many cases of the benefits of trial by Jury.” The King had “abolish(ed) our most valuable laws, and alter(ed) fundamentally the Forms of our Government.” The King’s representatives had “declare(ed) themselves invested with powers to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.”The British monarch had “destroyed the lives of our people ... with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation...”

            “In every stage of our Oppression, We have Petitioned for regress in the most humble terms. Our repeated  petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people...

            “We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America ... appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intention ... do declare in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these Unit­ed Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown....”

            Enough was enough! No more tyranny! No more living under the heel of a “blue-blooded” thug and the imperious dictates of his tyrannical lieutenants obsessed, as they were, with their own perceived importance. From top to bottom they had wholeheartedly swallowed the Satanic lie that they could be “as gods” (Genesis 3:5) and thus, with impunity, lord it over their fellow human beings. That, by the grace of God, was not going to be “the American way” of government.

            The United States Constitution and Bill of Rights (not Privileges) that emerged over the eleven years that followed was the “supreme Law of the Land.” Article VI clearly stated that “the Laws of the United States shall be made in Pursuance thereof,” and that “the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

 

FEDERATION OF SOVEREIGN STATES

            When the Constitution was ratified on September 17, 1787, it created a union of sovereign States, and a federal government to administer that union. Each sovereign State was independent of all the others. Each sovereign State was responsible for administering its own affairs. Each had its own independent, biblically-based judicial system, founded on the firm principle of due process (Article V).  Each had its own Constitution which conformed to the Constitution of the States unit­ed (later commonly called the United States). In both Federal and States governments there was a clear separation of powers: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. Recognizing the deadly danger posed by democracies, the United States was created as a Republic. As John Adams stated, “Remember, democracy never lasts. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy that did not commit suicide.” When asked what form of government the new nation was going to have, Benja­min Franklin answered, “A Republic, if you can keep it!”

            This was a wise decision. Understanding the true nature of man, our Founders deemed  this vitally necessary for the promotion and survival of freedom in the new nation. As Thomas Jefferson declared, ”In the question of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” In their official Oath of Office, all members of Congress “do solemnly swear that (they) will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic” and that they will “bear full faith and allegiance to the same.” They “take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion ... So help me God.”

            The only way the Constitution may be lawfully (i.e. Constitutionally) changed is through the amendment process. This lawful procedure calls for two-thirds of both Houses to propose any Amendments to the Constitution. Such Amendments are valid only when ratified by the Legislatures of third-fourths of the States, or by Conventions in three-fourths thereof. From the beginning it was recognized that the Constitution was incomplete in its original form. As a result, in 1791, the Bill of Rights (the fist ten Amendments) was added — thus becoming a vitally important part of that Document.

            As four-time British prime minister William Gladstone (1809-1898) declared, “The American Constitution is ... the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.”

            The results were phenomenal. America became a brightly light “city on a hill.” It beckoned to and attracted millions of people — those with a “yearning to breathe free” — from around the globe. It quickly grew into a major world power, then the world’s super power!

 

CHANGING THE FORM  OF GOVERNMENT

            Right from the beginning nefarious forces were at work attempting to undermine and subvert our biblically-based Republic — a system of justice built on immutable laws and statutes that had stood the test of time. When applied and adhered to, these had produced wonderful results. International banking interests strove to gain control of the new nation but, thanks to the sterling efforts of such men as Andrew Jackson (who called them “a den of vipers”),  their efforts proved mostly futile.

            The Civil War proved a major turning point — the beginning of the end of the Republic. Following that catastrophe the bankers made significant inroads. Their efforts — backed by bribery and other forms of political corruption — finally bore fruit when, in 1913, they managed to pass the “Federal” Reserve Act. This central bank (essentially the fifth plank of the Communist Manifesto) certainly isn’t Federal. It was, in fact, designed to destroy Amer­ica’s Constitutionally-sanctioned monetary system (Article 1, Section 7). It placed the financial affairs of the United States in the hands of a private, for-profit corporation (incorporated May 19, 1914) controlled by foreign (alien) bankers.

