slavery

<body topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 marginheight=0 marginwidth=0> <table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 border=0><tr> <td valign="top" colspan=2 height=90 BGCOLOR="#006699" TEXT="#080000" background="22dfd5a3.jpg"> <div> <FONT SIZE="5" COLOR="#FFFFFF" FACE="53" >Wells of Justice</FONT>     |     <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#FFFFFF" FACE="Times New Roman" ><A HREF="index.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Wells of Justice"><U>Home</U></A></FONT></div> <div> <A HREF="purpose.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Our Purpose"><U><B>Our Purpose</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="cases.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Cases"><U><B>Cases</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="decisions.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Court Decisions"><U><B>Court Decisions</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="bpps.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Bankruptcy Petition Preparers"><U><B>Bankruptcy Petition Preparers</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="victims.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="For Victims"><U><B>For Victims</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="articles.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Articles"><U><B>Articles</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="letters.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Letters to Public Officials"><U><B>Letters to Public Officials</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="info.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Information"><U><B>Information</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="reports.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Reports"><U><B>Reports</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="rockford.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="About Rockford"><U><B>About Rockford</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="sitemap.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Site Map"><U><B>Site Map</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="links.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Informative Links"><U><B>Informative Links</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="contact.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Contact"><U><B>Contact</B></U></A></div> <bR> <div> </div> </td> </tr><tr> <td valign="top" width=210 BGCOLOR="#FFCC66" TEXT="#080000" background="22ed2043.jpg"> <div> COMMENTARIES AND ARTICLES</div> <div> <I><B>New! </B></I></div> <div> <A HREF="shambles.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Shambles"><U><B>Bankruptcy Law In Shambles</B></U></A></div> <bR> <div> <I><B>Recently Added!</B></I></div> <div> <I><B>"</B></I><A HREF="clubbf.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Club"><U><I><B>The Bankruptcy Club</B></I></U></A><I><B>" </B></I><B>Excerpt From </B></div> <div> <B> "</B><I><B>HOW TO BE AN ENTREPRENEUR WITHOUT GOING TO JAIL" </B></I><B>by Jack H. Knox</B></div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="slavery.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="slavery"><U><B><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc99000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Bankruptcy - Illegal Slavery </B></U></A></div> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <B>Predecessors of JP Morgan Chase Bank, parent company of Bank One, tied to Slavery</B></div> <div> <A HREF="newlaw.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="New Law"><U><B><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc99000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Congress Passes New Bankruptcy Law</B></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="courting.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="courtingfailure"><U><B><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc99000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Courting Failure</B></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="chgoclerkemb.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="chgoclerkemb"><U><B><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc99000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Courtroom Deputy Accused of Embezzling Debtors</B></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="asset_cases.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Assets"><U><B><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc99000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Distribution of Assets In Chapter 7 Cases</B></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="bribery.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Clerk"><U><B><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc99000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Bankruptcy Court Clerk Convicted Of Bribery</B></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="bankruptcy_attorneys_speak_out.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Bankruptcy Attorneys Speak Out"><U><B><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc99000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Bankruptcy Attorneys Speak Out</B></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="fake.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Fake"><U><B><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc99000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Federal Employees With Fake College Degrees</B></U></A></div> <div> <B><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc99000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> </B><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000099" FACE="Times New Roman" ><A HREF="cyveillance.