The Conflict of Interest of US Justice Dep
After thirty years of legal wrangling with the corrupt judiciary and Justice Department I truly believe God has provided the LAND MARK CIVIL RIGHTS CONSPIRACY THAT RESULTED IN A HOMICIDE; to break the strangle hold the US Dept. of Justice has on this nation.
HOW OUR JUDGES WERE EMBOLDENED
Arnold A. Anderson, Special agent for the FBI said:
“Well Ralph you know that no U.S. attorney can prosecute a civil rights violation without consent from the United States Justice Department. Well for your information, neither is the FBI allowed to investigate a civil rights violation without their permission.”
It is through this “Obstruction Of Justice” and “Jury Tampering” by the Department of Justice that Judges have the assurance that they are secure from having to account for their replacing our Constitution with “Raw Judicial Power” they are embolden to violate their oath of office in violating our “Civil Rights.”
Deputy United States District Attorney for the State of Montana, Keith Burrows, said years ago:
“The greatest fear of the United States Justice Department is ‘A Run Away Grand Jury’!” The US Attorneys are forbidden to obey the Black Letter Of The Law required in Title 18 U.S.C3332 which says:
“Any such attorney receiving information concerning such an alleged offense from any other person shall, if requested by such other person, inform the grand jury of such alleged offense, the identity of such person, and such attorneys action or recommendation.” Yet the Justice Dept. refuses to allow them to do so.
The lawless state of our nation is due to the stranglehold the United States Department has on this nation by their selective prosecution, refusing to allow criminal prosecution of Civil Rights violations against any dignitary, (form the president down to the lowest public servant) is the root of all our problems.
Every Dignitary is a “Fiduciary” of the highest order, i.e., in a position of utmost public trust or confidence, and therefore has zero tolerance for any breach of that trust. How can any man’s conscience tolerate the thought that Dignitaries are to be held above the Law by the very agency who’s duty it is to prosecute such unthinkable crime?
The Conflict of Interest of US Justice Dep
God has provided a landmark case to establish the conflict of interest of the US Justice system by a petition before a Federal Judge to impanel a special grand jury, and appoint a special prosecutor, which is provided for by law.
THE CIVIL RIGHTS CONSPIRACY
The Farmers State Bank of Conrad Montana (By and through its president Earl M. Berthelson) herein after EMB: The United Bank of Pueblo (By and through its counsel Cresap McCracken) herein after McCracken: Robert S. Keller (appointed by McPhillips after disqualification) herein after Judge Keller: and the Montana Supreme Court: did join in a conspiracy to take a choice wheat farm from the Boumas without any semblance of a right to defend as guaranteed in Chambers v. B & O Railroad Co. 307 U.S.
As presiding judge over Pondera County Causes 8221/8073 Consolidated (a derivative stockholder’s action of the stockholders of Larry C. Iverson Inc asking to set aside Bouma’s Land Contract) EMB, McCracken, and Judge Keller conspired to take Bouma’s farm without naming them as a party to the action, nor giving any chance to defend as follows:
a). EMB boasted they had found a law (in Moor’s Federal Practice which provides that: “If a person attends trial throughout they can be considered as having their day in court.”) whereby they could take Ralph Bouma’s farm without him ever seeing a day in court.
b). This was accomplished by:
1). McCracken causing a subpoena to be served upon Bouma to appear at the courtroom in the Pondera County courthouse at 10:00 October 5, 1970 to testify in behalf of his client [the United Bank of Pueblo].
2). Judge Keller ordered that day that: “any witnesses who have been subpoenaed for today [who was Ralph Bouma only] the subpoena shall continue in existence until the trial is concluded.”
3). Judge Keller reinforced this order upon a continuance of trial with: “Let the record show that we have reconvened in open court, and the reason for reconvening is to simply inform all witnesses [Ralph Bouma being the only witness present] who have been subpoenaed in this matter that their subpoena will continue in full force and effect . . . and your presence will be required at that date and each continuing date until you have been excused, or trial concludes.”
c). Judge Keller denied the defendants any semblance of a defense during trial by not being able to cross-examining witnesses with the assurance “you are going to have lots of time to tell us why you put those entries there. . .at the end of trial”
d). At the conclusion of trial the Defendants were asked how much time they needed to put on their defense.
Their answer was: “Well you gave the Plaintiffs two and a half weeks to put on their case, and I will need about the same amount of time to put on a defense.”
Judge Keller’s response [which he latter admitted under oath] was: “Now look. It’s 2pm. And I’ve checked out of my motel, and I’m going back to Kalispell at 5pm. If you want to be sitting here for two and one half weeks, you may, but I won’t be here.”
In his Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law, and JUDGMENT at the end of trial in Pondera Cause No. 8221 Judge Keller:
a). declared The Land Exchange Contract between Ralph Bouma and Larry C. Iverson, Inc. was “Improvidently entered into and an ultra vies act of Larry C. Iverson, Inc.”
b). charged the corporate officers and Ralph Bouma with two felony crimes: “fraudulent conveyances 94-2101 R.C.M. and larceny 94-2701, M.R.C.M..”
c). ordering the Receiver to confer with the county attorney about prosecuting the corporate officers and Ralph Bouma for fraudulent conveyances 94-2101 R.C.M. and larceny 94-2701, M.R.C.M.. “in the event a transcript of these proceedings is made, for any reason”. thus preventing the corporate officers from exercising their right to appeal, and holding Ralph Bouma bound by his Judgment in Pondera Cause 8221.
