The “Rulers of Law”

A series of personal experiences throws a bright light on the vagaries of the “rule of law” myth and offers a cautionary tale which illuminates the reality that we are actually governed by the “rulers of law.” Public officials throughout government, who are protected by a veil of sovereign immunity, can, and often do, apply their own personal and political spin on broadly stated laws, which provide almost unbridled discretion as they are administered.

I learned about the influence of unbridled discretion and sovereign immunity by our government firsthand when fresh out of college I joined my brothers to form a partnership in a real estate renovation company. We quickly found ourselves under assault by the forces of a county government bureaucracy out of control, which included arson on one of our properties that was intertwined with government intrigue. My cautionary tale begins to unfold when our partnership applied for a septic system solution for the second property we purchased; soon after beginning the permit process it became clear to us that the county had a hidden agenda on the property.

It was becoming apparent to us the county government officials intended to make an end-run around our grandfather rights by utilizing Health and Safety Codes to force the destruction of some of the buildings on the property, so the property more closely conformed to the zoning codes recently enacted for small ranchettes. While carrying out their agenda, government officials had no qualms about abusing their discretion by applying disparate enforcement codes to permit process and to even double up on enforcement codes when it suited their purpose.

To continue to justify their enforcement efforts, the county ordered us to maintain a septic system on the property in a way that would ensure its failure. Finally, when their tactics failed to produce the desired affect, they simply fabricated the data on a test we were instructed to perform thus dictating the final results they wished to achieve, in essence operating by fiat. On the heels of these over the top actions by the government, we commenced an investigation. When we followed the evidence, it led back to an attorney who earlier foiled the county government’s initial attempts to enforce their agenda on the property. It soon became clear that we were caught up in a long standing bureaucratic vendetta on the property we referred to as the “original sin.”

In an attempt to secure our rights, we were forced to sue various state and local agencies in federal court. My journey through the courts provides empirical evidence of the egregious methods used by the courts in employing the law to meet its agenda. It begins with our family partnership lawsuit against the government, which, among other things, raised the issue of broad discretion by government agencies, along with the abuse of discretion by government, which allowed public officials to perform their duties by fiat. Our case proved to be a landmark case, as it addressed the scope of bureaucratic discretion and had the potential to radically affect the growth and the abuse of discretion by government.

In our lawsuit, we could show the discretion in the application of the county codes by county officials were so broad the government could operate by fiat; the evidence showed that the governments could treat similarly situated properties in diametrically different ways. The success of our case in the courts would have provided a new tool to citizens for government accountability. It became the government’s goal to beat us at any cost, including buying out our engineers and attorneys, offering them significant government positions on county boards or offering them lucrative contracts. Finally, I was forced to take over the case as a novice, with the limited knowledge I gleaned from a business law class and stepped into the lawyer’s shoes to represent the family’s interest; I gave them a run for their money doing an admiral job all the way to the ninth circuit court of appeals.

As I entered the fray I was so busy learning the ropes and executing my pro se duties to understand the true implications of out lawsuit and how much the issues transcended our own personal transgressions. The lawsuit, it turned out, was a threat to government’s modus operandi; discretion and its abuse are the currency of government, providing the government the cover to carry out its agenda; therefore every effort was made to ensure that the suit would not see the light of day. After years of surviving the efforts by the governments hired law firm to defeat me with legal maneuvers, the court single handedly defeated our case by its on abuse of discretion by dismissing our case without any reference to starry decisive or to the facts in the case. Judge Patel in the US District Court simply declared by fiat that our case was not a federal case.

When I appealed the case to the Ninth circuit Court of Appeals, I mistakenly believed that bringing all the questions raised by the lower courts actions would give me the best results. I was mistaken, the judges were able to completely ignore the first and most important question raised by the appeal and then dance around the other questions in a rather meaningless manner; we were defeated. In the end, the judges in the both the federal court and the court of appeals used their discretion to dismiss the case by fiat with no reference to any starry decisive.
After years of effort, the government finally exhausted us financially and emotionally, our resources were depleted and we were unable to pursue the issue to the Supreme Court. In essence the government won the fight by default, preserving their broad discretion and their de facto right to continue operating by fiat.

While engaged in the federal civil rights case, I experienced additional abuse of the legal system by the government at the county level, which further exposed the notion of the “rulers of law”. One of my brothers, a partner in the business, made an unwise decision when he was pulled over while driving without a current license and he tried to get his truck home in an effort to protect his tools, instead of leaving the truck full of tools on the side of the road as ordered by the police. As a result he ended up facing a judge for “resisting a police officer”, during the sentencing the judge learned my brother was about to close escrow on the sale of his house. This judge’s brother happened to be the attorney negotiating a settlement arrangement with our family partnership on an account that went into default. Armed with the information about the escrow for the pending sale divulged to him by the judge’s brother, the attorney abandoned the settlement negotiations and proceeded with a default judgment, placing a lien on the funds from the sale of the house.

This was potentially devastating to our civil rights struggle as I was scheduled to receive some of those funds to help me continue the civil rights suit, it could spell the death knell of our pursuit for justice. To make things worse, it turned out the attorney for the title company holding the funds was a friend of the attorney that filed the lien. We had to threaten to sue the escrow company in order to force them to hold the funds until we were able file the motion and receive the decision; we were granted a very short window of time clearly designed for failure. I was now forced to learn how to write and file a “motion to overturn a default judgment” in less than thirty days, so the funds could be released to me.

