I was chosen as a panelist for the Grand Old Podcast, a project from the libertarian site, the League of Ordinary Gentlemen; the podcast focusing on such issues as the future of the Republican Party in the wake of the defeat of Mitt Romney, etc.
For the record, I have always said that I thought we had two very good candidates in play. I think that we came up with the lesser of the two, but that is irrelevant.
I still believe that conservatism has a still has a vital role in our society. The message itself is one of empowerment– either an individual is capable of bettering themselves, regardless of whether they happen to be “behind the 8 ball,” or people will be increasingly and forever dependent on the benevolent paternalism of an increasingly malevolent government.
Although the race for Missouri Attorney General is not one often highlighted, it is in presiding over violations of federal law affecting residents of other states such as this which makes removing Chris Koster from office of necessity for any persons of decency who might wish to pass on to their children a nation in which rights may be enjoyed. And ditto for Eric Holder.
Ed Martin is a good, solid candidate, but he needs your help.
The rest of this is a repost from The Malfeasance of St. Louis County.
[I went back to edit this to add boldface to portions of the excerpts. — PS.]
Perhaps not as uncommon as one might think.
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, the district courts shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all cases under title 11 [ie, bankruptcy].
(b) [T]he district courts shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of all civil proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in or related to cases under title 11.
I am now an eyewitness in a police shooting death.
There are six police officers and a sheriff’s deputy who will stand trial for violation of civil rights under color of law and battery leading to wrongful death.
The plaintiff seeks $1 million apiece from each defendant.
Here is my testimony:
I am not allowed to speak or to give testimony in this matter.
The State of Missouri [under Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster] has determined that there is no manner of limitation to the extent of crimes of violence [pursuant to 18 USC 924(c)(3)] that persons acting under color of state law are permitted to enact on a witness in a federal matter for the sole purpose of influencing or preventing testimony in a pending federal judicial proceeding.
Actually, it goes even further than that.
Here I would like to note that it was the Office of Senator Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) that first got me to writing all of this stuff down. His Office has requested a full report with supporting documentation for the purpose of de-funding the illicit 501(c)(3) organization headed by an elected official. For many years, Sen. Blunt has been on the front lines of reducing wasteful spending, and restoring integrity in our government.
I had to come up with a three-minute script to submit to the producer. This is what I have, though it takes 324 seconds for me to read through it. They can edit it how they want for the movie, but my testimony before Congress will likely include all of the following (not blockquoted due to length):
A letter, having been screened by the US Marshall’s Office, arrived at the Charles Evans Whittaker Federal Courthouse. This is the facility which houses the Central Division of the United States District Court of Western Missouri.
On Tuesday, May 8th of 2012, the contents of that letter, previously published right here at Publius’ Forum, were entered into the case docket of the Court by a court clerk on Wednesday the 9th.
You can download the Motion exactly as it was entered into the records of the US District Court by going through this free hosting service at this handy link.
-By Paleo Skeptic
As stated elsewhere, this is the text of the motion in the US District Court of Western Missouri from an advance copy. There are a few things that I want to note before we get to the text of the motion itself.
One of the big ones is the complicity of the Missouri Attorney General, Chris Koster (D-Cass). Koster is well-known for only taking on cases which are politically significant to him; most recently being the big tobacco settlement, whose funds went to shore up the failing state university system. This makes liberals happy when one of their primary indoctrination mechanisms remains intact. But it should be noted that selective enforcement of the law, and especially when a political opponent is an opposing party, is quite the norm for Koster’s office.
Secondly, it should be noted that the incidents described in this motion are by no means isolated. There are at least two occasions involving different persons that the prosecutor’s office of Platte County, under Eric Zahnd, has relied on the statements of mentally ill persons in a questionable fashion, not to mention the occasions disclosed by commenters at this site.
And third, let me state that I have seen the documentation in question, and studied it in depth. The claims made in this motion are true and verifiable.
Redacted text of the motion below the fold:
I’ve stated elsewhere that I would publish this here at the time that it is completed. The full text will be forthcoming later.
I’m still working on it, touching up a few things before it’s filed. This motion is to be ruled on by US District Judge David Gregory Kays.
