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.

Rewards for Collusion

One of most unusual events in any city's history would be the mobilization and the joining of religious groups, those who have their own histories of prejudice toward others, with those of similar religious beliefs to defeat a common 'enemy' that challenges their status quo. An admission of guilt to the wrongdoing of these religious groups would destroy their sanctimonious proselytizing of superior religious beliefs. And don't forget about the money that's always involved when it comes to saving souls vs. justice.

Besides the support of the usual religious leaders, the flock would be comprised like the nursery rhyme characters, 'butcher, baker, candle stick maker', and add the bankers, judges, etc. While many of the 'good' people remain nameless like the back room supporters to the KKK and Neo-Nazis, some stand out to get their rewards.

One so rewarded is local history professor Jon Hunner, New Mexico State University, whose collusion with the religious factions was verified by Defense attorney William R. Babington, Jr. who said, "You know, he is one of ours." Professor Hunner sold himself for the $2,500 the plaintiffs had to pay him for his sophomoric history report Judge Sold-Out Brack accepted over the protestations of the plaintiffs. There were other immediate rewards like the new designation of court-appointed "Expert Witness" which was proven fraudulent in the report and on the witness stand.

Hunner's more recent reward is his appointment as Department Head of the History Department at the New Mexico State University. Hunner knows he took the money under false credentials and the plaintiffs want their money back. This amounts to a new meaning of 'white collar' crime.

Policy 424: Religion in the Las Cruces Public Schools

One of the most recent, yet baffling responses to the quest to simply add an 's' to the word 'religion' in the previous article about the Policy 424: (Which reads in part) "but [the school district] does have the responsibility to teach about religion." was revealed after the recent review of the Policy and Procedures 424 by a committee.

One of the School Board members had been asking that an 's' be added per the wishes of members of the community. This same School Board member was also on the review committee.
BUT, the review committee met in secret without informing the School Board member of the meeting.

As long as the word 'religion' remains singular the connotation is Christianity is the favored religion in the Las Cruces, New Mexico, Public Schools. Teachers and staff will read it that way.
Those parents and organizations bent on pressuring the schools to promote Christianity will read it that way. And they all know why the Las Cruces Public Schools Board of Education and Superintendent will not add the 's.'

It was just a simple question

asked of a 22-year (at the time) education veteran who was then the Acting Superintendent of the Las Cruces Public Schools. Ms. Elizabeth J. Marrufo had been a teacher, a principal, an administrator, and then the Acting Superintendent, who was on the witness stand under oath in the federal civil rights case against the Las Cruces Public Schools for promoting religion.

Defense attorney William Babington had added Marrufo as the surprise witness the morning of the trial to further compound the jumbled courtroom confusion under the leadership of Judge Brack that followed against the pro se plaintiff. Only after the Plaintiff demanded an interview with Marrufo was he allowed to speak to her a few minutes before the trial started. Judge Robert Brack denied the star witness, the only witness, of the Plaintiff because the Defense said they hadn't had time to interview her. This was not true as the federal Magistrate Lourdes Martinez had ordered the Plaintiff to submit a new witness list in plenty of time for the Defense to schedule a meeting with the Plaintiff's ready and willing witness. This was just more of the shameless undeniable collusion between the two Judges and the Defense.

Marrufo was agitated from the beginning of the very short 10-minute interview in another room with the lawyer. That agitation was carried to the witness stand. Marrufo was the first witness for the defense as 'she had get back to work' filling in the void left by two fired previous superintendents. The most simple question that could be asked of someone in Marrufo's position and with her extensive experience with the multicultural audience of children in Las Cruces was, "Ms. Marrufo, can you name any non-Christian groups in Las Cruces?" With the steady gaze that would freeze the pounding heart of a wayward child, Ms. Marrufo calmly said, "No, sir."

The stage was set for the rest of the defense witnesses to add their version of the truth to the manure pile encouraged and overseen by Judge Robert Brack. One wonders how someone so devoid of cultural knowledge of the children she is responsible for through the teachers in her position of Director of Elementary Instruction can be effective. Now the local newspaper reports Marrufo has earned her Ph.D. The title of her dissertation is interesting as it carries words like "....District Office....Roles....Relative to Impacting Student Achievement."

Beacons of Christian Hegemony

East view of new Las Cruces City Hall. This is facing the original neighbor of Las Cruces for all to see when the sun rises.

