Onward, Christian Soldiers and other verses

During the reign of the U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft (2001-2005) and the shadow president, the federal courts’ lifetime-appointment stockings were stuffed with dutiful Christian Conservative judges. Many of these new judges had shown disdain to the heart-felt and blooded principals of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights before their appointments, and more especially afterwards, as they became more emboldened and expressed that their loyalty lay elsewhere. Many were appointed beyond their abilities and now their mockery of their oath has contaminated many courts in the federal districts of the United States. Justice weeps!

Soon after the newly appointed federal Judge Robert C. Brack arrived in the newly designated federal District Court of Las Cruces, New Mexico, in 2003, he attended a meeting of the Las Cruces Public Schools Board of Education to introduce himself. To the credit of the then Superintendent of Schools, Louis D. Martinez, the proselytizing speech by Judge Brack was denounced as being inappropriate. Apparently that had no effect on Brack’s religious mission to use his now federal lifetime-position to missionize and proselytize at every opportunity, especially in his courtroom, just like he had been doing in his New Mexico state judgeship (1997-2003) and lengthy activities as a lawyer in Clovis, New Mexico. Apparently the city of Clovis and its environs is a welcoming venue for the likes of Judge Brack.

Judge Brack knows exactly what he is doing. During all appearances before him in federal court by the plaintiffs in the lawsuits against the Las Cruces Public Schools and the City of Las Cruces he never broached his New Testament that lay open on his bench. But Judge Brack did refuse to recuse himself for his illegal and out of place religious activities in the federal courthouse at all the other times by testifying as to his refusal, “I am a Christian.” Did rapists get off in his state courtroom by claiming they were just ordinary men following biblical teachings? How many plaintiffs and defendants have been legally raped by this judge?

Note: Read Brack's lies in his own hand at pages 681, 683 and 888.

The Congressional Record shows that Senators Peter Domenici (53 spoken lines) and Jeff Bingaman (17 spoken lines) addressed the Senate Confirmation Committee on 25 June 2003, pages 629 and 630 respectfully of the 7 July 2003 Congressional Record. But nominee Robert C. Brack was allocated the telling page 666 to begin his comments.

Interested parties are here directed to the Congressional Record dated 7 July 2003 where the vitae of New Mexico State Judge Robert C. Brack answers the form questions for the hearing. One can only wonder how Robert C. Brack became a federal district court judge.

Page 668, Question 5, Education: Bachelor of Arts, 1975. Juris Doctor Degree, 1978.

[Advanced degrees: None listed.]

Page 669, Question 8, Honor and Awards: [I was] invited to write for the Tulane Law Review. I did not write for the Review.

Page 671, Question 12, Published Writings: I haven’t been published. There are no copies of written speeches because it is my practice to speak from brief outlines that I discard after the event. A short speech given by me at my swearing –in ceremony as a state district court judge in February, 1997, was videotaped, but a recent search for a copy was unsuccessful. None of my speeches involved constitutional law or legal policy.

SUBJECT MATTER - for four military and civilian groups, one being the New

Mexico State Bar Convention Prayer Breakfast, on Page 671 are as follows:

Character; Personal Testimony; Jehoshaphat, 2 Chron. 20, as related

to the need for revival in our nation[four groups]; promoting October, 2001

[Christian] crusade. Page 672 continues the Subject Matter before various

groups: Prayer; Character; Personal Prayer Experiences; Evening with Judge

Brack; Friends; Commendations, challenges, considering it all joy; Heroes;

Gave the sermon from prescribed readings for the particular Sunday; Eulogist

at funeral for friend; The Purpose Driven Life; Character.

Page 673-675, Question 15, Citations:

Paragraph J. (3): As a state district judge, my involvement with

constitutional issues is limited. I don’t believe that any of my decisions or

corresponding appellate decisions [none]could be said to have involved “significant”

constitutional issues.

Page 676-677, Question 17, Legal Career:

(1) No [Never was a law clerk.]

