As most of my readers are aware – I’m pretty ruthless against badgefags and politicians who think they have the magic power to use force and violence against others in furtherance of political or social objectives. I call them out at every turn, expose them for being liars and sociopaths, and make fun of them for being such disgusting wastes of human flesh. They are rotten people and truly deserve it.
Liawyers also receive no quarter from me. As far as I’m concerned – there is no more diabolically dishonest profession of people on the planet right now. Their absolutely vapid conduct goes far beyond simple malfeasance. Liawyers are narcissistic predators of an entirely alien nature from my perspective.
What facts and evidence do I rely upon to reach this conclusion? Read ‘em and weep:
Case #1 Gideon Newmark (WSBA# 43838)
I’ve always given defense attorneys a pass. Yeah, they are liawyers at the end of the day, but in many cases they are defending people’s rights against predatory government and morally bankrupt prosecuting attorneys and badgefags. But this case pretty much indicted the entire lot of them along with their prosecuting and judging gang members.
Based on the success of Marc Stevens' work in challenging jurisdiction and demanding that the liawyers follow the rules of the court and provide evidence of their claims - I reached out via email to the Washington State Office Of Public Defense. In that email, I asked a simple question;
“Good day.
I've got a question that no public defenders I've asked are willing to answer and was wondering if you could help. Why don't defense attorneys ever attack jurisdiction in cases where their clients never harmed another person (drug possession, victimless "crimes", gun possession, nanny state codes, etc.) and there is no personam jurisdiction???
I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that this is such an easy defense to set up. All you really need to do is a file a motion for discovery and specifically request from the prosecution - "any and all evidence which proves the defendant was subject to the constitution and the codes of Washington State for the sole reason that the defendant was physically in Washington State."
I then specify how to structure the motion based on Marc Stevens' work and what benefits it brings to the defendant based on the success of Marc Stevens' arguments and procedure.
As a response, Managing Attorney Gideon Newmark responded:
“While our office isn’t able to provide legal advice, I’m afraid your argument is based on a misperception of the law of personal jurisdiction. This would not be a successful defense.”
Now, never in my email did I ask for any “legal advice”. Gideon clearly either misinterpreted what I was asking, or made that straw-man up to dodge the issue I was raising. I proceeded to drill down farther and challenge Gideon’s response:
“Then why did the judge in this case rule that the prosecution failed to prove jurisdiction because the prosecution could not provide any evidence that the defendant was subject to the constitution and codes of the territory for the sole reason that the defendant was physically in the territory?
Do you think the judges in those cases made their rulings on the same "misperception of the law" you claim my argument is based on? Was raising this issue not a "successful defense" as you claim? What facts and evidence did you rely upon to determine that 'this would not be a successful defense' because it's 'based on a misperception of the law'?
Marc Stevens has literally gotten hundreds of cases tossed out using this exact same method. You can go to his website and download the template motions. Most of the time the prosecution withdrawals the case so they don't get hit with prosecutorial misconduct. If you would like, I can send you all the evidence. It's incredibly effective.
Lastly, I wasn't asking for legal advice. I was asking why public defenders - who are supposed to "zealously" defend their clients - are not taking any action to hold the prosecution to its burden of proof and demand they provide evidence that the constitution and codes of Washington state apply to the defendant for the sole reason that the defendant is physically in Washington state.
So long as public defenders continue to let the prosecution argue without evidence and not hold them accountable to the rules of our courts - these public defenders are as guilty as the prosecutors in violating the defendant's right to due process.
I just want an explanation as to why.”
Having clarified what I’m asking for, and providing evidence that Gideon’s response was incorrect, Gideon continues to dodge the question by responding;
“As I said, I cannot provide legal advice. Explaining the law to you would constitute me providing legal advice to you on your legal rights and duties. I believe you are mistaken about the nature of the law but that is as far as I can take this conversation.”
