Constructive criticism and comments will be answered, especially from the judiciary;

• those whose names are mentioned and I have criticized;
• and the knowledgeable legal-minded lurkers.

This is how our colonial ancestors , who died for our right to own land, criticized one another. They posted a notice in a public place, and issued a challenge for a debate. It's too bad that duels were outlawed.

Judges must be held responsible for their wrongdoing, just as police are responsible for the constitutional deprivations which they commit. We need to encourage a Congressional bill which makes the judiciary susceptible to suit for damages when the constitutional law is violated. I do not propose that a judge could be sued for making any discretionary decision, or for alleged malice or bad motive, (which is so subjective that contention would have no end.) However,a judge who acts in the absence of jurisdiction should be held accountable in court, in every state, by consistent federal statute law.

Kentucky has long held that a judge without authority is a mere man, acting without jurisdiction (authority) and so is liable as a trespasser. Other states have slightly-differing views, and the Federal Circuits recruit judges in the venues which have created for themselves statute and/or common law immunity. The Congressmen's discussions and debates when the 14th Amendment was passed clearly intend to make all men liable for infringing upon the constitutional rights of any citizen, and the US Supreme Court has held that a Judge can be made to pay the legal fees when he commits a constitutional violation. And of course a Judge, or the sovereign state can be sued for injunctive and declaratory relief, and any other prospective relief. Expungement of a "bad" arrest, future threat of arrest, and other legal situations, are prospective.

The US Supreme Court has explained the rationale for the sovereign immunity of states under the 11th Amendment to be actually based upon : The state can only speak through law, so what the state does must be lawful. If the act is not lawful, because of the US Constitution, it is not the act of the state at all, but the act of a mere man, speaking falsely in the name of the state. The mere man has no authority, (legally defined as jurisdiction) to act in violation of the constitution, and while the state treasury cannot be sued for the acts of the mere man, the mere man does not become the voice of the state. He is "CORAM NO JUDICE ",(a very old legal term) meaning " no judge was present in court at that time or that day.

Laws passed by the state legislature are constructed by the state supreme court. If the state supreme court ruled in a manner which was constitutionally questionable, the litigant could take the issue to the US Supreme Court as a next step. Issues which are settled by the state supreme court are settled points of law by the doctrine of stare decisis. A lower court cannot expand it's own jurisdiction, (authority to act) but may propose a constructive change or expansion of the law, (made in good faith, well researched, and explained as differing from what the law is today - see Rule 11). This proposed expansion of jurisdiction (authority) does not become effective until after the state's supreme court rules in favor of the lower court's new interpretation of the statute law, based only on constitutional grounds.The state supreme court cannot become legislators and rewrite any legislative mandate, merely because they want to. Notice how Florida's legislative law was upheld in thePresidential Election of 2000.

My "right of meaningful access" matter (leading back to the land matter) is supported by case law citations filed in FederalCourt in the Hedges v Stumbo case which has never yet adjudicated on the merits. The US SupremeCourt has jurisdiction to hear any case with a Federal question, anytime it so desires, soI seek through lobby to get a hearing there, even at this late date. This case was never going to be on time, since two documents were to be delivered by the US Mail in separate envelopes about 30 days apart, within the 90 day window allowed for a writ from the US Supreme Court to intervene. Neither document was delivered. Both were "lost". TWO ENVELOPES. The federal question to be raised is: how far can the 6th Circuit expand the "so-called" Rooker-Feldman doctrine.? This is a perfect single-issue case, - a perfect opportunity for the US Supreme Court to define it's own court-created doctrine. Congress has not codified this doctrine, though I would urge it, for the sake of clarity, and bright-line rules, to prevent the abuse of it's limitations on litigants.

A judge who tries to expand a statute takes a very large risk. He may be infringing upon a constitutional right if he tried to expand a statute without the wisdom of foresight and vast research to determine what could possibly result from a change in law. This is why the accumulated wisdom of many years IS the law, and is known as the doctrine of stare decisis (from which comes the saying " do not stir settled points of law"). But if the judge is allowed to claim judicial immunity, (a judge-created common law principle which rightfully prevents suit over discretionary decisions, but does not extend to acts of the judiciary in the absence of jurisdiction), his wrongs would remain unredressible, regardless of the damage he may do to a litigant. A judge who acts in an unconstitutional way which effects future generations yet unborn can commit vastly greater wrongs than the injury of a brief simple false arrest.

When a judge commit constitutional deprivations, (which must be nullities, since no authority exists in the state to authorize a violation or to violate constitutional law) and/or step outside of the "circle of jurisdiction" (authority) conferred by statute, that judge must be held accountable for his wrongdoing .

