One thing all Americans seem to be able to agree on no matter what end of the spectrum they are from, is that corruption is running rampant within local, state, and federal agencies. People agree when it comes to the court process, all judges should be fair, impartial, and abide by their oath.
Many people from all walks of life are focused on the 2014 elections. As grassroots movements have arisen in opposition to rampant corruption and wasteful spending, many are also focusing on the importance of exposing those on local, state, and federal levels that “could” or “would” be detrimental to American citizens' sovereignty and their personal rights.In my opinion, the most dangerous place for corruption to take root is within the judicial system. Corruption within the judicial system endangers everyone’s right to justice under law, and a fair trial. America relies on judges to uphold the ultimate rule of law the Constitution of the United States.
Judges are, and always will be, the barrier between an overreaching government, protection for all citizens via “innocent until proven guilty,” and protecting our constitutional rights. When any of these lines become blurred, due to political loyalty, all citizens are in danger of abuse by the system created to protect those rights.
It is our job to be aware if these candidates are going to follow the rule of law, our constitution, and uphold justice. It is not only our responsibility to vet these candidates, but to also make the American public aware of our findings, whether good or bad.
This is not a Republican, Democrat, Independent, nor Tea Party issue. These issues effect every American citizen. Example: When, or if, you go into court for charges filed against you, you will stand against those charges. Your political affiliation will not be on trial, you will be on trial. At that point, it will be you, the judge, the jury (if you have one), and attorneys. If you do not have a jury, your life is in the hands of the judge.
All Americans can agree, if they ever have to face charges they want their judge to be fair, impartial, honest, and know that their judge holds their constitutional rights in high regard. On October 21, 2013 I contacted 2014 Judicial Candidate James Patrick Crawley, whom is running for circuit court judge for Cook County, IL. My purpose was to find out where he stood on three extremely important issues Americans face today. They were not related to any party affiliation, but are very real issues that effect people from all walks of life. His answers may or may not disturb you.
1. Do you support NDAA which allows for indefinite detention of American citizens without charges or trial?
2. Do you support UN SATT/ATT Treaty?
3. Are we a Republic or a Democracy?
I am a democratic candidate. I apologize, but as a judicial candidate, I am not permitted to take public positions on matters that may come before the court. Thank you for your questions.
I don’t know about you, but to me this is political side stepping at it’s best.
#1) When has there ever been a case come up before any court that is to determine whether America is a “Republic” or a “Democracy”?
#2) UN ATT/SATT is international and would be handled by congress. The senate has already taken a stand and refuse to ratify this treaty due to the possible violations of American’s individual sovereignty of their second amendment protections guaranteed by our constitution.
#3) By James Patrick Crawley giving a “judicial” oath, he would already have to take a stand against the NDAA indefinite detention of American citizens without charges or trial. Our Fifth Amendment already protects against this and is supposed to be solidified by his oath.
The oath of office for Judge in Illinois is as follows:
In Illinois, 705 ILCS 205/4 states "Every person admitted to practice as an attorney and counselor at law shall, before his name is entered upon the roll to be kept as hereinafter provided, take and subscribe an oath, substantially in the following form:
'I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be), that I will support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Illinois, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of attorney and counselor at law to the best of my ability.'"
In Illinois, a judge must take a second oath of office. Under 705 ILCS 35/2 states, in part, that "The several judges of the circuit courts of this State, before entering upon the duties of their office, shall take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation, which shall be filed in the office of the Secretary of State:
'I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the State of Illinois, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of judge of ______ court, according to the best of my ability.'"
Further, if the judge had enlisted in the U.S. military, then he has taken a third oath. Under Title 10 U.S.C. Section 502 the judge had subscribed to a lifetime oath, in pertinent part, as follows: "I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; ...".
The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.". Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958).
Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason.
Having taken at least two, if not three, oaths of office to support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Illinois, any judge who has acted in violation of the Constitution is engaged in an act or acts of treason (see below).
If a judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), he/she is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act or acts of treason.
My question is, does Mr. James Patrick Crawley really stand for the oath he will be required to take? Does he truly believe in the rule of law? Does he, or doesn’t he stand for the constitution? That, I do not know for sure. Are you willing to bet your life on it? Are you willing to take that chance? I’m not!