Michael's Law: The Lord rebuke you, Ninth Circuit judges

Thursday, August 2, 2012

The Lord rebuke you, Ninth Circuit judges

True Christians are not supposed say "God damn you" to anyone because 1) we can't tell God what to do, 2) we aren't to damn anyone ("'Vengeance is mine,' says the Lord"), and 3) even if we could damn people to hell, we don't know all the facts to know if someone should be damned. (Although, in fact, the odds are that most everyone is going to hell.)

The closest a true Christian can come to "damning" someone is to quote the archangel Michael's statement to Satan, the devil in Jude 1:9, "The Lord rebuke you!" (And it's clear from the Bible that Satan is going to hell. So if anyone could be damned to hell, it would be the devil. Yet Michael exercised restraint and did not exceed his authority.)

And so we say to three judges in the Ninth Circuit, "The Lord rebuke you!" For today, three judges issued a temporary injunction which allows mothers to continue to murder their unborn babies in Arizona.

The three judges are KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, THOMAS and IKUTA

(Even though he's not a Christian, we have been impressed with Chief Judge Kozinski in his stand on judicial ethics. And he gets a lot of law right. We suppose, in his mind, he's simply going by man's law. Nevertheless, God will judge him for what he's done here.)

Not to diminish the fact that these judges are condoning murder, what makes this even more poignant for our blogger is that the Ninth Circuit is quick to uphold a "constitutional" issue when it comes to murdering babies, but the Ninth Circuit simply refuses to act to uphold one's Second Amendment constitutional right in Michael's Law.

And the hypocrisy! For the injunction above sued TOM HORNE, Attorney General of Arizona, in his official capacity; et al. Which is EXACTLY the same as when our blogger sued the Justices of the Arizona Supreme Court in their official capacity. Both suits sought only injunctive and declaratory relief. Yet, in the latter case, the Ninth Circuit claims you can't sue judges for that when they make up and enforce unconstitutional law. But you can sue Tom Horne when he enforces unconstitutional law?

We've lost track of the judges in the Ninth Circuit that have ruled against our blogger so far. We would have remembered if Kozinski was one of them. We'll try to check the record to see if Thomas and Ikuta are named.)

No comments:

Post a Comment

Suing two cheating judges and a cheating prosecutor + a religious twist

The civil rights law Congress gave us says you can sue "Every person" who deprives you of a civil right under the color of law. The law goes back to the civil rights era and the Ku Klux Klan.

Sadly, as in Orwell's Animal Farm, judges say that "every person" doesn't mean them. And it doesn't mean prosecutors. Judges say that they have "absolute immunity." (What, there were no biased KKK white judges in the Deep South in the 60's?)

I say that "Absolute immunity corrupts absolutely." As evidenced by the corrupt prosecutors of the late Senator Ted Stevens. Not even a Federal judge would punish the federal prosecutors for their willful wanton misconduct. Poor Senator Stevens died without having any recourse for justice.

This has got to stop. In essence, this policy by judicial fiat is a deprivation of the our First Amendment right to redress for grievances. So, let's "Redress for Success!" (Even Liberal Law Professor / Dean Erwin Chemerinsky is sympathetic!)

It's an uphill battle, but I'm suing a bunch of cheaters. See my two civil right lawsuits - one against two small town judges who cheated, the other against a small town prosecutor who cheated both now in the Ninth, appealing perfunctory procedural matters. In the first, the judges aren't arguing they didn't do anything wrong. Just that they can.

To wit, there's proof that one judge tampered with a court file (a felony in Arizona, but Yavapai County prosecutor Sheila Polk is obstructing justice and Arizona AG Tom Horne's staff wouldn't touch it), suspended the rules of court procedure, acted as attorney at trial for one of the parties, and so on. The other judge "un-recused" himself to cover for the first!

There's an interesting twist to this, as the first judge should have recused, per motion, due to religious bias. When you read about the temple ceremony and the oaths of allegiance some take to their church in there, it may give you some idea why you may not want a Mitt Romney in the White House.