Legislators and congressmen are protected by the Supreme Court case law giving them immunity for facts or allegations stated while carrying out their appointed duties to discuss and pass laws. All individuals in a court drama; judge, litigants, and witnesses, are immune to suit for allegations or facts which presenting a case requires. (excepting perhaps perjury). The judiciary began with the immunity granted to the legislators, and expanded that necessary immunity to include the judges making decisions of broad import in the higher courts. The judges have also cited common law immunity based on the need to make discretionary decisions, which immunity the judges themselves created very early in the history of law. In the absence of immunity for every discretionary decision, the small and weak litigant would always lose.

I urge that Judges must be liable for their acts committed without authority, and I urge that a clear boundary line be drawn (if none exists) between authority (jurisdiction) and no authority (no jurisdiction). There is at present in some states a gray area in the middle called in-excess of jurisdiction. This is an effort by judges to create a'discretionary' area in the law law between authority and no-authority. No one really believes that ANY LAW operates with a gray area in between in bounds (legal) and out of bounds (illegal).

A judge was sued for the constitutional deprivation of his ordering the sterilization of a female minor. She sued him when she married and he called upon this pseudo-doctrine called "in excess of authority"to protect himself from this suit. Excess of authority is really defined as a sentence which exceeds the statute, when a sentence was required by a fact-finding court acting properly. No authority ever existed in common law to take the right to bear children froma female, so how does a judge convince a court that he merely acted in 'excess'of his authority. He had manipulated his state's statute past its actual wording. In a second famous similar case, the judge was found liable for this same deprivation, because no statute or common law principle in his venue had ever given the court this right (This is certainly not the situation in my personal life, but it makes an excellent graphic example.)

Kentucky recognizes the three areas of jurisdiction. These are:

• jurisdiction of the person, based on proper notice;
• jurisdiction of the subject matter, which is being in the correct court for the issue or money amount involved -(an example is a forcible detainer which by statute is the jurisdiction of the District/pettit/Justice of Peace Court, and does not originate in the Circuit or General Court);
• and jurisdiction (authority) to carry out the specific act proposed to be done.

Other states divide subject matter jurisdiction into two sections, topic and specific act, which after a further subdivision has the same ultimate meaning.

I have no problem with any KY Supreme Court's rulings based on cases heard upon the merits. These rulings are not unconstitutional. Rather the problem is that in not following stare decisis, the trial court has violated my constitutional rights in several costly, vexatious, and intentional ways. No new Kentucky law is required, except I have urged the codification of the common law of contracts implied-in-law in a lengthy treatise which the KY Legislative Commission has received a copy of some months ago. Young people could plant trees(trees take a lifetime) and be guaranteed of the resulting benefits as adults, when my proposed common law is codified.

The Rule 60(b) clause about 'voids' pertains to the acts of a court which are done without jurisdiction (authority). These can be attacked at any time, and in the original case,from which any decision can be appealed.

When a Judge acts without jurisdiction, he places a litigant in a spot inwhich the injured litigant is required to appeal, (his equal protection right after a legislative mandate applies appeal to the type of case and to the court he is in) and here the litigant faces a court whose assigned task is to review the acts of the trial court and apply the legal rulings of the supreme court. The appellate court does not change the law, but is charged to enforce the law upon the errant trial court. The litigant may then seek a discretionary review by the state's highest court. All this is very expensive, and the enormous risks can bankrupt the injured litigant. Justice must be an enormous risk, if my life is an example of "justice". Yet the trial judge wants to be immune to any suit for damages which he may cause by his act committedwithout authority.

The trial judge might be careful to act only within clear authority if he had"something on the line . . something to lose",like the litigant has.
The judge who knows that he may be liable will be more careful, and this benefits the public. A court would be more cautious about bullying a defendantwhen the guidelines determing their own liability are congressional law. Frivolous litigation is reduced, and the principle of judicial economy is supported. Vexatious litigationis reduced. Vexation is defined as having to file multiple suits to achieve singular ends,relief or results. Having to petition for a writ of prohibition or mandamus which is an original action in the appellate court is vexatious against the individual who is forced to do so, if the issue can be settled in the lower court. The appellate court urges all legal actions which can be settled at the trial to be carried out below. Lawyers would be afraid to try shyster tricks, because the judge has something to lose, and would not soon forget that lawyer, if the principle were widely known that a judge can be sued.

"Strolling Pettifoggers" is my term for the lawyerswho have carried out the true story which will be briefly described herein.