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Cyveillance"><U><B>Who Is Paying Cyveillance To Monitor This Web Site?</B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <A HREF="assent_by_silence_.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Corruption of the Judical System"><U><B><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc99000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Corruption of the Judicial System</B></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="corruption.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Corrupt Beyond Recognition"><U><B><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc99000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">American Legal System Is Corrupt Beyond Recognition</B></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="trustee_sentenced.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="TRUSTEE SENTENCED FOR CORRUPT ACTIVITIES"><U><B><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc99000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Trustee Sentenced For Corrupt Activities</B></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="hyde.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Hyde"><U><B><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc99000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Congressman Hyde's Statement Before The Judiciary Committee</B></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="sensenbrenner.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Sensenbrenner "><U><B><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc99000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Involuntary Bankruptcy Improvement Act of 2003</B></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="disbarred.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Disbarred"><U><B><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc99000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Lawyer Pursuing Justice is Disbarred </B></U></A></div> <div> <B><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc99000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> </B><A HREF="vote_no.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="CLR"><U><B>Vote No For Lawyers</B></U></A></div> <bR> </td> <td valign="top" height=390 BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#080000"> <div> <B>Bankruptcy - Illegal Slavery</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>  </B><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000099" FACE="Times New Roman" ><B>Bank Predecessors Tied to Slavery</B></FONT></div> <div> JP Morgan Chase, Used Exclusively By the U.S. Trustee Program and parent company of Bank One</div> <bR> <div> By James Genyard</div> <bR> <div> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among them is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights; Governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Times New Roman" >  </FONT>(From the Declaration of Independence)</div> <bR> <div> No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law …  (From Amendment V of the U.S. Constitution) </div> <bR> <div> In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved … (From Amendment VII of the U.S. Constitution) </div> <bR> <div> National bankruptcy law is required pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8. </div> <bR> <div> This article might be just as difficult for some people to handle, as it was for those Africans who were forcibly captured, chained, and brought across the Atlantic ocean to hear that they were not warriors, or princes or queens, or a man or woman, but rather,  "nigger slaves."  Those coining and applying the name also give its definition.  There is simply no way of proving otherwise because as a slave, you are automatically unqualified to reason.</div> <bR> <div> When you file for bankruptcy, you become a slave.  You own nothing and have no rights to own anything unless the bankruptcy trustee allows you those rights. You lack standing to disagree with the trustee.  </div> <bR> <div> Before the Civil War, the judiciary decided that the intent of the "fathers" who wrote the U.S. Constitution was not to include all Americans as "citizens" whenever that word is used in the constitution.  The same judicial decision says that some American "citizens" are not entitled to all privileges of the constitution. </div> <bR> <div> This presents at least two classes of citizens, and one class of Americans who are not citizens; free inhabitants, paupers (including fugitives), and slaves.  The Emancipation Proclamation may have changed the standing of slaves of African descent from non-citizens to citizens adding another class of citizens.  However, it did not change the two classes of citizens not entitled to all privileges as set forth in the constitution.</div> <bR> <div> The Dred Scott case was filed in 1846.  It was filed by a slave to gain freedom on the basis that he had lived 7 years as a resident in free states.  The Supreme Court declined to reach decision if Scott should or should not be free.  Rather, they decided that as a slave, he had no standing to come before any court. </div> <bR> <div> The <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#CC0033" FACE="Times New Roman" ><I><B>spirit</B></I></FONT> of that decision exists today within many court rooms, and more specifically, within the United States Bankruptcy Courts.  </div> <bR> <div> Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott v. John F.A. Sandford, (1856), wrote in his opinion:</div> <div> "The question before us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. <B>On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, </B>who had been subjugated by the dominant race<B>, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them. </B>"<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Times New Roman" > </FONT><I>(Emphasis added)</I></div> <bR> <div> The emphasis conveys the "spirit" of the decision.  </div> <bR> <div> To the best of our knowledge, Justice Taney's decision has never been overturned, never considered outdated, never deemed unconstitutional, by any member of the U.S. Supreme Court.  The underlying reasonings in Justice Taney's opinion were not overruled by the Emancipation Proclamation.   In other words, inferior classes of beings, whether emancipated or not, have no rights or privileges other than what those in power and the government choose to grant them.  They do so at their discretion, rather than by a clear set of laws intended to be impartially administered to all citizens.</div> <bR> <div> Federal judges interpret the constitution. Federal judges have the power to grant or deny people the rights and privileges as set forth in the constitution.  They are the ones with power to declare a law unconstitutional.  They are also those with power to make "case law."  Anyone who has been involved in a case before a court of law knows that clear statute, as it is written, lacks authority over "case law," i.e., the interpretations of judges.  </div> <bR> <div> If federal judges from any particular federal circuit do not agree with the interpretation of other federal judges in another circuit, they develop another interpretation of the same statute, applied to the same issues, to reach another conclusion.  There is no consistency.  Their lack of consistency demonstrates that federal judges stay true to Justice Taney's opinion that there are inferior classes of beings who have no rights or privileges unless someone who holds power (judges) choose to grant them those rights or privileges.  </div> <bR> <div> Chief Justice Taney remarked on a provision in the Articles of Confederation;</div> <div> " that the free inhabitants of each of the States, <B>paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice, excepted</B>, should be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States."  </div> <bR> <div> Paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice are <B>excluded</B> from all the privileges and immunities of free citizens in the United States.</div> <bR> <div> Although the final Emancipation Proclamation was signed on January 1, 1863, and the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified on December 6, 1865 making slavery in America illegal, it did not establish that paupers and vagabonds are entitled to all privileges and immunities as other free inhabitants of the United States. </div> <bR> <div> During slavery, free Blacks were captured by <I><B>Night Riders</B></I> and sold into slavery. It made no difference that they were free.  Those states approving slavery considered them property. Today, the federal courts treat property in bankruptcy cases in the same manner.  It makes no difference if the property is not property of the bankruptcy estate.  Once it is sold, objections and appeals are rendered moot.  If the bankruptcy trustee has not exhausted the proceeds, rightful owners may recover financially, but their property will not be returned to them.   When the <I><B>Night Riders</B></I> of the United States Trustee Program sell property, whether property of the bankruptcy estate or not,  there is no returning of that property to its freedom -- to its rightful, lawful owner.</div> <bR> <div> "<B>It is not a power to raise to the rank of a citizen any one born in the United States, who, from birth or parentage, by the laws of the country, belongs to an inferior and subordinate class.</B> " <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Times New Roman" >CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY in DRED SCOTT v. JOHN F. A. SANDFORD. 1856</FONT></div> <bR> <div> Although free, debtors are paupers and are not entitled to all the privileges of free citizens. <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Times New Roman" > </FONT></div> <bR> <div> Plessy v. Ferguson (163 U.S. 537, 1896) is another important case that resulted in the "separate but equal" proposition.  If there is any statute that is clear that separate but equal is evident in bankruptcy, it is 28 USC Section 526. The Attorney General is only required to investigate bankruptcy trustees when those who are "equal" request him to do so. Those equal are the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, the clerks of the United States courts and of the district court of the Virgin Islands, probation officers, United States magistrate judges, and court reporters. </div> <bR> <div> In the Federalist No. 42, James Madison described bankruptcy as a legislation connected with the regulation of commerce.  The intent of having a national bankruptcy law was to prevent debtors from fleeing to another state to evade local enforcement of their financial obligations.</div> <bR> <div> <B><U>How Many Bankruptcy Laws Has America Had?</U></B></div> <div> The first bankruptcy law was enacted in 1800.  The law allowed only for involuntary bankruptcy of traders.  Bankruptcy is a term that applies to "traders" or business people. Creditors placed the debtor in bankruptcy by taking the debtors' possessions.  </div> <bR> <div> In 1803, the first bankruptcy law was repealed amid complaints of excessive expenses and corruption.  </div> <bR> <div> The second bankruptcy law was enacted in 1841.  The law allowed voluntary and involuntary bankruptcy.  This law was repealed amid complaints of expenses and corruption. </div> <bR> <div> In 1867, Congress, prompted by demands arising from financial failures during the Panic of 1857 and the Civil War, enacted the third bankruptcy law. The strongest opposition to a federal bankruptcy law came from the South.  Southerners feared that Northern creditors would use bankruptcy law as a collection device to displace southern farmers from their homesteads.  Many western lawmakers opposed bankruptcy legislation for similar reasons.  