Michigan Supreme Court Takes Over Legislative and Executive Branches Without Opposition

 

The Michigan Supreme Court (our judicial branch of government) has taken over the duties (through usurpation) of the Michigan Legislative branch of government, effectively merging these two separate branches of government into a single entity in violation of the separation of powers provisions of the state and federal constitutions. Treason. Additionally, both the legislative branch and the executive branch of our Michigan government is aware of the takeover by the judiciary and is complicate.

Although this can be seen and proven in many different ways, I will show you just a couple here in this article that are very obvious and easy to demonstrate.

FIRST
The Michigan Supreme Court is basically in charge of the “Michigan Court Rules”. These “rules” were initially established to create uniformity in all Michigan courts and were originally called “Administrative Court Procedures”. The Administrative Court Procedures were to establish a level playing field for the court officers (not people) that were participating in courtroom proceedings. These Administrative Court Procedures were initially for the court staff, judges and lawyers only. This is why lawyers are “Officers of the Court” and is that which makes them subject to the jurisdiction of the original“Administrative Court Procedures” now known as the “Michigan Court Rules”. to which we are all being unlawfully subjugated.

These Administrative Court Procedures were never intended to govern the people and the title of these Administrative Court Procedures could never remain “as-is” if the judiciary wanted people to come to believe that they were to govern the people themselves so the name was changed to the “Administrative Court Rules” and then to “Michigan Court Rules”. Over time, these rules have been continuously imposed upon the We the People as if we were under the same jurisdiction as court officers.

I recently read an article that talked about the courts giving precedence to Michigan Court Rules over established Michigan Law if ever the two were in conflict. I have to find that article again and verify it’s legitimacy and it’s authority & authenticity but found it very compelling on it’s first read an had seen it in practice myself personally. The article also discussed that whenever an issue were to arise not covered by Michigan law that the Michigan Court Rules would prevail. This is extremely disturbing and very dangerous.

Since the Michigan Supreme Court makes up the Administrative Court Procedure, I mean the Michigan Court Rules, isn’t the Michigan Supreme Court now a legislative body through usurpation and deceit??? TREASON!

This may fail to mean anything to you unless you understand the importance of the separation of powers provisions in the state and federal Constitutions.

This will also lack importance in your life if you place no value on freedom and liberty.

This may also lack luster if you are among the few that benefit from this scheme, or their spouses or other close family.

The Michigan legislation is aware and complicate. The Michigan executive branch is also obviously aware and complicate for each has the DUTY to prevent the encroachment of the others.

Example One:
MCR 8.115
In its original state, this Administrative Procedure/Court Rule was very much like it is today with the exception of the rule title and the entire section of (C) having been added. The original “title” was “Courtroom Decorum”. Shown below.

In August 2009, the Michigan Supreme Court, in and of it’s own volition, changed the hell out of it while we were all distracted with the New Great Depression. Shown below. Take special note that everything underlined was added by the Michigan Supreme Court and became effective on September 1, 2009.

Since the Michigan Supreme Court is NOT the Michigan Legislature, what mechanism is in place to test and to insure the constitutionality of it rules written on the whims of men who incorporate these changes without notice to the people? You see… rules written for the administration of the court can be done without our knowledge and without our approval because these rules DO NOT GOVERN the people.  This would be like asking the people of Michigan to authorize the employee handbook for Wal-Mart before it’s implementation on Wal-Mart staff and employees.

Did you see this shit on the ballot? And why not?

The answer to those questions are very simple. Employee handbooks do not need to be constitutional and the Michigan Court Rules were intended to be the employee handbook for court staff (public servants) and do not govern We the People. They were established to govern the public servants that work in the judiciary. See below.

Paul Chamberlain didn’t make a “local court rule”, he created an “Administrative Policy” intended to govern ONLY court management. This is further proved by the title of Paul’s announcement as it conforms to the rule MCR 8.115(B)(2) above which dictates how Administrative Orders are to be numbered. Paul’s is numbered “2015-2″ clearly identifying it as an Administrative Order rather than a Local Court Rule which would have been titled much differently. Like LCR 8.115(C)(3) Paul’s Law.