During the colonial era in American history, there were noble families whose individuals whose faces were only recorded in paintings. Most upwardly mobile planters and tradesman in the colonies had never seen these nobles, but may have heard their family names, and were easily swayed by a desire for personal associations with the peerage.

There were several documented cases of individuals who would walk into a town and describe the horror of a shipwreck, which they claimed to have escaped, completely penniless. They would claim to be a noble traveler who needs temporary loans to tide them over until they can have their noble family send more funds on the earliest return voyage from England. The moderately successful colonial would gladly support them with loans, and use his association with the impostor to bolster his own status in his community.The"stroller" (for he strolled in with nothing) would be very good company, educated, well read, and was the life of the party, until the time had elapsed in which he should have received his funds from England. He would then "stroll" away, leaving an unpaid debt, and a conned host. Frequently he would go teach school elsewhere for a time, until he was ready to "run his scam" again in a new town. The"stroller" was an almost unidentifiable con man

There was in our early history a Pettit Court ( pettit jury, pettytheft) and a Grand Court (grand jury, grand theft). There were the occasional"lawyer" who tried to divert the court's attention from its duties on to irrelevant issues and pseudo-facts, and these individuals were called"pettifoggers".

The lawyer who is running a scam, and diverting the attention of the court with"fog" is a "STROLLIN' PETTIFOGGER"

My opponent, Dale, has never argued any facts yet, except two points never in dispute which are:

• 1) a will exists, and is filed. A codicil to that will was hidden for several months, and not filed in Probate for two years, but there was no reason initially to contest the will itself. My opponent has never learned that documents not contested do not need to be filed repeatedly (and billed repetedly).
• 2) Robert filed a statute in rem lien upon the 355 acres . He himself cited the lien book in which those filings were placed to the court. Judge William Stewart had already stated in district court that the lien was filed correctly, and he had required an itemized list of improvements. I was in Kinko's at 4 am completing this task with a solar powered calculator under dim lights. It was a very time consuming task.

Dale has used procedural arguments repeatedly, while he is plaintiff, to deny the defendant the use of defendant's written brief, because Plaintiff Dale had and has no case to present. Hedges is frustrated by these moves. Judges cannot allow themselves to become frustrated, because litigation is conflict, and they chose their career. The litigants don ot always choose to be in a conflict. I did not choose this conflict. No one said"we'll carve a piece of land off this 355 acres for your home, just as you were promised many years ago. Thus I am forced to conflict in this matter.

If my siblings finally realize that they may need to sue Dale for legal malpractice, they will have to hire another lawyer.Someone must be responsible for this situation. The liability for these nullities is adrift to a degree at the moment.

When you combine a "strollin' pettifogger" with a judge who believes that he"is the law" rather than a public servant bound to apply the law as it is presently written by the legislature and state's high court, and you set the stage for injustice.

I wanted to be left alone in the beginning. The right to be left alone is the foremost in constitutional law. Theadvice of the strolling pettifogger Dale to others caused this whole situation. Had he counseled caution to his admitted clients, my life would be different. Now I have researched to determine why the law is so one sided against me and I find that it is not the law, but the lawyers who have harmed me as I described. Despite the fact that siblings have such ill will toward me, the court was supposed to stop them from harming me. This is not a split-second decision made by a Police officer under stress in the dark in a violent situation. This is a series of illegal acts by an officer (or officers) of the court in an air conditioned room after weeks of rest and relaxation on the golf-links, or the steeple-chase course.

Thejudge is the kingof the court, and there are times when these individuals act the roll of thedespot. The King resisted review by the people (King John atRunnemede, Charles I vs Cromwell). Judges must be liable for damages committed without authority. (King John signed the Magna Carta and Charles I lost his head).

Robert Hedges was given the responsibility of converting a failed out-of-date dairy farm into some sort of a successful farm business, and received a hardship discharge from the US Army in 1972.
Ten depositions supporting the presumption of need were written and signed by local individuals to attest to my being alone among my siblings as the capable of this task. Several family member (excepting my minor handicapped brother) stated that I alone could take this responsibility. Each signed their respective names. This represents an agreement by all that I shall be running a farm.

The Hedges Farm was 355 acres in the SaltRiver bottoms in Spencer Co. KY. This area is the outer Bluegrass of Kentucky, with limestone soil which horses thrive upon. It contained the original log house of Robert Hedges VII, who settled on that land in 1830. It contained the 100+ yr old horse barn which his grandsons Taylor and Joshua built in the aftermath of the Civil War. It was one of the few such Heritage Farms left inthe entire state of KY, still in original (and capable) hands. The Hedges family history including one Revolutionary war soldier who was a surveyor inKY in 1773, that date being among the very earliest surveyors in Kentucky.

