Activist Judges do Administration’s bidding Ex Pos Facto

Notice to International Readers: This site can be read in six languages. Just peck the popup at the bottom of the page to change from English. Ang site na ito ay mababasa sa anim na wika. I-peck lang ang popup sa ibaba ng page para magpalit mula sa

By Jessica Pleasant, TheConservativeFem.com

Appointing governors: P=Parnell W=Walker D=Dunleavy

[1]AK Supreme Court judges information

When former President Fernand Marcos plotted to become Philippines dictator beginning with his election in 1965, he changed the laws through a loaded legal and legislative process. Over more than 20 years Marcos enriched himself and his family, crashing the PH economy, causing a great crime epidemic, ultimately requiring an extraordinary People Power event borne in a failed military coup d’etat, to extract him from office. The USA harbored the exiled Marcos family in Hawaii until his death September 28, 1989. The country has taken decades to recover.

Laws in a constitutional republic mean something, and the longer they are upheld the more they are established. Changing laws for political reasons is what happens in banana republics, and Alaska.

Bad Court Orders Do Harm

Philippines may never recover from damages caused by arbitrary and capricious changes to laws, since the son of the late dictator, Ferdinand Marcos, Jr. is now president. The entire country may be experiencing Stockholm Syndrome, a coping mechanism to a captive or abusive situation in which People develop positive feelings toward their abusers over time.

Providing outstanding accommodations in Eagle River since 1991

[2] What is Stockholm Syndrome? WebMD

One aspect of the Marcos Regime abuse included new laws becoming enforceable for crimes that were not crimes when they were committed. That’s called Ex Pos facto. After being occupied by the Spanish 333 years, the USA for decades, and Japan for a few years during WWII, independent governance is an acknowledged challenge for the Republic of Philippines.

[3]Culture of impunity and world-class corruption, by Solita Collas – Monsod on Mar 4, 2016

Alaska has challenges with Good Governance too!

When Alaska’s Supreme Court enacted SCO 1993 on December 29, 2022 multiple families dealing with alleged corrupt and illegal actions by the AKHSS Office of Children’s Services (OCS) were petitioning for a Grand Jury Investigation into that State of Alaska agency. At the time, the process for petitioning the grand jury was a liberal one. SCO 1993 created exemptions and exceptions that never existed previously.

[4] Supreme Court Order 1993

This new Order granted the State of Alaska Attorney General God-Like power to control what citizen complaints are seen by grand jurors. While acting under the Color of Law, the AG’s role is now dual: 1) the State’s legal representative, and 2) determiner of whether citizens may pursue Grand Jury investigation or sue the State. This unfettered dictatorial power determines whether allegations of government misconduct or malfeasance can be blocked from ever making it to Independent Grand Jurors.

SCO 1993 is contrary to centuries of Independent Grand Jury practice/procedures, as well as a dramatic change in Alaska practice, implemented under previous chief Justice Daniel Winfree, who was Chief Justice 19 months, from July 1, 2021 to Feb 26, 2023.

Alaska’s Ex Post Facto Provision

There is debate as to the application of ex post facto doctrine in civil law. The debate was due to a 1798 US Supreme Court ruling, applying ex post facto laws only to criminal law. The State of Alaska has now chosen to create standards and exemptions to AK citizens’ constitutional right to a grand jury through a criminal rule. 

Our courts are overwhelmed by criminal proceedings so why not pile on something to also protect bureaucrats and judges from accountability?

[5] Alaska: Crime Capital of USA, DONN LISTON, November 24, 2023

Alaska has three categories of ex post facto laws: 1) Those “which punish as a crime an act previously committed, which was innocent when done; 2) which make more burdensome the punishment for a crime, after its commission; or 3) which deprives one charged with crime of any defense available according to law at the time when the act was committed.”

It is a gotcha.

The arbitrary and capricious SCO 1993, used the criminal rule regarding grand jury rights to elevate a new ruling expressly hostile toward civil rights of citizens. The likely expectation of these activist judges is that laymen will read “criminal rule” and think it does not apply to them. This rule change only affects those previously accused in petitions made by citizens.

https://www.amazon.com/Alaska-Philippines-Connections-Alaskas-Relationship-ebook/dp/B0CLC11GLX

WHO Benefits from these Rule Changes?

Active complaints against the State of Alaska were in the middle of hearings, and Plaintiffs were about to present their evidence of official misconduct to the grand jury. Before that could happen, the AK Supreme Court and State Legislature caused hearings to be paused until the rules were created–simultaneously claiming there was no process to consider the “small group” of complainants requesting an investigation into government misconduct.