It was apparent, however, that two years after the Civil War, America needed another slave class.  </div> <bR> <div> In 1874, the 1867 law was amended to allow for compositions. Under the composition provision, a debtor could offer a plan to distribute his assets among his creditors to settle the case. </div> <bR> <div> The National Convention of Boards of Trade was formed in 1881 to lobby for bankruptcy legislation.</div> <bR> <div> In 1889, the National Convention of Representatives of Commercial Bodies formed to lobby for bankruptcy legislation. The president of the Convention, Jay L. Torrey, drafted a bankruptcy bill.</div> <bR> <div> In 1898, Congress passed a bankruptcy bill based on the Torrey Bill.</div> <bR> <div> In 1933-34, the 1898 Bankruptcy Act was amended to include railroad reorganization, corporate reorganization, and individual debtor arrangements.</div> <bR> <div> In 1938, The Chandler Act amended the 1898 Bankruptcy Act, creating a menu of options for both business and non-business debtors.</div> <bR> <div> In the 1960's, due to a rise in personal bankruptcies, Congress initiated an investigation of bankruptcy law to replace the much amended 1898 Bankruptcy Act.  In 1978, the 1898 Bankruptcy Act was replaced by The Bankruptcy Reform Act, more commonly known as the Bankruptcy Code. </div> <bR> <div> The 1978 Act provided Chapter 7 liquidation for businesses and individuals, Chapter 11 reorganization, Chapter 13 adjustment of debts for individuals with regular income, and Chapter 12 readjustment for farmers. </div> <bR> <div> Lobbying by creditor groups and a Supreme Court decision that ruled certain administrative parts of the Act unconstitutional led to the Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984. The 1984 amendments attempted to roll back some of the pro-debtor provisions of the Code. </div> <bR> <div> The 1978 Bankruptcy Code suffers the same difficulties as the Bankruptcy Acts of 1800, 1841, 1867 and 1898.  Federal district courts are located inconveniently for many debtors.  After paying fees to the clerk of the court, the official who administered assets, and various others, creditors end up with little or nothing.  </div> <bR> <div> Debtors who obtain legal counsel near their place of residence often find that due to distance, the attorney will not represent them on matters and hearings in the bankruptcy court after the Meeting of Creditors.  They often recommend that debtors find legal counsel in the city where the bankruptcy court is located.  As a result, cronyism among members of the bankruptcy Bar, bankruptcy trustees, and bankruptcy judges, continues to exist.</div> <bR> <div> The 1978 Bankruptcy Code did not correct the corruption that existed in American bankruptcy law since its creation in the 1800's. </div> <bR> <div> A system to separate administrative from judicial functions in bankruptcy cases, and thereby silence allegations of bankruptcy court corruption, was introduced around 1973.  It became known as the United States Trustee Program.  The United States Trustee Program did not rid bankruptcy court corruption -- it only silenced allegations of corruption by keeping the knowledge limited to those officials in the Program, making it impossible for allegations to be investigated by an impartial law enforcement agency.  </div> <bR> <div> As allegations of bankruptcy trustee fraud and bankruptcy judge corruption increased, the federal judiciary created ways to protect alleged perpertrators from being brought to justice.  A condition for making this possible was to re-create the Master-slave relationship; i.e., reinstitute legalized slavery.  </div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <B>Unconstitutional Core and Non-Core Proceedings Involving Suits </B><B><U>Exceeding $20. </U></B><B> </B></div> <bR> <div> A result of the 1984 amendments is the "core," vs. "non-core" proceedings in bankruptcy.  It is argued as unconstitutional because it denies trial by jury for "core" proceedings, and does not define "non-core" proceedings, leaving it up to bankruptcy judges to make the distinguishing determination.   With the history of bankruptcy courts in America being corrupt, providing bankruptcy judges with sole power to enter decisions in trials guarantees that corruption remains.  </div> <bR> <div> The argument that the 1984 amendments of core and non core proceedings is unconstitutional has been raised mostly in cases involving preference payments and Section 110 of the bankruptcy code. These causes present suits exceeding $20 where defendants are denied trial by jury.</div> <bR> <div> If parties disagree with bankruptcy judges' decisions that a matter is "core," they take on the expense and time to appeal. </div> <bR> <div> Some bankruptcy court rooms are completely absent of a jury box.  That conveys to litigants that there is no opportunity, under any circumstances, to have a trial by jury.  Imagine entering a court room where all bankruptcy trustees and attorneys sit upfront.  There is a partition separating the "audience" from where the trustees and attorneys sit.  They talk amongest themselves --- even laugh or giggle when debtors address the court.  </div> <bR> <div> There is no jury box.  </div> <bR> <div> You have been accused of committing bankruptcy fraud, or you are going to argue that you are entitled to an exemption, or that you are entitled to a judgment entered by a lower court, although the trustee argues that you did not perfect a lien.</div> <bR> <div> What are the chances that you will think you will receive a fair and impartial hearing based on the arrangement and the atmosphere in the court room?</div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <U>Like Slavery, It's All About Money Without Working For It</U></div> <div> Bankruptcy judges do not have authority to hold criminal trials.  