Hello,
I'd like to offer a little clarification regarding Anthony WIlliams and Private Attorneys General.
Honestly, I am not impressed with WIllams' grasp of the law, nor his demeanor and presentation, nor his application of the law.
However, he is correct, to some degree, about private attorneys general.
One cannot claim to "be" a private attorney general, generally, as Williams does.
One "acts" as a private attorney general, proceeding under a particular act of congress, in a particular matter, and they do so in name of The United States or a State, and are authorized to do so by both congress and the supreme court.
Our government relies heavily on private citizens enforcing the law.
The most common acts ,PAGs move under, are the Labor, KKK, Sherman, Hobbs, Civil Rights, Crime Victims' Rights, and RICO Acts, as well the Subversive Activities statutes (18 US Code Chapter 15), and contempt of court.
Private prosecution survives to this day, and remains a protected right, especially where members of private organizations occupy government seats ,or are , or have conflicts interest with, officers of the court, and are charged parties, where there is pattern criminal or tortuous behavior of those organizations' agents evident, and especially where colorable crime is evident, as the private citizens' right to prosecute official crime is the first and last fundamental check of power and means to hold officials accountable to the electorate, and mitigate the inertia of authoritarian rule, which is the exact antithesis of Constitutionalism.
When a government is infiltrated by private criminal agencies, and the courts, prosecutorial mechanisms, and practice of law are monopolized, by those agencies, under color of law, there is no other means of rescue for the government, nor defense of victims' rights, than private prosecution by private attorneys general.
This happened during the Revolutionary and Civil War eras, and is why congress made the Three Force Acts, aka, the KKK Act, and subversive activities statutes.
Some states, which were former slave states, took colorable crime so seriously, due to the pro-slavery organizations' and KKK's subversive effect on their governments, that those states, like Virginia, do not have a KKK Act equivalent, and include the intents and purposes of the KKK Act in their treason statutes and define and treat colorable crime as treason and usurpation, which it most certainly is.
Where officers of the court, Peace Officers, lawmakers, and Conservators of the Peace abandon their loyalty to the Constitution and lawful government of the USA, and abuse their offices and discretion to deprive any protected right, which includes a defendant's right to control their defense and a plaintiff's right to privately prosecute, without a showing of actual incompetence nor exigence, there exists no more greater threat to national security, and the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command Systems Center ,and China, consider subversive lawfare an act of war, and both engage in lawfare as one of three fundamental methods of fighting a war.
"The threat of subversion presents a significant risk when considering adversaries engaged in a broad spectrum of information warfare activities. Recent security incidents as well as historical records of subversion demonstrate that the threat is real. Examination of the requirements for carrying out a subversion indicates that it is feasible in the context of the development of contemporary [statutory information] systems. Mitigation of the subversion threat touches the most fundamental aspect of the security problem: proving the absence of a malicious artifice." (Subversion as a Threat in Information Warfare;Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command Systems Center Charleston)
“the central principle of the First Amendment is that the citizenry is the master and the government is the servant.“(New York Times Co. v. Sullivanl)
“The Constitution reflects a significant concern with preventing corruption in all levels of the government.” (Henning, 92 Kentucky L.J. 75, 84 [2003]).
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which could abrogate them." [Miranda v. Arizona , 384 US 436, 491]
"Each citizen acts as a private attorney general who 'takes on the mantel of sovereign'"Title 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, Wood v. Breier, 54 F.R.D. 7, 10-11 (E.D. Wis. 1972). Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59 F.R.D. 339 (E.D. Pa. 1973).
“The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice. “[Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, 24.]
“Additionally, victims [and their representatives] may independently assert their right to restitution, absent state involvement.”( See Melissa J. v. Superior Court, 237 Cal. Rptr. 5, 6-7 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987)) (allowing victim to petition court for relief directly when her restitution award was terminated, without notice).
“The prosecution is conducted in the name of the United States government" See United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A. v. Karen Bags, Inc. 602 F. Supp. 1052, 1055 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd sub nom. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A. v. Klayminc, 780 F.2d 179 (2d Cir. 1985), petition for cert. filed sub nom. Young v. United States, 54 U.S.L.W. 3565 (U.S. Feb. 6, 1986) (No. 85-1329)
“The power to bring a private prosecution is an ancient one explicitly preserved by s6 POA 85 … it seems inevitable that the number of private prosecutions will increase, particularly in areas relating to the criminal misuse of intellectual property [ie,Public Offices and statutes of states]. In the overwhelming majority of such cases, a prosecution will serve the public interest in addressing such criminal conduct.””(Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers [1978] AC 435, 477.)