South view of new City Hall of Las Cruces. Note only the crosses are on this side as one travels one-way north on Church Steet. A real glaring in-your-face view. Anyone driving through this area gets a real eyeful.

The west view main entrance of the new Las Cruces City Hall.

There is no symbol on the north side as dictates the religious superstitution that abounds in the area. The only public library in Las Cruces is on the north side of this complex and does have its own Latin crosses symbol. Across from the public library is the fire and police departments who promote their own Latin crosses symbols. All are references to the Gospel of John. The chapters depend upon the number of sunburst points and the verses relate to the department.

The Right to Write a Letter

Citizens' Awake! You have a right to write letters to whomever you wish.
Some citizens are not too aware of the extent of their civil liberties guaranteed by the laws of the United States beginning with our U. S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Even in the seemingly lawless confines of New Mexico the state Constitution states: "The U. S. Constitution is the law of the land."

It appears that some citizens find life easier if they just keep their heads down and pull their anchor-like burden. Politicians, judges, lawyers, and all others pigging out at the overfilled trough of tax dollars love these citizens since they cause no problems. "Take it like a man!" is heard over the guffaws at the trough.

One of the rights citizens have that those at the trough thoroughly detest is the citizens' right to write a letter to them. Those at the trough seem to believe they are above the law. One group of those at the trough are some judges, elected or appointed, city, county, state, and/or federal jurisdictions. This country was founded by protesters and writing a letter is a way to illuminate any wrongs the citizen experiences.

Many judges take their responsibilities very seriously, to their oath, to the law, to our country, and to the people. Their personal honor is readily apparent and you will never see them at the trough. The title of MacArthur's famous speech of "Duty, Honor, Country." applies to these judges. They honestly earn their pay.

Then we have judges that knowingly cross their fingers when they raise their right hand and take the oath of allegiance to "protect and defend" the Constitution.

When judges do the wink-and-nod dance with attorneys, politicians, and/or religious leaders or their representatives, to prevent citizens from enjoying the same civil liberties the aforementioned ilk enjoy, our laws and courts have been contaminated. If not, why would a judge or two show their fear of a citizen telling the truth? Then use their 'judge's discretion' to send U. S. Marshals to the citizen's home in an attempt to intimidate the citizen. Just an extension of fruitless judicial harassment that failed in the courtrooms.

Correcting Public Perceptions

Paul F. Weinbaum
11025 Black Hills Road
Las Cruces, NM 88011-9365
29 October 2009


Judge Lourdes Martinez
U.S. Federal Magistrate
Federal Courthouse
200 East Griggs St.
Las Cruces, NM 88001

Subject: Your failed service to the federal judicial system; My Constitutional rights.

Dear Judge Martinez:

Ever since the truth of how you and Defense Attorney William Babington coordinated the disappearance of over two years of the Pretrial Order in the Chavez/Weinbaum v. Las Cruces Public Schools Board of Education (CIV 03-1043), later changed to Weinbaum v. Las Cruces Public Schools Board of Education (CIV 03-1043), one can only wonder why you are still on the bench?

Your personal bias toward the pro se Plaintiffs was apparent from the outset of the above case. Your selection as the federal magistrate for Weinbaum/Boyd v. City of Las Cruces, etc. (CIV 05-996) only compounded your obvious prejudice toward the Plaintiffs in both cases.

For a judge who had all the authority of this nation’s laws to govern your decisions, you stooped to a low baseness to harangue and discredit the Plaintiffs in your court and in your decisions, a pronounced effort to force them to quit their rightful demands for Justice. An example of your harassment was the order for me to write a report comparing the Decalogue cases in Texas and Kentucky. Remember the time I asked, as was my right, for your assistance to serve a deposition summons on a state employee in Albuquerque? And you so eloquently said, “I’m not helping you do anything!” Your actions continue to bring discredit not only to your continued presence on the bench, but to the courts of the United States.

Contrary to the normal good order of a court as directed in the Federal Civil Judicial Procedures and Rules (FCJPR) that governed both these civil cases, you allowed the Defense Attorney Frank Weissbarth to assail me about some picayune, juvenile problem he had with my e-mails to him. To refresh your memory in my effort to calm his attack, I attempted to apologize to him and you said, “Your apology is not good enough!”