However, they do make decisions if defendants are guilty of bankruptcy fraud, perjury, money laundering, and other federal offenses.  While their actions and decisions cannot sentence parties to prison, their decisions  make it convenient for U.S. Attorneys to badger parties into plea bargains on the basis that a bankruptcy judge already found them guilty. </div> <bR> <div> Not only are defendants not provided with trial by jury in the bankruptcy court, many are not represented by legal counsel because they cannot afford legal counsel.  They are found guilty by bankruptcy judges, without discovery, without the entering of evidence in their defense, and without legal counsel. </div> <bR> <div> This writer does not take a position of the guilt or innocence of defendants.  That is for juries to decide.  Yet, we must not forget that the Bankruptcy Code, and the operation of bankruptcy courts, denies constitutional rights to defendants.  They are sued for amounts exceeding $20, deprived of property, and deprived of liberty without trial by jury.  In many instances, they are deprived of property and liberty without due process of law because they cannot afford legal counsel during the bankruptcy proceedings, and cannot afford to pursue appeals.</div> <bR> <div> If alleged to have committed federal offenses by U.S. Attorneys, defendants must pay for their own legal counsel if they decide to plea bargain. </div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <B><U>Are You Bankrupt, Or Insolvent?</U></B></div> <div> Because the Constitution uses the term bankruptcy without elaboration, some lawmakers insisted that the drafters intended to preserve the distinction in earlier English law between "bankruptcy" laws and "insolvency" laws.  </div> <bR> <div> They argued that bankruptcy laws applied to traders; could not permit voluntary bankruptcy; and that Congress could not give debtors the right to invoke the bankruptcy laws on their own behalf.  Their view was that bankruptcy was designed to help creditors round up debtors' assets and use them for repayment. </div> <bR> <div> On the other hand, insolvency laws referred to legislation designed to deal with financial distress.  It could be invoked by individuals. Logically, this would apply to individuals without assets; i.e. paupers. </div> <bR> <div> In a case that claimed the Constitution permitted bankruptcy, but not insolvency laws, Chief Justice Marshall decided:</div> <bR> <div>   "Th[e] difficulty of discriminating with any accuracy between insolvent and bankruptcy laws makes clear that a bankrupt law may contain . . . insolvent laws; and that an insolvent law may contain [provisions] which are common to a bankrupt law."  </div> <bR> <div> As a result, America has a Bankruptcy Code for those who are bankrupt, (namely, those who have assets), that includes insolvency laws for those who are insolvent, (namely, those without assets, or paupers.)  While there is one law, we must remember that Justice Marshall did not say that bankruptcy and insolvency are the same thing.  In actions filed by trustees to recover preference payments under Chapter 7, trustees allege that debtors are "insolvent."  There is still a distinction between being a debtor in possession, (bankrupt) and a pauper (insolvent). </div> <bR> <div> Paupers should not be mistaken as those suffering from poverty.  Poverty is a condition whereby individuals cannot afford "common" resources, such as food, clothes, shelter, and possessions defined by social standards. Social reformers agree that the causes of poverty, in the majority of cases, are caused by society rather than personal flaws.  When there are no jobs, unsteady jobs, or jobs denied to certain people, it should not be construed as reflecting on their character or convey social failure.  The impoverished are those who do not qualify for credit, or acquire debts other than those common for living resources.</div> <bR> <div> With government assistance, the impoverished can be provided "common resources."   </div> <bR> <div> That is not how the judiciary views paupers, however. <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Times New Roman" > </FONT></div> <bR> <div> Paupers are the insolvent. The general attitude of those in the United States Trustee Program, (and some members of society), is that people are insolvent because of personal flaws. They are generally accused of causing their own plight.  The current bankruptcy reform supports this view.  </div> <bR> <div> Congress has told Americans that personal flaws, such as lack of education, and not understanding credit and how to use credit, causes insolvency.  While this is true in some cases, it doesn't apply to all.  However, when there is one law that applies to all, all must fit the description.  If not, then we have "separate but equal" in the Bankruptcy Code and that is exactly the new bankruptcy reform that Congress and United States President George W. Bush signed into law in 2005.</div> <bR> <div> Wage earner plans, such as chapter 13, allow debtors to afford "common resources," the same as government assistance provides "common resources" to the impoverished.   When you are a pauper, you are in a lower class than the impoverished.  Once a chapter 13 payment plan is approved, it raises your class to the impoverished.  You are allowed to retain some property, as long as you make your monthly payments according to plan.  Be aware, however, that at any time, you can be reduced to a pauper by way of motion of the Chapter 13 or United States Trustee to convert your case to a Chapter 7.  </div> <bR> <div> Paupers are beggars.  Filing a "petition" for bankruptcy is begging.  It begs the court to discharge debts.  </div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <B><U> Due Process of Law Denied</U></B></div> <div> According to the logic of the federal judiciary, paupers are not deprived of property without due process of law because when they file bankruptcy, it is no longer their property. </div> <bR> <div> Once citizens surrender to the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court, they own nothing.  They cannot be deprived of property they do not own. They are not the injured party.  Their creditors are the injured parties. They surrender their rights and ownership of property to the bankruptcy estate.  </div> <bR> <div> Although bankruptcy court fraud wears many faces, it can best be described as masking due process of law to enable bankruptcy trustees to violate federal law.</div> <bR> <div> There are deep, ugly resemblances in the history of legalized slavery in America and the U.S. Trustee Program. Just as the children of slaves were property of slave owners, when debtors file bankruptcy, everything they own or may own in the future becomes property of the bankruptcy estate (plantation).  </div> <bR> <div> 11 U.S.C. Section 541 (a)(6) includes in its definition of property of the estate; "Proceeds, product, offspring, rents, or profits of or from property of the estate ..." </div> <bR> <div> As explained by bankruptcy Judges Ryan, Perris, and Montali of the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, the filing of a bankruptcy petition creates an estate comprised of all legal or equitable interest of the debtor in property.  </div> <bR> <div> <B>The moment a petition for bankruptcy is filed</B>, debtors cease to own all property.  Whether or not debts are discharged, property still remains in the bankruptcy estate, and the bankruptcy trustee will continue to administer the estate.  </div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <B>JP MORGAN CHASE BANK and WACHOVIA CORPORATION </B><B><U>ADMIT THAT THEIR PREDECESSORS OWNED SLAVES</U></B></div> <div> According to an article printed in the Chicago Sun-Times on June 2, 2005, JP Morgan Chase bank acknowledged two of its predecessor banks accepted 13,000 slaves as collateral, and took ownership of 1,250 when the loans defaulted. </div> <bR> <div> JP Morgan Chase Bank is parent company to Bank One.</div> <bR> <div> JP Morgan Chase is used exclusively by the U.S. Trustee Program.  </div> <bR> <div> Wachovia Corporation disclosed to the Corporation Counsel of the City of Chicago that its predecessor institutions owned at least 162 slaves and accepted hundreds more as collateral on loans.    </div> <bR> <div> According to a study performed by corporate researcher The History Factory, a forerunner institution, Bank of North America, started the bank with profits from the slave trade.  </div> <bR> <div> Wachovia has posted the complete 109 page study, including names of slaves and slave holders affiliated with predecessor banks, on its web site <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Times New Roman" ><A HREF="http://www.wachovia.com" TARGET="_blank" TITLE="http://www.wachovia.com"><U><U>www.wachovia.com</U></U></A></FONT>.</div> <bR> <div> The federal judiciary has created classes within the bankruptcy system where the parties, while not called masters and slaves, are given or denied constitution rights on the same level that existed during legalized slavery.  </div> <bR> <div> The Civil War may have changed and instituted laws, but as any logical thinking person knows, laws do not change people.  "<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000099" FACE="Times New Roman" >No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law</FONT> … And, "<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000099" FACE="Times New Roman" >In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved …</FONT>" are rendered moot by 11 U.S.C. Section 541 of the Bankruptcy Code, and the 1984 amendments.  </div> <bR> <div> Slaves cannot complain about the Master or overseers. Once the Master appoints an overseer, the Master relinquishes all responsibility for the overseer, and will not provide a replacement unless a bankruptcy judge orders the Master to do so.   The overseer protects the plantation's property.  </div> <bR> <div> Slaves cannot charge the Master or overseers with criminal violations.  They cannot sue the Master or overseers for damages.  Once the insolvent file their bankruptcy petition, they cannot change their mind and declare their freedom by withdrawing or dismissing their case.  The insolvent must ask the bankruptcy court to set them free.</div> <div>      </div> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <B>Federal Judges Continue to Rely On Bankruptcy Law of The </B><B><U>1800's To Deny Due </U></B><B><U>Process of Law</U></B></div> <bR> <div> Federal judges readily admit that the current Bankruptcy Code does not provide who does or doesn't have standing to appeal orders entered by the bankruptcy court.  Yet, they all agree that by going back to the bankruptcy system that existed in the 1800's, debtors lack standing to challenge what bankruptcy trustees do with assets of the bankruptcy estate. Then, they turn back to relying on the Constitution -- one has to be an injured party in order to have standing before the courts. Their basis is that debtors are not harmed financially by orders entered by the bankruptcy court, because upon filing bankruptcy, debtors own nothing.</div> <bR> <div> Judge James B. Haines, Jr. of the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the First Circuit, in Great Road Service Center, Inc. (B.A.P. 1st Cir, No. MW 03-045 1/26/04) rejected the debtor's argument that it had standing to challenge the fee award to the trustee and his special counsel. He also granted the trustee's motion for sanctions against the debtor's counsel for prosecuting a frivolous appeal of the compensation award.  </div> <bR> <div> There were laws that punished people who helped slaves seeking freedom, as there is a federal Rule that punishes attorneys helping debtors.  