Now, I had clearly pointed out in my previous email that I was not looking for legal advice. Here we see Gideon make a false argument that “explaining the law” would constitute providing legal advice. He knows full well I’m not looking for any explanation of the law – I’m looking for an explanation as to why the people under contract with his office are not doing anything to uphold the rules in the courts for indigent defendants. This is one of the most clever techniques liawyers use to avoid answering questions which indicts their conduct. It’s part of who they are as people, incredibly deceitful and dishonest.
The most shocking aspect of this interaction is the fact that I just handed Gideon and his office information that could potentially help indigent defendants. You would think he would "zealously" investigate this information and take action. But no, he didn’t want anything to do with it, and even went so far so to lie and deflect to further the corruption in the legal system.
Not wanting to be put out by a liawyer, I doubled down and responded;
“I've already clarified I'm not asking for legal advice. "Explaining the law to me" would not constitute giving me legal advice anymore than 5 Supreme Court justices telling 4 Supreme court justices that their interpretation of the law was wrong when they issue a ruling.
I mean, come on, when 9 seasoned professional justices look at identical facts and evidence and come to a split decision as to what is/isn't lawful - it's not like "the law" is some concrete thing we all agree on and intrinsically know. It's just the majority opinions of people who wear costumes for a living and pretend like they can rule over strangers.
As Fred Rodell, professor of law at Yale University wrote in "Woe unto you lawyers"; "...the whole pseudo-science of The Law, regardless of its results, is a fraud."
It's a good read. I'll drop a link for you so you can have a better understanding of the nature of the law like me: http://www.constitution.org/lrev/rodell/woe_unto_you_lawyers.htm
I think you are liawying about being "mistaken about the nature of the law" to dodge the issue I am raising. If you'd like to prove that for me, just refuse to honestly answer the following questions regarding the issue I'm raising:
Is it true that - "The mission of the Washington State Office of Public Defense (OPD) is "to implement the constitutional and statutory guarantees of counsel and to ensure the effective and efficient delivery of indigent defense services funded by the state... ."
When indigent defendants are charged with a crime - is jurisdiction an element of that charge?
Is the standard for a conviction set at - "beyond a reasonable doubt"?
If the prosecution can not provide any evidence which proves the constitution and the codes of Washington state apply to the defendant for the sole reason that the defendant was physically in Washington - does this create a "reasonable doubt" that the defendant was actually subject to those codes?
When public defenders take no action to demand evidence from the prosecution (which proves the constitution and the codes of Washington state apply to the defendant for the sole reason that the defendant was physically in Washington), and the public defenders accept the jurisdictional element of the charge without any question or contention in clear collusion with the prosecution (who is also unethically arguing without evidence in violation of the rules they are supposed to follow) - is that a violation of the indigent defendant's constitutional and statutory guarantees of effective counsel?
If the Washington State Office of Public Defense is made aware of the violation of 'constitutional and statutory guarantees to ensure the effective and efficient delivery of indigent defense services funded by the state' - but refuses to "ensure the effective delivery" of these services - is the OPD liable for these violations if they take no action to correct them?
"Most of what attorneys say is a distraction and a dodge from the actual issue that you are raising." - Marc Stevens.
And here Gideon avoids addressing my issue and confirms that he is liawying by avoiding my questions:
“Regardless of whether you consider your questions to constitute requests for legal advice, I am not able to engage further with you on this subject. Our agency does not provide the service of answering general legal questions. Any specific questions related to any case you may be involved with should be directed to your attorney.”
Gideon knows that no attorneys, judges, (or badgefags) I’ve addressed these issues with will respond to my questions. Because, if they did, they would have to actually address the issue I am raising – the fact that they are all criminally working together in direct violation of the defendant's natural right to due process. If they answer my questions and engage the issue, they have to personally accept responsibility for all the harm they've caused.