            Following the banker-engineered Crash of 1929 and during the resultant Great Depression, the nefarious Franklin Roosevelt — a close friend of the bankers — pushed forward their agend­a. Under Constitution-destroying “emer­gency powers” — pushed through Congress on a tidal wave of scare tactics — the Roosevelt administration basically turned the United States from a Constitutional Republic (governed by biblical law) into a Socialist Democracy governed by arbitrary manmade laws. Unknown to the vast majority of Americans, within weeks of assuming office FDR had coerced all the Sovereign States into surrendering their constitutionally-guaranteed sovereignty. Since then the federal government has assumed ever-increasing authority over the States. One of the many controlling mechanisms is “federal aid.” For most politicians who have long-since compromised their integrity and abandoned any desire to follow the Constitution, the thought of rejecting “federal aid” would be tantamount to shooting themselves in both feet. It would deprive the politicians of the money they need to pay for projects (bribes) promised to voters for their support. This is all part of the corrupt political system. They have thus been enticed into “going along to get along.” They willfully ignore the fact that all these socialist programs are being paid for with “fun­ny money” — unbacked, unconstitutional, fiat money created out of thin air and loaned to the government at interest by the privately-owned Fed and other foreign sources. This, as Alan Greenspan has said, is the “shabby secret of the welfare statists.” This financial treachery will inevitably lead to an economic catastrophe of unprecedented proportions, and the “feudal” system written about by Dr. Carroll Quigley in Tragedy and Hope, p.324). Is that the real “change” promised by President Obama?

 

OTHER DESTRUCTIVE CHANGES

            Over the last 76 years many more destructive changes have taken place on the American scene. Few if any of these have been more destructive than the changes that have taken place in the judicial system since the advent of FDR and his socialist “New Deal.” The Tenth Amendment, which reserves certain powers to the individual States and the people, was essentially gutted. This happened under cover of a string of “emergencies.” As the United States was bankrupt following the Crash, all the States were coerced by FDR  into signing that bankruptcy petition. Having thus surrendered their constitutionally-guaranteed sovereignty, they became mere “administrative districts” or “corporate States.” They are governed by administrative law, not Constitutional law — with no true separation of powers. Under the “Separation of Powers” clause in the Constitution, there is no authority for joining the three branches of government (Legislative, Judicial, and Executive) within a State as the members of various State Bars nationwide have largely done. This is clearly a blatant attempt to circumvent the Constitution (the supreme Law of the Land, Article VI), and thus establish a virtual dictatorship. As Senate Report 93-549 (1973) clearly states, “Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency... The majority of the people of the United States have lived all their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years [now 76 years], freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency.” Could anything be clearer? Hardly!

            Thus, as author Larken Rose points out, the judicial tyrants have created “a huge system of kangaroo courts, with all the integrity and honesty of the Mafia, and then make it a crime to point out the corruption, dishonesty, and injustice of the courts, while in court..­.” (How To Be A Successful Tyrant,  pgs. 230-231).

            In States coast-to-coast, lawyers created private “State Bar” associations. These were, in effect, private clubs designed to create a monopoly in the alleged “practice of law.” One has to be a member of the private monopoly to “practice law.” Thus all lawyers and Judges ended up as members of the various monopolistic clubs. Though unrecognized by the general public, this clearly represents a massive conflict of interests. 

 

DEDICATED TO PROTECTING EACH OTHER

            In Oregon, for example, the Oregon State Bar (OSB) was created in 1935 to allegedly protect  the public from lawyers who might be corrupt or unscrupulous. Over the last 74 years many observers have become con­vinced that the true effect was the exact opposite. They believe the OSB has become a regular “goon squad” whose members are dedicated to protecting each other from their numerous victims. When attorneys or Judges get into trouble due to unlawful (i.e. unconstitutional) behavior, such as being a party in stealing people’s property,  the OSB hires top attorneys (other members of the club, of course) to defend them and cover up their malpractice. Victims are then forced to hire new lawyers (members of the club, of course) to pursue their case before a Judge (who is, of course, a member of the club). Almost without exception, this is an exercise in frustrating futility — and hideously expensive. In court, club members only go through the motions of “opposing” other club members. Question: Is this not a close parallel to the situation that led up to the Declaration of Independence in 1776? It certainly is! Alleged “public servants” — public employees who were elected to serve and protect “We, the People” — have usurped authority and are presently in the process of creating a virtual police state.

