|
|
|
RACISM IN THE COURTS AN OPEN LETTER TO JOHNNIE L. COCHRAN, JR. AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA’S RECENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RACIAL AND ETHNIC BIAS IN THE COURTS (With Abstract and annotated Table of Contents.) A restatement and update of both John Maynard Keynes’ 1933 Open Letter to President Roosevelt* and Martin Luther King Jr.’s 1963 Letter to Nine White Clergy from the Birmingham Jail. (This Open letter is roughly the same length as the letters by Keynes or King.) *The New York Times, March 31, 1933 "[T]he goal of a few at the White House in 1964 ..was to undermine the dream of Martin Luther King, Jr. Clearly no federal program since the nation won World War II has been as successful... Those responsible for this (secret) racist use of administrative law never envisioned that the leading national spokesperson for African Americans—the person who occupies the position once held by Martin Luther King, Jr.—would advocate a more aggressive use of the law that is, in fact, the tool for executing racial crimes against African Americans." Nor was it envisioned that liberal white and African American civil rights attorneys and judges would give the authority of case law to this racist use of administrative law. That is why it was all so secret. See page 39. by
September 5, 1997
Since before World War I scientists have offered proof that the nation may use either race laws or economic laws for racial oppression. Due to the denial of the civil rights of the scientists who proffer this knowledge, the United States has used economic laws since November 15, 1964 to increase racial oppression far more than racial oppression could be reduced with race (civil rights) laws. Lawsuits seeking to secure the civil rights of these scientists demonstrate that with respect to the use of economic laws for racial oppression, justice is far more politicized than was true for race laws until Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954. As a result, the courts refuse to permit testimony to prove that the origin of rising racism in society, and therefore in the courts, is unconstitutional judicial practice as was true before the Brown decision. Since late 1992 the Judicial Council of California Judicial (JCC), the Administrative Office of California courts, has covered up these charges. Contrary to the plans of an informed long-term JCC staff attorney, the JCC made its Advisory Committee on Racial and Ethnic Bias in the Courts a party to its coverup. For samples of proffered expert testimony which the JCC has refused to permit its Advisory Council to hear, see the affidavits in Exhibit A. The JCC covers up the fact that California courts refuse to permit discovery of the admissibility of this scientific evidence, as required by California’s Kelly-Frye law. On the grounds that the culprits are the JCC and the courts, I rejected the proposal by the JCC attorney to file a lawsuit against the University of California and its law schools. Indeed, but for JCC coverup of this judicial violation, Proposition 209 would never have been on the ballot. Coverup by JCC violates Nuremberg Trial law. If this effort to end JCC cover up fails, in 1998 a lawsuit seeking intervention will be filed in the International Court of Justice. That lawsuit in the "World Court" will name the following as defendants: JCC, Members of the Advisory Committee on Racial and Ethnic Bias in the Courts who are hereby informed, the sixteen courts named in Exhibit B and cohort private institutions heretofore named as defendants or appellees. The lawsuit will be filed under Article VI of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Under that Article, the United States agreed that if the courts in any nation refuse to permit a trial for the instant allegations, an "international penal tribunal" shall have jurisdiction over both private and government defendants.
Glenn E. Burress, PhD BURRESS AND ASSOCIATES Offering An Option To System Failure
September 4, 1987
Mr. Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr., Esq.. 4929 Wilshire Suite 1010 Los Angeles, California 90010
Dear Mr. Cochran: RACISM IN THE COURTS: SUMMARY OF THE INDICTMENT You lent your good name to the California Judicial Council’s (JCC) Advisory Committee on Racial and Ethnic Bias in the Courts and signed its final report in January, 1997. As part of their continuing obstruction of justice since mid-1993, the JCC staff knowingly made you and every other Committee Member unwitting parties to their coverup of the following allegation: Unlawful judicial practice is the major source of rising institutional racism in society and therefore in the courts. I am addressing this Open Letter to you with copies to each of the other members because you appear to have the courage to challenge the most powerful among those responsible for rising institutional racism. After I briefed JCC staffer Stephen Birdlebough for months on findings reported by systems scientists since before World War I, in June 1993 he declared his intent to arrange my appearance before your Committee. Had I been allowed to appear, you would have heard my expert testimony like that proffered by other experts in the two affidavits in the Exhibit A, infra. Those two affidavits laid the foundation for the following scientific proof: The source of rising racism in the courts since the Warren Court ended in 1969 is judges who give the authority of law to the ideology (theories) of Nobel Laureates in Economic Science and other economists, exactly as courts before the Warren Court in 1954 gave the authority of law to the ideology of racists. The bottom-line is that we scientists who are whistleblowers on institutionalized professional malpractice of attorneys and judges offer proof that the origin of rising racism in the courts since 1969 is only nominally different from the origin of racism in the courts before 1954. I report herein that in November 1995 Advisory Committee member, the Honorable Rudolph Loncke, told me that he and others on the Committee had never heard of these proofs which had been supplied to JCC staff since October, 1992. He said he could not discuss my plea for his urgent intervention in JCC coverup until I advised him that we were each bound to act under Nuremberg Trial law, infra. But he apparently was unable to follow through as promised. Racism and Racist Acts Defined: A racist act is defined herein as one which predictably increases the most catalytic of all racial disparities: The gap between the income of African Americans and whites which is predictably associated with most major racial disparities ranging from infant mortality to incarceration rates. The history of that disparity since 1948 is reported in the Chart. A racist act may be accidental and therefore non-criminal. It may also be negligent as in negligent homicide, or intentional as in voluntary manslaughter and so on. Under the principles whereby Christian Scientists have intentionally rejected knowledge supplied by scientists that their conduct was causing the death of their child and they have been convicted of homicide, most racist acts described herein are intentional and criminal. As to degree of guilt, these acts are generally national economic variants of the Tuskeegee Experiment. For a description of conduct that is remarkably similar to the conduct of economists, members of the bar, JCC staff and judges, see the report on the conduct of Christian Scientists by Caroline Fraser in "Suffering Children and the Christian Science Church"(The Atlantic Monthly, April, 1995, pp. 105-120). Prevailing Judicial Practice Covered Up by JCC: The JCC staff denied you knowledge of the following: Under present judicial practice that has been documented in sixteen courts since 1991 (Exhibit B), facts reported by the economics profession which are proven by whistleblowing scientists to be falsities, are ruled by the courts to be true as a matter of law. Trial courts refuse to hold and appellate courts refuse to order pre-trial hearings on the admissibility of alleged scientific evidence as required under both federal and California law of evidence. The fact of the matter is that the judicial delegation of fact finding to the economics profession is the counterpart to delegating fact-finding in Watergate to the Nixon Administration. On the one hand, this indictment of the judicial system is the current version of the whistleblowing of John Maynard Keynes that challenged the oppressive economic ideology of President Woodrow Wilson, a former professor of political economy at the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, infra. On the other hand the response of the JCC and judges today is the current version of the 1919 response of President Wilson. Keynes described that response: "After all, it was harder to de-bamboozle this old Presbyterian [Wilson] than it had been to bamboozle him; for the former involved his belief in and respect for himself. "Thus in the last act the President stood for stubbornness and a refusal of conciliations." (Source: Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920, p. 55). The decency and good intent of these judges is no more in question than the decency and good intent of President Wilson at Versailles. Judges who will comply with the law of scientific evidence (like Kelly-Frye) will discover the following: Qualified scientists stand ready to confirm that the authority for economists, lawyers and judges for rejecting these proofs, is identical to the authority for both: (1) the Vatican’s rejection of artificial birth control