If I bought a farm elsewhere, it would not have historical value. The value of history cannot be calculated, and since this farm is known to be one of the very best in the entire area, it is not a business which was no longer viable. I would not have worked as a farmer at all except for the history. I became a farmer because ofthe farm, rather than deciding to be a farmer, and then seeking a farm to ply that trade upon. The farm was not to be sold. Incidentally, when you sell a farm and then buy another farm, you pay realty fees, survey costs, relocation costs, and a myriad of other costs each way. This is expensive. Not trading land is much cheaper, and paying a just debt with land reduces the middleman costs of realty fees.

The Hedges Farm had been converted into a grain business by 1980, with storage, equipment, a new home, repaired older buildings, tree farming in progress, and continuous land-clearing and steady production increases by me. The debt load was a safe 9%debt:asset ratio. The new home was built on short-term credit. Father and son had a joint loan account, joint business bank account, and various agreements. This is a business partnership which pleased the older generation. The first "real" cash flow since1971/2 was coming in. This farm had no debt in 1990.

The older generation died in 1988 and 1989. Six heirs remained. Only one heir had farmed. No heir except one was available in 1972. I invested while they did not. I worked for this future while they worked elsewhere for their paycheck, their pension and their medical plan. They get what they earned elsewhere, and I must have what I earned on the farm. By the principle of promissory estoppel one heir gave up other avenues of immediate success to stay on the farm and watch for the interests ofthe old folks and the business. One heir, me, RH9, had a very large stake in the improvements and the going-concern business on the acreage. Five heirs wanted money, and ganged up on one heir. Remember the story ofJoseph and his coat of many colors - his siblings stole his coat, and sold him down the river, for money. Joseph's descendants were slaves until the time of Moses if you recall, several generations later.

It is unhealthy to have an emotional relationship with someone who you cannot depend upon,and I was cursed with a brother who I could not depend upon.His belief is that if he cannot "get taller, the next best solution for his hateful rivalry is to "chop me down". Someone convinced him that there is only one"big man" per family, and he has to defeat me to be the "big man".This behavior only shows how really small he is.

Five sibling heirs had lined up against one heir, me. They could spend five dollars in legal fees for every one of my dollars and by sheer legal (or illegal) weight outlast against me. The lawyer who they agreed to pay has at different times claimed to represent five siblings or Administrators of the estate only, or the estate itself- but has denied that he ever represented me. Five siblings brought three suits against me. There was the Forcible Detainer, (Mar 1989); a partitioning case, (Nov1990); and a case to settle an estate and "dissolve a statute lien" on the 355acre Hedges Farm (Aug 1989).

This "strollin' pettifogger" Dale, planned to collect a percentage of the total estate, as well as fees for the several cases which he brought against me.

The Forcible Detainer Case :

The local court allowed a case under the Forcible Detainer statute to be filed against me. Evidence specifically required by statute was never produced, and in the face of ownership by descent, with a business in-progress, the court still ruled against me. The court held 22 void hearings. Presumably the defendant would have defaulted if he had failed to attend any of these non-productive hearings (the lawyer wanted to bill the estate, and held hearing after hearing, with notestimony or evidence). The US Supreme Court ruled in Howard v DeCordova, 177 US 609 at 614, (1900) that a document required by statute was a jurisdictional document. The court held me in contempt, and jailed me for refusing to leave the real property I inherited, the business I earned, and the house I built. Dale had no testimony, (ever, in any of these discussed cases) and NO case law was cited (except one forcible detainer case he cited, in which a new owner wanted possession of a property from an actual renter, which is far from on point).

This represents a constitutional deprivation, carried out by a District Court Judge inthe 53rd Judicial District. It represents a violation of Rule 11 by the lawyer who kept calling empty hearings. It represents a taking of a paid-off very old family farm from a historian. There was an intentional and malicious effort to carry out this wrong. These constitutional deprivations were urged upon the court by a lawyer who seemed to have influence to peddle.

The Executors failed to make any inventory of the Estate until ordered to do so at the urging of Robert, and omitted include certain personal property belonging to said estate.John Hedges failed to make any inventory of the Estate of Catherine Hedges previously, and no accounting has ever been forthcoming, nor is one available to all heirs of Catherine Hedges, decd. Robert had reason to believe that the Houston Hedges Estate would be handled in the same sloppy fashion. Houston's safety deposit box is still missing also (another factor in undue influence is the safety deposit box- it was found) . The lawyerJD Dale jr. "testified by proxy" as is his style. He would on motion day, with no advance notice, and no witnesses, disparage deft. Hedges, and he was allowed to lie to the court and ssy that Robert "tore up the inventories" which the Ex'rs were making. Thus was Dale allowed to testify as if he were a witness. "Proxy testimony" was allowed here. Dale further stated that the sheriff would be needed to prevent violence when the two opposing sides met at the farm. This constant accusatory mood without any sworn testimony (or witnesses) cast this estate in a bad light.