 

FORMER LAWYER SPEAKS OUT

            Roger Weidner, a former head of the Multnomah County (Portland) fraud department, is a good example of an individual who recognized this judicial corruption and decided to take action to eliminate it. But that was easier said than done — particularly as the deeper he dug the more totally compromised and corrupt the legal system was revealed to be.

            Born in 1938, the son of a fireman who later became deputy-chief of the Portland City Fire Department, Roger and his three brothers were brought up in a family in which public service with integrity was paramount. In the family tradition of hard work and determination, Weidner worked his way through college while working as a fireman. He graduated in 1968. He later joined the Multnomah County (Portland) District Attorney’s office where he became head of the fraud department. He left in 1976 and went into private practice.

            While working in the DA’s office, and later in private practice, Weidner became increasingly aware of what appeared to be major inconsistencies in the criminal justice system. Initially, he was inclined to dismiss these thoughts believing they were probably due to his own lack of knowledge and understanding of how the judicial system worked. As it turned out, this was very naive on his part. As he now puts it, “At first, I was like a puppy in a viper pit.”

 

BATTLING THE SYSTEM

            In 1987, while on inactive status with the Oregon State Bar, Weidner met Janet Kent who, at that time, was attempting to recover the estate of her late fiancee, Don Kettleberg, which was at that time in the process of being stolen by crooked attorneys. On her behalf he retained an attorney, Gary McMurray, to help in recovering the estate. In a trial in Judge Charles Cook­ham’s court in May, 1988, Kent was declared the sole heir of the then-$25,000,000 Kettleberg Estate. When Kettleberg’s business partner, attorney Milton Brown, refused to turn over the assets of the Estate to their rightful owner, Weidner demanded that McMur­ray take action to recover those assets. McMurray became hostile and began to work against Kent’s recovery efforts.

            At this point the Oregon State Bar filed what Weidner recognized were petty, mostly groundless complaints against him. Using a biblical analogy, Weidner declares,“They were straining at a gnat, and swallowing a camel.” They just wanted to “get” him! The OSB apparently considered that the end would justify the means. Eventually, however, as there was no evidence to support the Bar’s charges, the Oregon Supreme Court dismissed the complaints, finding “no misconduct.”

            Convinced there was something seriously wrong with the judicial system, Weidner pursued his quest to identify that intangible “something.” His research revealed that the American justice system had, over a period of decades, been systematically changed from one of Constitutional law (“due process”) to one of manmade “administrative law.” Since then Weidner has been working with many victims of that system — individuals who became crime victims as a result of their interaction with “thieving attorneys in cahoots with crooked Judges” who are all members of the Oregon State Bar. He found that attorneys, with the consent of certain Judges, were committing crimes against their own clients in order to steal their assets and take their property without paying for it.

            The Janet Kent case represented just the tip of the iceberg. The corruption was ubiquitous. One of the worst cases involved the theft-by-lawyers of a multi-million dollar Bend, Oregon, estate left to Patricia Wishon by her late husband. In court, Wishon — under oath — testified that she had, shortly after her husband’s death, been “set up” or induced into a quick marriage with a man (one of whose names was ‘Santiago Torres’) who, it was later revealed, was already married. Shortly after the “marriage” he turned violent and repeatedly beat her. Wishon turned to the Oregon State Bar for help. They recommended a lawyer (Anthony Albertazzi) who, refusing to follow her plain instructions that “Tor­res” was not to be in her will, then conspired with “Torres” to steal the whole estate. With the cooperation of at least two other lawyers (Linda Haase and Claud Ingram, both members of the Oregon State Bar), the duo succeeded in their quest.