in population policy and (2) Christian Scientists who deny medical care to their child who is dying of a ruptured appendix. Preview of the Judicially Suppressed Evidence: On November 15, 1964 academic economists acted under the Administrative Procedures Act to impose law that reversed the non-racist policy which was constitutionally required under the Employment Act of 1946. The Chart validates a prediction I made at a "strictly off-the-record and top secret" meeting at the White House in September, 1964 which I attended as an assistant editor at Business Week: Racist employment policy would reverse the economic policy of President John F. Kennedy that had induced a sharp rise in the median family income of African Americans relative to that of white families (Chart). JFK had explained his plans to the nation in his June 15, 1962 Yale Commencement Address, "The Myth and Reality in Our National Economy." He warned that if the nation continued to address these "sophisticated and technical questions" with "ideological preconceptions" we would all "land in the bog of sterile acrimony." And so we have. JFK rejected the claim of David Lusher, Chief of Staff at the Council of Economic Advisors, that he was "prostituting economic policy to the demands of Martin Luther King, Jr." Panel A in the Table shows that JFK restored the constitutionally required Prescription for Success—non-racist employment policy of 1946-56 that had been prescribed by my mentors and other systems scientists. Panel B shows that JFK did so by reversing the unconstitutional Prescription for Failure—racist employment policy of 1929-41 and 1957-60 that had been prescribed by academic economists and nearly all his economic advisors. An informed reader finds documentation of the policy reversal of JFK’s successful, non-racist employment policy in Business Week on April 3, 1965 on page 160. On the grounds that they had moved too fast during 1957-60, it was not until 1969 that economists engineered the reduction in income of African Americans relative to whites (see Chart). The Chart also documents that in 1992-93 economists had increased this disparity to a level that was greater than in any year since before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted. My challenge to White House economists spanned 1964-85. Additional facts on my meetings and dialogues with them are reported below. Racial oppression can be engineered with either race laws or economic laws. The professional malpractice of sixteen courts and JCC reported here dictates the inference that the legal profession is far more blind to the use of unconstitutional economic laws for racial oppression than the legal profession in the Deep South was ever blind to the use of unconstitutional race laws for racial oppression. The inability of Thurgood Marshall to secure justice in the Deep South teaches that justice for alleged political crimes against humanity is impossible when justice is politicized. Hence one must infer that if a remedy exists, it lies in the International Court of Justice in a lawsuit naming JCC, these courts and their cohort private and public institutional oppressors as defendants. Indeed a catalytic element in any long-standing political crime against humanity is politicized justice. This is why the controlling international human rights law, the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, made the instant violation of human rights a general intent crime. However due to vigorous objection of Senators from the Deep South it required 39 years to enact the ratifying law, "The Genocide Convention Implementation Act of 1987 (The Proxmire Act)" (18 U.S.C. §1091, seq.). Then in order to secure ratification the counterpart federal crime requires specific intent. Moreover §1092 prohibits a judicial remedy even if specific intent is alleged! I was told by Senator Proxmire that therefore Congress would declare its intent that where there is conflict between national and international human rights law, the latter supersedes. Congress declared that intent. (Source: Legislative History of 18 U.S.C. §1091, seq., Vol. 6, Public Laws 100-533 to 100-647 at 3-4, 1988.) The JCC and Advisory Committee staffs were fully informed first orally and then in writing, that under Nuremberg Trial law, no citizen may cite any authority whatsoever to justify their failure to respond when their complicity in crime against humanity is alleged. Senior JCC associates in addition to Birdlebough in both Sacramento and San Francisco were informed. No letter was acknowledged. Charges against JCC were set forth in petitions filed with the Supreme Court of California. Petitions were dismissed. Under Nuremberg Trial law, the legal responsibility to address the alleged crime is especially acute when the alleged culprit in racial and non-racial crime against humanity is California’s Administrative Office of the Courts, chaired by the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court. Since 1966, members of the bar have denied legal representation to we few whistleblowing systems scientists who offer culture-free, computerized simulations of most political crimes against humanity (see footnote 3). On behalf of all African Americans I appeal to you to intervene in the exploitation of your good name and race by the JCC staff to make you an unwitting party to the grant of authority of law to the denial of the civil rights of this small class of U.S. citizens because we offer proof of catalytic judicial complicity in political crime against your own race as well as judicial misprision of felony. A Challenge to Wealth Generated by Crimes Against African Americans The unusual nature of this political crime is that it includes violations of anti-trust laws by major corporations including McGraw-Hill, Chase Manhattan Bank and General Electric. Since 1969 they have conspired with major universities like the University of California to monopolize the market for their brand of large scale, expensive econometric models to plan the future of economic, social and political systems. Guided by economists, they have marketed only models of the racist Prescription for Failure (Panel B, Table) to major corporations, Congressional committees, the White House, the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, the United Nations and many foreign governments. Their aggressive monopolistic practice has destroyed firms like my own that until 1979 marketed inexpensive econometric planning models of the non-racist Prescription for Success (Panel A, Table). I have not earned a dime as a professional since 1979! The record is that prevailing constitutional law provides us whistleblowing scientists with less access to the courts (or even the deliberations of the JCC) than was provided Dred Scott in 1856 and Plessy in 1896. The bottom line is that I offer proof that since mid-1993 the JCC has made you and other Advisory Committee members parties to a national coverup where the injuries suffered disproportionately by African Americans are astronomical compared to injuries traced to coverup in Watergate and the tobacco industry combined. One remedial strategy is to intervene in Proposition 209 litigation in the U.S. Supreme Court with a brief of amicus curiae restating arguments in my unsuccessful Complaint of Intervention in the District Court. Let us ask the U.S. Supreme Court to appoint a Special Master to certify as follows: On one hand, as was true until 1954 and has been true again since 1969, when the paradigm of fact-finding for Fifth, and/or Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment law is non-justiciable opinions of economists and other social scientists, one may rationally argue that Proposition 209 is either constitutional or unconstitutional. One can also then "prove" that reparations for African Americans are not possible. On the other hand when, as was true during 1954-69, the paradigm of fact-finding is justiciable facts validated by the common principles of physical, biological and social systems, Proposition 209 is clearly unconstitutional. One can also prove that massive reparations are not only possible, but there are few proposals that would do more to restore the health of the U.S. economic and financial systems. Finally, but for obstruction of justice by JCC, Proposition 209 would never have been on the ballot in California. May I meet with you to discuss an optimal legal remedy to a wide range of violations in class actions for all African Americans? Would you represent me in the U.S. Supreme Court in the proposed brief of amicus curiae? Let us assume that we would be perfecting the case for the International Court of Justice. Would you represent me in that international litigation? Should we constitute a small working group of the Advisory Committee? If you cannot meet with me, with whom should I meet? I. ALLEGED FACTS FOR PROOF OF JCC COVERUP: The facts that document JCC coverup were generated in my 1992-95 work with Stephen Birdlebough, a long-time Judicial Council staff attorney who recently retired. Birdlebough is one of the most decent persons I know (like some Christian Science parents convicted of homicide). He told me he was doing all that he could to arrange my expert testimony before your Committee, which I proffered in writing at his request. Those writings reflect the fact that Birdlebough and I had agreed that my proposed testimony would draw on: (1) my testimonies before the U.S. Congress; (2) the content of the two affidavits in Exhibit A; (3) my roughly one-hundred publications on four continents since 1962 and presentations at some