Newsreal Archives/Critic' Corners

June 27, 2006

Here's an article that represents the hypocrisy of law-breakers being appointed to high law enforcement officials.

Also below is a piece Scott Huminski' wrote on the same topic.

Scott Huminski's case

Douglas and his Law-Breakers

In 1999 federal civil rights charges were lodged against Rutland Sheriff R.J. Elrick.

In Early October 2004, Elrick was found to be civil rights violator in federal court in Manhattan. Elrick didn�t appeal.

After the court determination, a jury awarded $50,001 to Elrick�s victim and also found that Elrick acted with malice.

Impressed by Elrick�s malicious civil rights violations, Governor Douglas promoted Elrick to chief of the Vermont Police Academy in late October of 2004.

The Bill of Rights are the highest and most sacred laws in this country, the very laws that distinguish this country from a police state.

Governor Douglas promoted a malicious violator of the Bill of Rights to one of the highest police positions in this state and now refuses to demand the resignation of this law-breaker or to ask for assistance from federal law enforcement.

Scott Huminski, Plaintiff

Huminski v. Elrick et al., USDC (Vermont), #99-160

111 Killam Court #2C

Cary, NC 27513

(919) 342-6877

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments from Dr. J.D. Kuntz MD regarding Scott Humniski's case in the USA

The reason Huminski got justice is because he had a jury trial.

I have never had a jury trial and in British Columbia neither a jury trial nor a trial by judge is an absolute right. Judges throw out juries and lawyers throw out civil cases under Rule 18A without a trial on the merits and without allowing cross-examination of perjured affidavits prepared by lawyers.

After two decades of litigation, I have never been allowed to cross-examine a single accuser, nor have I been allowed a trial on the merits before an unbiased judge who was not in conflict.

In the US, the Constitution applies equally to all its citizens whereas in Canada the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is selectively applied to groups favored by the latest government policy - it does not apply equally to all citizens.

Canada does not protect citizens against lawyers and judges who violate their Charter rights to do favors for their own friends and former clients. Canada is a judocracy, a country of the lawyers, for the lawyers and by the lawyers and not a democracy.

Judges are former lawyers with an agenda who receive their appointments as a reward for supporting the party in power and as a result of powerful lobby groups that require a friend on the bench prepared to do favors for their old friends and former clients.

The popular myth of independence of the judiciary in Canada was created by the legal profession to brainwash the public not to question influence peddling on the bench. Fiction repeated often enough becomes fact, and that is why lawyers, judges, politicians and press all support the myth of impartiality of the courts to quash public demands for judicial accountability.

Our courts do not adhere to the rule of law and judges sit in conflict to do favors for friends while cowardly politicians sit idly allowing them to use the courts for judicial racketeering.

The politicians claim they cannot become involved because the case is before the courts when the evidence shows that that is where the crimes are being committed by unaccountable and unelected judges sitting in conflict of interest violating the laws of Canada. This is what makes Canada a judocracy and not a democracy.