Last week, Governor Mark Dayton selected Wilhelmina Wright to be the next MN Supreme Court Justice. This will make her the first black female Minnesota Supreme Court Justice. http://t.co/1FIG2InW
All of the establishment and major media hailed the Governor’s selection of Judge Wilhelmina Wright as the first black woman Minnesota Supreme Court Justice; The Minneapolis Star Tribune indicated her work history included being a Federal prosecutor, a Ramsey County Judge and a Minnesota Appellate Court Judge.
Let this writer be among the first to congratulate Ms. Wilhelmina Wright for her accomplishment.
Unfortunately, this writer takes exception to all the hoopla for this appointment when the Minnesota Judiciary is systemically corrupt. Yes, advancement of minorities is an important goal, but those litigants and defendants who have been victimized by the systemically corrupt Minnesota Judicial System, don’t really care about the skin color or the sex of the judge that ignored the rule of law. (In anticipation of the standard allegations of racism, this refers readers to Item 6 in http://bit.ly/OhjDwR “For those who have been duped into buying into racism, know that you have been played for chumps by the ruling class elite.”)
Yet, despite the current systemic corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary, no place in the article nor anywhere else, has this writer seen Governor Mark Dayton referring to either honorability or integrity as being primary considerations in making his selection.
SYSTEMIC CORRUPTION IN MINNESOTA JUDICIARY
Why has no one addressed the systemic corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary?
What’s that you say, Governor Dayton? You want to know, “What systemic Corruption?”
Please excuse my faux paux. This writer forgot that our Minnesota Government subscribes to the “Hear no evil, See No Evil, Speak no evil” philosophy of Government. That is, if our government refuses to hear testimony and see evidence of corruption, then corruption does not exist.
MINNESOTANS DENIED HEARING TO GIVE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE OF CORRUPTION IN THE MINNESOTA JUDICIARY FOR COMING ON 8 YEARS
Since 2005, hundreds of Minnesotans have been asking for a hearing before the Minnesota House and Senate Judiciary Committees to give testimony and evidence of corruption in the Minnesota State Judiciary. At first the Republicans said they could do nothing because the Democrats were in the majority. Therefore, Democrats got to appoint the Committee Chairs and the Committee Chair’s had absolute control of the committee agenda.
But in 2010, after the GOP was in the majority in the State Legislature, Republicans became Chairs of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. Suddenly these same folks, who had previously said they supported Judicial TAR (Transparency, Accountability and Reform), couldn’t find the time to schedule a public hearing devoted to citizens giving evidence and testimony of corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary to document some of the evidence and testimony of these hundreds of Minnesotans, then Republican Representative Dan Severson hosted an “Ad Hoc” hearing on Corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary. Mind you, this hearing was Ad Hoc, meaning it had not official standing with the Legislature.
When the government refuses to allow you to exercise your “First Amendment Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances without fear of punishment and reprisal”, you improvise. People die, move or get worn out from the deliberate stonewalling and duplicity of both Republicans and Democrats. The Judicial TAR folks wanted to document testimony before any of these things happened to potential witnesses that had already identified. You can see those unofficial hearings from 2009 here http://bit.ly/ylWyAM and here http://bit.ly/r1DDao .
What’s that you say Governor Dayton? That’s still not enough proof of Systemic Corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary?
MINNESOTALAWYERS NOT REQUIRED TO TREAT CLIENTS ETHICALLY
This writer can think of no greater proof of the systemic corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary than this: In the clandestine, unpublished ruling in Fabian, May and Anderson v Volkommer MN A10-1205 the Minnesota Courts ruled Minnesota Lawyer’s do not have to treat their clients ethically.
Even though the Minnesota Judiciary considers WE THE PEOPLE uneducated rubes, this writer is confident that rank and file Minnesotans.....
Thank you, my fellow citizens, for taking your valuable time to read and reflect upon what is written here.
Please join with me in mutually pledging to each other and our fellow citizens our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor to our mutual endeavors of restoring liberty and economic opportunity to WE THE PEOPLE as our Founding Fathers envisioned and intended. [Last Paragraph, Declaration of Independence http://bit.ly/ruPE7z ]
Critical Thinking Notice - This author advises you as no politician would dare. Exercise Critical Thinking (http://bit.ly/ubI6ve) in determining the truthfulness of anything you read or hear. Do not passively accept nor believe anything anyone tells you, including this author... unless and until you verify it yourself with sources you trust and could actively defend your perspective to anyone who might debate you to the contrary of your perspective.
Simulated Litigation means the Court reaching a decision with the appearance that it was done pursuant to the Rule of Law properly applied to the freely admitted relevant facts in evidence and in accordance with the “proper administration of justice”, but it was not. Most often this happens with the Court or the “powers that be” “telegraph” to the attorneys of the litigants the outcome they desire. The Court and the attorneys of the litigants engage in some behavior, activities or agreement that allows the Court to make the desired decision based facts in evidence. However, the lawyers of the litigants control the Facts in Evidence on the official Court record by engaging in “fact shaping”.
Fact Shaping means when the Court and the lawyers of the Court control what evidence get on the official record in a manner that will allow the Court to make the courts “telegraphed” desired decision, rather than the Court reaching its decision in accordance with the proper administration of justice defined as the Rule of Law properly applied to the nonmachinated, freely admitted relevant facts in evidence.
Telegraph or Telegraphing means certain gestures and/or phrases used between the Court and the Lawyers of Litigants to suggest a direction or course of action, often in violation of the principles of the “proper administration of justice” and the Rule of Law. Most often they are so subtle and rely upon experience as a lawyer, that the actual “civilian” litigant does not even perceive them.
** Judicial Code Red – Unwritten and denied rules of the Judiciary. Among
these rules are the rules that all Minnesota Judges retired in the time framer required to allow the Governor to appoint there successor. Another Code Red is the Rule that says Minnesota lawyers don’t run incumbent Minnesota Judges. Failure of a lawyer or judge to follow the Judicial Code Red rules is career limiting and may include other punishments. Judicial Code Red and the Judicial Code Red Punishments are almost always done in such a way as to be plausibly deniable as they are contrary to the Rule of Law and the public policy of the Constitutionally Limited, Representative Republic in which we live.