            None of Wishon’s sworn testimony was even challenged in court by mem­bers of the Oregon State Bar. Several attempts were  made to have the various crooked lawyers questioned under oath. Each time, Claud Ingram would object and Judge Richard Barber would automatically sustain the objection. So much to “American Justice”! Both the crooked lawyers and the Judge knew that had the lawyers been questioned under oath — and denied the clear evidence — they would have been guilty of perjury, and could have been charged criminally. Instead of rendering a judgement based on the evidence, Judge Richard Barber ignor­ing all the evidence of theft,  issued a verdict in favor of the corrupt attorneys (his Oregon State Bar buddies).

 

REINSTATED CONVICTED FELON

            Then there is the case of Barbara Parmenter, aged 65.  As the result of a “whip lash” auto accident in 1997 Barbara, a successful entrepreneur, suffered brain trauma. Although mentally stable, she has cognitive defects — difficulty understanding oral communications. As a result, she needs to have everything in writing so as to be able to understand what is going on. An additional difficulty is that she has a problem recognizing deceitful tactics being used against her.

            Following her auto accident, and a 2000 arson fire that destroyed her beau­tiful, refurbished home, she retained the services of a lawyer, one Justus Buck Humphreys, to represent her interests after Humphreys had pursued her.  Unknown to her, the OSB had issued Humphreys a licen­ce to practice law in Oregon` although he had been dis­barred else­where. Upon reinstatement, the OSB gave him three aliases, and changed the public registry to conceal his true identity — a criminal act. After Hum­phreys lost her substantial claim, Parmen­ter discovered Humphrey had a different first name. The real Lloyd Edward Humphreys was a convicted felon who had been disbarred in both Iowa and Texas. The OSB-sanctioned crook drew the vulnerable Parmenter into several stings, one of which was the Lemon Case. Oregon State taxpayers have financed this illegal case all the way to the Supreme Court.

            This case was designed to strip Parment­er of hundreds of thousands of dollars in illicit legal fees, causing her untold misery, grief and humiliation. It was, from the beginning, an illegal case. Through­out this sordid case and other law suits, Parmen­ter, despite her impairments,  never could secure necessary accommodations as required by the Americans With Disabilities Act. As a result, she was unable to understand the proceedings and those that followed. Hum­phreys’ cohorts continued to engaged Parmenter in additional concocted cases and, with Hum­phreys help, strip­ped her of $1,032,000 in legal fees defending herself and her property.

            Humphreys was never even reprimanded for forging her name on settlement checks and extorting $50, 000 in bogus legal fees. He even went so far as reporting to the OSB Disciplinary Counsel and other Bar members that Parmenter was mentally unstable.  The members of the State Bar then gave “rights of  possession” of her new home to a drug-using neighbor who had previously admitted bludgeoning her over the head.  She was further subjected to cruel and intimidating coercion in fraudulent court hearings. Parmen­ter could not get any civil rights assistance  because the State did not, at that time, have a civil rights division in its Judicial Department.

            After being disbarred yet again for his criminal activity, Humphrey continued to practice law in the State for another two years. He also sued Parmenter for $119,000 he claimed was owed in legal fees on the contingency cases he had lost.  He had lost the only case that went to trial. He also sued her to $250, 000 for not following his instructions.

“SPECIAL APPEARANCE”

       Having graduated from law school and being a former lawyer, Weidner understood the system as few others. He recognized that going the “administrative law” route in combating a compromised judicial system was a dead end — one destined to abject failure. From his law school days, he remembered a perfectly legal remedy that gets people out from under “administrative law” and keeps them firm­ly under Constitutional law. When in­volved in a court case, the individual must state on the record before he proceeds with his case, “Judge ....., I am here by ‘special appearance’ until notified by the court that I am proceeding in a court of ‘constitutional due pro­cess’ — an adversary system, Plaintiff-Defendant, neutral Judge.” If the individual fails to do this they are giving the Judge jurisdiction over both them and their case. They are “voluntarily”giving up their Constitutional rights to have their case tried in a court of Constitutional “due pro­cess.”

