 |
Linda Shelton says my/our proposed amendments to state statutes are unconstitutional.
Linda Shelton purports to be an expert on everything related to law, the Constitution, and battling corruption. She is not an attorney.
Consider the words of Linda Shelton, and please advise if she is right….
I received a series of emails from Linda Shelton in response to the 17 proposed amendments to Georgia statutes that are posted a few articles below this one on www.LawlessAmerica.com. These 17 proposed amendments are the result of an online videoconference in which 1,300 people participated. I carefully studied the Georgia Code and drafted the proposed amendments.
Email #1 from Linda Shelton
These are constitutionally flawed and you don’t have a snowballs chance in hell of passage. Sorry to inform you that there are supremacy clause issues and extensive supreme court and federal case law precedent barring most of what you are trying to do. You need to tackle a few key points with the help of a constitutional scholar rather than trying to be the jack of all trades in the law and master of none. Remember you can’t eat an elephant in one bite. Also the legislative process requires a lot more care, getting a dedicated sponsor for each issue. Then making sure it is constitutionally valid, shephardizing each issue carefully for federal and state precedent, checking for unintended collateral damage, etc. your proposed amendments to the law are so invalid under federalism and precedent that I don’t know where to begin. I’m very pressed trying to meet deadlines but will try to give specific comments and case law on a few points next week to give you specific details as to what I mean in above comments so you can better understand what is possible and what is not in our perverted law system. One quick ex is that rules of removal to fed court are NOT affected by state law due to supremacy clause. You can write any state law you want about this and it will be subordinate to fed law and therefore totally impotent and invalid. If there issues of diversity then no state law can address this as one state has no jurisdiction over another state – only fed law can address diversity. It’s not just federalism but also stare decisis in the whole body of case law that issues defy casual logic and common sense but when viewed under the light of careful constitutional analysis including precedent going back hundreds of yeas including historical common law issues it actually makes sense though on casual look it makes no common sense. There must be balance between constitutional principles and individual rights with careful avoidance of mob mentality and decision by emotion without careful analysis.
My Reply to Email #1
Gee Linda, I respectfully DISAGREE. Federal law has little to do with state statutes. I don’t know what planet you are on, but it doesn’t seem to be the same one I am on. Foreclosure, probate/guardianship/conservatorship, magistrate court procedures, pro se rights in state courts, judicial qualifications for state positions, children and families, state perjury statutes, accountability, regulation of practice of law in the state, special state grand juries, state court judicial immunity, state attorney licensing, relief from state court judgments or orders, state court rules of civil procedure regarding summary judgments, state court service of process, state court declaratory judgments, and state court appeals are the 17 statutes, and none has a thing to do with federal case law precedents.
Email #2 from Linda Shelton
Bill do you understand that U.S. constitutional rights cannot be erased by state law? Do you understand the affect of the supremacy Clause? What about separation of powers? You are proposing giving judiciary powers to executive branch and executive branch powers to judiciary. You really don’t understand the power of constitutional federal rights vs states’ rights; the concepts of immunity and the two hundred plus yrs of case law surrounding it; the concept of legislative power and authority vs constitutional principles that cant be negated by state law but which require constitutional amendment. If you don’t believe me then find a constitutional legal scholar to explain this. Saying I’m on another planet is insulting and tells me you simply don’t have a very good grasp of constitutional law, states rights, and the weight of Stare decisis. Ad hominem attacks usually mean the person simply is ignorant and shooting from the hip. I want to help but it’s a waste of my time if all you want to do is attack me. If you are serious about reform you should take my comments more graciously and wait for more details as I slowly have to comment on each suggested change in law. You may want to start by picking one important issue, sending your concern to a law school professor or constitutional scholar or appellate attorney, ask for their critique as to possible unconstitutionality and ask for their suggestion as to how to write or change law to address that one issue. I would suggest that you say these are rough ideas and not more than beginning attempts to start defining the problems so that they don’t get turned off by the very insufficient and amateurish writing of these proposed “amendments” as if you push too hard that they are well thought out they will ignore you as too ignorant. I’ve worked with Sen OMalley in IL in drafting laws and have experience in this area and experience working with lawyers from ACLU and experience as a paralegal drafting petitions to IL supreme court and U.S. Supreme Court one pleading awaiting opinion in IL Supreme Court regarding extortion of excessive fees by family court appointed attorneys. I work for attorneys writing appeals and other pleadings such as 383 petitions for supervisory orders for mandamus, for leave to appeal, etc.
Email #3 from Linda Shelton
I have won 25 fraudulent criminal cases against myself in retaliation for my whistle blowing – jury bench and pretrial.
I have won 3 appeals
I write appeals to the Illinois Appellate Court, Illinois Supreme Court and US Supreme Court FOR Attorneys. I assist attorneys in malpractice cases and I have a 100% win rate when I do this.
I have extensive notes on constitutional law and related case law – you simply have no understanding of this.
I speak with members of the US Supreme Court bar including law school deans such as Erwin Chemerinsky and John Levi (brother of US Attorney Ed Levi under President Bush), as well as leading members in organizations like the Center for Constitutional Rights.
Please be my guest and be a fool and disregard what I say. You can’t over-rule the constitution and the Bill of Rights and several hundred years of case law. There are things that can be changed but they have to be constitutionally sound in the way they are written and your writings are so far from being sound its simply ridiculous and since you are unwilling to listen, its a lost cause.
So far you have accomplished NOTHING.
I am willing to help, but you are not willing to accept ANY criticism or assistance.
You need to face reality and stop dealing in your own interpretation of law and the constitution, which is dead wrong.
I can see my belief that you had a small possibility of bringing important issues to the forefront is totally misplaced. Unfortunately I now believe you are doing great harm in stringing along people wasting their efforts for a lost cause, acting as if you know what you are talking about. You will only make things worse for those that are actually accomplishing something because the powers that be will label you as a nut, bar you from filing and you will have associated us with this and smeared our names.
I have to categorize you with other naive persons who do not have a snowballs chance in hell of succeeding because they believe they are know it alls and can move mountains – in their narcissistic world.
The Proposed Legislation
Proposed Legislation – Part 10
Proposed Legislation – Part 11
Proposed Legislation – Part 12
Proposed Legislation – Part 13
Proposed Legislation – Part 14
Proposed Legislation – Part 15
Proposed Legislation – Part 16
Proposed Legislation – Part 17
William M. Windsor
I, William M. Windsor, am not an attorney. This website expresses my OPINIONS. The comments of visitors or guest authors to the website are their opinions and do not therefore reflect my opinions. Anyone mentioned by name in any article is welcome to file a response. This website does not provide legal advice. I do not give legal advice. I do not practice law. This website is to expose government corruption, law enforcement corruption, political corruption, and judicial corruption. Whatever this website says about the law is presented in the context of how I or others perceive the applicability of the law to a set of circumstances if I (or some other author) was in the circumstances under the conditions discussed. Despite my concerns about lawyers in general, I suggest that anyone with legal questions consult an attorney for an answer, particularly after reading anything on this website. The law is a gray area at best. Please read our Legal Notice and Terms.
{jcomments on}