"Compassion and Infiltration:  Calling the Kettle Black"


Michael Hafter, Freelance Writer


December 23, 2015 A.D.


Fourth in a Continuing Series on American Just US


            The Compassionate Use Alliance encountered the Credential Investigation about ten years ago, the same year a Federal Court SUBPOENA was served upon The State Bar of California.  In retrospect, the State Bar's reply to that  SUBPOENA was quite revealing, in more ways than one.

            Calling it "burdensome and oppressive", an Assistant General Counsel for the State Bar tried in vain to claim that said SUBPOENA was not proper because the copyright case from which it issued had been "dismissed" at all three levels of the Federal Judiciary.

            This, of course, was another sorry instance of calling the kettle black.  Federal Court personnel at all 3 levels had come up through the same State Bar, and they too had failed to comply with important sections of the State Bar Act.

            Notably, after receiving a lawful NOTICE AND DEMAND to exhibit valid licenses to practice law in the State of California, Associate Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor and Stephen Gerald Breyer all fell silent.

            Their silence turned out to be a very serious matter, because the question of missing licenses was a major point in all pleadings that had reached the U.S. Supreme Court in that case.

            The District Court had issued seven more subpoenas to defense attorneys, and all seven had failed to produce any evidence of compliance with the State Bar Act.

            For readers who are not entirely familiar with legalese, a blatant conflict of interest is the correct legal language to describe the legal consequences of that silence.  And, Federal law requires Judges to disqualify themselves whenever such conflicts are disclosed.  Even the mere appearance of bias or prejudice is sufficient to "recuse" any Federal Judge.

            There were other missing credentials for high Court personnel.  Luckily, the U.S. Department of Justice was persuaded to agree that the Office of the Attorney General in Washington, D.C., is the designated legal custodian of the requisite PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSIONS for all Federal Judges.

            In response to a timely request under the Freedom of Information Act, DOJ admitted they had no PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSIONS for Ruther Bader Ginsberg, Clarence Thomas or Stephen Gerald Breyer (again).   Absent valid COMMISSIONS, no other credentials can be valid.

            Three plus two equals five.

            This was a rather fatal admission, because Federal law requires at least six duly credentialed Justices to constitute a legal quorum at the U.S. Supreme Court.  Nine minus five equals four, depriving that entire high Court of a quorum in all cases, not merely the copyright case where these discoveries came to light.

            The same pattern had already emerged at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and at the Federal District Court in Sacramento.  In particular, all full-time U.S. Magistrate Judges must have been members of a State Bar in good standing for at least five full years.

            The Magistrate assigned to that copyright case was a State Bar "member" but he too failed to produce any evidence of a valid license and certificate of oath.  And, about a fourth of Ninth Circuit Judges had also come up through The State Bar of California and all of those were likewise disqualified by the same conflicts of interest.

            On the merits, the State Bar officer's off-point answer to the SUBPOENA tried to characterize it as a request for certified copies of ten years of attorney registration cards.  This was like asking your grocer if he has any apples in stock, and he replies they have no bananas today.

            CUA's extensive research has now amassed a mountain of evidence proving that Bar Cards are not valid certificates of admission, and they are not valid certificates of oath either.

            The State Legislature's original Act of 1851 clearly equates the terms "certificate of admission" and "license":  the two terms are equivalent.

            The back sides of Bar Cards display some telephone numbers and a line for signatures certifying that Bar members have paid  their dues.

            There is no mention on either side of any oath, no mention of the Constitution of the United States, and no mention of the Constitution of the State of California.

            These two large bodies of Law are matters of substance, not a mere formality.

            In particular, the State Bar Act in California implements Article VI, Clause 3 in the Federal Constitution, that Clause predates the Bill of Rights by three years, and that Clause has never been amended.

            After obvious obstruction at all levels of the Federal Judiciary, that copyright case was then re-filed in the California Superior Court by invoking the civil remedies provided by Congress in Federal racketeering laws.

            This effort was proper, chiefly because Congress had already added criminal copyright infringement to the list of RICO "predicate acts" which constitute a pattern of racketeering activities, and the U.S. Supreme Court had already ruled that State courts also enjoy jurisdiction of Civil RICO cases.

            It was then no surprise when that Superior Court case was shunted back to the very same impostors who had already obstructed the Federal copyright case.

            Nevertheless, by that time a very thick stack of formal documentation had already been assembled, complete with a comprehensive criminal complaint charging all State Bar members with multiple State and Federal felonies, including of course a conspiracy to engage in a pattern of racketeering activities.

            The implications of that criminal complaint are very far-reaching.

            For example, all U.S. Attorneys must obey all State Bar disciplinary guidelines in each State where they are stationed.

            This means that all U.S. Attorneys appointed to offices in California must comply with all the same requirements imposed on all other attorneys in this State -- "to the same extent and in the same manner".

            They have not done so, however.

            As such, poking huge holes in routine Federal prosecutions is now a simple task.  Lacking powers of attorney, they cannot legally represent the Federal Government in any American courts.

            In one recent misdemeanor case, CUA helped the defendant appreciate the importance of credentials required of the Federal prosecutor and the Federal magistrate.

            At a preliminary hearing, no one appeared for the government i.e. the U.S. DOJ failed to prosecute.  And, the magistrate was disqualified on three counts:  no valid license to practice law, no valid certificate of oath, and no APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS, all of which are mandated by applicable State and Federal laws.

            Further fraud upon that Federal court occurred when an officer of the U.S. Forest Service turned up without any APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS.  That one credential is required of all new Federal employees, without exception.

            The U.S. Office of Personnel Management's "Entry on Duty Process for New Employees" makes that credential a mandatory requirement, and another Act of Congress prevents Federal officers from being paid if they have not signed that credential in a timely fashion.

            When all of this evidence is placed on the table for adequate deliberation, one has to wonder if California has been the target of widespread subversive activities.

            This is not an idle question.  It is certainly one that should be considered by a statewide grand jury convened specifically to consider all the evidence.

            The Credential Investigation has also amassed proof that all Judges seated on the California Courts of Appeal and on the California Supreme Court are also registered State Bar "members".

            And, all have failed to produce proof of compliance with the State Bar Act, after being served with proper DEMANDs for same.

            Every one!

            Being the largest State in the Union, it would seem logical that advocates of some New World Order would attempt to implement their ominous plans in one advanced industrial society, by way of demonstrating proof of concept.

            Call us a "test case".

            In short, if these subversives can impose their aims upon 30+ million Californians, by any means available, doing the same to less advanced civilizations should then be a piece o' cake.

            Ask yourself this one key question:  if world government is the essential goal of all this infiltration, will anyone on planet Earth have an opportunity to vote for or against this radical reorganization?

            The People of California are guaranteed a Republican Form of Government, which mandates that all American government personnel at all levels must honor fundamental democratic principles.

            Any conspiracy to violate that Guarantee is a felony Federal offense.

            Stay with us as we explore local efforts to expose these ugly skeletons that now proliferate in government offices throughout the State of California.


#  #  #