 

ACTION TAKEN BEFORE GOING TO COURT

       After filing the complaint, the individual must, by local rules in most jurisdictions, wait at least 30 days before filing the Motion for Summary Judgment. Thirty days after filing the complaint the individual should call the Clerk of the Court and request that the Summary Judgment Motion be set down for hearing. In support of the Motion for Summary Judgment, the individual must prepare and send to the other party a sworn, detailed affidavit describing all the criminal conduct of all the Defendants. The Defendants must deny, by affidavit, all facts set forth in the individual’s affidavit or those facts are legally deemed admitted.

       Several days before the hearing, the individual should contact the Sheriff or his deputy who serves as the commanding officer of courthouse security and ask for a meeting. At that meeting the individual, who should bring along as many supporters as possible, should tell the commanding officer he is going to be in court shortly to put the matter “on the record.” The individual should tell the commanding officer that either they or others have been either threatened or arrested in the past, on order of compromised Judges, when they tried to peacefully put matters on the record.

       When the individual appears in court, with supporters, at the time set to hear the motion, they should state what is set out above under “Special Appearance.” After making that statement the individual, with a room full of supporters, should say, “The Defendant has not denied the facts set forth in the complaint and affidavit, and I am therefore entitled to Summary Judgment on all the undisputed facts.”

       A form of the Order granting Sum­mary Judgment should therefore be prepared and sent to the Judge for signature. If the Judge will not sign the Order, then the individual should file a motion to compel the Judge to sign, and, if necessary, show up with the same group to compel the Judge to sign.

       What the people should never forget is that the “Oath of Office” that every Judge must take, sign and file with the Secretary of State, before assuming “the Duties of Office,” is a signed contract with the people that he, or she, will observe all their constitutional rights when they appear in his or her courtroom.

       There is another powerful element here that is generally unrecognized. In legal terms it is known as, “accessary during (or after) the fact.” This particularly applies to an Officer of the Court, “One who stands by without interfering or giving such help as may be in his or her power to prevent the commission of a criminal offense. Criminal law, contributing to or aiding in the commission of a crime. One who, without being present at the commission of a felonious offence, becomes guilty of such offence, not as a chief actor, but as a participator, as by command, advise, instigation, collusion  or concealment, either before or after the fact or commission. A “particeps criminis”...(‘partici­pant in a crime. An accessory... An accom­plice’)”

 

“THIS IS  MY COURT”

       Initially, this lawful tactic was met with strenuous opposition. One Judge, Don Londer, thundered, “this is MY court” and told Weidner he was not going to have any say in how — and under what jurisdiction — the case was going to be conducted. Other Judg­es were equal­ly incensed by being put “on the spot” and required to account for their outrageously unconstitutional behavior. Instead of acknowledging and acting upon the clear evidence of gross corruption and malpractice laid before them, they had Judge Dorothy Baker commit Weidner to the Oregon State Mental Hospital (an insane asylum) for being “delusional.” He was hauled away in chains. In the “looney bin,” he was held down and had blood forcefully withdrawn from him. Bound hand and foot, he had electrodes attached to his head and — with bright lights flashing in his eyes — was run through a cat scan to determine if he had “any tumors that might cause (him) to have delusional fantasies” for thinking the courts were corrupt. Obvious­ly, as a “delusion” is an opinion not based on fact, nothing was found. When the Judge’s office called to ask when Weid­ner could be released from the asylum, the director told them: “Mr. Weidner was ready to be released the day he was admitted.”

       As Roger Weidner observes, “Anything other than a constitutional court of due process is a dog and pony show intended to make people think they are getting a fair trial. We cannot have Constitutional government without a Constitutional court.”   

