“Civilized weapons”

“Civilized weapons” without any protective value leaves only “unciviled weapons” for defense!

by The Reluctant Activist • January 1, 2016 • 0 Comments

What is the definition of a “weapon”? The common definition is

“any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war, as a sword, rifle, or cannon. 2. anything used against an opponent, adversary or victom.”

This begs the question… what if we, citizens, are in a fight with the very government we created but has turned against us; what are our “weapons”?

— the courts?…. presided by a judge who is a member of the very government who has turned against us?
— the sheriff, FBI, prosecutors…. who are subject to judges who are members of the very government that has turned against us?
— or ‘people’, as in a jury, who have the authority over these adversaries who have turned against us?

Scheidler is fighting for “Citizen Rights” in the Fed 9th Circuit against Washington State Government officials who have “turned against us”. Scheidler demanded a “jury trial” — the ONLY civilized weapon citizens have — but Judge Leighton DENIED a jury trial and ruled in governments favor under his own claimed authority. In his appeal Scheidler is setting the stage for a showdown between “Citizens v Government” by raising this issue in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals by citing the following language regarding “standard of review”…

II. Standard of review
Cases dismissed under “court rule” authority are reviewed “de novo”.

“We review the district court’s 12(b)(6) dismissal of Libas’ Bivens claim de novo. See Everest & Jennings, Inc. v. American Motorists Ins. Co., 23 F.3d 226, 228 (9th Cir. 1994). We determine whether, assuming all facts and inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, it appears beyond doubt that Libas can prove no set of facts to support its claims. Id. Libas Ltd. v. Carillo, 329 F.3d 1128, 1130 (9th Cir. Cal. 2003). “An appellate court reviews de novo a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true and construing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Fuqua v. Massey, 615 Fed. Appx. 611 (11th Cir. Ga. 2015)

However Scheidler argues the nature of the relationship between the parties in the instant case in which it is a citizen (Scheidler) v Washington State government officials (defendants), the standard must determine it these government defendants complied or not complied with their constitutional and statutory duties — a jury issue. A jury was demanded, but denied by Judge Leighton in a deliberate attack on Washington State’s Constitution Article 1, Section 21, which guarantees a jury trial in Scheidler’s case by the plain language of SECTION 21

“TRIAL BY JURY. The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate, but the legislature may provide for a jury of any number less than twelve in courts not of record, and for a verdict by nine or more jurors in civil cases in any court of record, and for waiving of the jury in civil cases where the consent of the parties interested is given thereto.”

Therefore, if citizens of Washington State have plenary powers over Washington State’s governments, as Article 1 Sec 1 states by the words “All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed” then REMAND for JURY TRIAL is the only constitutional outcome consistent with these words.

Otherwise, this Court needs to explain how ‘all political power’ resides with Judge Leighton – not the people; and what governments’ ‘just powers’ are reside with Judge Leighton – a government official — and not the people; and what the people ‘consent to’ is also in the hands of Judge Leighton and not the people.

Scheidler pits this “constitutional weapon” versus Judge Leighton’s denial of a jury trial as another violation of law that PROHIBITS judges using their power to deny substantive rights. This prohibition in judges using their power to deny citiens their rights is codified by 28 USC 2072(b)

Now, who do you think the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will side with … Scheidler or their judicial colleague, Judge Leighton, and their government colleagues who betray our trust?

Happy New Year! Hope this is the year WE “CITIZENS” reclaim our powers over government!!!!!