Published on 05-17-2015 by THE REIGN OF THE HEAVENS SOCIETY POST
There have been some interesting turn of events in the Carolyn Rousseau Case in the State of Oregon that deserve basic review that the public needs to be aware of at this time.
For those that are not familiar with Carolyn Rousseau, here is a little memory refresher:
The Human Rights Tribunal heard a case of a woman that was suffering from grief and depression over the death of her father and ex-husband. Her then and still current husband called for some help because he was concerned for her welfare and simply needed a little help. The results will not shock many in today’s America.
To make this short and sweet, Carolyn Rousseau was placed in a home, and conservator and guardian was appointed over Carolyn and all of her property went to the conservator/guardian to cover the expenses of “taking care of Carolyn Rousseau”. Carolyn’s current husband has been fighting to get Carolyn’s freedom ever since 2009 with Carolyn Rousseau’s consent and full knowledge, and has suffered a host of torts including but not limited to slander and UN-necessary court costs not to mention the human rights violations against Carolyn Rousseau.
Ever since The Human Rights Tribunal has been involved with the case, a lot of attitudes have changed in the State of Oregon. The lawyers have become kind and considerate towards Carolyn’s husband, however, there is an underlying air of “cover my tushy syndrome” going on over the past couple of months and here is one of them:
The judge that heard the original case is claiming judicial immunity through her lawyer at the office of the Attorney General of the State of Oregon, (OAG for short). The judge sought council when The Human Rights Tribunal became involved.
Back in 2010, a U.S. Marshal was asked why the federal does not go in and arrest everyone at the local level when there is corruption in a whole town? The answer was simple: “Because they all stick together and release each other from jail and dismiss each others cases etc…”. Watching this same scenario from an International point of view (American Nationals point of view) has been a real eye opener and forces a different point of view upon the American National. The Human Rights Tribunal has suffered some hits and all kinds of slander during the process of teaching the people in the State of Oregon about Human Rights and how their actions effect those that they profess to protect.
Now, the judge is claiming judicial immunity in her decision to give Carolyn Rousseau a life sentence that was the result from a simple phone call for help after having a bad day.
Judicial Immunity: Judicial Immunity comes with some liabilities that most people are not aware of at this time. The law making process comes originally from those that write the laws. If you ask the law makers, they will tell you that they write the laws and it is up to the courts to interpret the laws written. It is as simple as writing a law and using the courts to test the law to see if it is a good law. This means that all laws written are under the category of experimentation on society.
This process gives the judge in any court wide discretion as to whether the statute applies and whether or not the statute applies in any given case under the rules of intent. Most judges claim that they are bound by state statute, to put it simply, that claim is a lie. Judges are not bound by state statute, the judge is bound by conscience and interpretation of the state statute. This means the judges can reverse decisions at anytime with judicial immunity just the same as making a decision with judicial immunity.
The judge in Carolyn Rousseau’s case knew that the statute used to give Carolyn Rousseau a life sentence did not apply in that case and can be reversed at anytime with immunity on both ends of the case.
Human Rights violations come into play when a judge refuses to apply judicial immunity where immunity is needed. If a judge is immune, and a human rights violation has occurred, why join with the violators by claiming two things, immunity and being bound by state statute? Only one claim is true and can be used to fix the other.
Here is a copy of the judicial immunity claim: LINK
This is why Human Rights and the knowledge of them are so important because on a judges level, they are bound by conscience and not state statute because of the interpretation authority granted judges over state statutes. If a judge claims to be bound by state statute and immunity at the same time? That is a big fat whopper of a lie!
In this particular case, can anyone say “Wide spread real estate scam”? because Carolyn Rousseau had a house that was paid off and she is elderly.