Are Federal and State Elected Officials Selling out our country to anyone who pays them?

By Pat Foster

That question may soon be addressed by the United States Supreme Court. I have just filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the following question: “Do litigants have the right to see through discovery an elected official’s campaign finance bank accounts protected from public view by statute?

The Freedom of Information Act is subject to show all public documents to the citizens except those specifically exempted within the act. Michigan has specifically exempted “records of a campaign committee including a committee that receives money from a state campaign fund” under MCL 15.243[1][r]. That exemption was passed by the Michigan Legislature in 1976, and became effective April 13, 1977 just as our country started it’s rise to becoming the largest police state in the world with the highest number of prisoners. This act specifically exempts from disclosure an elected officials, tax free, public account that by law they are required to file reports on how much money they took and from whom, plus what they spent those funds on that aided their campaign. If they took money for selling out their elected position to others, and never reported those funds, then they are allowed to retire from office with no disclosures unless they have have unpaid liabilities. No one ever audits these accounts. If there are ill gotten gains in those accounts, those officials retire, and that money is tax free for them to use as they so choose.

The Federal Freedom of Information Act was passed in 1966, and President Johnson in his signing statement said:”This legislation springs from one of our most essential principles: a democracy works best when the people have all the information that the security of the nation permits. No one should be able to pull curtains of secrecy around decisions which can be revealed without injury to the public interest.” The account of an elected official should be public, not secret in order to protect the “public interest.”

Secrecy was well defined by the Michigan Supreme Court in Brady v. Attorney Grievance Com'n. in 2010:

As Edmund Burke, a noted 18th Century statesman and philosopher wrote:

“In all justice, as in all government, the best and surest test of excellence is the publicity of its administration; for, whenever there is secrecy, there is implied injustice.”

With regard to ‘secrecy,’ Lord Acton said:

“Everything secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity.”

In addition, President John F. Kennedy stated:

“The very word secrecy is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it.”

       

The problem is not the elected officials that use their position to profit at the expense of their office, but the laws that allow them to do so. It is human nature for someone to take advantage of their position, if their circumstances allow them to do so. The issue does not lie with a few laws allowing some officials to profit at everybody’s expense, but the fact that these laws are found through out our country making them a policy decision at the very highest levels of government or those who control our government. That policy decision is made to destroy the very system that all citizens live under.

 

How can the average citizen fight such a power? Historically, citizens have revolted against such tyranny, but that was usually carried out by the lower classes at the behest of the middle classes. Those who control our lives have used the criminal justice system to put an additional million and half males behind bars with the middle class paying excessively for it, so that kickbacks can be made to the justice system that keeps the system growing, and the middle class getting poorer by the day. An additional eight million people are closely controlled through the probationary departments of the justice system. This leaves largely a middle class clinging to what little they have left, and afraid to do anything.


The answer to your problem goes back to ancient Greece. Wickipedia defines it as “Athenian democracy took the form of direct democracy.” Our current election system does not even allow the people to vote on the issues that are closest to them, and they are being run by the same people who are being elected. This is a major conflict of interest that has allowed the government to control the government elections that keep them in power. Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution defines “electors” as those who both run the elections and vote in the elections. Paragraph 2 says that nobody in government in a position to trust or profit and be an elector. Trust are people elected to government, and profit are those who work for government. Our current system is not only a conflict of interest, it is a conflict recognized by the founding fathers in the highest law of our land, the constitution.


See WMNC - Michigan Elections II for the formula for stealing elections in our country. Modems on tabulators connected by telephones is exactly how the Russians put Trump into the presidency.                                                                                                                                                                                    


West Michigan News Company

Home

Michigan Elections - Connecting to the modem on the vote counting tabulators by telephone after they have been tested and sealed.

West Michigan News Company

Home Page

Hearing before the Michigan Board of Election Canvassers to Certify the 2008 General Election.


Home Government Crimes Logical News Judicial Corruption Elections Auditor Intimidation Archives Subscribe

Forms Filed Michigan Supreme Court

Motion for a Subpoena

Brief in Support of Motion for a Subpoena

Declined Subpoena to see Judge Kevin Cronin’s bank statements in his campaign finance account. It was declined by “mzb”, or Judge Margaret Z. Bakker, the Chief Judge of Allegan County.

Declined Motion for a Subpoena by Michigan Court of Appeals appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court to see the bank statements of the Honorable Marget Z. Bakker’s campaign finance account.

I cannot give legal advice, but you can print these out and give them to your legal adviser. Good luck!


Judicial Corruption gives you documents that you can use to find out if your judge or justice is taking money for decisions. I give a complete background of the actions I have been taking, and the judges and justices are running away from it. See bottom of page for Supreme Court Filings for a Subpoena to the judges bank for their campaign finance bank statements. If greatly over $1,000, the judge has a problem. See actual filings made under government crimes - writ of mandamus - Court Filings.


           Declaration of Compliance            with the U.S. Constitution

      We the people of the United States of America give notice to the government that we will run our own elections without government interference in compliance with Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.


Click here to be included as a person giving notice to your government that the private sector needs to run their own elections free from government interference.



  

Contact   About   Subscribe

Subscribe to

Judges Kevin Cronin and Margaret Z. Bakker are the principal targets of my request for discovery.

Judge Cronin’s recount in 2008 was the focus of my election audit in 2009.  Judge Cronin had one volunteer to count over 49 precincts that were requested to be counted. His volunteer was the son of the county clerk, who had access to the tabulators’ modems on election day by telephone. She could make the vote totals anything she wanted them to be, and if a recount was requested, she was given the authority to safeguard the ballots before that count. The problem with stealing elections this way is you have to change all the ballots to agree with your changed totals. They cannot do that, so 53% of the precincts could not be counted. The seals above show they changed Wayland township’s ballots by cutting the seal, changing the ballots to agree, and pulling the seal up tight. Wayland was counted in the official totals.

Judge Bakker was used to approve an ex parte restraining order  against me from the two men who blocked the storm drain above me. Once I showed her how the petitioner on that personal protection order had lied in order to attain that order, and she suppressed that evidence from being put onto the record during a hearing to terminate the order; I did a request to see her campaign finance reports.

 Both judges denied my right to see those accounts. Three Justices of the Court of Appeals were also requested to show me their accounts, and they denied my motion to