Most of it is establishing that I am, in fact, an integral witness in this case. The rest just pretty much states that I am not at liberty to disclose to the Court the exact nature of the incredible amount of tampering with a federal witness under color of law which has already occurred, causing this federal witness to make numerous public statements as early as March of 2011 regarding having fled the State of Missouri in fear of his life.
Here is the first page of the motion:
I’m something of a skeptic, and especially so where politics is concerned. I’m aware that both the Left and the Right misrepresent themselves to some degree, and political advertisements are exactly that— advertisements with political content— and their objective is the same as any other advertisement— they’re trying to get something out of you.
So, I really didn’t take it seriously when I heard complaints about how the mainstream media (MSM) is biased against Republicans.
I’m no partisan, and I’ve always been a split-ticket voter. I consider the person to be of greater importance than their party affiliation. Locally, the big election is for County Coroner, and I don’t see it as particularly important if a Democrat or a Republican does that job.
Historically, I was a lifelong Democrat, up until about 2007 or so. A lot of that had to do with my concern with local politics rather than at the national level; and frankly, I didn’t pay attention all that much. I was a fairly typical blue dog Democrat, and I fit the profile.
My first big break with the Democratic Party was when I was in a forum with a group of “progressives,” and they were advocating an end to equitable representation of racial minorities. This might sound odd to some of you, but they wanted to push their agenda on abortion, and racial minorities tend to be a bit more socially conservative. I found that to be nothing short of monstrous. But the experience clued me in that the Left means what they say only long enough to argue for a specific policy position, after which no one knows what position they may take. And my skepticism was on red alert.
The Corn Refiners Assn., ADM, and others were out in the US District Court in the Central District of California on Wednesday to defend their advertising practices. They want to be able to list the high-fructose corn syrup they produce as “corn sugar” on food package labeling. Cane sugar producers are opposed.
I side with the producers of cane on this one.
To label the high-fructose corn syrup as “corn sugar” would be misleading.
-By Paleo Skeptic
Only “Evidence Tampering” can help restore accreditation to St. Louis Public Schools!
It’s not often that this writer is willing to endorse a candidate. But I think it’s time to stand up in our support for Katherine “Evidence Tampering” Wessling. Ms. “Evidence Tampering” Wessling will appear on the April ballot for corrupt Board of Education member for the St. Louis Public Schools.
Not many members of the SLPS Board of Education can brag about expending so much in resources to prevent child abuse from being reported as Ms. “Evidence Tampering” Wessling. The prevention of lawful investigation of child abuse by State authorities has long been one of the top priorities of our dear old “Evidence Tampering.”
Only a few members of the Board of Education in the history of the St. Louis Public Schools can claim the level of corruption that Katherine “Evidence Tampering” Wessling brings to her duties as corrupt Board of Education member.
Ms. “Evidence Tampering” Wessling is the pro-choice candidate. With a known proclivity for the protection, preservation, and promotion of student / teacher sexual relationships, Katherine “Evidence Tampering” Wessling will ensure that teachers who are sexual predators will be able to engage in sexual relations with the student(s) of their choice. Not much could make our schools a happier place.
Suppose you’re the President of the Board of Education for a public school system in a major city. An English teacher that has a previous history of sexual relations with her students comes to you with a complaint that an informant may soon well report her to the appropriate State agency for willfully endangering the safety and well-being of a child in her care. What do you do?
Well, if you happen to be Katherine “Evidence Tampering” Wessling, President of the Board of Education of the non-accredited St. Louis Public Schools, you get to work— and fast. You see here the opportunity to harass, intimidate, and victimize anyone who would dare refer to a teacher who has a long and established history of receiving money from men she meets for sex in hotel rooms as a “prostitute.”
The first thing that you would do (if you happen to be the above-mentioned Ms. “Evidence Tampering” Wessling) is to commit material fraud on the federal government in the willful misapplication of funds, having previously lied to the feds by telling them that you wanted to help battered women, when in reality you wanted to hush up teachers’ sexual relations with their students and suppress the lawful reporting of child endangerment, abuse, and neglect.
When it comes to verifying the underlying elements of the Federal obstruction of justice statutes relating to the behaviors and conduct of Katherine “Evidence Tampering” Wessling, managing attorney for the 501 (c) (3) organization, Legal Advocates for Abused Women, and sitting member of the Board of Education of the non-accredited St. Louis Public Schools, one is at first overwhelmed with the abundance of material available.