Petitions were frozen to give bureaucrats time to write poorly reasoned rules, creating hurdles for citizens to access their Constitutional Right to appeal to the grand jury, when in fact THE STATE itself is the danger to public welfare and safety.

Damages to families continue daily.

Families impacted by OCS did not benefit from the change. The retroactive “process” the State claimed it needed conveniently excluded active petitions. By suspending any challenge of OCS before an Independent Grand Jury the court usurped the long-standing process in a scenario that is becoming ever more familiar in Alaska.

SCO 1993 denies more than 60 years of past practice. The State of Alaska is also in denial regarding statutes providing a formula for payment to Alaskans of Permanent Fund Dividends. Same arrogance.

Before SCO 1993, the State’s Grand Jury Handbooks throughout its history designated that a person can go “directly” to the grand jury to provide evidence in the interest of public welfare and safety. The State has now claimed the law never allowed for citizens to go “directly” to the grand jury.

Alaska’s laws never said the people could NOT go to the grand jury, either. The court had to make that up.

[5] The Original High-Minded and instructional Grand Jury Handbook of the Alaska Court System is provided in References in its entirety.

A Supreme Court ruling made from whole cloth now requires law-abiding citizens to assert standing and constitutional rights. By using criminal rules subject to ex post facto doctrine, SCO 1993 arbitrarily and capriciously removed and restricted law-abiding citizens’ their grand jury right in a manner which benefits officials accused of misconduct. 

Denying Past Practice and Grandfathering of Rights

The AK Supreme Court has applied the same kind of tactic used against parents in some other states who were charged with crimes for demanding their School Boards be accountable. Alaska use of criminal code to stop parents challenging the out-of-control Office of Children’s Services cannot be an accident.

[6] How Alaska courts FURTHER Damage Children in Broken Families, DONN LISTON, November 3, 2023


WHO benefited from these AK Supreme Court arbitrary and capricious rule changes? Families affected by OCS did not benefit from the change.

Grandfathering Argument

Constitutional rights have been upheld by grandfathering and ex post facto doctrines in the past. The United States used ex post facto doctrine prior to the equal protection clause that was created in the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. Ex post facto claims seek fairness, so citizens have time to understand new rules. 

[7] Specific Definitions of Ex Pos Facto, retroactive law and Grandfathering Provisions

According to constitutional authority and author Thomas M. Cooley: There is no doubt of the right of the legislature to make laws which reach back to and change or modify the effect of prior transactions, provided retrospective laws are not forbidden, eo nomine, by the State constitution, and provided further that no other objection exists than their retrospective character. But legislation of this description is exceedingly liable to abuse, and it is a sound rule of construction to give a statute a prospective operation only, unless its terms show a legislative intent that should have retrospective effect. And some of the states have deemed it important to forbid such laws all together by their constitutions.

Tradition of Abuse

Prior to slavery becoming racially driven, laws declaring a person’s rights as a citizen were religiously driven. The term “civilized” was often used in early US referring to a society based on Judeo-Christian values. Blacks and Natives participated in governmental affairs and even some blacks owned land. Those successful black residents lost decades of success and ownership of property due to democrat policies and life on plantations after the Civil War.

“Grandfathering” refers to the efforts of some states, mostly Democrat, that created laws to prevent blacks from voting. By 1925, there were 20 states with similar laws. The Grandfathering Doctrine refers to laws allowing white citizens who had grandfathers allowed to vote prior to the Civil War to be exempted of new Literacy tests. 

These controversial laws used literacy tests, poll taxes and property ownership as qualifiers for voting. The standards could be avoided by descendants of prior voters while denying black Americans their constitutional vote.

These laws also unexpectedly disenfranchised the illiterate white community. 

Quinn v U.S, (1915), was a case related to black citizens’ voting rights. Election officials in the State of Oklahoma denied African Americans the right to vote in an election.  The Court found the voters did have their Constitutional right to vote violated. The Court questioned intentions of the Defendant’s actions.