      

JUDGE “VIOLATING OATH OF OFFICE”

       In June of this year, Judge Janice Wilson (Re. Oregon State Bar v. Roger Weidner. Case No. 0612-12468) issued her verdict labeled, “Order Denying Motions.” In a letter of acknowledgment, dated July 15, 2009, Weidner declared, “By continuing to ignore the overwhelming, undisputed evidence ... exposing the corruption of the Oregon legal system, you are clearly violating your sworn oath to be impartial. Your actions ... also clearly violate many of the provisions of the Oregon Code of Judicial Conduct. By failing to act on the clear evidence of criminal conduct in the matter, when you as a Judge have a sworn duty to act, makes you a party to the ongoing conspiracy of the Bar and many of its members...

       “Specifically, the corruption I am referring to is the conduct of bureaucrats and attorneys, all either licenced or employed by the corporate State of Oregon, stealing in sham or often ‘star chamber’ judicial type proceedings, the children and property of innocent citizens caught up in the Oregon legal system...

       “You heard in your courtroom on May 14, 2009 and June 11, 2009, the undisputed, sworn testimony of Phil Lane, Patricia Wishon, Miriam Krause, Lou Sutton, Thomas Sutton, and Bar­bara Parmenter how their own attorneys either lied to them or forged their signature to steal collectively property worth in excess of $10 million...

       “I and thousands of other stunned and outraged citizens have been­ shock­ed that such shameful and scan­dalous conduct by Oregon bureaucrats and attorneys is not only tolerated by the Bar but is in fact actively protected by Bar and many of the public magistrates sitting as judges on the Oregon Circuit Court... If I was still in the District Attorney’s Office ... I can assure you that all those taking part in such shameful criminal conduct would be spending their remaining years in prison for the grief and suffering they caused so many innocent Oregon citizens...

       “During the hearings in this case, rather than showing outrage and disgust for the way (the above mentioned people and I) have been treat­ed by the Bar and its members, you instead called the guards when I attempted to make an offer of proof concerning the corruption...  You then railed against me for threatening to arrest you. No such threat was ever made...”

 

STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN KROGER         

       The Oregon State Bar’s ongoing 21-year conspiracy against Weidner and others was fully revealed in a meeting with Oregon State Attorney General John Kroger, and 35 citizens from around the State, held at the King City Clubhouse in King City, Oregon, on July 9, 2009.

       Mr. Kroger has impressive credentials. Graduating magna cum laude from Harvard Law School in 1996, and while working as a federal criminal prosecutor in New York, he won major cases against mafia killers, drug kingpins, and corrupt government officials. He also helped prosecute crooked Enron officials.           

       In 2002, during a much-needed break from his pursuit of murderous thugs and other east coast charlatans, where he had a 97% conviction rate of the criminals he charg­ed, Kroger spent some time touring Oregon on his bicycle. Falling in love with the State, he moved to Oregon. As a professor,  he taught “criminal law and­ juris­prudence” at Lewis and Clark College in Portland. He took charge of the Oregon Department of Justice (ODJ) on January 5, 2009.

       On the official ODJ website, the Department’s “goals” are listed. These include, fighting crime, protecting crime victims, and defending the rights of all Oregonians. In a section signed by Professor Kro­ger, we read that the American judicial system “cannot close its eyes and ignore violations of ... the rule of law.” The ODJ’s “mission is to fight crime and fraud ... and defend the rights of all Oregonians.”

       As a former Marine and an im­mensely successful prosecutor of mafia killers, drug kingpins, crooked business executives, and corrupt government officials, Professor Kroger appears to be the ideal person to prosecute the legal mafia and crooked lawyers who have been working overtime to fleece numerous honest, hard-working Oregonians of their hard-earned wealth and life savings.

       To repeat the Oregon Attorney General’s own words, the (Oregon) judicial system “cannot close its eyes and ignore violations of ... the rule of law... (as the ODJ’s) “mission is to fight crime and fraud ... and defend the rights of all Oregonians.”

       Leaving the King City meeting on July 9, the former Marine assured your editor he would take all the undeniable court evidence into consideration and then render a decision. With that in mind we, like many other inhabitants of the Beaver State, look forward with eager anticipation to some heavy duty “action” by Oregon’s #1 law enforcement officer.    ■