It is not a judicial function for a judge to engage in acts that violate the U.S. Constitution, to war against the U.S. Constitution.
The act of any judge to violate a person’s First and Fourteenth Amendment Rights, or to permit such violation to occur, is an attack upon the Constitution, and is a crime.
Courts have consistently held that when a judge fails to support the Constitution, the judge is not acting in any judicial capacity, but is acting only in his/her personal capacity. His/her orders are void, of no legal force or effect, and he/she has been deprived of any protection of the government. He/she is amenable to personal suit, as the judge does not have judicial immunity for acts in his/her personal capacity.
Further, he/she has engaged in acts to defraud the government by his/her acceptance of any benefits from the government, whether salary, office, pension, insurance, etc. He has failed to provide honest services to the government and the public.
Why did Associate judge Daniel Miranda violate the law, and the Constitution of the United States?
judge Miranda, what is there about the U.S. Constitution you do not understand?
judge Miranda took three separate oaths to support and defend the U.S. Constitution; (1) when he joined the Marine Corps, (2) when he became an attorney, and (3) when he became a judge. Yet even today, judge Daniel R. Miranda wars against the U.S. Constitution, by his failure to support and defend the Constitution. Was Miranda as disloyal to the Constitution as a Marine as he is today as a judge? Apparently Miranda's words mean nothing to him when it comes to the U.S. Constitution. By his failure to support and defend the Constitution, he has no judicial authority under the Supreme Law of the Land, but is only acting in his person and not as a judge.
judge Daniel R. Miranda has committed fraud upon the court and upon the Constitution. judge Daniel R. Miranda has engaged in actions in which he brings the judicial office into disrepute.
judge Miranda, why have you violated the public trust?
CLR suggests, that whenever the judge has violated his/her oath to support
the Constitution, all benefits received by the judge are based on fraud,
and that all such benefits are "ill-gotten" gains. Also, all actions taken
to benefit any party by the judge with these "ill-gotten" gains
are also a fraud upon the Defendant or the Plaintiff involved and/or
the government. Those who may benefit from these "ill-gotten" gains (stolen
property), either directly or indirectly, may include the judge's spouse,
children, parents, in-laws, siblings, other relatives, friends, associates,
and girl-friends or boy-friends, if any.
Just as a person who is in possession of property which has been stolen
is not the legal owner of the property, a person who is in possession of
"ill-gotten" gains is not the legal owner of those "ill-gotten" gains.
The stolen property must be returned to the legal owner; the "ill-gotten"
gains
should be returned to the legal owner.
The title to personal property requires a chain of proof as does the title to real property.
In criminal law the hardest case for a defense attorney that he must contend with, is a case where the client, the defendant, is accused of being "in possession of stolen property". In such a case the only valid defense is proof of ownership of the goods in question. The burden is on the party who may have "ill-gotten gains" in their possession to prove that they have not received any "ill-gotten gains".
The following is a list of some of the persons who may have received
some of the "ill-gotten" gains obtained from the defrauding of the government
by judge Daniel R. Miranda:
Anita Thomas Miranda
Jeffrey Miranda
Alison Miranda
Copyright© 2003 by Citizens for Legal Responsibility®. All rights reserved. email: clr@clr.org