thirty professional meetings and (4) my pleadings in what is now sixteen courts since 1991 (Exhibit B). Birdlebough and therefore JCC was well aware of the following: I employ methods refined in the 1950s at places like the Department of Engineering Economic Systems in the Graduate School of Industrial Engineering at Stanford University. I received my PhD in this field in 1961 with generous financial support from the Ford Foundation. JCC was also aware that my work as a whistleblowing scientist has enjoyed unusual support from numerous scientists. This includes scientists at the White House Office of Science and Technology, at the National Science Foundation, and at the National Institute of Justice in the Office of the Attorney General in the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington D.C. Being denied legal representation, we scientists met in 1982. It was agreed that I would learn some law and then file lawsuits pro per. The two already mentioned affidavits in Exhibit A were filed by independent experts in the federal District Court in Sacramento in support of my pro per action and in opposition to summary judgment. (The affidavit by Eggert mentions that 1982 meeting.) In violation of the Daubert Test, the District Court refused to hear this proffered pre-trial testimony on the admissibility of the scientific evidence. This was after the Court’s indifference to the defendant’s violation of virtually every Federal Rule of Civil Procedure to prepare for the Rule 16 Status Conference. Then that Court refused to allow any hearing whatsoever before issuing a summary judgment. Next the Court made a finding of bad faith before imposing judicial sanctions on me for filing the lawsuit and threatened me with more serious sanctions if I sought justice again. The finding of bad faith was a prerequisite to imposing sanctions in a case of first impressions. On appeal I showed that case law does not permit finding bad faith without a hearing for judicial observation of demeanor. Both the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal and the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed my appeals without oral arguments. Observe that one of the affidavits in the Exhibit is by George Shollenberger, a systems engineer/scientist, who discovered this project in his research (at the National Institute of Justice) on the origin of the failure of the criminal justice system and the associated rise in racial disparities in incarceration rates. With a directive to supply to JCC a copy of his May 4, 1994 letter, and with permission of his superiors, Shollenberger wrote as follows on DOJ stationery for my submission to the California Supreme Court: "(Dr. Burress’) claims that current U.S. economic policies and activities inflict harm on people throughout the nation discriminately. "(His) claim is no less important than those court judgments that were applied when 6 million Jews and 5 million non-Jews were killed by the Nazis in the holocaust or when the lives of millions of U.S. youth were being ruined by Noriega’s drug activities. His claim is more like them and court judgments that appear to be forthcoming in Bosnia." * * * Of the sixteen courts in which I have pleaded, nine have been California courts, including the California Supreme Court three times; and seven have been federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court four times. Birdlebough was supplied copies of many of these pleadings. For the full citation of these sixteen pleadings with a summary of issues and grounds cited for court rulings, see Exhibit B. In violation of federal law of scientific evidence as ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical Inc., 113 S.Ct. 2786 (1993) or California law known as the Kelly-Frye Test, each of these courts either refused to permit or refused to order pre-trial hearings on the proof of admissibility of the alleged scientific evidence. * * * I spent an enormous amount of time over several months briefing Birdlebough and answering his detailed questions on the absolutely catalytic role of California Courts in racial crime against humanity. At his request there was a meeting with Keith Seegmiller, who for more than twenty years had been an associate of Jesse Unruh, former California Treasurer. Seegmiller has supported this project since 1984. He reported to Birdlebough that his efforts validated the observation that one cannot expect ordinary political processes to address their own criminal process, and that therefore judicial intervention was required. Birdlebough spoke at a public meeting with Seegmiller and me at the Unitarian-Universalist Church on the crisis. After he was unable to arrange my testimony before the Advisory Committee on Racial and Ethnic Bias in the Courts, Birdlebough refused to support my challenge to the JCC’s alleged catalytic complicity in racial crimes against humanity. As an alternative, he proposed that I file a lawsuit against the University of California—totally indifferent to proof that the courts remained politicized due to JCC conduct like his. He also proposed that I arrange to have the issue heard by a panel of retired judges. This was something JCC could arrange, but the required initiative from JCC was not forthcoming. I then documented for him that in criminal activity of government, the JCC was a counterpart to the White House in Watergate. Furthermore because the JCC is chaired by the Chief Justice of California Supreme Court, the Chief Justice was California’s judicial counterpart to President Nixon in Watergate and that Birdlebough’s role was a counterpart to that of John Dean. I believe Birdlebough will confirm that I advised him that his conduct was not only in violation of Nuremberg Trial law, but was a prototype of conduct that was the origin of Nazi crimes against Jews and others, U.S. slavery and South African apartheid. Therefore pleadings in the California Supreme Court named the JCC for obstruction of justice in crimes against humanity. When I was unable to secure action by Birdlebough, Seegmiller agreed that the only remedy is probably a lawsuit against JCC, the courts and others in the International Court of Justice. He will confirm that judgment. TWO OTHER ATTEMPTS TO INTERVENE IN JCC PROCESSES As noted earlier, in November, 1995 I sought intervention by Advisory Committee member, The Hon. Rudolph R. Loncke, an African American. He had never heard of Birdlebough’s proposal that I testify before your group. Acting under Nuremberg Trial law as authority and at his specific direction in December 1995, I filed a major complaint of JCC staff coverup with Ms. Arlene Tyler, Project Director of your Advisory Committee. I cited from my detailed pleadings in an appeal to the California Supreme Court. Notwithstanding assurances of Judge Loncke of additional hearings and a full investigation of my charges, my complaint was never even acknowledged. On March 12, 1996 Mr. Makini Enakaya, President of the Coalition of African American Organizations, sent a proposed Resolution to be adopted by his Coalition members intended to end JCC coverup. He described his letter as an effort "to establish informal dialogue and ask for guidance (for) Coalition members." He concluded that letter: "We look forward to receiving guidance from you on how to address this issue according to international law to which the United States is a signatory." The letter from Enakaya was never acknowledged. II. THE PLANNED CIRCUMVENTION OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 My September 1964 meeting at the White House as a Business Week editor was with David Lusher, Chief of Staff at the Council of Economic Advisors. Lusher asked BW to propose that during the transition after the 1964 elections, all future policy options for implementing the Employment Act of 1946 be brought into compliance with economic theory of the most liberal academic economists. BW was asked to emphasize that this proposal was endorsed by nearly every economist brought into the White House by President John F. Kennedy and that they "uniformly and aggressively supported Martin Luther King, Jr." Under the most bizarre conditions, I read a confidential "white paper" which had been signed off by all relevant White House agencies and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The very existence of the paper was off-the-record. I was not allowed to take notes. The existence of the paper is still denied, notwithstanding reports to me by Walter Heller that he had read it as the authority for reversing policies that he had convinced JFK to adopt. Heller was Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors to President Kennedy and Johnson through November 15, 1964 -- the day policy was reversed. Lusher was unaware that I had assisted my mentors, who had played key roles helping Heller convince JFK in early 1962 that his economic advisors were counterparts to his military advisors in the Bay of Pigs crisis. Lusher told me of his bitter anger that after a year in office JFK had reversed the policy which he and other economists had prescribed (Panel B, Table), and had instead adopted policy prescribed by systems scientists (Panel A, Table). I asked Lusher if he were not asking BW to propose a repeat of the late 1929 and 1956 policy reversals (see Table). I suggested that his proposal would do to the civil rights movement what the 1929 policy reversal did to the Harlem Renaissance. It quickly became obvious that this was the intent behind the proposal, which is why it was all top secret. Then he became explosive with anger when he realized that I