“Though the law itself be fair on its face, and impartial in appearance, yet, if it is applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and an unequal hand, so as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations between persons in similar circumstances, material to their rights, the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the Constitution.” Yick Wo v. Hopkins Id. at 373-74.
"It {The Force Acts}authorizes any person who is deprived of any right, privilege, or immunity secured to him by the 180*180 Constitution of the United States, to bring an action against the wrong-doer in the Federal courts, and that without any limit whatsoever as to the amount in controversy. The deprivation may be of the slightest conceivable character, the damages in the estimation of any sensible man may not be five dollars or even five cents; they may be what lawyers call merely nominal damages; and yet by this section jurisdiction of that civil action is given to the Federal courts instead of its being prosecuted as now in the courts of the States." [] "The question is not whether a majority of the people in a majority of the States are likely to be attached to and able to secure their own liberties. The question is not whether the majority of the people in every State are not likely to desire to secure their own rights. It is, whether a majority of the people in every State are sure to be so attached to the principles of civil freedom and civil justice as to be as much desirous of preserving the liberties of others as their own, as to insure that under no temptation of party spirit, under no political excitement, under 183*183 no jealousy of race or caste, will the majority either in numbers or strength in any State seek to deprive the remainder of the population of their civil rights." Monroe v. Pape, 365 US 167 - Supreme Court 1961 ,at 176-186
DOJ Justice Manual 9-110.100 - Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO)
"On October 15, 1970, the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 became law. Title IX of the Act is the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Statute (18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968), commonly referred to as the "RICO" statute. The purpose of the RICO statute is "the elimination of the infiltration of organized crime and racketeering into legitimate organizations operating in interstate commerce." S.Rep. No. 617, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. 76 (1969). However, the statute is sufficiently broad to encompass illegal activities relating to any enterprise affecting interstate or foreign commerce."
Under 42 US Code 1988, "In Rivera, the Supreme Court, in upholding an award of attorney's fees more than seven times greater than the compensatory and punitive damages award in the underlying civil rights suit,' provided an examination of the Act's legislative history since unencountered in the Court's opinions, be they majority opinions, concurrences, or dissents." 477 U.S. 561 (1986). 29. Id. at 564-65 (plurality opinion).
"a unanimous Supreme Court in Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bara flatly held that "the practice of law is not exempt from antitrust as a "learned profesion.""
The U.S. Supreme Court has gradually recognized a defendant’s right to counsel of his or her own choosing. A court may deny a defendant’s choice of attorney in certain situations, however, such as if the court concludes that the attorney has a significant conflict of interest. Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (1988).
"We should be the last to deny that Mr. Meeker [Law Practitioner] has the right to uphold the honor of the profession [Craft of Law]and to expose without fear or favor corrupt or dishonest conduct in the profession, whether the conduct be that of a judge or not." (In re Meeker, 76 N.M. 354, 364-65, 414 P.2d 862, 869 (1966), appeal dismissed, 385 U.S. 449,17 L.Ed.2d 510, 87 S.Ct. 613 (1967).)
“civil rights plaintiffs are relied upon to act as "private attorneys general"1 in the prosecution of civil rights violations.” H.R. REP. No. 1558, supra note 11, at 1 ("The effective enforcement of Federal civil rights statutes depends largely an the efforts of private citizens."); S. REp. No. 1011, supra note 1, at 2,if private citizens are to have a meaningful opportunity to vindicate the important Congressional policies which these laws contain.").
"The object of civil RICO is thus not merely to compensate victims but to turn them into prosecutors, "private attorneys general," dedicated to eliminating racketeering activity. 3 Id., at 187 (citing Malley-Duff, 483 U.S., at 151 ) (civil RICO specifically has a "further purpose [of] encouraging potential private plaintiffs diligently to investigate"). The provision for treble damages is accordingly justified by the expected benefit of suppressing racketeering activity, an object pursued the sooner the better." [Rotella v. Wood et al., 528 U.S. 549 (2000)]
H.R. REP. No. 1558, supra note 11, at 2 (referring with approval to courts that "... allowed fees on the theory that civil rights plaintiffs act as 'private attorneys general' in eliminating discriminatory practices adversely affecting all citizens"); S. REP. No. 1011, supra note 1, at 2, reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 5910 (expressing the importance of having civil rights plaintiffs vindicate their rights so that "those who violate the Nation's fundamental laws [do not] proceed with impunity").