Page 680, Question 19, Legal Activities: land acquisitions; lease negotiations; contract work with vendors; development of employee policies; telephone cooperative expansion; community college transition; basketball coach firing; bank purchasing problems.

Page 681, Question 2, Financial Data and Conflict of Interest (Public):

2. As a federal judge, I will follow, in all circumstances, the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges and the requirements of 28 USC §455 and all other recusal statues.

Page 682, Question 2, General (Public): Do you currently belong, or have you belonged, to any organization [from American Bar Associations Commentary to its Code of Judicial Conduct: “that invidiously discriminates on the basis of race, sex, or religion”] which discriminates – through either formal membership requirements of the practical implementation of membership policies?

Response: No [No religious organization nor church listed. Brack must believe that religious prejudice doesn't count and won't accept the history of his church.]

Page 683, Question 3, General (Public): Answers to question about selection process:

September, 2002: Nelson Franse, Albuquerque attorney and lifelong friend

told me about two [upcoming] positions.

Made some preliminary calls to friends and supporters, which included:

Pete Domenici, Jr., Albuquerque attorney

Pat Lyons, New Mexico Land Commissioner

Pat Rogers, Albuquerque attorney

January, 2003: I wrote Senator Pete V. Domenici a letter about my desire.

I met with: Pat Rogers;

Judge Parker, U.S. District Chief [Judge] of NM;

Bill Kelcher, Albuquerque attorney.

31 January: I met with Senator Domenici for an interview.

February 1, 2003: I had breakfast with Senator Bingaman about his support.

February 12, 2003: I was interviewed by a Deputy Counsel to the President

[no name] and a representative from the Department of

Justice [no name] in the White House.

April 28, 2003: My name was sent to the Senate by the President.

Page 683-684, Question 5, General (Public): Responses to the question about criticism

involving “judicial activism.” Brack writes:

In our system of separation of powers, the power to legislate is left

exclusively to the legislative branch. The judicial branch exists to say

what the law is, not what it should be. The courts exist to decide cases

and controversies, not to sit as super legislatures. When the judiciary

crosses the line from interpreting policy to making policy, our

constitutional scheme is perverted and endangered.

The doctrine of stare decisis demands, [“to stand by things decided” The

doctrine of precedent , under which it is necessary for a court to follow

earlier judicial decisions when the same points arise again in litigation.

Page 1414, Black’s Law Dictionary.] particularly of the lower courts, that

decisions of the superior courts be followed in order to promote stability

and prevent chaos. Brack writes:

If federal judges are to remain faithful to their oath to uphold the

Constitution and decide according to law and if the public trust vested in

an independent judiciary is to be upheld, judges must restrain themselves

in the use of the extraordinary power granted them in their positions.

Page 888, Question 1.B., Questions and Answers: Responses of Robert Brack to

follow-up questions from Senator Richard J. Durbin.

Senator Durbin: Do you think it is appropriate for a state or federal judge to

engage in personal lobbying of any sort? If so, what types of

lobbing do you believe are appropriate?

Brack response: I believe that judges should follow the law and canons of

judicial ethics when determining whether to engage in

personal lobbying of any kind. In New Mexico, pursuant to

§21-700(A) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, “a judge may

engage in political activity on behalf of the legal system, the

administration of justice, measures to improve the law and

as expressly authorized by law or this Code.” Relative to

improve non-political activity, a judge shall conduct all of

his extra-judicial activities so that they do not:

(1) cast doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially

as a judge;

(2) demean the judicial office;

(3) interfere with the proper performance of judicial

duties;

(4) violate the judge’s oath and obligation to uphold the

laws and constitution of the United States and the

State of New Mexico §21-500(A), New Mexico

Code of Judicial Conduct.

I have endeavored to follow the Code during my years as a state district court

judge and I will strive to similarly follow the Code of Conduct for United

States Judges, if confirmed.

BRACK'S CONTINUES TO INSERT HIS RELIGION IN THE COURTROOM AND ELSEWHERE IN THE FEDERAL COURT HOUSE AND ESTABLISHED A RECORD OF LYING; IT'S ALL IN THE COURT DOCUMENTS.