was the author of the article in the National Tax Journal in September, 1964 which validated JFK policies and invalidated those which he proposed. My career was threatened if I ever mentioned the off-the-record facts on-the-record. Thanks to denied legal representation since 1966 and then denied access to the courts pro per, he and others succeeded. I returned to the White House in January, 1965 for off-the-record confirmation that the policy reversal had taken place on November 15, 1964, and was being imposed gradually. Racist employment policy remained in place through early 1975 and drove the racial disparities in income higher. This was a necessary consequence of policy that induced near-double digit unemployment, double digit inflation and interest rates, and near-triple digit deficits. Finally, in December 1973, the editors of the Journal of Commerce on Wall Street, a Ridder Newspaper, agreed to provide a forum for my whistleblowing. I was appointed Chairman of the Board of Contributing Editors. In my first column on February 1, 1974, I reported the crisis based on my discussion with the White House through late 1973. In October 1974, Rep. George Mahon, Chairman, U.S. House Appropriations Committee, paid me a visit in Odessa, Texas for two days of discussions of what he had read in my columns. He then asked me to brief him and other Committee Chairs in meetings he hosted on Capitol Hill. With Sen. Proxmire, he arranged for my first testimony before Congress on March 12, 1975 before the Joint Economic Committee, and Sen. Hubert Humphrey reported on that testimony in a speech in the Senate on March 26, 1975. Chairman Mahon reported his findings to officials in the Ford Administration in November, 1974. On December 28, 1974, Secretary of the Treasury George Shultz told me I deserved "major credit" for securing the decision of the Ford Administration to restore policies of the Kennedy-Johnson Administration (see shift from Panel B to Panel A in Table). For the predicted 1975-76 rise in the income of African Americans relative to whites, study the Chart. Why was progress reversed again in 1976? The answer is clear. Under the leadership of then Council of Economic Advisors Chairman Alan Greenspan (now Federal Reserve Chairman), in June 1976, non-racist employment policy was reversed again, or racist employment policy was restored. Official White House records confirm my invited visit to the White House in June, 1976. That visit was part of various unsuccessful efforts to intervene in the imposition of the ideology of both conservative and liberal Nobel Laureates in Economic Science in federal employment policy. For the predicted 1976 reversal of the rise in the income of African Americans relative to whites, study the Chart. Racist employment policy that has been in place since June, 1976 has induced even higher racial disparities in income and all major socio-economic indicators than during 1965-74 -- with special reference to infant mortality and incarceration rates. This is the necessary consequence of policy that created double digit unemployment for the first time since the 1930s, higher double digit inflation and interest rates than during 1965-74, and triple digit deficits for the first time in U.S. history. III. ON SYSTEMS SCIENCE APPLIED TO COLLECTIVE HUMAN BEHAVIOR: If the California Judicial Council had permitted my testimony, you would have discovered that the paradigm of systems science is principles that explain and predict system operations where those principles are totally unrelated to the operations of the system’s components. An example is the California State Lottery where principles of state operation are unrelated to principles that explain the behavior of citizens who buy lottery tickets. In that same sense the principles of the operation of the U.S. economic system are totally unrelated to principes that explain the economic behavior of private firms, households, families or individuals. The California State Lottery can easily program various games played by different classes of gamblers for different odds. The relative winnings and losses of the different classes of gamblers will then be totally unrelated to any relationship between individual members of either class of gamblers. In that same sense The Prescription for Success (PS) in Panel A of the Table programs the U.S. economic system for reduced disparities between income of African Americans relative to whites, and the converse is true when the economic system is programmed with the Prescription for Failure (PF) in Panel B of the Table. The reduced or increased racial disparities and associated rates of racism will be no more affected by the relationship between individual African Americans and whites than the odds for different classes of lottery ticket buyers are affected by the relationship between individual gamblers in the two classes. However the economics profession defines economic theory so that knowledge of systems is limited to system relationships that are validated by the theory of individual firms, households, families or persons. Indeed they offer economic theory to explain the behavior of private gamblers as well as world economic history. Hence with economic theory of economists, it is impossible to identify the economic relationship between classes of citizens. Hardly unrelated, as a paradigm for system policy, economic theory requires PF in Panel B of the Table. Progressively since the Warren court, the legal profession has delegated the finding of economics facts to the economics profession. Hence the legal profession has elected to blind itself to federal economic laws that deny civil rights of African Americans with the programmed increase in the racial disparities in income and a host of related racial disparities ranging from infant mortality to incarceration rates. The proof that rising racism in the courts is the necessary consequence of rampant professional legal malpractice is the counterpart to proof that the state lottery has predictably lost money due to systematic professional malpractice of state employees in charge of the lottery. The response of the JCC and the sixteen courts is the counterpart to postulating that where the subject matter is the lottery, all knowledge is limited to the principles of how private citizens try to select winning lottery tickets. And given that for individual gamblers no outcome is predictable, it would follow that one must reject the allegation that state lottery losses are the predictable consequence of professional malpractice. Today the pre-World War I discovery of systems science applied to economic systems is empowered by a branch of artificial intelligence known as "expert systems," or the science of formal knowledge systems explained in the footnote. As documented in the footnote, a few gifted attorneys are showing that this tool offers enormous power for finding facts in complex litigation like the instant case. The principles of expert systems provides scientific validation of the following observations that, for the most part, reflect common sense. First, one cannot postulate the exclusive validity of Catholic theology as a formal knowledge system and discover scientific proof that artificial birth control is a successful tool of population policy. In like manner the legal system cannot postulate the constitutionality of U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson as formal systems of law and discover that each required unconstitutional racial oppression. And in that same sense the current U.S. judicial system that postulates the exclusive validity of Nobel Prize winning economic theory as the paradigm for finding economic facts cannot discover that economic theory as a formal knowledge system requires laws that function as tools of unconstitutional tools of racial oppression. Economic Theory and the Behavioral Sciences Observe that experts in the behavioral sciences such as history, political science, sociology, economics, theology and law uniformly advocate unconstitutional budget policy required by the scholarly non-scientists’s PF in Panel B and reject constitutional budget policy required by the system scientists’s PS in Panel A as unconstitutionally prohibited. This is an analytical necessity when knowledge is limited to observed human behavior and precludes non-behavioral physical system parameters. The footnote to the Table merits careful study. It describes how non-behavioral system parameters have been used to prove that since 1921 this nation has in fact engineered either increased or reduced racial oppression at predetermined rates that were easily predicted. The paradigm relied upon for these successful predictions is similar to citing non-behavioral parameters in the solar system for predicting seasonal changes in collective or average human behavior such as the beach attendance on Lake Michigan at Chicago. With respect to the relevance of objections to these systems science findings by behavioral scientists, the implications of the exclusive reliance on non-behavioral or physical parameters for successful predictions boggle the mind. The assertion that non-behavioral parameters control whether economic system outcomes represent crimes against humanity will seem far fetched to most readers today. Nevertheless this fact was generally recognized as common knowledge in the early 1950s, but progressively rejected by the public after 1956. For example, in a 1953 publication prepared by Kenneth E. Boulding for the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America (later known as the National Council of