[t]he violation of an important public policy may involve little by way of actual damages, so far as a single individual is concerned, or little in comparison with the cost of vindication .... In such instances public policy may suggest an award of costs that will remove the burden from the shoulders of the plaintiff seeking to vindicate the public right.' ' 15. Wilderness Soc'y v. Morton, 495 F.2d 1026, 1030 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (quoting Knight v. Auciello, 453 F.2d 852, 853 (1st Cir. 1972)).
“the individual, in such situations, who wishes to see the law enforced has a remedy of his own: he can bring a private prosecution. This historical right which goes right back to the earliest days of our legal system, though rarely exercised in relation to indictable offences… remains a valuable constitutional safeguard against inertia or partiality on the part of authority”. (Wilbeforce in Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers [1978] AC 435, 477;Recently affirmed by the Lord Chief Justice in R (Virgin Media Limited) v Munaf Ahmed Zinga [2014] EWCA Crim 52 (paragraph 55))
(discussing how this populist model [Private Prosecution]evolved in the 1820s as “a way of making the government accountable to the electorate”).(FORDHAM L. REV. 13, 57–58 (1998))
“Thus, the Constitution permits impeachment of any officer of the United States, including the President and Vice President, for “Treason, Bribery, or other high crimes and Misdemeanors.” (U.S. Const., art. II, §4).
“One such remnant of the past is the policy allowing private prosecutions in criminal actions. Recently, in State vs. Best, The North Carolina Supreme Court reiterated its stand condoning the practice.”[]“Despite statutory previsions requiring public proprietorial system and judicial repudiation of the procedure on some jurisdictions private prosecution remains well entrenched.” 50 N.C. L. Rev. 1171 (1971-1972) Private Prosecution -- The Entrenched Anomaly ;280 N.C. 413, 186 S.E.2d 1 (1972); see e.g. NC State vs Westbrook, 279, N.C. 18, 181 S.E.2d 572 (1971); NC State vs Lippard, NC State vs Carden, NC State vs Davis; NC State vs Carden, NC Constitution Art IV Section 18; NC Ge Stat Sections 7A-61(supp 1971; Mckay vs Nebraska State; Bird vs Wisconsin State; Biemel vs Wisconsin State; Handley vs Alabama State;Robinson vs Florida State; Mariand State vs Bartlett
“Although interweaving civil and criminal interests may suit the needs of particular defendants and plaintiffs, it does not necessarily vindicate the authority of the court.” See Rakoff, supra note 20 at 5, cols. 4-6, at 18, col. 5. See supra note 8.
“All courts which have considered the duties of a district attorney have held that his constitutional authority to prosecute is discretionary.39 A necessary corollary of this holding is the proposition that the right can be enjoyed only so long as the discretion is not abused.-" ' Therefore, whenever a district attorney has abused his discretion in electing not to prosecute, he is acting beyond the bounds of his authority, whether or not that authority was vested in him by a constitution.” 39. E.g., People v. Courtney, 380 Ill. 171, 43 N.E.2d 982 (1942) ; Engle v. Chipman, 51 Mich. 524, 16 N.W. 886 (1883); Commonwealth v. Nicely, 130 Pa. 261, 18 Atl. 737 (1889). See also note 3 supra.;PRIVATE PROSECUTION: A REMEDY FOR DISTRICT ATTORNEYS' UNWARRANTED INACTION;