Briefly, Chapter 73 of Title 18, U.S.C., covers the bulk of the Federal obstruction of justice statutes. This Chapter was thoroughly overhauled and revised by Section 4 of the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982 (VWPA), and further amended by the Criminal Law and Procedure Technical Amendments Act of 1986 (CLPTA).
While many states (such as Missouri) mark the differentiation of official proceedings as either civil or criminal, this is not the case with the federal statutes. The United States Code draws the distinction as either 1) a judicial proceeding, or 2) a proceeding before the legislative or executive branches of government, and any of their agencies; thus civil and criminal matters are given identical treatment for federal purposes.
The Federal code further makes distinctions between investigations and proceedings (sometimes an investigation is a proceeding), and whether a proceeding is pending or not (as many entries therein have no pending proceeding requirement).
I was inspired by WTH’s post here to re-post this “oldie-but-goodie” from another (non-political) blog. *
“He that is unjust in his judgment is destitute of the characteristics that distinguish man’s station.”
I am reminded of a time not too long ago.
There was an occasion when there was a fellow from some Tea Party protest at some strip mall. The owner of the place was by-and-large unconcerned with the political views expressed, but was mindful of the disposition of his patrons. The Tea Party gathering was allowed to continue, provided they not become too disruptive, and the security kept an eye on them there.
Then one fellow got the idea that he’d like to have a burger, so he went over to a sidewalk café there– just one lone fellow, no milling about. The problem is that he was wearing a t-shirt that said, “Give me Liberty– Not Obama.” The security people came over to talk to him about it, and asked if he would turn his t-shirt inside out while he remained at the establishment, so as not to offend the other diners. He refused, and was subsequently arrested.
The big to-do was all about some peaceful citizen exercising his right to assemblage, when all of a sudden some jack-booted Nazi rent-a-cop comes over and waylays the guy.
But from my view, I can see that the owner of this shopping center has rights. The patrons are there as guests. When you get right down to it, each of the businesses there are as well.
But most of the people didn’t see it that way.
I took a lot of heat over that.
I plan on making good on every one of the claims that I made in my letter to the Senator.
In that letter to the Senator, I stated that there was:
• A government funding an NGO which operates to squelch constitutionally-protected political speech.
These would be some of the applicable federal laws:
§ 245. Federally protected activities
(b) Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, by force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with—
(1) any person because he is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from—
(B) participating in or enjoying any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or administered by the United States;
(5) any citizen because he is or has been, or in order to intimidate such citizen or any other citizen from lawfully aiding or encouraging other persons to participate, without discrimination on account of race, color, religion or national origin, in any of the benefits or activities described in subparagraphs (1)(A) through (1)(E) or subparagraphs (2)(A) through (2)(F), or participating lawfully in speech or peaceful assembly opposing any denial of the opportunity to so participate—
This has to do with a man who had previously worked as a volunteer for two campaigns, one for governor and one for Congress, trying in vain to show the letters that he had received from those campaigns to a judge. The judge in this case was under the undue influence of an attorney from the 501 (c) (3) group, Ms. Katherine “Evidence Tampering” Wessling, who asserted on various occasions during the course of this same proceeding that this campaign volunteer was prohibited from engaging in Constitutionally-protected political speech.
Katherine “Evidence Tampering” Wessling and Legal Advocates for Witness Intimidation — Special Identity Theft Edition (with Wire Fraud Bonus)
Note: I am not an attorney. I just offer this exposition as the product of my personal research.
Why it is that the Family Law Courts would openly embrace and assist in the commission of Federal crimes is beyond me. I have no reasonable explanation for it.
So, let’s take a look at this, shall we?
First, by removing community services away from the communities which they were intended to serve, those services become less and less responsive to the individual needs of the community. A “one size fits all” approach becomes the streamlined effort, whereas to engage in true thought lies beyond their means. This leads to heavy-handed measures where they are not warranted, and insufficient measures where they would be.