Churches), these tools for social justice were described for church leaders as follows: "One can put the matter in another way... The ‘laws’ of science are in fact possibility functions, limiting the relationships among things within certain boundaries. Thus if we have a law relating to the volume, pressure, and temperature of a gas, this states in effect that there are only certain volumes, pressures, and temperatures which can possibly coexist as long as the law holds. Similarly, if we have a law... [of economic systems which states that] ...there are only certain values of these quantities [such as federal budget outcomes and whether racial disparities in income rise or fall] which can coexist." (Source: Kenneth E. Boulding, The Organizational Revolution: A Study in the Ethics of Economic Organization, Harper & Brothers, 1953, p. xv.) The arbitrary, a priori values imposed on economic policy variables (federal tax, spending and monetary growth rates) by economic theory are for the economic system the counterpart to keeping all the tires on a car flat and expecting to drive at high speed. The entire performance of a car will be forced to adjust to the absence of air in the tires. For the same reason, economic theory requires the Prescription for Failure in Panel B of the Table because the rate of growth of the money supply is set too low. It is noteworthy that Boulding was elected president of the American Economic Association in 1967 for the brilliance of his contributions the preceding twenty years. However, economists who started redefining the scope of economic theory in the late 1950s will generally confirm today that they have no idea what he was talking about. In what was "an otherwise very agreeable life," Boulding expressed his puzzlement and hurt over the "neglect and even hostility" with which his ideas were received by economists. I often told Boulding that this is easy to explain. Economic theory is now a behavioral science. He was describing relationships that are identified in the non-behavioral sciences. These are two different formal knowledge systems. By definition, non-behavioral parameters do not exist in a behavioral science such as economic theory. However, the important implication for resolving this dispute today is as follows: If it is alleged that scientific evidence is validated by principles of the non-behavioral sciences, the relevance of the evidence based on the behavioral sciences is no more relevant than criticism of the principles for operating the California state lottery based on principles of gambling are relevant. Economic Theory: A Brand of Theology Expert systems or the science of knowledge systems permits discovery of the following principles. The counterpart to the postulation that the origin of all economic system problems is found in conduct of individuals, and therefore solutions to system crisis like deficits is more responsible behavior of citizens, is found in both: (1) the Vatican’s diagnosis and proposed remedy to population problems, and (2) the Christian Science diagnosis of the cause of medical problems like a ruptured appendix. Expert systems permits proof that policy prescriptions by economists fail for a reason that is analytically only nominally different from why the policy prescriptions of the Vatican for population problems fail as well as why the prescription of Christian Scientists for a ruptured appendix fails. The common denominator of theology and economic theory is the preoccupation with direct human behavior and the preclusion of empowerment of human effort by science to solve important societal problems. Implication for the Law and the Impact of Brown vs. Board Expert systems permits two important proofs. First, the findings of fact by the U.S. Supreme Court in Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954 were and are validated by systems science as explained by Boulding in 1953. The growing popularity in the legal profession that Brown v. Board of Education represented bad law and therefore is dangerous precedent is a total myth born of the legal professions’s embrace of economic theory as its fact-finding paradigm since the Warren Court. According to this myth, the failure of the judicial system since the 1960s reflects the progressive influence of the Brown decision as bad law. For more on this disastrous legal myth, see the footnote. Like racists and Nazis, the right of economists to believe and teach anything they want is constitutionally protected. However major moral and constitutional law issues are raised when the California Judicial Council prevents your Committee and the courts from discovering that they cannot identify and correct the judicial origin of rising racism in the courts because they violate Kelly-Frye law and thereby remain free to embrace the racist paradigm of economists. IV. BRIEF HISTORY OF METHODS OF ECONOMIC SYSTEMS SCIENCE Before World War I, John Maynard Keynes discovered the power of systems science as a tool for the analysis of economic systems. Publication of his discovery was delayed by World War I and appeared in 1921 as Treatise on Probability. Keynes first applied his discovery by warning that the Peace Treaty of Versailles at the end of World War I had triggered processes that, unless reversed, would propel another World War—a prescient observation. He set forth his argument in his Economic Consequences of the Peace in 1920. His efforts, and those of others, during 1919-35 to reverse those consequences of course failed. That application of these principles to war and peace between nations is now restated as the principles of war and peace between races. We start by classifying all citizens independently by race and income quintiles. The rich are defined as the top income quintile, the middle class as the three middle income quintiles and the poor as the bottom income quintile. A continuing impact of slavery is the over-representation of African Americans in the four bottom income quintiles. Due to the impact of slavery, there are inevitable impacts of racial class policy on income class status as well as inevitable impacts of income class policy on racial class status. Once these facts are proven by scientists they must be addressed in terms of restored class-based legal rights of the Warren Court. Factually Described System Processes Generally, the consequence of policy that perpetuates the impact of slavery must be addressed in a factual manner. On one hand, the successful performance of the economy (using reductions in unemployment and/or poverty to induce accelerated system productivity as in Panel A of the Table) increases both the economic status of African Americans and their legal rights as a class at a faster rate than for whites. On the other hand, the failed performance of the economy (when increased or high levels of unemployment and/or poverty induce decelerated productivity as in Panel B of the Table) reduces the economic status of African Americans and destroy their legal rights as a class faster than for whites. Hence economic policies that reduce (Panel A, Table ) or increase (Panel B, Table) income disparities by income quintile (income inequality) will reduce or increase income inequality by racial class but at a faster rate. Moreover reduced or increased inequality by income quintile will feed back as reduced or increased non-economic racial disparities. In like manner laws that have a more direct racial impact (like drug laws, financing local schools or Proposition 209) will reduce or increase the non-economic racial disparities. And the racial impacts will feed back to reduce or increase income inequality of the entire nation by income quintile. Race laws that implement the ideology of racists increase these disparities and are therefore unconstitutional. Economic laws that implement the ideology of economists also increase the same disparities and are therefore unconstitutional. Once race and/or economic laws have been used unconstitutionally, these laws can be reversed. The rate of reduced or increased racism in the courts will be a predictable consequence of the net impact of the observed constitutional or unconstitutional use of race and economic laws taken independently. However, this is a judicial and not a political issue. Therefore, only the courts can reverse racism in the courts. Race laws since Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 have been used to reduce non-economic racial class disparities. During 1941-56, 1961-64 and 1975.1Q-76.2Q, constitutional administrative economic laws (Panel A, Table) were also used to reduce these same disparities. However during 1957-60, 1965-75.1Q and since 1976.2Q (June, 1976) unconstitutional administrative economic laws until 1985 and unconstitutional acts of Congress since then (Panel B, Table) have increased these disparities faster than they could be reduced with constitutional race laws. Hence the rising racism in the nation and therefore in the courts. Again, only the courts can reverse racism in the courts. One of the most instructive proofs throughout pleadings filed in sixteen courts is that the counterparts to social scientists who are relied upon today for the factual premise of Fifth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment law, provided the research that was relied upon by the U.S. Supreme Court for its grants of the authority of the law to racial oppression in Dred Scott in 1856 and Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896. The same group of academic scholars also provided research relied upon by courts to maintain apartheid in South African