And that is precisely why liawyers lie about this stuff. They know they will be liable if they tell the truth. Honest people don’t conduct themselves that way. But this is who liawyers are as people. It is the essence of their being. It is why they will say whatever it takes to avoid addressing the issue.
CASE #2 – Jeffrey Niesen (WSBA# 33850)
In the Federal Case against me where Andrea George, director of the Federal Defenders, (or possibly someone in the FBI or US Marshals Office) forged a threatening letter from me – I had them dead to rights. My uncle had the original copy I backed up online – time stamped and dated. People were going to prison, and it wasn’t going to be me.
The defense attorney appointed to me by Federal District Judge Thomas O. Rice, Jeffrey Scott Niesen, decided that he wasn’t going to present my defense in court. Instead, he took $2500 from my family for a private investigator, Ted Pulver, who didn’t do anything I asked of him and lied right to my family.
In an email to my family dated March 25, 2016 – Jeffrey Niesen states:
“The Neighbors are scared of Brent and are uncooperative. This includes interviews
with Heather and Chris XXXXX. We went house by house and could find nobody supportive of Brent.”
Contrast Jeff Niesen’s above statement with Chris XXXXX’X email dated March 25th, 2016
which clearly states:
“I am not scared of Brent! Jeff doesn’t even know me. How can he accuse me of being scared and uncooperative? I haven’t been presented with anything to cooperate with!”....”I just went over to Anthony and Heather’s house to ask them about it. Heather said they received the note I left them and they contacted the PI and spoke with him at length of the help Brent give them and their whole “ordeal”. She looked me right in the eye and said, ‘we are not afraid of Brent.’”
What was Jeff Niesen’s reaction when called out for lying? Duck and cover!
In an email dated March 14th, 2016 sent from my uncle Randy to Jeff Niesen, Randy clearly states:
“Brent has asked if his signature on that letter could be analyzed.”
Jeff Niesen responds to that email by stating:
“I have no funds absent court approval to hire a handwriting expert.”
After I filed a motion with the Federal District Court of E. Washington under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Federal Case #2:16-CV-0049-TOR) to vacate my conviction due to Jeffrey Niesen’s dishonest and corrupt counsel - Jeffrey Niesen filed a sworn affidavit, that was presented by the Federal Government, in response to my motion. In that affidavit, Jeffrey Niesen states (on page 2, lines 9-13):
“I deny that I was ever asked to determine the authorship of any letter. At no time did Mr. Russ claim that the letter provided to the defense with the government’s discovery was not the letter Mr. Russ sent.”
To be fair, Jeff Niesen is a former prosecuting attorney – so you can pretty much bank on the fact that the guy wouldn’t tell the truth if you paid him to. But, as my “defense attorney”, he thinks that committing perjury against a former client to help uphold a conviction is no problem. This is liawying at its very best.
Jeffrey Niesen stated in an email to my uncle Randy dated March 14th, 2016 regarding the test of the signature,
“If it is positive, that’s OK but still doesn’t answer the question who altered the letter and why.”
Ted Pulver claims in his declaration presented to the Washington State Bar Association Office Of Disciplinary Counsel on page 2, lines 1-3, that;
“According to Russ, he had worked with the special agent years back in Montana and that the agent had a beef with him that was the cause of the current charges.”
Never once did I say that Special Agent Ryan Edwards was the “cause of the current charges”. As you can clearly see from Jeff’s email – I was simply offering an explanation to Jeff’s question of “who altered the letter and why.” It was part of the defense I was setting up, it was part of the evidence I needed to defend myself. The letter presented by the Federal Government against me was a forgery, I told both Pulver and Niesen that, and that is why I wanted the signature examined and Agent Edward’s old boss interviewed to establish motive and history. That is why I wanted Anthony and Heather, my neighbors, interviewed to provide the Court with evidence for criminal motive of the Federal Government.