“private prosecutors in fact play an extensive role in criminal law enforcement. In thirty jurisdictions appellate courts have decided that privately employed attorneys may assist the public prosecutor.” Handley v. State, 214 Ala. 172, 106 So. 692 (1926); People v. Powell, 87 Cal. 348, 25 Pac. 481. (1891) ; Davis v. People, 77 Colo. 546, 238 Pac. 25 (1925) ; Oglesby v. State, 83 Fla. 132, 90 So. 825 (1922) ; Jackson v. State, 156 Ga. 842, 120 S.E. 535 (1923) ; State v. Steers, 12 Idaho 174, 85 Pac. 104 (1906) ; People v. Hayner, 213 Ill. 142, 72 N.E. 792 (1904) ; Williams v. State, 188 Ind. 283, 123 N.E. 209 (1919); State v. Helm, 92 Iowa 540, 61 N.W. 246 (1894) ; State v. Wilson, 24 Kan. 189 (1880) ; Bennyfield v. Commonwealth, 13 Ky. L. Rep. 446, 17 S.W. 271 (1891) ; State v. Petrich, 122 La. 127, 47 So. 438 (1908) ; State v. Bartlett, 105 Me. 212, 74 AtI. 18 (1909) ; State v. Rue, 72 Minn. 296, 75 N.W. 235 (1898); State v. Mathews, 341 Mo. 1121, 111 S.W.2d 62 (1937) ; State v. O'Brien, 35 Mont. 482, 90 Pac. 514 (1907) ; Polin v. State, 14 Neb. 540, 16 N.W. 898 (1883) ; State v. Hale, 85 N.H. 403, 160 AtI. 95 (1932) ; Gardner v. State, 55 N.J.L. 17, 26 Atl. 30 (Sup. Ct. 1892) ; State v. Lucero, 20 N.M. 55, 146 Pac. 407 (1915) ; State v. Carden, 209 N.C. 404, 183 S.E. 898 (1936) ; State v. Kent, 4 N.D. 577, 62 N.W. 631 (1895) ; Perry v. State, 84 Okla. Crim. 211, 181 P.2d 280 (1947) ; Commonwealth v. Musto, 348 Pa. 300, 35 A.2d 307 (1944) ; Chambers v. State, 22 Tenn. 237 (1842) ; Burkhard v. State, 18 Tex. App. 599 (1885) ; People v. Tidwell, 4 Utah 506, 12 Pac. 61 (1886) ; State v. Ward, 61 Vt. 153, 17 Atl. 483 (1888); Jackson v. Commonwealth, 96 Va. 107, 30 S.E. 452 (1898); State v. Hoshor,
"Private prosecution is especially common before magistrates, municipal courts and justices of the peace. These courts act in a dual capacity as committing magistrates in felony cases and as trial courts for misdemeanors". Miller, Compromise of Criminal Cases, 1 So. CALIF. L. Rxv. 1, 8 (1927).
"in at least twenty-eight states, it is a common practice for private attorneys to prosecute criminal actions in the lesser courts." QUESTIONNAIRE. See note Supra 8; PRIVATE PROSECUTION: A REMEDY FOR DISTRICT ATTORNEYS' UNWARRANTED INACTION , YALE SCHOOL OF LAW,
"The notion of a "private attorney general" was first recognized by Judge Jerome Frank in Associated Industries of New York State v. Ickes, 134 F.2d 694 (2d Cir. 1943). Judge Frank wrote that
nstead of designating the Attorney General, or some other public officer, to bring [an action], Congress can constitutionally enact a statute conferring on any non-official persons, or on a designated group of non-official persons, authority to bring a suit .. .even if the sole purpose is to vindicate the public interest. Such persons, so authorized, are, so to speak, private Attorney Generals." Id. at 704 (footnote omitted).
“the Second Circuit has held that due process does not require a disinterested prosecutor and allows counsel for civil plaintiffs to prosecute criminal contempts because it is practical. (See Rakoff, Private Prosecutors, N.Y.L.J., Nov. 14, 1985, at 1, col. 1, at 4, col. 3; see also Polo Fashions, Inc. v. Stock Buyers Int'l, Inc., 760 F.2d 698, 701 (6th Cir. 1985) (Rule 42(b) adopted to address problem noted in McCann of confusion over whether contempt is civil or criminal), petition for cert. filed, 54 U.S.L.W. 3179 (U.S. Sept. 17, 1985) (No. 85-455). See generally supra note 10.) " In fact, the Second Circuit recently went a step further, holding that civil counsel also possesses a government prosecutor's power to gather evidence.” ;See United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A. v. Klayminc, 780 F.2d 179, 184 (2d Cir. 1985), petition for cert. filed sub nom. Young v. United States, 54 U.S.LW. 3565 (U.S. Feb. 6, 1986) (No. 85-1329).