and Nazi oppression in Germany. More generally, under Fifth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment law, international human rights law, the constitutional use of economic processes is the counterpart to using chemical processes to purify the water supply for all citizens. Under those same standards, the unconstitutional use of those economic processes is the factual counterpart to the use of chemical processes to poison the water supply in class warfare like Saddam Hussein in Iran. However as to degree of guilt, as already noted, the instant case is more like a global version of the Tuskeegee Experiment. There is simply no authority under which these alleged facts, like the facts at Tuskeekee, may be rejected as a matter of law. The instant use of economic processes in class warfare in a manner only nominally different from the use of chemical processes for class warfare is estimated by UNICEF to cause more preventable deaths of disproportionately Black children under five worldwide every hour than all the deaths at Jonestown. For the calculations that produce that fact, see the footnote. V. HOW COVERT TOOLS OF RACIAL JUSTICE AND INJUSTICE WORK: THE NON-RACIST AND COVERT RACIST DECISION RULES A. Federal Budget Policy: Tool for Racial Justice OR Injustice: There will be some repetition in the following summary. However experience shows this is necessary to show both: (1) that no federal program since the U.S. won World War II has been as successful as 1964 White House plans to reverse progress in the civil rights movement, and (2) that a major reason this has been possible is that leaders of African Americans such as The Rev. Jesse Jackson, as well as major white religious leaders, have been so brainwashed that they endorse economic system policies which were put in place in 1964 with the intent of perpetuating the economic impact of slavery. 1. The Prescription for Success (PS), Panel A, Table: As projected in 1930, policy based on twentieth century systems science PS releases the economic power as the synergistic energy of economic systems that is not unlike the controlled release of nuclear power as the synergistic energy of physical systems. As in the optimal control of nuclear energy (or the changing seasons) there is no pretext of understanding the law of nature identified by mathematical inference and described reliably with tools reported by Keynes in 1921 in his mathematical work, Treatise on Probability. These mysteries of nature may be described with scientific precision but they are never understood by any human being. The optimal control of non-behavioral, physical parameters is based on predictive success where the paradigm is abundant economic energy that is not unlike the potential supply of nuclear energy. In 1930 it was projected that all economic needs could be satisfied with an average 15-hour work-week. PS can eradicate poverty and racial disparities in income. The policy required by PS is described in the text of the Table: federal tax rate cuts and/or spending rate increases with permissive monetary policy. The PS is the tool of racial justice. The economic processes triggered by this policy may be summarized as follows. (1) Policy induces accelerated system productivity near 6 per cent by (2) keeping poverty and involuntary unemployment near zero (3) which keeps inflation near zero reflected in (4) federal budget surpluses and zero average racial disparities in average income. 2. The Prescription for Failure (PF), Panel B, Table: The economist’s PF postulates that all relevant knowledge is based on what is known about economic behavior of humans. The necessary control variable is therefore human behavior which precludes possible knowledge of non-behavioral, physical parameters as system control variables. In the same sense that scientists can describe the process of biological system failure when Christian Science Practitioners reject empowerment with science to repair a ruptured appendix, systems scientists can describe the process of economic system failure when behavioral scientists reject empowerment of economic system processes with science. Scientists first observe that economic theory is a theory of the firm, household, family or persons. Hence the premise is that continuous federal deficits and/or inflation lead to bankruptcy as in the case of individuals. Therefore the nation is preoccupied with bringing deficits under control with revenue "enhancement" and/or reduced spending rates with restrictions on money supply growth as well as keeping inflation low by reducing spending and/or deficits. As also reported in the text of the Table, that policy is federal tax rate increases and/or spending rate reductions with current restrictive monetary policy. The economic processes triggered by policy prescribed by economists may be summarized as follows. Policy:
3. What About Deficits Under Reagan and Clinton? If tax cuts and spending increases produce surpluses, why were Reagan tax cuts and spending increase followed by huge deficits? This is an important question. The transmission mechanism for reducing deficits is reductions in the unemployment rate. The Reagan Administration’s restrictive monetary policy increased the unemployment rate to double digits. The planned, intentional increase in the unemployment rate increased BOTH deficits and racial disparities more than they were reduced by lower tax rates and increased spending. However even under Reagan, tax cuts and spending increases moderated the sharp rise in unemployment and racial disparities. The myth that the Reagan tax cuts and spending increases caused the deficits is the origin of legislation since 1985 that uses revenue enhancement and spending rate reductions to increase the deficit. That is why federal debt has tripled under that 1985 law. The reductions in the deficit and racial disparities since 1993 under President Clinton are due to a continuous cyclical expansion that has temporarily reduced unemployment. However, his deficit reduction policy and Greenspan’s restrictive monetary policy have kept unemployment and racial disparities from falling sharply, infra. Deficits will accelerate over the long-run. B. Racist and Non-Racist Decision Rules The non-racist decision rule of system scientists is pragmatic: Repeat past predicted successes and avoid past predicted failures. In contrast, the racist decision rule of economists is to avoid past predicted success because economic theory teaches that those policies SHOULD have failed, and to repeat past predicted failures because economic theory teaches that those policies SHOULD have succeeded. Observe that this was also the decision rule of academic experts who validated U.S. slavery, South African apartheid and Nazi crimes. It is no accident then, that (as shown by the Table) the successful non-racist policy prescribed by systems scientists to balance the federal budget and to increase racial justice (Panel A) is reversed by racist policy prescribed by scholarly non-scientists (Panel B). C. What Appears Irrational is Deliberate and Rational In an extended interview with Milton Friedman for my front page column in The Journal of Commerce on Wall Street published March 4, 1975, I put to him the following question: "If economists want a balanced budget, why can’t they read history?" He responded: "It is the public and politicians who seek a balanced budget. We economists prefer large deficits ‘because they are the only way to limit the size of the federal budget or the level of government spending’ in misguided social programs." (The entire quotations are in my notes. The quotations within the quotation were published.) Friedman declared: "I always favor a larger deficit ‘under any circumstance, for any reason, and for any excuse... I would rather have a $200-billion budget with a $100-billion deficit than a $300-billion budget that is balanced. Our real concern should not be the size of the deficit, but the size of government spending ‘" Friedman explained in great detail that "the single greatest threat to our political system is federal spending" on programs like the war on poverty and Great Society programs "that are all a misguided response to demands of civil rights leaders." Then he went on: "Politicians are driven by two motives. One is to spend too much on welfare programs. The other is the fear of deficits which causes Congress to spend less. Therefore the only way to get Congress to spend less is policies that increase the deficit." This was one of the first clear explanations of what I define above as the "racist decision rule." However since the Reagan Administration, this explanation of why the nation has large deficits has been reported openly with slightly more frequency. Recall that it was easy for scholars to convince the public that the earth is flat. In this same sense, it is easy for both liberal and conservative Nobel Laureates in Economic Science and their counterpart scholarly non-scientists to convince the Congress, Presidents and citizens that budget policy of the federal government is no different from policy for individuals. D. The Decision Rule of Non-Scientists As it Works: First, convince the citizens, Congress and Presidents that the federal government is no different from a firm, household, family or person. Next, report that this is certified by all Nobel Laureates in Economic Science both conservative and liberal. Balancing the budget with rules used by households then becomes a moral imperative. PS is then taught as immoral because economic theory shows that it increases deficits (when in fact Panel