I had evidence that the big banks were forging documents to foreclose on homes they had no legal title to, and the money was being funneled into the Federal Employee Retirement System. Anthony and Heather could confirm I obtained that evidence as it was their foreclosure I was working on when I obtained it. That’s a pretty good motive to frame someone, right?.
This is how people like Jeff Niesen (liawyers) operate. They hate the truth. It’s a constant game of manipulation, treachery, and deceit to get whatever it is they want. Usually that means more money or to avoid the consequences of their naturally unethical behavior.
CASE #3 Jeffry Finer (WSBA# 14610)
I reached out in an email to Jeffry Finer, Jeff Niesen’s attorney for the bar complaint, and said:
“Attached is my recent response to the Washington State Bar Association along with the corresponding evidence regarding Jeffrey Scott Niesen and Ted Pulver.
I was wondering if you could do me a huge favor. Since you are a lawyer and part of a field of professionals who are so ethical, trustworthy, and honest; would you be so kind as to personally contact Sachia Stonefeld Powell and ask for her to follow through on the recommendation in my response? If you could help reinforce what I asked for, and request the FBI or Thomas O. Rice provide a forensic analysis of the signature on the letter I claimed was a forgery - then the evidence will clearly point out who is trying to defraud the Washington State Bar Association and whether or not multiple Federal laws were broken against me.
I'm confident you lawyers are just like us engineers - we just want the facts to come out and we would never lie or try to persuade someone else of something we know to be untrue. I believe this is a key piece of evidence in determining what actually transpired and with your assistance, the truth will set this whole thing straight. Evidence cannot lie.”
Now to be honest, I was definitely being pretty snarky with the whole “field of professionals who are so ethical, trustworthy, and honest” bit. But maybe Jeffry Finer was a unicorn in the liawyer profession who actually did care about people being harmed and did want the truth to come out. I figure I’d at least give him the chance to let the evidence speak for itself.
As you can see from Mr. Finer himself - that is a big fat nope:
“Thank you for the copies of your response.
I am unable to do the favor you request, as my role is limited to assisting Mr. Niesen. With respect, I remain,
Very truly yours,
Now this raised an interesting question. First - How would Jeffry Finer know whether or not the presentation of evidence (that the Federal Government, Jeff Niesen, and Thomas O. Rice had done everything in their power to conceal from the public record ) would not “assist Mr. Niesen”?
I had to ask:
“Mr. Finer,
Are you saying that requesting evidence be provided to the ODC for them to make an accurate determination would not 'assist Mr. Niesen'?
Deflect, dodge and avoid. He responded:
“I am saying I am not permitted to advocate for you.
You may make your own arrangements to have your letter examined. You are welcome to get your own counsel to help, or you can locate and hire an expert on your own without a lawyer.
You asked me for a favor, I respectfully declined. Given my review of the record in your case and given my knowledge of the limitations of document examinations (which often only speak in rather soft conclusions such as, “the questioned signature is consistent with exemplars, or inconsistent with exemplars” and do not often come right out and say a signature is 100% genuine or 100% fake), I do not believe the expense of the evaluation would be worth the money. You are free to disagree and to get an evaluation.”
Finer is completely aware I wasn’t asking him to advocate for me. I was asking him to request that evidence be provided to the Bar Association to make an accurate determination. That evidence isn’t available to me - the Federal Government worked hand in hand with Jeff Niesen and Thomas O. Rice to keep that evidence out of the court. Finer is also aware of our original bar complaint in which I noted that Jeff Niesen showed me two different variations with two different signatures of the forged letter. Andrea George may have forged the first, but when my uncle confronted them on a discrepancy, Niesen presented me with a second one which was altered to clear up the discrepancy in that sentence which I was disputing.