Below, I will show how the Dishonorable Chief Judicial Terrorist in Isabella County announced a new policy which is actually an administrative order. Alleged judge Paul Chamberlain announced his policy on February 27, 2015 and made it effective on all of the people in Michigan, not just the county court staff, on March 9, 2015. See below.

Not sure why CM-Life edited my name out of the article but is you search CM-Life with “visner” or click on this link, you will see how the article was originally written. At least the top part.  http://www.cm-life.com/search/?a=1&o=date&s=visner The full artile link is here. http://www.cm-life.com/article/2015/02/isabella-county-trial-court-to-adopt-new-policy-prohibiting-cell-phones

Judicial terrorist, Paul Chamberlain, slammed the door on the Constitution with this administrative order that he plans to enforce on We the People through the contempt of court penalty provisions! Using fines and incarceration provisions from something else entirely, to enforce policy, converts policy into law.

Paul Chamberlain knows that the court rules and the penalty provisions of contempt of court are NOT enforceable on the people but he doesn’t need to convince the people, he needs only convince the county paid security staff acting as court bailiffs whom have reported to me that they have not sworn an oath to the Constitution, therefore no obligation to defend it and no obligation to serve the people. Basically the court bailiffs in Isabella county are a contracted private security force working for an employer.

Below is Chief Terrorist Paul Chamberlain’s personally created policy/law.

Good thing the Michigan Supreme Court changed these rules back in 2009! The trouble with subtle changes is that they sometimes are not subtle nor fast enough to meet future objectives. Paul Chamberlain has to take the changes made in 2009 and change them further, all by himself. The court rule, created in 2009 talks only about “Portable Electronic Communication Devices” which is a classification of devices used for communication and covers everything pagers to walki-talkies to cell phones and even to laptops equipped or presumed to be equipped with communication software such as email and skype etc.  As a single classification regarding communications, it does not speak of anything other yet terrorist Paul Chamberlain has expanded the definition by inserting commas into the classification “Portable Electronic Communication Devices” and effectively changing the meaning of court rule completely. From the single classification described in the Court Rule that covers every communication device that is both portable and electronic, Paul’s deviation through the addition of punctuation now converts the court rule to include digital audio recorders. Paul’s intentionally distorted view of the court rule below also excludes everything “electronic” from the courthouse. Things like electric wheelchairs, insulin pumps, pace makers etc are no longer allowed in the courthouse according to Paul Chamberlain. If that weren’t enough, Paul add this… “communication devices of any kind”. This would be to cover not only cell phones and pagers but also 2 cups and a string.

So why did the Dishonorable Chief Judicial Terrorist Paul Chamberlain do this? Why did this alleged chief judge levy direct allegations against me personally and as a lone actor and as if I had already been convicted of doing something wrong?

Quote: “Prompted by several recordings of courtroom actions uploaded to YouTube by Mount Pleasant resident Ted Visner…” “Unfortunately the irresponsible act of one person is causing us to respond at this juncture.” said Chief Judge Paul Chamberlain.

Chief Terrorist Paul Chamberlain is calling me irresponsible? To this I say, ummm, what the hell am I supposed to say to this! It’s laughable really!

Paul doesn’t know that I made the recording and he doesn’t know that I uploaded those recordings to my YouTube Channel but in this article he is claiming that I did…  Awfully presumptuous of any “judge” wouldn’t you think?  But I don’t even care about any of that crap because it is nothing more than a distraction. Let us get to the meat and potatoes shall we!

Paul Chamberlain’s official response to uploaded “court actions” on YouTube was to bastardize the meaning of Michigan Court Rule MCR 8.115(C) and make it mean what he needed to prevent me from recording public servants performing their public function.

Lets face it folks… Tape Recorders have been around almost 80 years longer than cell phones without the need for additional court rules to be shoved into a “courtroom decorum” rule…

The question Paul Chamberlain is and continues to refuse to address are the allegations stated in the uploads to YouTube themselves. These allegation, using the accused own audio tracks, points out specific violation of the public trust. These audio recordings capture alleged judge Mark Duthie lying on the record to try and make it seem to the appellate court on appeal (prepping the court transcript for appeal… for preservation of self) that the recorded hearing on February 10, 2015 was the first time he had participated in that particular case when he had signed the original order on the same day the case was initiated more than 200 days before the hearing! What say you Chief Paul???