A in the Table shows that just the opposite is true: PS balances the budget). And PF is taught as the moral imperative because economic theory shows that it produces surpluses (when Panel B in the Table shows that just the opposite is true: PF produces deficits). Now the public and Congress will pursue policies that increase the deficit and therefore racial disparities. Then when the deficit rises along with racial disparities, Congress repeats the racist policies, but more aggressively. With each round a wide range of social programs that actually reduce racial disparities like welfare, aid to education, health care and so on, are cut back. E. The Role of Jesse Jackson: Truth Stranger than Fiction: Observe that Jesse Jackson announced several times that African Americans support the Clinton-Gingrich budget law that was signed by the President August 5, 1997. This is the most aggressive version yet of policy that has increased the federal debt $5-trillion since 1964. In particular this new law is a formal amendment to the 1985 Reagan law (Gramm-Rudman Act or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985) to make more stringent the law under which federal debt has tripled since then. As a result, social programs that reduce racial disparities or lasting impact of slavery have been cut back, and will be cut back more and more. Once the intended goal of a few at the White House in 1964 is understood, it is difficult to cite a more successful federal program. The goal was to undermine the dream of Martin Luther King, Jr. Clearly no federal program since the nation won World War II has been as successful. The secrecy with which that plan was put in place on November 15, 1964, and has therefore been officially and aggressively denied ever since makes clear the following. Those responsible for this racist use of administrative law never envisioned that the leading national spokesperson for African Americans—the person who occupies the position once held by Martin Luther King, Jr.—would advocate a more aggressive use of the law that is, in fact, the tool for executing racial crimes against African Americans. Moreover, given that the 1959 Unruh Civil Rights Act in California provided the model for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, none of those who engaged in this racist use of administrative law (understood by lawyers primarily) ever believed that their cohort economists at the University of California would brainwash the state’s lawyers to the extent that the state’s courts would give the authority of law to the use of economic policy for racial oppression. That is, no one then would ever have believed that the California courts would give the authority of California law to state acts under the Education Code, the Business and Professional Code and the Rules of the California Bar Association that perpetuate the impact of slavery. And it is safe to declare that the last thing they believed possible would be that the California Judicial Council, chaired by the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, would dare to use an Advisory Committee on Racial and Ethnic Bias in the Courts to coverup the use of economic laws to achieve what was achieved with race laws in the last century. Fundamentally, this case truncates to an ordinary civil rights issue. The issue is whether a minority class of citizens, namely whistleblowers on court-sanctioned institutional racism, enjoy the same civil rights as other citizens. May the California Judicial Council (JCC) join with the courts and draw on the racist ideology of economists at the University of California as the authority for imposing sanctions on a whistleblowing scientist who alleges denial of the civil rights of these scientists? There may be no more serious violation of the KKK Act of 1875, which makes denial of civil rights under color of state law illegal. More generally, successful application of the law by a court is seldom difficult when the facts in dispute are insignificantly different from several well-known, highly successful precedents. The use of mostly administrative economic laws for racial oppression is only nominally different from similar use of legislated race laws and therefore good precedents abound. However the acts of the JCC and sixteen courts have invalidated this expectation. Hence we must dig deeper. What precedents lead one to expect a priori that a catalytic state unit of the power structure, namely the JCC or Administrative Office of California Courts, would cover up for judges who give the authority of California law to the denial of the civil rights of scientists who seek increased racial justice. A priori this is expected when justice is totally politicized. A closer look at the facts suggests why justice is so politicized. The facts of the case explain why neither California nor federal appellate courts could respond to the allegation that the errors of the lower courts replicate errors of the U.S. Supreme Court in Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson. The relevant facts are as follows. First, technology was designed by scientists during 1904-36 to serve humanity. That technology was used with the predicted initial dramatic success during 1941-64. That success clearly validated a 1930 projection that through science the nation would minimize income disparities by income quintile, which would require full parity of average income by race and similar non-economic classes. This new prospect for the future was reported to the nation in the 1944 State of the Union Message by President Roosevelt. He reported on the power of science to reduce racial and economic class warfare at home and abroad, and thereby create undreamed prospects for domestic and world peace. Second, that same technology has been used since November 15, 1964 with even greater precision as a tool of increased racial and non-racial class warfare both domestic and foreign. The technology of justice and peace has been used to engineer rising violence and terrorism at home and increased risks of conventional, nuclear, chemical and biological warfare abroad. A Peace-Industrial Complex has given way to a Military-Police Industrial Complex. The problem for the courts is that there is no precedent in the American judicial system where science and technology that has been refined by U.S. scientists to serve humanity has been used by the United States as a tool for crimes against its citizens. However there are ample precedents in international law. Reference is to the already mentioned case where knowledge of the use chemical processes in prescription drugs to save lives has been used as a tool of chemical class warfare in Iraq. This logic propels a lawsuit in the International Court of Justice. However, it is useful to explore options under which this would be unnecessary—with a remote chance that World Court intervention can be avoided. One option is legislation requiring the California and federal courts to give standing when it is alleged that the Daubert or Kelly-Frye Test permits proof of politicized justice. A proposed bill in the California legislature that cannot even find a sponsor appears in Exhibit C. Still another option would be legislation providing for an ad hoc panel (like the Rogers Commission in the Challenger space shuttle failure) to be appointed by the American Arbitration Association to hear evidence and report scientific proofs to all citizens. Arbiters would be asked to rule on whether or not politicized justice is the source of rising class warfare including rising racism in society which is reflected in the courts. There are many ways to proceed. These and several similar proposals draw on principles of the Magna Carta. One such principle is that if political power delegated by citizens to elected representatives is then redelegated to the judges who act as modern King Johns, those citizens will be oppressed. Hence principles of the Magna Carta predict current practice whereby judges use the delegated power of citizens to give the authority of law to their political oppression. One may, then, define the issue as follows: The Magna Carta teaches that no government can succeed if its constitution provides for de facto exemption of a branch of that government from accountability to its citizens. To be sure, there are those who argue that the U.S. Constitution protects only the legal rights of individual citizens. However, that same Constitution does not permit rejection, as a matter of law, of proof that the constitutional rights of individual citizens are being denied through science and technology that controls the relationship between the rich vs. the poor, and whites vs. African Americans. At present the lawsuit in the World Court appears to be the only forum for the oppressed to challenge politicized justice in the United States. Only time will tell if this is, in fact, the only way to secure public debate of whether or not U.S. citizens must go outside their government to secure relief from crimes against them due to the persistent widespread judicial replication of the errors of the Dred Scott and Plessy Courts, which is covered up by the Judicial Council of California. To suggest the potential for bold action by you and cohort members of the Advisory Council on Racial and Ethnic Bias in the Courts, I conclude by quoting from the final words in that Open Letter to President Roosevelt in The New York Times on December 31, 1933 from John Maynard Keynes: "I should expect a successful outcome with great confidence. How much that would mean, not only to the material prosperity of the United States and the whole world, but in...restoration of...faith in the wisdom and power of government.!" Sincerely, Glenn E. Burress, PhD 306 25th Street Sacramento, Ca. 95816 Tel: 916-441-5305 FAX: 916-441-3032
