No products in the cart.


Federal Judge Declares Constitution Void, Threatens Civil Defendant With Death

Federal Judge Declares Constitution Void, Threatens Civil Defendant With Death

This article comes from

Submitted by John Griffing

Most Americans believe that we have a reasonably fair justice system with scholarly judges at the helm. Well, how about a federal judge who suspends the Constitution, confiscates all of a litigant’s assets, orders him not to hire defense counsel, and pronounces his orders enforceable by death?

That’s exactly what federal Judge Royal Furgeson did to Internet pioneer Jeff Baron, in a case that, New York lawyer David Relkin says is “the most outrageous denial of a person’s basic constitutional and human rights in this Country since the abolition of slavery.”

In the Texas case, Judge Furgeson “sentenced” Baron to an unprecedented “human receivership” to enable the judge’s lawyers to loot Baron’s Juvenile Diabetes Research Trust.

His offense? Baron was accused of not paying his lawyers enough money — “charges” that were later proven to be completely fabricated.

The decision is historic: a human being has not been placed in a receivership since slavery ended in 1865. During one of the hearings, and prior to an appellate court ruling that Judge Furgeson “abused his discretion,” Furgeson reminded Baron of his power:

“I have the full force of the Navy, Army [and] Marines behind me.”. . . You are a fool, a fool, a fool to screw with a federal judge, and if you don’t understand that, I can make you understand it.”

Read more here.


Shorty Dawkins



  1. “… a federal judge who suspends the Constitution, confiscates all of a litigant’s assets, orders him not to hire defense counsel, and pronounces his orders enforceable by death?”

    First, since the authority he is ALLOWED to use while in office comes from the US Constitution, what he really said is that he has NO JOB. No Benefits, no anything. Plus, for those of us that are keeping our LEGITIMATE government, the US Constitution, we need to charge the sob with at least one felony, Perjury, not using “good behaviour”, maladministration, misadministration, etc.

    “Judges not only can be sued over their official acts, but could be held liable for injunctive and declaratory relief and attorney’s fees.” Lezama v. Justice Court, A025829.

    “There is no common law judicial immunity.” Pulliam v. Allen, 104S.Ct. 1970; cited in Lezama v. Justice Court, A025829.

    “Furgeson reminded Baron of his power: “I have the full force of the Navy, Army [and] Marines behind me.”. . . You are a fool, a fool, a fool to screw with a federal judge, and if you don’t understand that, I can make you understand it.””

    The “judge” is mistake and deluisional. ANY one who serves within the Navy, Army [and] Marines who followed that order would be a *terrorist, and committing TREASON against the people – and they should already KNOW that because they are required to be Oathbound to the US Constitution, NOT to any person, office, etc. AS they, too, get the authority etc they use from the US Constitution. No US Constitution, NO Navy, Army [and] Marines. No US Constitution, NO law enforcement – state and federal. No US Constitution, NO judges, no legislatures, no US President and no governmental agencies, etc, etc.

    This judge has broken both his Oath and the (supreme) contract he is allowed to serve under. Yes, allowed.

    Why did the framers require an Oath to the document and not to an office, person, branch of government? This is a very critical question. They did so because when a compact/contract is in writing, it is always easy to prove, easy to know if one is following it. Why are the Oath(s) worded as they are, particularly these words

    “I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;?

    Because we are each required to take PERSONAL responsibility to see that the US Constitution – without which there is NO America, no Americans, is defended by all who serve within our governments in every position from floor sweepers, to Representatives, Presidents are held to a higher standard of Preserving, Protecting, and Defending the US Constitution. Every person that serves within the executive branch has the duty to assist whomever is the US President in doing those three things, which then assists them in keeping their own Oath. But it goes much further, each Oath takers is required to see to it, that everyone else who serves within our government is KEEPING their Oath. It is their duty to stop those who do not do KEEP the Oath. That is an individual responsibility of all of us. It matters not if they are our superiors in work, they are to be held accountable by us to that Oath. That was another of the layers of protection that the framers had created to KEEP our governments limited to the documents that created them.