Why do you have the trust of the people when you fail and refuse to address judicial misconduct in the court and county where you are “chief” and “circuit court judge”? Gotta maintain the illusion right Paul? You are pathetic Paul and you make me want to vomit!

Directly below are links to the YouTube posts that Chief Judicial Terrorist Paul Chamberlain refused to address. The first link is the entire <10 min> hearing. Each of the videos are of the different aspects of the same 10 mion hearing with different notes on the different aspects.

___

Below: This 10 minute clip is packed full of jewels that are broken down further in the following clips.

___

Below: Mark Duthie makes a statement to be picked up on the court transcript at the beginning of this hearing in an effort to deceive the Michigan Appellate Court when he states that this hearing was the first time he was involved in this case knowing that he had signed the original order some 200+ days prior at the start of this case.

___

Below: Grand Rapids attorney Kelly Lambert had been fired more than two weeks before this hearing. Instead of filing a stipulated withdrawl, the county made him come to and participate in this hearing and do what he does here.

___

Below: Prosecutor Risa Scully talks about everything except the motion in front of the court.

___

Below: Prosecutor Risa Scully Lies to delay Kidnapping Charges against herself.

___

What is critical for We the People to recognize here is that the Michigan Supreme Court is actively working to unlawfully create Unconstitutional Michigan Court Rules that are to be intentionally forced upon the people through the inferior county courts and the courts at every level and as if these rules were law when they clearly are not.

Paul Chamberlain calls his new Administrative Policy, a “cell phone ban” when it is actually a “Ban on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights”. Private courthouse security has been tasked with enforcing Paul’s Policy upon the people, removing the people’s ability to freely offer consent or to refuse to consent. Paul Chamberlain is a traitor to the state of Michigan and to this country as his acts are treasonous!

Why then… would I ask the Michigan Supreme Court to adjudicate this when they are the monopolistic organization responsible for giving Paul the tools to be a traitor to the state and to this nation?

Second Example:                                                                                                                            This particular “rule” pulled out of an entirely different section of the Michigan Court Rules (updated, modified and maintained by the Michigan Supreme Court) is from Chapter 3.  MCR3.920(H) and reads as follows in the picture below.

Cases that are not properly served on the parties do not exist and are COMPLETELY VOID but check out this “Michigan Court Rule”! It makes any VOID case legitimate by creating this “failure to object = waiver to object” clause!

In the actual case documents that I am about to show you, mother of three, Danielle Austin, was called to court via a telephone call two hours prior to a court hearing related to her already abducted three children.

Imagine, if you can, the state of mind you would be in if this were to happen to you… Imagine getting a phone call at 1:00 pm today from a CPS worker telling you that she has taken your children and that you need to be in court in two hours. Would you be prepared to offer an objection to any notice defects? If you said YES, you either are a lawyer or are married to a lawyer. For most of us however, this is entirely too difficult to imagine. Now lets compile a little more reality… Additionally, your are two months behind on your rent and are facing eviction and your spouse had just left you and your three children for greener pastures and took all of the money the family had.

Now you find yourself standing in front of a man wearing a black dress. You have this other man standing next to you that had, just 3 min prior, announced himself to you as your court appointed attorney and he is telling you that you are in a world of hurt and to just let him handle everything for you or you may never see your children again…

During the most bizarre 15 minutes of your entire life, had it crossed your mind that your objection had to have been raised in this time or your ability to object would be forever lost? The immediate assignment of counsel is a vital component of this trap because YOU are not allowed to speak in court yourself if you are “represented” by a lawyer. Even if you knew about the fatal flaws in the case against you, you would have only had 3 minutes to discuss this with your lawyer… but your lawyer already knows about the trap and refuses to defend you. Why would he object to the notice deficiencies and piss off all of his associates in the courtroom (including the judge) whom are all fully aware of the snare you are in.

The Michigan Supreme Court, through the creation of this BULLSHIT rule has provided the means for inferior courts to trap respondent parents and keep them trapped in their web of deceit to generate revenue through the unlawful abduction of our children.