Citations and Brief Summary of 1991-86 Pleadings in Sixteen Courts by Glenn E. Burress, PhD as Plaintiff Denied Legal Representation and Acting Pro Per Three lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento and demurrers were granted in each case. The first was Burress, et al. v. Christianity and Crisis, et. al., a Complaint for Slander and Libel, Case No. CV521148, filed June 17, 1991. The lawsuit was to recover damages from the defendants who represented in the national press (a cover story in Christianity and Crisis) that the claimed existence that the instant scientific knowledge reflected the plaintiff’s emotional problems. The second was Burress v. Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), et. al., Complaint for Libel, Case No. CV 521503 filed July 5, 1991. The lawsuit was for a similar story in a national magazine of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). The third was Burress v. Presbyterian Church U.S.A., et. al, Complaint for Damages, Case No. CV 524201 filed November 27, 1991. Causes of action were Fraud and Deceit, Conspiracy; Unruh Civil Rights Act Violations, Sex Discrimination, Retaliation and Harassment. Generally the defendants rebutted that the allegations reflected emotional problems of the plaintiff. The demurrers were each appealed to the Court of Appeals of the Third District as 3 Civil CO 14379, 3 Civil 14844 and 3 Civil 15981 respectively. The primary ground for appeal was that each trial court refused to permit pre-trial testimony on the admissibility of scientific evidence required for proofs of damages from the alleged torts in Kelly-Frye hearings as required by law. Each was dismissed without oral arguments on the grounds that the alleged existence of the scientific evidence was incomprehensible. In short, the appellate court held that whether or not findings reported in cited 1904-79 publications of scientists represented scientific evidence—and whether or not Albert Einstein, et al. properly proposed arbitration—turns on whether or not the alleged scientific proofs by scientists square with the impressions and attitudes of non-scientists. Needless to say, under that misrepresentation of the law, no hearing is required and therefore oral arguments were not permitted. Restated, three times the appellate court held that under Kelly-Frye, when scientific proof is alleged, relevant peer review panel to test for general acceptance is non-scientists. The appellant argued that this is tantamount to holding that unless a woman who charges criminal misconduct of police can speak English spoken by the police and the judge, that person can properly be denied due process. Three Petitions for Review by the California Supreme Court, SO 33203, SO 33204 and SO 37398 respectively, were denied. Three Writs of Certiorari filed with the U.S. Supreme Court as 94-5001, 94-5158 and 984-6172 respectively were denied. At the recommendation of staff in the U.S. Department of Justice, a fourth lawsuit was filed under the more stringent federal Daubert Test ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1993 (see text). That fourth lawsuit was Burress v. The Unitarian Universalist Society of Sacramento, et,. al., Complaint, Case No. CV-S94-1955 DFL PAN filed November 29, 1994. Causes of action included: Libel Per Se, Slander Per Se, Fraud and Deceit, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Violation of the Genocide Convention Act of 1987 (the Proxmire Act), 18 USC §1091, et. seq., Violations of Civil Rights, et. al. The acts of the defendants were variants of acts of defendants in the other three lawsuits. In this lawsuit the plaintiff alleged that the denial of a judicial remedy by the U.S. Congress in 18 USC §1092 for acts defined as criminal in 18 USC §1091 was unconstitutional. The plaintiff also cited the declared intent of Congress that international law which guaranteed a trial (Article VI, The Convention of the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide) superseded. In the opening sentence of the motion for summary judgement, the defendants asserted that the plaintiff is "mentally disabled." The alleged proof of fact was the face of the complaint. The District Court ruled that 18 USC §1092 prohibited the law suit and therefore imposed judicial sanctions for filing the lawsuit. See the text for more on the blatant abuse of judicial discretion. Citing a finding of bad faith (see text) the District Court denied a motion for permission to file an appeal in forma pauperis in the United States District Court of Appeals for the Ninth District. That denial was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court as Appellate Docket No. 95-16078 on July 5, 1995. That Court ordered up the entire record. It ruled that, after a careful review of the entire record, it found that the denial of permission to file in forma pauperis on grounds of bad faith was proper. The plaintiff/appellant was invited to pay the fees and proceed. However numerous attorneys including those in the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington D.C warned that the Ninth Circuit Court had upheld the finding of bad faith and an appeal was too risky. The plaintiff/appellant was urged to file a writ for certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court. A Petition for Writ for Certiorari was filed in the U.S. Supreme Court on February 13, 1996 and Docketed in that Court as 95-8017. The petition was denied. A Motion for Reconsideration arguing that the only option left was the International Court of Justice was denied. Each appellate court was shown that the citation of incomprehensibility as grounds to reject scientific proof that economic laws were being used for unconstitutional racial oppression was a near exact replication of the rationale of the U.S. Supreme Court in both Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson for rejecting proof that race laws were being used for unconstitutional racial oppression. The fifth filing was a Motion for Complaint of Intervention as a Plaintiff in Coalition for Economic Equity et. a. vs. Pete Wilson et.al. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in Civil Action, Case No. 96-4024 TEH. That lawsuit challenged the constitutionality of Proposition 209. The Motion was filed on May 5, 1997. The proposed Intervention explained alleged scientific proof that because the paradigm of fact-finding of the entire legal profession was that of economists, both the plaintiff and the defendants had been unable to bring to the attention of the court the most material facts. The two affidavit in Exhibit A were appended. In particular, the Complaint showed that due to the legal profession’s fact-finding paradigm, the plaintiffs were unable to prove that Proposition 209 had been enacted on the basis of false representations to California voters that there were no longer laws in place which denied employment opportunities to African Americans. Moreover, because federal economic laws based on ideology taught at the University of California perpetuated the impact of slavery, Proposition 209 is unconstitutional. See text. The district court denied the Motion for Intervention by pointing out that the argument was "nearly frivolous." However, it then went on to deny the motion on the grounds that it was untimely. Intervention in the U.S. Supreme Court with a brief of amicus curiae.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST
Existing law makes it a crime to willfully injure, intimidate, interfere with, oppress or threaten any person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege because of the person’s race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, gender or sexual orientation or because he or she perceives that the victim has one or more of those characteristics. This bill would make it a felony to commit genocide, as defined, and provide that any person may seek a civil remedy against any person who commits genocide or related crimes. By creating new crimes, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specific reason. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State mandated-local program: yes. An act to add Title 11.7 (commencing with Section 423) to Part 1 of the Penal Code, relating to genocide. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the Genocide Implementation Act for the State of California. Section 2. The Legislature finds and declares that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or war, is a crime under state, federal, and international law, which the State of California undertakes to prevent and punish. Section 3. Title 11.7 (commencing with Section 423) is added to part 1 of the Penal Code, to read: TITLE 11.7. GENOCIDE
(d) Subjecting the members of the group to conditions of life that predictably cause the physical destruction or impairment of the group in whole or in part by any means whatsoever including but not limited to the denial of income and employment to one group relative to any other group. (e) Imposition of measures intended to prevent births within the group. (f) Forceful transfer of children of one group to another group.
Therefore its shall be the public policy of this state that any person may seek a civil remedy against any private person, private group or public official or agency or group that commits any of the offenses specified in Sections 423.1 and/or 423.3.
|
|
|