See United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A. v. Klayminc, 780 F.2d 179, 184 (2d Cir. 1985), petition for cert. filed sub nom. Young v. United States, 54 U.S.LW. 3565 (U.S. Feb. 6, 1986) (No. 85-1329). In Vuitton, the court permitted the prosecutors to supervise a "sting" operation fashioned after Abscam. See id. at 180-82.The prosecutors, counsel for civil plaintiffs in the underlying trademark infringement litigation, used an investigative firm to pose as purchasers of counterfeited goods from the defendants. Id. at 181. These dealings in the counterfeited goods had been prohibited by a permanent injunction. Id. Meetings between the defendants and the undercover investigators were used for a show cause order and as evidence in the resulting trial of the defendants for criminal contempt. Id. at 182-83. The Vuitton court also held that the right to a disinterested prosecutor is not an absolute due process right, and noted the practical advantages of appointing private counsel as contempt prosecutors. See id. at 183-84. For example, counsel for civil plaintiffs are already fully informed and ready to go forward without delay. See id. at 183. Moreover, defendant's rights are already protected because, by appointing a prosecutor, the district court judge plays a key role in deciding whether the prosecution shall go forward, which avoids the danger that the prosecutor will use the threat of prosecution to coerce concessions in the civil litigation. See id. at 184. The court went further by allowing Rule 42(b) prosecutors to conduct broad investigations before bringing charges. The court argued that the term "to prosecute," as used in Rule 42(b), encompassed the power to investigate and gather evidence, and found no reason to distinguish between United States attorneys and specially appointed attorneys in deciding how much power a Rule 42(b) prosecutor has. See id. at 184-85.
The right of a citizen to hire a private prosecutor is rooted in the early common law of England. Criminal prosecutions, like civil actions, were conducted within the framework of a pure adversary system. The Crown did not provide a public prosecutor in routine felony cases; rather, the victim or his family retained private counsel to prosecute and the defendant retained counsel to defend. State v. Atkins, 163 W.Va. 502, 261 S.E.2d 55, 57 (1979), cert. denied 445 U.S. 904, 100 S.Ct. 1081, 63 L.Ed.2d 320 (1980). See generally Note, Private Prosecution — The Entrenched Anomaly, 50 N.C.L.Rev. 1171 (1972). We have approved the practice, expressly or by implication, in many of our earlier cases. McCue's Case, 103 Va. 870, 1004, 49 S.E. 623, 630 (1905); Jackson's Case, 96 Va. 107, 112, 30 S.E. 452, 453 (1898); Sawyers v. Commonwealth, 88 Va. 356, 357, 13 S.E. 708, 708 (1891); Hopper, Stiers and Lemmon's Case, 47 Va. (6 Gratt.) 684, 685 (1849). Only one conviction has been reversed because of the participation of a private prosecutor, Compton v. Commonwealth, 163 Va. 999, 1004-06, 175 S.E. 879, 882 (1934), but the reversal was ordered not because the private prosecutor appeared, but rather because he was in fact employed by the clerk and the sheriff, whose duty was to serve the court impartially. Cantrell v. Com., 329 SE 2d 22 - Va: Supreme Court 1985
“It is worthy of comment that no enemy of the government is greater or more dangerous than a corrupt public official. This is true, whether the corruption be the doing of wrongful acts, or the simple omission to perform a clear duty. Equally dangerous as a domestic enemy is the one who corrupts and induces a public official either to do a wrong thing or to neglect the performance of duties devolving upon him....The domestic enemy is more dangerous than the foreign enemy for the reason that history is replete with the record of governmental disintegration and decay arising solely from corruption within, which means the inroads of domestic enemies upon the basic foundations of the government.”(In re De Mayo, 26 F. Supp. 996 - Dist. Court, WD Missouri 1938 at 999-1000)
LAWFARE
1. “use of law as a weapon of war [,and,] the newest feature of 21st century combat"
2. "the strategy of using – or misusing – law as a substitute for traditional military means to achieve an operational objective.”
3. “tool that is used by the enemies of the West.”
4. "a form of “asymmetric” warfare."
5. "aims to subdue “the enemy’s resistance without fighting.”"
6. “Lawfare can substitute for warfare where it provides a means to compel specified behavior with fewer costs than kinetic warfare, or even in cases where kinetic warfare would be ineffective.”
7. "China, for example, has an extremely sophisticated “legal warfare” doctrine, which designates such strategies as one of their “three warfares".(Dean Cheng, “Winning without Fighting: Chinese Legal Warfare,” Backgrounder, no. 2692 (Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation, 18 May 2012), http://www.heritage.org/asia/report/win ... al-warfare.)