What motivation would the judge, referee, prosecutor, defense attorney for the mother, defense attorney for the father and defense attorney for the three children, CPS workers and DHS workers have to ensure you your right to Due Process when the Michigan Supreme Court has provided them a means to ignore your Due Process rights completely?

Below are the court document excerpts (images) that will demonstrate how this state operated CHILD TRAFFICKING SCHEME works.

In the first image below is the picture of the “PROOF OF SERVICE” which is intended to show that the parties were noticed of the proceedings taking place against them. All you need from this picture of the actual document is the top line. These are the “directions” for the “PROCESS SERVER” and read as follows:

TO PROCESS SERVER:  You are to serve the summons and petition in accordance with MCR 3.920(B)(5) and… 

(Edit: adding the notarized signature of Wendy Yost)

The picture below is of the Michigan Court Rule referenced above.

As you can clearly see, the process server selected, in this case Wendy Yost, was directed to serve the Summons and Petition to Danielle Austin SEVEN DAYS prior to the hearing. Below is a picture of the actual summons that directed and commanded, under threat of warrant and arrest, Danielle Austin to appear in court on 7-23-2014 at 3:00 pm.

As you can clearly see from the image above, Danielle Austin was summoned to appear in court at 3:00 pm on July 23, 2014. Now go back up to the proof of service and take a look at the date and time Danielle Austin was allegedly served and notice that she Proof Of Service claims that Wendy Yost personally served Danielle Austin on July 23, 2014 at 2:57 pm.

Wendy Yost is claiming to have personally served Danielle Austin 3 minutes before the scheduled hearing when she was directed by the Proof Of Service itself to serve Danielle Austin seven days prior the hearing.

How in the hell can this be happening? A summons can only be authorized by a judge. Now lets flip over to page two of the summons and see what judge authorized the summons and when. In the picture below is page two of the summons.

Alleged Judge, William T. Ervin (P30654) signed this summons and order for Danielle Austin to appear in court on the very same day that he signed it. When the summons and petition was given to Wendy Yost she should have said… “Hey William, what in the hell are you doing? The Proof Of Service, and the Michigan Court Rules direct me to serve the Summons and Petition 7 days before the hearing!” To which “The Judge” must have said… “Hey Wendy, have you forgotten who I am? I am a judge and no one can question me. Even if they do darling, we are protected by all the immunity in the world and no one can touch us.” Regardless of the conversation between Wendy Yost  and William Ervin, (if their even was one), Wendy Yost took the Summons and Petition and gave it to another man named Tony Moses, most likely at the time indicated on the Proof Of Service itself which was 2:57 pm on July 23, 2014.

In either  event,  Danielle Austin was never served the Summons and Petition by Wendy Yost at any time ever. Danielle Austin came to possess the Summons and Petition after the hearing was over.

Danielle Austin was “assigned” an attorney before she even knew that she needed an attorney and before she knew that proceedings had commended against her regarding the disposition of her three children.

In the period of time between 2:57 pm and 3:10 pm, on July 23, 2014, Danielle’s life was forever changed in this 13 minutes of injustice.

What part did the Michigan Supreme Court play in all of this you ask? Everything above was allowed to play out exactly like it did because of Michigan Court Rule MCR 3.920(H) pictured below.

This “RULE”, created and maintained by the Michigan Supreme Court, is specifically intended to cure issues related to “Defects in Service”. Additionally, and by no coincidence, this rule also completely strips “Respondent Parents” involved in “Child Protective Proceedings” of their natural right to Due Process at the same time.

With only a causal observation, it is very easy to see in this particular case how the court has become reliant on the ability to unlawfully take jurisdiction through this exigent fraud upon the people created and maintained by the Michigan Supreme Court.

This “Court Rule” is a shortcut, intended to deprive Michigan parents of their rights and ultimately, their children.

The failure to properly notice all parties with regard to legal proceedings is completely fatal to the proceedings themselves. The proceedings are NULL AND VOID entirely.

But the FRAUD does not stop here… In the picture below, additional FRAUD is conducted to conceal the exigent fraud.

The image above is the alleged “COURT ORDER” after the hearing.

THE COURT FINDS:                                                                                                                        7. [X] Notice of hearing was given as required by law.

This claim, is a flat out lie. The reason this check box exists on this form is due to the fact that had the parties not been noticed as required by law, everything they are doing is VOID and the proceedings MUST STOP IMMEDIATELY.