Attorney Weissbarth was Governor Richardson’s defense attorney for the City of Las Cruces case. It is my belief that from your body language when Governor Richardson’s name was invoked by me that he was involved in your federal appointment. Perhaps that is why Attorney Weissbarth appeared to have special privileges in his attacks on me.
You do remember don’t you, the time I asked you for the rules reference you were citing and you told me to “Read further!” Motivated by the rudeness of your admonishment I did. I read the whole book in the previous paragraph, along with several other legal tomes. There I found the names, paragraphs, and chapters of the abuses you covered with your ‘judge’s discretion’ and your misplaced employment as a federal magistrate.

Remember when the Plaintiffs attempted to question the Court’s ‘expert’ witness, history professor (“He’s one of ours.”) Jon Hunner, for a deposition? You and Defense Attorney Frank Weissbarth, who drove 300 miles from Santa Fe with his assistant, Ms. Lord, coordinated the disruption of the deposition, along with the Defense Attorneys William Babington and Matthew Holt. When I demanded these officers-of-the-court show me the rule in the FCJPR book where they were allowed to disrupt the deposition, Defense Attorney Matthew Holt reluctantly said, “They aren’t written down.”

Remember the two telephone calls to you from Attorney Weissbarth that morning, with the second one resulting in a cell-phone discussion with you by all parties. The cell-phone placed in the center of the table was certainly an unusual technique since your office was across the street. Of course, had we appeared in your court to resolve the conflict between the written rules I had to follow and those you continued to make up, there would be a record. You could not afford to have a record of your illegal tryst with the defense attorneys to prevent justice from being served.

Your religious prejudice toward the guaranteed rights outlined in the Bill of Rights and your oath of office was exposed all by yourself. Your blatant avoidance of the truth as a federal judge should have embarrassed you while holding and looking at an example of the basis of the two cases, the three crosses of the City of Las Cruces symbol, when you said, “I just don’t see that third cross you are complaining about, Mr. Weinbaum.” As the sitting federal magistrate deciding the Constitutional illegalities of the City of Las Cruces it was no time to expose your personal religious defense of “mental reservation.”

With that said, you should have recused yourself, as I had asked, as it was obvious you were using your judgeship in collusion with Judge Robert Brack to represent and protect, not the oath you took, not the U. S. Constitution nor the Bill of Rights, not the sanctity of the court, but interests represented by your personal beliefs.

Local Rules allow attorneys to take computers and cell-phones into the courtrooms, and both have silent transmission capabilities to outside the building. While the federal magistrate court does provide CD recordings for purchase, the speed of availability depends upon the purchaser. The local newspaper, the Las Cruces Sun-News, could get the CD within an hour. To your chagrin and that of others my withdrawal from the cases request never materialized, so the CD’s I purchased were delayed several times for several weeks. The pathetic courtroom acoustics, my military service hearing problem, and the delayed CD’s prompted my honest request for a noiseless recorder per the Local Rules. You didn’t find my request valid, so as usual you denied that request for that particular case as the rules dictate.

In the FJCPR I understood it to say that a ruling only applied to that particular case. When I did take a digital recorder into the courtroom in a different case, you claimed that I had disregarded your order, it coming from another case. Then you used me at the hearing you scheduled to harangue several attorneys, who were waiting for their cases to come up, on your obvious expectations of their servility since I wasn’t remorseful enough. “He hasn’t even apologized to me!”

You fined me $500 dollars in front of those attorneys as an obvious warning to them and you didn’t really want to hear what I had to say. You laughed at my hearing-test report I provided the court for consideration.

Then your after-action of levying large fines against the totally innocent security guards following my bringing the non-metallic recorder into the building can only be viewed as bizarre behavior for a judge. A judge with absolutely no idea about justice and fairness. A review panel of honest individuals would find you needing to look for a job elsewhere away from a court bench.

The civil rights damage you have done, the civil rights damage you participated in with Judge Robert Brack, the civil rights damage you supported by favoring one religion over others, the civil rights damage you helped levy on the religious and non-religious minority citizens of Las Cruces and its surrounds, has your black mark, Judge Martinez, for generations.

Every time you and Judge Brack see the symbol of Las Cruces crosses you will know what you both have done. The shadow of disgrace is on you both.


Sincerely,

Signed
_______________
Paul F. Weinbaum


PS: The appearance of the U.S. Marshals at my home was a ‘nice’ touch to the continued harassment.