8. “law allows [] troops to engage in forceful, violent acts with relatively little hesitation or moral qualms.”
9. “well-defined legal space within which individual soldiers can act without resorting to their own personal moral codes.”
10. "law in this context much the same as a weapon. It is a means that can be used for good or bad purposes."
11. " a tool or weapon that can be used properly in accordance with the higher virtues of the rule of law – or not. It all depends on who is wielding it, how they do it, and why"
12. “[o]ne way to kill [] beyond [using] military force.”
13. "operates to create effects indistinguishable from conventional battlefield defeats. "
14. "[lawfare is] wholly apart from abstract notrions of justice, [as] there are pragmatic, purely military reasons for using the courts. "
15. "Of course, there are nefarious uses of lawfare. These would include those who would manipulate respect for the law to achieve a military advantage."
(Maj. Gen. Charles Dunlap Jr., U.S. Air Force, Retired - currently a Professor of the Practice of Law, and Executive Director of the Center on Law, Ethics and National Security at Duke Law School; http://yalejournal.org/wp-content/uploa ... dunlap.pdf)
16. " the plaintiffs are armed with actions and as it were girded with swords, so the defendants are fortified with pleas, and are defended as it were by shield" (Bl;ack's Dictionary of Law 2nd Ed)
FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Effective March 21, 1946, as amended to December 1, 2014
TITLE I. APPLICABILITY
Rule 1. Scope; Definitions
(b) Definitions. The following definitions apply to these rules: (1) ‘‘Attorney for the government’’ means: (D) any other attorney authorized by law to conduct proceedings under these rules as a prosecutor.
VA§18.2-481. Treason defined; how proved and punished.
Treason shall consist only in:
(4) Holding or executing, in such usurped government, any office, or professing allegiance or fidelity to it; or
(5) Resisting the execution of the laws under color of its authority.
Such treason, if proved by the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or by confession in court, shall be punishable as a Class 2 felony.
The case of Mr. Williams does not cast a favorable light on private attorneys general, however, do not be dissuaded from the facts, nor your unbiased perspective, nor the citizens' right and duty to defend each other's rights ,the Constitution, and our government.
In Sun Tzu's The Art of War, Tzu teaches that the easiest way to subdue an enemy is to turn his own people and government against him, themselves, and their own government and own defenses ,and to have his people and government undermine their own rule of law and safeguards, via sedition, usurpation, defamation, compulsion, colorable insurrection, and co-opting their own people.
I know one of the couples that were alleged victims of Williams' alleged legal scam and they told me that one of his employees was the actual responsible party for the mortgage scandal and the employee had an actual criminal history, and that WIlliams was unaware of his employ's activity.
The prosecution against Williams was initiated following Williams attempting to report several local officials for colorable crimes against the couple, involving a local judge and the theft via conversion of their home they had owned , outright, for over 15 years.
Further, the accusation against WIlliams for alleged offenses against a child were initiated by his cousin, who later recanted the accusation, and is suspected of having been co-opted to participate in a conspiracy to retaliate against victim witness or informant, Williams.
That matter was initiated shortly after Williams had threatened a Hawaii judge with criminal charges and suit, following the judge having deprived a party's right to choose Williams as their counsel, being that no Bar attorney would challenge the court officers' performance of their duties, and were depriving the plaintiff due process.
Williams was extradited from Hawaii and suffered severe assault while in custody of police, in a former slave state.
Although Williams is misguided in many ways, poorly expresses himself, makes inappropriate declarations that make him appear a fool, none of us should lose our objectivity.
Not one attorney in this thread can say they have not encountered a client who was aware a right was being deprived , but did not know how to appropriately address the matter, to have the laws enforced.
It is likely that Williams is one of them, considering the precedents and statutes.
Up until the reconstruction era, every single atrocity against innocent people and retaliation against activists were done under color of law.
I am from the deep south originally and know well how the courts can be used as a weapon of defamation, war and retaliation.
It is possible that Williams is a victim of that.
In some of Williams' videos, he has recorded evidence of willful blindness of law enforcement and judicial officers and failures to perform administrative duties, and failure to give criminal reports due process.
That is a telltale sign of a criminal organization occupying government seats, and was a modus operandi of the KKK in the confederate south.