Secondly, centralization allows those service organizations to wield greater power, which naturally incentivize more precarious rent-seeking behaviors. The potential for usurpation, the “hostile take-over,” becomes greater, not lessened, due to the disproportionate influence at the upper rungs of the structure.
Here follows a portion from the transcript of Straussner v. Hart, Cause No. 09SL-PN03697, and Hart v. Straussner, Cause No. 09SL-PN03700, which were heard at the same time. Mr. Hart is here a creditor in a bankruptcy and, having been threatened by Straussner, who was using a fake name at the time, and Hart had received a previous Order of Protection with a finding of Stalking against Straussner under the phony name, Cause No. 09SL-PN02411, a few months earlier.
Mr. Straussner is represented here by Katherine “Evidence Tampering” Wessling, managing attorney for Legal Advocates for Abused Women and racketeer-in-chief, who has determined that Straussner was, according to their mission statement, a battered woman or child. That has a lot to do with why this organization, LAAW, is being investigated by various federal agencies, including the Office of a prominent Senator.
I will save the more appalling aspects of this for the end of the citations.
I was directed by the Office of a prominent Senator to submit a full report with supporting documentation concerning the misdeeds of the 501(c)(3) organization, Legal Advocates for Abused Women, and their managing attorney, Katherine “Evidence Tampering” Wessling, who is also a member of the Board of Education of the non-accredited St. Louis Public Schools.
Exactly why it is so expensive to teach children to be unable to read when they naturally come out of the womb in this state is a matter outside of the scope of this report.
The following is a brief preview of the content of the first draft of that report, not blockquoted due to length.
I get all kinds of these newsletters, and I have to wonder which of the candidates read the ones that they release. Not Ron Paul bashing— just sayin’.
Here’s a few excerpts from a newsletter that I received from the Obama campaign— with a link to donate, of course.
The extremist Tea Party agenda won a clear victory. No matter who the Republicans nominate, we’ll be running against someone who has embraced that agenda in order to win.
I’m not going to waste any space comparing the “extremism” of the Tea Party vs. the #Occupy movement. What I would like to point out is that, as far as libertarians go, the Tea Party tends to be a bit moderate. I just think it’s a bit telling when someone who thinks that it would be appropriate to have certain limitations on our government would be described as “extremism.”
This is from Tom Van Dyke at the League of Ordinary Gentlemen, a libertarian-oriented site:
As for the parties, they too embody the principle of consensus and the virtue of prudence. It’s far more common to fault not the extremism of either party, but their “mushy middleness.”
So if the Tea Party or #Occupy become internal forces for a bit or radicalization, a bit of anti-mugwumperry, that’s a good thing. If they win, they have a mandate for progress. If the party goes too far in accommodating such change, the electorate at large gives them a bath, like the Goldwater meltdown of 1964 or the McGovern swamping in 1972, and it’s back to the center for the next election.
If a party can’t come to consensus about its own center, how can it offer itself as the center of the nation at large? The general election is about claiming the American center; in fact, winning elections is about defining it.
First of all, a bit of disclosure:
I used to live in Tom Delay’s district.
And people there loved that man— loved him— and for good reason.
Anyone there could call Delay’s office concerning any matter of unresolveable conflict; and in most cases, with one phone call from that office, the matter would be taken care of.
I never contacted him myself— I had no need to. But I’ve known a number of others who have. These are real life instances:
• A woman caring for her elderly mother was concerned that the apartment complex where she lived was maintaining unsafe conditions. One call to Delay, and the matter was taken care of.
• A man borrowed money from his parents to have a new transmission put in his car, so that he could make it to work, and the new transmission went out. He felt the mechanic cheated him. One call to Delay’s office, and the matter was taken care of.
Now, I don’t know the details of those contacts or what arrangements were made; but from what I understand, all it took was, “I just got a complaint from one of my constituents about this. Is this true? … I don’t want to hear another complaint from any of my constituents about this, or I’m going to have to look into it further.”
And that was all it took.
No matter how high he rose in the Congressional leadership, Tom Delay always remained accessible to his people back home.
And they knew that, with a confidence.
And they loved him for it.
Here follows redacted texts of those communications.