AK Supreme Court/OCS Prejudice

Against Alaska Native and Minority Alaskans

Characteristically, the State of Alaska OCS has been hostile toward Native Alaskans as “individual” and “small groups.” Native children are disproportionately represented in OCS cases and SCO 1993 now exempts Native parents from petitioning the grand jury over acts by officials against them. OCS officers lie and exaggerate allegations of child abuse and neglect. Native Alaskans have spoken out against OCS and demanded a grand jury investigation into OCS policies and misconduct against them for traditional parenting. A group of OCS victims likely caused the State of Alaska and AK Supreme Court to arbitrarily and capriciously change criminal Rules 6 and 6.1, to create hurdles and standards that limit who can petition the grand jury for investigations of official misconduct.

Old Tactic, New Application.

This aggression toward Native Alaskan families is only the most recent attack on their constitutional rights. In 1924, the United States passed the Indian Citizen Act, which gave citizenship and constitutional rights to Native Alaskans and Native Americans throughout the lower 48 and its territories. As a result Southeast Alaskan tribes gained a lot of power.

In 1920, a strong Suffragette Movement put pressure on the State of Alaska for the woman’s vote. Appearing to be progressive, the legislature passed the law allowing women to vote seven years before the United States. But the possibility of a large native voting base, supportive of the Republican Party, was seen as a threat. 

Alaska’s first Native Alaskan attorney, William Paul, Sr., returned to Alaska in 1920 after receiving education and legal training Outside. He was a Tlingit leader who represented the Tlingit and Haida people. As an Alaskan Territory legislative representative, Paul became part of the Wickite Faction, because he worked with Republicans James Wickersham and Dan Sutherland, Progressive Republicans, to overturned the State’s new Literacy Act of 1925. Paul alleged the Literacy Act targeted Native Alaskans. Knowing English was a second language for many aboriginal people, the legislature knew many Native Alaskans were not effective in the English language.

Participation by Paul and his brother in the Alaska Native Brotherhood’s 8th Annual Convention spurred political interest of Southeast Natives and focused on their rights. Paul sued the State of Alaska over the Literacy provision, which prior to the Act had allowed Native Alaskans to vote, but was changed Ex Pos Facto.

Alaska was ahead of its time in guaranteeing rights of women and minorities including indigenous people. Later, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 outlawed use of poll taxes, property ownership and literacy tests to qualify to vote. This Act took federal precedence over the state’s rights to create legislation for election laws. It took decades to correct what the Alaska Legislature had done to voting rights. Today Dunleavy’s State of Alaska and AK Supreme Court know it will likely take decades to fix their attack on grand jury rights.

Unless, once again, federal courts intervene…

How Alaska Courts FURTHER Damage Children In Broken Families

References:

[1]Current AK Supreme Court Justices

[2] What is Stockholm Syndrome? WebMD
https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/what-is-stockholm-syndrome

[3]Culture of impunity and world-class corruption, by Solita Collas – Monsod on Mar 4, 2016
https://econ.upd.edu.ph/perse/?p=5265
NOTE:  About Per SE, Commentary and research on current events and public policy by economists from the University of the Philippines

[4] Supreme Court Order 1993
https://courts.alaska.gov/sco/docs/sco1993leg.pdf

[5] Alaska: Crime Capital of USA, DONN LISTON, November 24, 2023
https://donnliston.co/2023/11/alaska-crime-capital-of-usa/

[6] The Original High-Minded and instructional Grand Jury Handbook of the Alaska Court System is provided in References in its entirety.

[7] How Alaska courts FURTHER Damage Children in Broken Families, DONN LISTON, November 3, 2023
https://donnliston.co/2023/11/how-alaska-courts-further-damage-children-in-broken-families/

[8]Specific Definitions of Ex Pos Facto, retroactive law and Grandfathering Provisions

Black’s Law Dictionary, ex post facto laws are defined as: 

A statute that criminalizes an action and simultaneously provides for punishment of those who took the action before it had become a crime; specifically, a law that impermissibly applies retroactively, especially in a way that affects a person’s rights, as by making into a crime an action that was legal when it was committed or increasing the punishment for past conduct.

Black’s Law Dictionary defines retroactive law as:

A legislative act the looks backward or contemplates the past, affecting acts or facts that existed before the act came into effect. A retroactive law is not unconstitutional unless it (1) it is the nature of an ex post facto law or a bill of attainder, (2) impairs the obligation of contracts, (3) divests vested rights, or (4) is constitutionally forbidden. 

Black’s Law Dictionary, 10th Edition, defines the grandfather clause as:

A provision that creates an exemption from the law’s effect for something that existed before the laws effective date; specifically, a statutory or regulatory clause that exempts a class of persons or transactions because of circumstances existing before the new rule or regulation take effects.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top