This is a very conclusive statement that is attested to by the alleged Referee in the case as well as the alleged judge that signed this order.  In this particular case the referee was Matthew Hagen and the judge Mark Duthie.

What Matthew Hagen and Mark Duthie want you to believe is that in their professional, personal and occupational review, the proof of service indicates to them that the summons and petition was served personally upon Danielle Austin, seven days before the hearing, as is the requirement of the law. They would also like for We the People to believe that it could even be possible to serve a summons created today, and have it served seven days into the past.

All of these public servants in Mount Pleasant Michigan will ultimately want you to believe that they are just incredibly incompetent (ignorant in fact) but this is not the case either. Each of the participants listed in this article are actively and willingly participating in these FRAUDS against the people of Michigan because these frauds against the people are what generate their paychecks.

If you are reading this article and do not understand how the Michigan Supreme Court has usurped the power of the Michigan Legislature to create this unconstitutional provision in the Michigan Court Rules that specifically deprives respondent parents of their unalienable right to Due Process, you  are obviously not alone. I guess, that as a custom home builder, I am accustomed to reading complex blueprints where one set of instructions are reliant on the understanding and implementation of other instructions while all the time, seeing the big picture.

This big picture in this case is how these despicable county courts, and the public servants that man them, across the country are allowed to rob the people of due process and steal the children of our nation’s poorest people without even the slightest bit of resistance from our alleged “superior courts”.

So  what… What are the implications of this?

Well if the Michigan Supreme Court can set out to create rules to trap you and I in a jurisdiction unlawfully obtained and criminally maintained, what else are they doing?

If the Michigan Supreme Court can create these “rules” and impose them upon the people, as they do on the fly, and the rules are not scrutinized for their constitutionality, we are just totally screwed.

Here again is the original MCR 8.115

Changed to what is in the image below by the Michigan Supreme Court and made effective September 1, 2009

And finally, here are the comments of the Michigan Supreme Court members with regard to the changes they just made to
MCR 8.115.

 

I had to pay someone to get a copy of this. This is directly out of the Michigan Court Rules Annotated.

The comments by the Chief Justice make we want to PROJECTILE  PUKE  all over him/her.

The phrase “portable electronic communication devices”  is used four different times in this bastardized rule originally intended to ensure our courtrooms had a flag and that the judge wore a robe…

“portable electronic communication devices”

NOT

“portable electronics and communication devices”

NOT

“portable, electronic, communication, devices”

I originally thought that Paul Chamberlain was making this huge leap all by himself and he kinda is because people, in general, do not have access to the annotated court rules.

But read again the comments of the all powerful Michigan Supreme Court Justice Kelly below…

It is no coincidence that everyone on the Supreme Court failed and refuse to consider the constitutionality of this rule but… are they required to do so?

Since the Court Rules are only for the administration of the court and were never intended to govern the actions of the people, I would have to conclude that the Michigan Supreme Court had no obligation to ensure the rule, meant only for court staff, had to be constitutional with regard to the public servants it was intended to govern much as the employee handbook for Wal-Mart does not need to to be Constitutional with regard to Wal-Mart employees.

 

MCL 600.901 State bar; membership; public body corporate. 
Sec. 901. The state bar…

Constitutionality: The State of Michigan, through the combined actions of the Supreme Court, the Legislature, and the State Bar, may compulsorily exact dues, and require association of attorneys, to support only those duties and functions of the State Bar which serve a compelling state interest and which cannot be accomplished by means less intrusive upon the First Amendment rights of objecting attorneys. Falk v State Bar, 418 Mich 270; 342 NW2d 504 (1983). The regulation of the practice of law, the maintenance of high standards in the legal profession, and the discharge of the profession’s duty to protect and inform the public are purposes in which the State of Michigan has a compelling interest justifying unavoidable intrusions on the First Amendment rights of attorneys; on the other hand, political and legislative activities are impermissible intrusions, as are activities designed to further commercial and economic interests of the members of the bar. Falk v State Bar, 418 Mich 270; 342 NW2d 504 (1983). 

 

 

 

GOTTA RUN! CHECK BACK FOR THE REST OF THE STORY