The Hon. James Van Amburg of Missouri’s Sixth Circuit— A Pervert who Protects Teacher/Student Sex Relationships
Some of you may already be familiar with the misdeeds of the judiciary of Platte County, Missouri; most notably the judge that went on a crack binge and got into a wreck pulling out of the McDonald’s drive-thru with a hooker in his pickup.
Now, as it turns out, noted pervert, the Hon. James Van Amburg of Division 4 of the Sixth Circuit is under the impression that he sits on the bench for the purpose of promoting, protecting, and preserving teacher / student sexual relations.
Essentially, Van Amburg has betrayed the trust of Platte County voters in determining that it is far, far worse to say that a teacher that engaged in (as she put it) “a physical fling” with a student had sex with a student rather than for a teacher to actually have sex with a student.
That is, he believes that having sex with a student isn’t nearly so bad as saying that the teacher had sex with her student.
And I have to wonder what manner of consistency he observes in that determination.
Does he also believe that to say that a burglar has burglarized a home is far worse than to commit burglary?
Does he believe that it’s worse to say that a judge that went on a crack binge actually did so while excusing the behaviors that led to that observation?
Frankly, at this point, I wouldn’t be surprised if he did.
First of all, I am a union man. I am a member in good standing in a trade union, where I hold journeyman status.
Now, I was reading a report form Reuters about the popularity for the repeal of a law restricts the rights of public sector employees entered into collective bargaining agreements.
Almost 6 out of 10 Ohio voters say they want to repeal a law that restricts collective bargaining by public sector unions…
Ohio voters by 57 percent to 32 percent support the repeal of the law, which forbids government workers from going on strike…
While Wisconsin’s public sector union fight featured mass protests at the state capital and gained more national attention, Ohio is more important to unions.
Ohio has the sixth largest number of public sector union members among all U.S. states, twice the number of Wisconsin. Wisconsin’s law restricting collective bargaining exempts police and firefighters, but Ohio’s includes them.
Anyone familiar with the history of unionization in America would understand what an abomination it is that public sector employees (what were once known as public servants) might have any right whatsoever to engage in collective bargaining– and perhaps most of all the Post Office. Read more
The following is from the transcript of the hearing in the court of Commissioner McKee, Division 64 of the 21st Circuit of the State of Missouri, on Hart v. Straussner, Cause No. 09SL-PN03700, and Straussner v. Hart, Cause No. 09SL-PN03697, which were heard simultaneously. This transcript is also part of the records held by the Missouri Attorney General’s Office, as well as part of the court record in Hart v. Salois, Cause No. 10AE-CV04180, Division 4 of the 6th Circuit, in which I won a third order of protection against the stalker Salois.
The following is from the transcript of the hearing in the court of Commissioner McKee, Division 64 of the 21st Circuit of the State of Missouri, on Hart v. Straussner, Cause No. 09SL-PN03700, and Straussner v. Hart, Cause No. 09SL-PN03697, which were heard simultaneously.
This transcript is also part of the records held by the Missouri Attorney General’s Office, as well as part of the court record in Hart v. Salois, Cause No. 10AE-CV04180, Division 4 of the 6th Circuit, in which I won a third order of protection against the stalker Salois.
October 20, 2011 | Filed Under Paleo-Skeptic | Comments Off
This is my first post at Publius Forum, and this will serve as my introduction.
I have been a blogger for some seven years now under various names and at several different sites. I used to blog at The Next Right, and as that site is no longer active, I am currently looking for a new home for my politically-oriented writings.
There is a lot more material that goes with the “Why I Am a Conservative” series that I was working on there, and I will likely continue that here.
I am the founder of the PAC, the Conservative Justice Alliance, which currently focuses on Missouri elected officials— notably Chris Koster, Katherine Wessling, and James Van Amburg— and it is very likely that scope of that organization will be expanded due to my interaction on this site.
My primary employment is in mechanical engineering. I do inspection work as well, and perform related activities; which is to say that I act in a variety of capacities according to the terms of the contract.
Help the Soldiers!
American GeniusOur Founding Ideas
- The Declaration of Independence
- The Federalist Papers
- The U.S. Constitution
- Debates of 1787
- The Anti-Federalist Papers
- The Writing of John Locke
"Governments are instituted among men,deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776
What THEY Say:
Foreign News In English
Contact UsEmail Publius' Forum
Separation of School