The conclusions reached wouldn’t be “rather soft” in this case – they would either examine the forged letter that was different than the one used in the indictment and prove US Attorney Rudy Verschooor, FBI Agent Special Ryan R. Edwards, U.S. Marshal Cory Cunningham, Jeffrey Niesen, and Angelle Gerl committed perjury and criminally conspired in the case against me – or they would examine the other forged letter which would most likely prove it was forged. That’s a rather evident conclusion, which Mr. Finer is well aware of my allegations – and that is a more plausible explanation to why he refused to join me and ask for that evidence. Liawyers have an abhorrence for the objective truth.
CASE #4: Federal District Judge Thomas O. Rice.
He’s a former Assistant U.S. Attorney. This guy has seen the evidence that Jeff Niesen committed perjury against me, I mailed it to him certified USPS. What did he do about it? Nothing. He’s seen my original letter backed up online, and refused to order the FBI to turn over a forensic analysis of the signature. Why? Because he may wear a cute little black dress like a bitch now - but at the end of the day he’s still a liawyer inside. Truth and evidence aren’t required in his courtroom. All he needs are the statements of people who have a hard time telling the truth and believe in crazy fantasies like written instruments apply to people if they are physically located somewhere.
There is only one thing consistent that Thomas O. Rice does - Rubber stamp whatever his felon buddies in the U.S. Attorney's Office/FBI say – and throw anything in the trash which threatens to expose their blatantly criminal conduct.
Why? Because at the end of the day he has the same mental illness pretty much every liawyer has – pathological dishonesty.
Conclusion
The evidence, in all these cases, seems to indicate a rather disturbing pattern. I have more cases just like this where liawyers do the same exact thing. Defense attorneys are like prosecuting attorneys, and just like the judges that are chosen from this cesspool of miscreants.
They all get their paycheck from the same source, and when it comes down to respecting the natural rights of peaceful people to pursue happiness, or enforcing the government’s edict of using force and violence in furtherance of political or social objectives – the verdict is clear. Liawyers will commit any crime, tell any lie, dodge any question, break any rule, and cover up for anyone to ensure the pseudo-scientific, fraudulent, corrupt legal system (that pays them awfully well) continues to feed off the souls of peaceful people who have never harmed or injured anyone else.
That is who liawyers are as people. That is what they are truly “zealous” about.
The real question is - Why do the rest of us associate with them? It seems the most simple answer is to just shun them all until they behave like honest, decent, respectable human beings. Maybe when we get to that point, we won’t have to make up anymore jokes about killing them.
Until then - What do you get when you have nine liawyers up to their necks in cement? A sickle.
"In TRIBAL TIMES, there were the medicine-men. In the Middle Ages, there were the priests. Today there are the lawyers. For every age, a group of bright boys, learned in their trade and jealous of their learning, who blend technical competence with plain and fancy hocus-pocus to make themselves masters of their fellow men. For every age, a pseudo-intellectual autocracy, guarding the tricks of its trade from the uninitiated, and running, after its own pattern, the civilization of its day.
It is the lawyers who run our civilization for us – our governments, our business, our private lives. Most legislators are lawyers; they make our laws. Most presidents, governors, commissioners, along with their advisers and brain-trusters are lawyers; they administer our laws. All the judges are lawyers; they interpret and enforce our laws. There is no separation of powers where the lawyers are concerned. There is only a concentration of all government power – in the lawyers. As the schoolboy put it, ours is “a government of lawyers, not of men.
It is not the businessmen, no matter how big, who run our economic world. Again it is the lawyers, the lawyers who “advise” and direct every time a company is formed, every time a bond or a share of stock is issued, almost every time material is to be bought or goods to be sold, every time a deal is made. The whole elaborate structure of industry and finance is a lawyer-made house. We all live in it, but the lawyers run it.” -Fred Rodell, Professor Of Law - Yale University, "Woe Unto You Lawyers"
I followed and up votes you. please followback @huanmv
Congratulations @brentruss! You have completed the following achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on the badge to view your Board of Honor.
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPDo not miss the last post from @steemitboard:
SteemitBoard and the Veterans on Steemit - The First Community Badge.