undefined

To the best of my knowledge, one thing that has never been reported in the mainstream media is how the U.S. legal system—which is the world's largest crime syndicate as I prove in chapter one of my second book that can be read for free—changes its rules of procedure and laws to suit its own narrative and harm unknowing litigants.  This post will be a case study of three different examples.

Case Study I - Law Change

About eight years ago in the People's Republic of Massachusetts, Joseph Leonard Michaud—then a lawyer-criminal, now a judge-criminal—committed serveral state and federal felonies in a civil case in which he was opposing me and representing another party at the time.  Those crimes can be found at this link.  Just prior to his criminal misconduct in my case, one criminal law he violated, Massachusetts law Chapter 268 § 13B(1)(c)(v), intimidating a person furthering a court proceeding, at that time stated in part: 

“Whoever, directly or indirectly, willfully...misleads, intimidates or harasses another person who is:...a person who is or was attending...any other civil proceeding of any type with the intent to impede, obstruct, delay, harm, punish or otherwise interfere thereby, or do so with reckless disregard, with such a proceeding shall be punished by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than 2 and one-half years or by imprisonment in a state prison for not more than 10 years, or by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $5,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment.”

After he committed this felony several times and I reported it repeatedly in court filings, in complaints to oversight boards, and elsewhere, the law magically changed the year he was appointed judge to:

Intimidation of witnesses, jurors and persons furnishing information in connection with criminal proceedings

Section 13B. (1) Whoever, directly or indirectly, willfully

(a) threatens, or attempts or causes physical injury, emotional injury, economic injury or property damage to;

(b) conveys a gift, offer or promise of anything of value to; or

(c) misleads, intimidates or harasses another person who is:

(i) a witness or potential witness at any stage of a criminal investigation, grand jury proceeding, trial or other criminal proceeding of any type;

(ii) a person who is or was aware of information, records, documents or objects that relate to a violation of a criminal statute, or a violation of conditions of probation, parole or bail;

(iii) a judge, juror, grand juror, prosecutor, police officer, federal agent, investigator, defense attorney, clerk, court officer, probation officer or parole officer;

(iv) a person who is or was furthering a criminal investigation, grand jury proceeding, trial or other criminal proceeding of any type; or

(v) a person who is or was attending or had made known his intention to attend a grand jury proceeding, trial or other criminal proceeding of any type with the intent to impede, obstruct, delay, harm, punish or otherwise interfere thereby with a criminal investigation, grand jury proceeding, trial or other criminal proceeding of any type shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 21/2 years in a jail or house of correction or not more than 10 years in a state prison, or by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $5,000. 

Note that the word "civil" has been removed from the law and that this law now only applies to interference in criminal cases and not civil actions, thereby making Michaud's criminal activity in my civil case no longer a crime—which, had he been prosecuted, might have made it a little more difficult to appoint him to the bench as they had planned.

Case Study II - Law Change

Another legal matter in which I was involved in Rhode Island concerned a traffic issue that occurred around the same time as the events described in Case Study I.  Briefly, I had been illegally stopped while driving in an adjacent jurisdiction by a peace officer who had no authority to cite me based upon Rhode Island law.  The law in question, Rhode Island statute § 12-7-19, at that time read as follows:

Any member of a duly organized municipal peace unit of another city or town of the state who enters any city or town in close pursuit and continues within any city or town in such close pursuit of a person in order to arrest him or her on the ground that he or she has violated the motor vehicle code in the other city or town shall have the same authority to arrest and hold in custody the person as members of a duly organized municipal peace unit of any city or town have to arrest and hold in custody a person on the ground that he or she has violated the motor vehicle code in any city or town.

Soon after the matter made its way through the courts, the syndicate basically told me, "Yes, we know you're right, but  we're not going to pay you anyway, and, oh, by the way, we're going to change the law so that nobody can do it again."  In the very next legislative session, the law was changed to:

Any member of a duly organized municipal peace unit of another city or town of the state who enters any city or town in close pursuit and continues within any city or town in such close pursuit of a person in order to stop him or her for a suspected violation of any provision of the motor vehicle code committed in the other city or town, shall be vested with all of the same authority as a member of a duly organized municipal peace unit of the city or town.

Note that "arrest" and the phrase "arrest and hold in custody" were removed from the law.  Also note that this law hadn't been changed in forty-two years.....until I found an error in it and attempted to make the town rightly pay me damages.  Somehow, this law also magically changed mere months after my case was "adjudicated."

Case Study III - Local Rule of Civil Procedure Change

This last and latest example concerns another person in the United States who will remain anonymous in this post.  He fought a legal battle in an extremely corrupt environment in the Tennessee state court system.  After violating his First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights; rules  of court; rules of professional conduct; and several civil and criminal laws; the syndicate struck again.  In particular, one local rule of civil procedure changed from:

Rule 11. Orders and Judgments
Section 11.01 Preparation and Submission
Unless the court directs otherwise, attorneys for prevailing parties will prepare proposed orders for entry by the court and shall file such proposed orders not more than seven (7) days following the day on which the ruling is made by the court.  If the proposed order submitted reflects that it has been approved for entry by counsel for all parties, then the court will take action promptly to enter such proposed order, or, at the court’s discretion, enter the court’s own order with respect to the ruling.  If the proposed order does not reflect that it has been approved for entry by counsel for all parties, then the court will take no action to enter such proposed order for seven (7) days after receipt of the proposed order to afford counsel for the opposing party to submit an alternative proposed order.  If the opposing party submits an alternative proposed order, the court shall undertake promptly to enter either the original proposed order, the alternative proposed order, or the court’s own order with respect to the ruling.  All of the time periods in this section may, for good cause, be extended by the court.

to:

Rule 11. Orders and Judgments
Section 11.01 Preparation and Submission
Unless otherwise directed, the prevailing party shall prepare and file with the Clerk a proposed order not more than seven (7) days following the Court's ruling.  If the proposed order reflects it has been approved for entry by all parties, the Court may promptly enter the proposed order or enter its own order.  Unless expressly referred to as an agreed order, a party's approval for entry of a proposed order shall be construed only as the approving party's agreement that the proposed order accurately reflects the Court's ruling.

This change was made after the anonymous person went kicking and screaming to the oversight boards, the appellate courts, and others because as a pro se litigant, he was not allowed to challenge the lie-riddled court orders being written by a pathological liar lawyer who—incidentally, had been previously reprimanded, as exceedingly rare as that is—was opposing him.  Once again, rather than remediating the situation by compensating the litigant and making him whole, the syndicate decided to change the rule so that nobody could complain about it again.  Note the wording change.  "Attorneys" has been replaced with "parties."  So, now, this once unconstitutional rule—as such because it discriminated against a class, i.e., the class of pro se litigants—has now been made constitutional.....without any recompense to the injured litigant who lost nearly $1 million in money and real estate as of today, thanks to the syndicate.  Although I've theorized for quite some time that the syndicate has been doing this consistenly nationwide, this last case study is the only one outside my own personal experience that proves beyond any doubt that the syndicate has done this to other litigants.  And with no true accountability, the misconduct and crime certainly will continue.

All these case studies prove one thing: the syndicate will do whatever it takes to drive a legal action in the direction it wants it to go, with most litigants missing the fact that the syndicate is breaking the rules and laws against them every day and then changing the rules and laws later to prevent other litigants from complaining.  Contact your senators or fight these criminals in other ways if you want to stop this reprehensible behavior.  If you don't take any action now—just a few minutes each week—I guarantee you will regret it later.