Bondi’s Booboo, Mary’s Workarounds, and Ralph’s Fury

Let’s Get Something Going Here

Sourced from Substack

by Mary W Maxwell

Most folks in the US have now owned up to the fact that they shouldn’t have let things get this bad. The government is so corrupt it is positively humorous. Out of fear and fatigue we have all held back. But now a booboo made by the US Atty General Pam Bondi has allowed us to take stock. She let forth such a ridiculous story — “There are no Epstein files” — that everyone suddenly dares to pitch in. It is a fun subject and so it’s unlikely that the Gestapo will be knocking at your door.

“You’re under arrest. You said that the AG contradicted herself”. Nah. Ain’t gonna happen.

Below, I list, and briefly define, 12 legal workarounds. If you wish, you can think of each one as containing an answer to the Bondi booboo. Or you can toy with putting them to use against some problem of the structure of government – let’s say where the structure breeds conflicts of interest.

Or, if testosterone is flowing, you can think of them as ways to rebel against the system as a whole. The late Ralph Boreszewski did that in his 2013 book, Treason. So after my list of workarounds, you will be happy to read Ralph’s go-get-‘em ideas.

A Dozen Perfectly Legal Workarounds

In most of the books I have written since 2011, I have presented a problem and then offered a legal solution. It is very easy to do, because the law has foreseen all sorts of roadblocks to justice and specified ways to deal with them. In fact, until recent times, when legal intellectuals seem to me to have gone AWOL, this sort of roadblock-removal engaged the finest minds.

Trust me, the following are all legal. To deploy them is to be patriotic, not seditious.

1. Nulllification. Say you are on a jury. You can see that the accused was framed. The judge gives instructions as you go to the jury room, telling you to bring a verdict of guilt if he did in fact knock a guy to the ground. You propose to your fellow jurors that the only way NOT to send the accused to jail is to rule “not guilty.” (Yes, he did knock a guy to the ground but you know it does not call for punishment under the peculiar circumstances.) You nullify the law.
2.  Qui Tam. You are a whistleblower type. If you go to the police to rat on the miscreant (love that word), you know the police will do nothing. In fact they will mock you. Instead, you can file a “Qui Tam” suit. This is where, for example, the government is on a wrong track and is wasting money. You can act “on behalf of the king.” You are helping him save money. Amazingly, part of the ruling will include a percentage, for you, of the money you helped save.
3. Subpoena-ing. We all know that a court can help you in both a criminal trial or a civil action, by demanding that the opponent cough up incriminating material. Perhaps his emails for the last five years? But who needs a court? You can ask a state legislature to run an investigation of the issue and their investigators can subpoena evidence.
4. Equity. The court of Equity used to be a separate court but around 1870 it merged into the court of law. Here the judge makes “constructive remedies.” An old woman has died and not written a will. Her niece has been nursing her every day for the last 15 years. The state normally deals with intestacy by awarding the estate to particular family members. This deceased has a son but he flooped the coop a long time ago. A court of equity can apportion some of the money to the niece, or let her live in Auntie’s house forever, or something.
5. Expulsion. An elected member of Congress is being obstreperous. Her sense of following the Constitution is nil. Must we wait out her 2-year term, or six for a senator? No. By a two-third vote of her chamber, her colleagues can show her to the door. (It is rarely, rarely done but could come into vogue any day now.)
6. Step Down, Please. For such a congresswoman there is no parallel method, on the books, for her constituents to do the needful. But they can scream and shout and tell her she must step down voluntarily. (In the British parliamentary system, a cabinet minister is often chased out of office this way. “Get out, you creepy Minister for Poultry. You let all the eggs go bad,”)
7. Truth Commission. There is nothing, nothing to prevent a layperson starting a TC, a truth commission. In fact, Bondi’s booboo is the perfect reason for someone to start a Truth Commission on “Who Were Epstein’s clients?” Over the last 60 years there was nothing to prevent our creating an informal TC about Kennedy’s assassination instead of putting up with all the bluff by Government (whom we now see was the assassin.) If it would worry you to use the word ‘commission,’ you can call your group a Truth Committee. How about a ‘Truth Gang’?
8. FOIA and Its Planned-for Lawsuit. Congress passed the Freedom of Information Act in 1970. You make your request and 20 days later you can follow up. If it is refused you are welcome to sue for it, and the judge will decide whether the reason for exemption was permissible. Naturally – why would a government hold back information in a Republic?
9. The Law of Outlawry. (My fave.) There are times when a person is “beyond the law.” For instance, a country may not be able to afford police. It is then up to the public to “make the hue and cry” for capture of the criminal. An outlaw can be killed without due process as he/she is truly “outside the law.” Anyone harboring or feeding the outlaw thereby commits the crime of obstruction of justice. This law of outlawry was inherited by the US from England in colonial days and remains in effect until repealed by statute.
10. Impeach a judge. (My second fave.) The US Constitution allows the House of Reps to impeach officers of government including federal judges. The Senate may then convict the impeachee, with the only punishment being removal from office. Eight judges have been removed in US history, usually for bribery. It would of course be wrong to impeach a judge on the basis that the House disagrees with a judgment he/she made. However, judges frequently commit the crime of obstruction of justice, do they not? A crime is a crime no matter the politics of the day. Don’t be shy about this.
11. A Writ of Mandamus. Under its All Writs Act of 1789, Congress brought over from England the several writs, such as writ of habeas corpus and writ of mandamus. The latter means that a lawsuit can be brought to order (“to mandate”) an administrator, an official, or anyone, to carry out some duty that he/she is neglecting. (See 28 USCC 1651.) In a current criminal case, the court has ordered Apple to unlock an iPhone, per provisions in The Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999. I suppose a judge could order Pam Bondi to account for the Epstein files that she said were on her desk. You, today, can ask for that to happen.
12. Citizen’s Arrest. (Very under-used.) If you see someone committing a felony, or about to commit a felony (a crime for which there is jail time, not mere fines) you should phone 911. If you don’t have a phone, you and others can arrest the person. You must tell him/her why you are doing it and perhaps even go over the top by spouting some Miranda’s. Can the arrestee sue you for bodily harm? Yes, so don’t bodily harm him/her. Subsequently, turn your quarry over to the cops. You can also, with or without using citizen’s arrest, file a complaint about any crime you are aware of.