The Estate then inventoried the personal property of Robert Hedges, as if it were Estate property. The list would bore the webreaders, and is included in an evidence file in this book, which can be read if specifics are needed.

The District Court of Judge William Stewart wrote an Order dated 10 May 1989 states that this issue of the personal property will be resolved at a later time.

The District Court of Judge William Stewart wrote an Order dated 23 June 1989 states thatall the disputed property shall remain on the farm for later determination.

The District Court of Judge William Stewart wrote an Order dated 13 Feb. 1990 states that a hearing occurred.

Robert Hedges was released on 2 Feb. 1990 from the Contempt citing of forcible detainer.The Court gave no notice of further hearings. The District Court Docket contains notationson 13 Feb. 16 Feb., 6 Mar., and 16 Mar 1990, and no personal property dispute was resolved at this time. No witnesses were ever put under oath for questioning.

Judge William Stewart ruled in the forcible detainer case on 6 April 1990 that all property of Robert Hedges which remained on his property after 15 April 1990, would be considered abandoned. The partitioning case had yet to be filed as of that date. One does not abandon personal property when one still owns real property. This order is a nullity because the case it is written in is void, regardless of the issues which may have allegedly been settled therein.

Robert was the victim of invidious discriminatory animus with regard to personal property,which has not been established as belonging to the estate or to Robert. A buyer on 16 Mar.1991 has thirty days from day of sale to remove any item purchased. What reasoning could any court have to treat an heir less courteously, by forcing the sale or allowing there moval or the theft of the landowner's personal property?

Robert had filed liens in the Spencer Circuit Clerk's Office, inLien Books 6 and 7. The death of the debtor calls for attachment under KRS 376. Attachment includes all personal property on the premises. The debts of the debtor except the debt owed to Robert were paid by the cash accounts. The personal property under attachment belonged to Robert Hedges, until a bond or payment.

Ella Hedges Deitz, (sibling and antagonistic co-executor) wrote athreat into forcible detainer Spencer District 89-C-008. She intended to charge Robert with theft of estate property. Robert wanted a legal adjudication instead of a grabby conclusion to this situation.

Judge William Stewart ruled in the forcible detainer case on 31 August 1990 that all property of Robert Hedges which remained on the Hedges Farm would be sold by the ex'rs.This order is a nullity because the case it is written in is void, regardless of the issues which may be contained therein.

A sale took place prior to the District Order dated 28 Aug. 1990, and Plaintiff has reason to believe that this Order was written to conceal Fraudulent Alienation and the removal ofHEDGES Plaintiff's personal property. The abandonment ofproperty depends upon the intent to abandon. Personal property such as clothing,antique and last years fashion, and other memorabilia are costly to replace or in some cases impossible, such as this old (since 1830) Hedges Estate, and also exceed the allowable dollar limits of the District Court.

The forcible detainer case was "ended" by Judge Julia Field on 21 Feb. 1991.This Judge is a Yale gradaute, and should be able to read the specifics of KRS 383. The court fails to have jurisdiction of the subject matter, which must preceed the jurisdiction of the person, because the statute required evidence which was never produced(or forged).

The judge decided to eject me (literally into the street) and I appealed to the Circuit. The 53rd Judicial Circuit was in session.

Several civil events concerning the Farm occurred in this Circuit Court had over the years, and I had reason to expect less than fair treatment from the then Circuit Judge Saunders. (The former District Judge Stewart has been appointed to replace Circuit JudgeSaunders since, and now also removed).

The Circuit Judge upheld the Forcible Detainer on appeal from the District Court. The Circuit also acted simultaneously on a frivolous motion made by the Plaintiff/heir's lawyer Dale. I had filed a statute lien under KRS376. against the 355 acres, to prevent waste ,protect my property interests, and prevent the theft of my href D4-Catdozer (a partnership machine). Common law liens also existed, which are defined by theUS Supreme Court as a substantive property right, existing from day one, and not a matter of technical procedure or filing requirements. The filing of the lien in public notice, available to all from the public record title search.

Go forward to Strollin' Pettifoggers - Part 2

Go back to the Strollin' Pettifoggers - Contents

Last repaired after being hacked: December 2000