When I went to the court to file the motion, I was told by the clerk that the judge was not in cession on the date I needed to stay within the deadline; the clerk then turned to another clerk in the office who acknowledged her assertion about the judge being on vacation. I reluctantly agreed to the later date and walked to my car with an uneasy feeling about what just occurred. My intuition told me something was amiss, so when I arrived home I asked my girlfriend to call the court and pretend to be a secretary for another attorney who wanted to file a motion on the day in question; low and behold the date was available. I marched right back to the courthouse and insisted the clerk file my papers on the correct day.

I pled my case and I prevailed on the motion to overturn the default judgment and the court issued an order to release the funds. The attorney for the title company was stunned when we came to collect the funds and immediately got on the phone with the plaintiff’s attorney who confirmed the courts decision and he was forced to release the funds just in the nick of time. This was the only bright spot in my odyssey with the courts; I even received a thumb’s-up from one of our former attorneys who happened to be in the peanut gallery. Of course the judge also ordered me to pay $500 to the other attorney (taking care of their own).

Later on, while still under the financial strain of the lawsuit, one of the properties mentioned in the suit was foreclosed upon by a politically connected finance company that made us the loan. In foreclosure, the finance company not only took the property, they also refused to release the remaining funds in their possession, which were part of the original loan at the basis of the foreclosure; this even though we were otherwise currant with the payments. The evidence was clear the money belonged to us and on that basis we were able to enlist the services of an attorney. This attorney did a standup job handling our case, but the judge who was assigned the case by the county was a family law judge, not a real estate judge. He was transferred to this division specifically to hear our case; in the end the judge simply declared (by fiat) that he could not make a judgment and dismissed the case, essentially handing the defendant a de facto victory. It also meant that the government had achieved the objective of depriving us of the means to keep our suit going. With this action the government was able to administer the final death blow, our resources depleted our attempt to seek justice ended.. In the end the government was able to defeat us with deception, along with a further abuse of their discretion.

Years later, I had to wonder if I were on some sort of black list and the state government had me in their sites for further abuse. I know this allegation sounds farfetched, but let me lay out the evidence as I see it. The harassment began while I was applying for a painting contractor’s license (I didn’t ant to be a criminal painter operating without a license). Shortly after making my application, I received a call from an “investigator” with the Contractors State License Board who informed me the board was not going to accept the documentation of my experience, which is required for the license. I was told the Board rejected my invoices for the work I performed necessary for getting the license, because the invoices were produced on a computer and therefore could have been fabricated by me. I reminded the woman that this was the age of the computer and that I did in fact generate them, but they were generated in the course of doing business as it is practiced by all businesses. I recommended the investigator call the clients on the invoices and do a fact check before dismissing them out of hand. In response to my suggestion the investigator unceremoniously threatened to deny my application, which suggested to me her true intentions. In the end, I used some legal maneuvering to force the board to accept my evidence and grant me my license; also, it didn’t hurt that I passed the test in half the time allotted.

As time went by, a series of court proceedings related to a traffic ticket finally convinced me that I must indeed be on some type of state government black list. I received a ticket for passing on the right, because I used the paved shoulder of the road to pass a few vehicles stopped during rush hour traffic, in order to make an exit off the freeway. I was certain at the time that it was legal, so I paid the fine as required by the summons and filed a challenge to the ticket. When I arrived at the courtroom for the hearing it was crowded with people there to fight tickets, along with some attorneys. I waited to be called and watched as the whole courtroom was cleared before the court finally called my case; curiously, I was the last case called. As I approached the bench, I overheard the judge whisper to the clerk something to the affect, “what was it I was supposed to remember about Robert Taylor?” I was unable to hear the reply, but it was immediately clear to me this judge was going to rule against me. In my defense, I pointed out to the judge that although the vehicle code did prohibit passing on the right, it provided exceptions under certain situations providing it was done safely (some of the ambiguity built into the law the allows for obfuscation). I truthfully testified the circumstances in my case fit the exceptions and that I had passed the other vehicles in a safe manner. The judge ignored my testimony, declaring that it was simply illegal to pass on the right and that it was one of her pet peeves.

The judge’s statement in the traffic ticket ruling that it was her “pet peeve” showed bias and gave me the right to appeal the ruling. When I arrived at the courtroom for hearing the appeal months latter, I was again seated with many others contesting their tickets. But this time the bailiff came into the courtroom and asked if Robert Taylor was in the courtroom, I raised my hand and was told my case was transferred to courtroom D1. I walked down the hall to the designated courtroom only to find it empty; very curious again. A few moments later the clerk and judge arrived and called me to the defense table; yet again the judge ignored my testimony and upheld the previous judges ruling. In both incidences, the presiding judge was unwilling to discuss the exceptions elaborated in the code and which I testified applied in my case. By assuring the courtroom was empty in each occasion, the court could operate as a kangaroo court and rule by fiat. I have no doubt that this type of rule by legal representatives occurs regularly in the courts, the frequency in my case shows that it is not just a fluke.

It is clear from my own struggle with the government while defending my civil rights government officials will weave disparate codes together to achieve their agendas under the color of law. If this ploy does not provide the necessary leverage, they will use the power of their discretion to simply rule by fiat; in other words abuse their discretion. Obfuscation, equivocation and delay are among other tools I discovered government employs to defeat the rights of individuals when their rights come in conflict with the government’s agenda. The courts enjoy the greatest amount of power and latitude in their decision making process, as the law is intentionally written with complicated language with a myriad of conflicting case law, which allows the court to virtually operate by fiat.