Big Ralph

Ralph Boryszewski (bore eh zhew ski) was a policeman in upstate New York and a union leader, plus a practitioner of other things suggested in the workaround list. He was a walking talking Constitution. But he did not fully approve of some aspects of the Framer’s work. Here is a brief list, but please buy the book, Treason. (Ten bucks for a 77-page paperback or three bucks for Kindle.)

1. He says the Bill of Rights should precede the text of the other 6 articles and other 17 amendments. That way, it would be obvious that some things in the Constitution are in breach of the more-controlling Rights.
2. Boreszewski faults George Washington for signing a law (really, he should fault the Legislature), namely the Judiciary Act, in 1789. The court was not brought into being for another 11 months. Thus (he says), all laws passed in the meantime were wrong as the principle of Balance of Powers was missing — there was no judicial branch to weigh the constitutionality of those laws.
3. The parchment says nothing about US Attorneys or a US Attorney General. These positions were then provided for in the Judiciary Act of 1789. The attorneys prosecute federal crimes. They seem to be “judicial” but they are holding Executive positions. Then, in 1870, the AG was made a head of a department, namely the Department of Justice. How can it be Executive? (page 62)
4. Boreszewski disapproves of the president having the pardon power; it belongs to the people. The president can use it to pardon anyone who joined him in a crime, so they will not be questioned about it in court. (p 34, p 46)
5. He is dissatisfied with the wording of Article III, section 3, on treason. It holds: “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying was against them [“them” means the states], or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act….” Why not let the people investigate, and if there be enough evidence the traitor can be convicted? (p 24)
6. Boreszewski’s rejection of the powers of US Attorneys as unconstitutional, as in Item 3 above, contains a vehement criticism of the Supreme Court Rule 7(c), in regard to the role of a Grand Jury. It says that when a Grand Jury has agreed to an indictment of any person, the US Attorney must sign it. No way, Jose. The Grand Jury members are the final authority. They do not need anyone’s approval in order to finalize an indictment. (p 62)

I will leave it there. The point insisted in by Big Ralph is that we must now proceed to correct these errors. “In England the king is sovereign. In the United States the People are sovereign.” Boreszewski ‘takes it personal’ — he says on page 65, after discussing a Grand Jury’s indictment of several congressmen for taking bribes:

“By phone, I contacted the Grand Jury Foreman in Maryland and identified myself. I informed him not to seek help from Chief Federal District Judge Roszell C Thomsen or the US Attorney because they were expected to uphold Supreme Court Rule 7(c) regardless of the corruption that it covered up.”

See?

Mary’s Substack is free today. But if you enjoyed this post, you can tell Mary’s Substack that their writing is valuable by pledging a future subscription. You won’t be charged unless they enable payments.

The post Bondi’s Booboo, Mary’s Workarounds, and Ralph’s Fury appeared first on Gumshoe News.