How are attorneys suppose to know that paupers are not entitled to all rights and privileges under the constitution? </div> <bR> <div> Bankruptcy standing "is narrower than Article III standing," Haines said, citing Spenlinhauer v. O'Donnell (In re Spenlinhauer), 261 F.3d 113 (1st Cir. 2001). "Only a 'person aggrieved' has standing to challenge a bankruptcy court order; the challenged order must directly and adversely affect the appellant's pecuniary interests."</div> <bR> <div> We can understand Judge Haine's interpretation to say that Article I is equal to other Articles in the Constitution, but separate, because Article I judges are for citizens of a lower class.  You must be a member of a class that is higher than being a pauper in order to receive the privilege afforded by Article III. </div> <bR> <div> Indeed, a person can be aggrieved when their home or business is sold on the purported basis to pay creditors, but the majority, or all the proceeds are diverted to the compensation of the trustee and his professionals.    The insolvent do not have the right to feel betrayed by the bankruptcy system.  They have no right to complain what the trustee does, how he does it, when he does it, why he does it, or who he does it with.</div> <bR> <div> In a June 13, 2002 decision in Westwood Community Two Association, Inc. v. Barbee, Judges Anderson, Dubina and Marcus, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit wrote:</div> <div> "Generally, only the bankruptcy trustee may appeal an order from a bankruptcy court."</div> <bR> <div> " Unlike the prior law, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 ("Bankruptcy Code") does not define who has standing to appeal an order of a bankruptcy court.  In addition, neither the Supreme Court nor this court has defined who may appeal a bankruptcy order under the Bankruptcy Code.  Our sister circuit's have agreed that, <B>although Congress did not define who has standing to appeal in the Bankruptcy Code,</B> <B>no evidence exists that Congress intended to alter the definition set forth in the prior law, </B><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Times New Roman" ><B>the Bankruptcy Act of 1898</B></FONT><B>.</B> See Travelers Ins. Co. v. H.K. Porter Co., 45 F.3d 737, 741 (3d Cir. 1995); Depoister v. Mary M. Holloway Found., 36 F.3d 582, 585 (7th Cir. 1994); Holmes v. Silver Wings Aviation, Inc., 881 F.2d 939, 940 (10th Cir. 1989); Kane v. Johns-Manville Corp., 843 F.2d 636, 641-42 (2d Cir. 1988); In re El San Juan Hotel, 809 F.2d 151, 154 (1st Cir. 1987); In re L.T. Ruth Coal Co., 803 F.2d 720 (6th Cir. 1986)(unpublished table opinion, No. 85-5990); In re Fondiller, 707 F.2d 441, 442-43 (9th Cir. 1983).</div> <bR> <div> This presents a haunting question --- now that Congress knows federal judges have added to the law because Congress left the question open of who has standing to appeal an order of the bankruptcy court, will they legislate law granting debtors standing on appeal? </div> <bR> <div> Note that the judges in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit defined "person aggrieved" as:</div> <div> "A person has a financial stake in the order when that order diminishes their property, increases their burdens or impairs their rights." Troutman, 286 F.3d at 364. </div> <bR> <div> According to federal judges, the insolvent have no rights that can be impaired. Bankruptcy court orders do not diminish the property of paupers, because paupers own no property.  The burdens of the insolvent cannot be increased because they own nothing. Since they own nothing, they have no rights. </div> <bR> <div> Bankruptcy trustees cannot be sued in a civil action.  Some circuits allow suits for gross negligence, but gross negligence is defined by the judges and not by statute. Federal district judges have decided that chapter 7 and chapter 13 trustees are appointed by the court and therefore, have judicial immunity.  They are mistaken, as one of the purposes of the U.S. Trustee Program was to have someone other than bankruptcy judges choose and appoint trustees in chapter 7 and chapter 13 cases.  U.S. Trustees hire chapter 13 trustees, and appoint chapter 7 trustees from a panel of people who are not government employees.  </div> <bR> <div> Under Chapter 13 and Chapter 7, the court does not appoint trustees to  cases. </div> <bR> <div> Once debtors file bankruptcy, their identity is transformed to the debtor of the bankruptcy estate. It is an oxymoron.  A bankruptcy estate consists of property.  If the insolvent own no property, there is no bankruptcy estate.  Still, they have a Trustee of the debtor's bankruptcy estate.  What is the property, therefore, if not the debtor?</div> <bR> <div> It is a Master-slave relationship.</div> <bR> <div> How should non-debtors, who challenge their ownership interest in property in the bankruptcy courts reason this?  The Constitution provides that no citizen shall be deprived of property without due process of law.  However, citizens deprived of property who seek due process of law to right the wrong, cannot do so if the property has been sold.  Federal judges say that this is due to the constitutional requirement that federal district and appellant courts hear only live cases and controversies.  </div> <bR> <div> Article III courts hear only live cases and controversies. Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 653 (1895). </div> <bR> <div> The 1895 decision is cited in the Civil Resource Manual for the Department of Justice, USAM, Title 4. The Department of Justice is taught that a decision based on bankruptcy law in 1895 is correct and alive today.  Hence, consitutional rights are deprived because another section of the constition requires those courts who are able to right the wrong to only having authority to hear live cases and controversies.