BRIBERY INVOLVING THE MONTANA SUPREME COURT
Robert Paul Kropp (a director in Farmers State Bank) seeing the nature of injustices being perpetrated by EMB as president of the bank (after exhausting every honorable means to prevent the injustices) asked Ralph Bouma to go along with an arrangement he had made with Justice Castles of the Montana Supreme Court for a favorable ruling in Bouma’s behalf for $35,000.00. Ralph Bouma refused on the basis that the end did not justify the means.
As a result of Bouma’s refusal to take part in such bribery there was an attempt made on Ralph Bouma’s life, which failed, BUT ROBERT PAUL KROPP WAS MURDERED!
The Montana Supreme Court latter affirmed that Judgment of Judge Keller in 8221-8073 that was void on its face by reason of collusion in the parties Sec 26-3-105 M.C.A. Impeachment of a judicial record, where it found:
“After reviewing the Affidavits, depositions, documents, court decrees, orders and findings of facts and conclusions of law from consolidated 8221/8073, the district court found that the contract was void from the start.” Mont., 639 P.2d 47 at 54.
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE BY
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Based upon the aforementioned crimes committed after a four year investigation by a Federal Postal Inspector (Robert H. Burnet) together with Deputy US Attorney Keith Burrowes prepared a SEVENTY TWO COUNTY GRAND JURY INDICTMENT naming the several attorneys, judges, bankers Etc. as defendants.
HOWEVER: THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE refused to allow prosecution of the Civil Rights violations when United States District attorneys Keith Burrowes and Pete Dunbar pleaded for permission to present Civil Rights violations by the judicial crimes committed against Mr. And Mrs. Bouma and others before a Grand Jury. Federal Postal Inspector Robert H. Burnett attest, the “Justice Department adamantly refused to give permission to do so.”
Mr. Burrowes, Deputy U.S. Attorney In his January 30, 1986 letter to Mr. Ellingwood, Mr. Burrowes, Deputy Us Attorney, says in part;
“. . . I believe, without question, that Ralph Bouma has been mistreated by the bar and the bench of the State of Montana. Further, I believe that he has had property taken from him illegally and without due process of law, all with the knowledge, assent, cooperation and/or active participation of that same bench or bar.
I urge you to do all in your power to arrange for Mr. Bouma to be given an opportunity to meet with and present an overview of his case to the Honorable Mr. Edwin Meese, and to a special investigator to be appointed to review the circumstances. Some of the events and circumstances he will report to such investigator will seem beyond belief in our legal society today‑ I implore you hear him out.”
Former United States District Attorney for the State of Montana, Doris M. Poppler in her November 8, 1990 letter to Ralph Bouma, Conrad, MT, stated in pertinent part:
“I have carefully reviewed your packet of information, and then conferred with the attorneys in this office who are familiar with the history of the litigation. I am assured that Mr. Burrowes personally went to the Department of Justice and argued on your behalf to the full extent of his ability. I am thus informed that the Department of Justice did not allow this office to proceed. These decisions are binding on our office.”
Sherry Scheel Matteucci, United States Attorney, in her August 12, 1997 letter of to Grand Juror Walter Hammermeister to justify removing him from the Grand Jury because of his knowledge of the Civil Rights conspiracy against Ralph Bouma, and the homicide to cover it up. The first stated reason given was:
“As you know, this matter has been reviewed by two of my predecessors. Mr. Dunbar went to some length to generate support for reopening of the Bouma case. Your accusations regarding the conduct of Justice Department attorneys, which I read as allegations of corruption are particularly troubling.”
This type of evidence is what is needed to get a special grandjury and special prosecutor. Once a special grandjury is empaneled it could indict any public oficial who was guilty of crime. Then you would see refomation brake open all over.
Just a few principles to consider:
1). Criminal prosecution is not to vindicate the victims of crime – but the public at large. It is to serve as a deterrent against crime!!
2). The lawless state of our nation is due to the stranglehold the United States Department has on this nation by their conflict of interest and their selective prosecution.
3). Refusing to allow criminal prosecution of Civil Rights violations against any dignitary, is the root of all our problems.
Every Dignitary is a “Fiduciary” of the highest order, i.e., in a position of utmost public trust or confidence, and therefore has zero tolerance for any breach of that trust.
How can any man’s conscience tolerate the thought that Dignitaries are to be held above the Law by the very agency who’s duty it is to prosecute such unthinkable crime?
4). The Almighty has given this case as a landmark case to undo that stranglehold on this nation, and when that is done reformation will break open all over.
5). When does a statute of limitation begin on a void judgment? A judgement that is void on its face for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction is coram non judice, and never was a judgment at all.
6). Property gotten through armed robbery under the color of law is criminal trespass, and they are stalking hot goods!
How long does it take for legal title to become established on stolen goods? There is no statute of limitation on armed robbery!