    So every person in that courtroom, maritime law or not, is Oathbound to the US Constitution, and they have all not only broken their Oath, but allowed a treasonous action to occur. That judge stepped down from the position occupied when he “suspended” his own contract, the US Constitution, immediately doing away with any authority he might be allowed to use.

    Brookfield Construction Company V. Stewart 284 F Sup. 94: “An officer who acts in violation of the constitution ceases to represent the government.”

    Dr. Vieira: “This has nothing to do with personalities or subjective ideas. It’s a matter of what the Constitution provides… The government of the United States has never violated anyone’s constitutional rights… The government of the United States will never violate anyone constitutional rights, because it cannot violate anyone’s constitutional rights. The reason for that is: The government of the United States is that set of actions by public officials that are consistent with the Constitution. Outside of its constitutional powers, the government of the United States has no legitimacy. It has no authority; and, it really even has no existence. It is what lawyers call a legal fiction.” (end quote)

    Alexander Hamilton: “Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge, of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an act.”

    John Marshall: Opinion as Chief Justice in Marbury vs. Madison, 1802: “The particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void; AND THE COURTS, as well as other departments, ARE BOUND BY THAT INSTRUMENT.” (caps are mine)

    16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 155: “”Since the constitution is intendant for the observance of the judiciary as well as other departments of government and the judges are sworn to support its provisions, the courts are not at liberty to overlook or disregard its commands or counteract evasions thereof, it is their duty in authorized proceedings to give full effect to the existing constitution and to obey all constitutional provisions irrespective of their opinion as to the wisdom or the desirability of such provisions and irrespective of the consequences, thus it is said that the courts should be in our alert to enforce the provisions of the United States Constitution and guard against their infringement by legislative fiat or otherwise in accordance with these basic principles, the rule is fixed that the duty in the proper case to declare a law unconstitutional cannot be declined and must be performed in accordance with the delivered judgment of the tribunal before which the validity of the enactment it is directly drawn into question. If the Constitution prescribes one rule and the statute the another in a different rule, it is the duty of the courts to declare that the Constitution and not the statute governs in cases before them for judgment.”

    “Ignorance of the law does not excuse misconduct in anyone, least of all in a sworn officer of the law.” In re McCowan (1917), 177 C. 93, 170 P. 1100.

    “A constitution is designated as a supreme enactment, a fundamental act of legislation by the people of the state. A constitution is legislation direct from the people acting in their sovereign capacity, while a statute is legislation from their representatives, subject to limitations prescribed by the superior authority.” Ellingham v. Dye, 231 U. S. 250.

    “The basic purpose of a written constitution has a two-fold aspect, first securing [not granting] to the people of certain unchangeable rights and remedies, and second, the curtailment of unrestricted governmental activity within certain defined spheres.” Du Pont v. Du Pont, 85 A 724.

    “The constitution of a state is stable and permanent, not to be worked upon the temper of the times, not to rise and fall with the tide of events. Notwithstanding the competition of opposing interests, and the violence of contending parties, it remains firm and immoveable, as a mountain amidst the strife and storms, or a rock in the ocean amidst the raging of the waves.” Vanhorne v. Dorrance, supra.

  2. Excellent response Cal but who is stopping any of these traitors? poke poke poke!

    1. Poke, poke, poke is right. Sooner or later an oath-breaking judge like this is going to poke the wrong hornets’ nest and pick on someone who pushes back using non-judicial means, if you catch my drift. I’m not advocating violence, but tyranny has historically been vanquished only by violence, and this judge’s behavior is tyrannical in the extreme. When it happens there won’t be too many tears shed for said judge.

      1. Indeed, Spook. Vanquishing this particular tyrant feels necessary…but with one caveat. This individual, Baron, has lost absolutely everything. If this injustice is to be remedied, all his property and income must be returned to him at once. I would suggest selling his law school and divesting the former judge of all proceeds he has obtained through it, as common law would have it. Plus, this precedent must not be allowed to stand.

  3. They do the same thing in Canada, but with a lot more finesse and a lot more subterfuge, perhaps indicating far more practice and experience.

Comments are closed.