</div> <bR> <div> We can only conclude, like federal judges, that property sold unlawfully is not a live controversy because it has been sold.  It is just as those free African descendents found that once they were taken by Night Riders and sold into slavery, that they had no opportunity to prove they were sold unlawfully.</div> <bR> <div> Trustees and bankruptcy judges deprive parties of appealing orders to approve sales by moving quickly.  Once the property is sold, it is no longer a "live" case.</div> <bR> <div> Article I bankruptcy judges have authority to <I><B>kill</B></I> the life of such issues, but those Article III judges in whose supervision they work do not have authority to determine if Article I judges killed the issue in error -- because an Article I judge killed it.   </div> <bR> <div> If a party in a bankruptcy proceeding wants to appeal the bankruptcy court's order approving sale of property, they must obtain a stay of the sale. The Manual for the Department of Justice instructs that:</div> <div>  "Counsel should always seek a stay pending appeal; failure to do so supports later arguments that our appeal is moot. See generally In re Best Prods. Co.,177 B.R. 791, 803-05 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)."</div> <bR> <div> Seeking a stay is not a simple matter of saying you have rights to the appellant process, or that your property is being taken and sold without due process of law.  Federal judges have applied a standard that requires much more than citing the rights you think you have. </div> <bR> <div> To obtain a stay, the party must show the same judge who entered the order that his order was wrong and will be reversed on appeal; that the appellant will be harmed; that no harm will come to the other party, and that the public interest will be harmed if a stay is not granted. </div> <bR> <div> <B>As one debtor put it, it's like asking Satan to put out the flames long enough for you to see if there is a chance of getting out of hell.</B>  </div> <bR> <div> There are also cases that require the posting of bonds in order to stay sale, or appeal a money judgment. </div> <bR> <div> First, the party will need to be rich to appeal the order.  Not only will they  need legal fees and filing fees, but they must post a bond while seeking a stay and appeal.  </div> <bR> <div> According to federal rules, the appellant has 10 calendar days to make this happen.  If the order is entered on Friday, the appellant automatically loses two days to conduct business.  The 10 days is effectively reduced to  6 business days to get a lawyer, file notice of appeal, post bond, and have the lawyer prepare and file a motion to stay pending appeal and have it heard and decided before the trustee closes the sale, or before the time expires that the bankruptcy court has ordered compliance with its order. </div> <bR> <div> It is little wonder why the majority of appeals are filed by creditor corporations, and not the insolvent.  The insolvent cannot afford the appellant process.  </div> <bR> <div> Americans are told that the appellate process is available if they dislike orders entered by judges.  This is a misrepresentation.  It is not a matter of disliking court orders.  Rather, there appears to be a general consensus among the public who has weathered the experience of appearing in court, that judges enter void orders, or abuse their discretion, because they know regular citizens cannot afford the appellant process. Some people allege that the court is unjustly enriched by filing fees. </div> <bR> <div> Bankruptcy Judges, although not free to engage in corruption at will, are immune from suits alleging violation of civil rights. Determination if a bankruptcy judge engaged in corruption is by appellant review.  The public has procedures to lodge complaints about federal judges. (Bryan v. Murphy, F.Supp.2d (2003 WL 272154, N.D., Ga., 2003)</div> <bR> <div> Although this article has touched on the difficulty of pursuing the appellant process for the average citizen, to touch upon the impossibility of receiving justice through the judicial complaint process requires another article. A judicial complaint alleging corruption of a federal judge during a case is an oxymoron, as complaints are automatically dismissed if they pertain to decisions made by the judge.  How is it possible to provide evidence of the judge's corruption in a case without addressing his decisions? </div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <B><U>Slaves Are Not Allowed To Be Educated. </U></B></div> <div> Debtors are not allowed to be educated in bankruptcy law neither court procedures.  If they should turn to a bankruptcy petition preparer for help with preparing their papers, the bankruptcy petition preparer is punished on the allegation that they gave legal advice.  Bankruptcy petition preparers run into charges of unlicensed practice of law when handing out reading material to customers.  Bar associations have tried to stop publication companies from selling material to the public that explains legal documents or the legal system.</div> <bR> <div> <B>How dare they educate slaves! </B></div> <bR> <div> Today's judiciary, through the agency of the U.S. Trustee Program, keeps the Dred Scott decision alive by transforming debtors into slaves, regardless of their race.  </div> <bR> <div> Today's judiciary, through the agency of the U.S. Trustee Program, keeps the Plessy v. Ferguson decision alive by deceiving debtors to believe that they are equal and not separate from other citizens under the constitution.</div> <bR> <div> Today's judiciary, through granting themselves and all others they protect immunity, establishes the Master-slave relationship.</div> <bR> <bR> <div> References: </div> <div> Washington University in St. Louis</div> <div> The Multiracial Activist</div> <div> American Government Documents Collection</div> <bR> <bR> <bR> <bR> <bR> <bR> </td> </tr></table></body>