Public Advisory Issued Against Oregon Federal District!     Attorneys in the District Attorney's Office in San Diego have been boycotting the courtroom of one Superior Court judge, insisting that cases not be assigned to that judge on the ground of that individual's perceived bias and tortured interpretations of law.  Might the boycott be too narrow?     Thomas Jefferson wrote that any confidence the public expresses in governmental officials is certainly not unconditional and absolute.  Each public official must be subjected to the limitations and controls established by the U.S. Constitution.  However, personnel in the Oregon federal district have resisted the regimen the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights imposes on judicial opinions.  In fact, they have elevated to the position of Chief Judge more than one, over time, who has failed to treat the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights as sovereign in the Oregon District--as the "supreme law of the land" in that district, too.     Were there no consistent pattern of judicial corruption, cronyism and arbitrary decision-making in the Oregon District, we would not urge plaintiffs poised to file civil cases to consider other options, not risk denial of their civil and Constitutional rights, not to dignify and flatter personnel in that district, by filing their cases in that District.  Those plaintiffs need not assume or concede that personnel in that District will rule on their cases with integrity and impartiality, free from political motivation and conflict of interest.  Plaintiffs can have their disputes with other parties adjudicated through state and local courts to the extent practical or through private mediation and arbitration services, instead.     When personnel in the Oregon District have short-changed or otherwise cheated plaintiffs of their Constitutional rights, those personnel have done so on a monumental scale, and they have not scrupled about placing political-party interest ahead of their official duty.  For example, one member of the District, a former major-party political fund-raiser, has been more effective as a catalyst for raising campaign funds while on the bench than when a political-party fund-raiser in name.  That individual's conception of the work of a judge is to balance unjust rulings with better-publicized just rulings and to spare certain parties from answering civil complaints altogether, as long as that promotes the electoral interests of one's political party and satisfies the political agenda of politicians who nominate judges.  Of course, the official obligation to hold fair and impartial hearings is entirely lost in the process.     Is the conventional wisdom that a judicial appointee in a less-populous state is incapable of really doing much damage to the public interest and minority rights?  In a stroke of the pen, one Oregon District judge has over-ridden the Constitutional rights of America's 46.3 million working-poor uninsured taxpayers and their family members by refusing a fair and impartial hearing on various alternative claims for Constitutionally-prescribed relief.      One uninsured plaintiff has paid property taxes, Medicare payroll taxes and other tax payments used to support the health benefits of complete strangers for upward to 32 years now, the obligation to make those types of tax payments preventing the plaintiff and others like him from affording health insurance of their own or contracting for health services on even an as-needed basis.  No matter, Oregon District personnel invoke the childish prerogative, in effect, of "Simon says."  However, the U.S. Constitution/Bill of Rights do not authorize any judicial appointee to play the equivalent of the game of "Simon says."  Not the judicial appointee's personal interests or political agenda, but the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights are sovereign in this nation.    When health reform was as simple and economical as conceding equal treatment through a tax cut for uninsured taxpayers, without the current bloated price tag upward of $800 billion to one trillion dollars or more, a former Democratic party-fund-raiser and Clinton-nominated judicial appointee in the Oregon District broke the law, violated the U.S. Constitution/Bill of Rights, and obstructed the administration of justice, conveniently enough for Democrats, when that meant Democrats could collect tens and even hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign contributions, they could win election after election on the promise of satisfying uninsured taxpayers' grievances eventually, and just so a Hillary Clinton or other future Democratic Administration could claim political credit for health-care reform.      Just think, health-care reform could have been settled as cheaply as conceding working-poor, uninsured taxpayers a tax cut, or tax exemption, equivalent to the amount of their Medicare payroll taxes, federal/state/local income-tax payments, federal excise and state and local sales-tax payments and any property-tax payments they make that are earmarked for government health-benefits programs, so the uninsured could arrange for health insurance on their own or contract for health services on an as-needed basis.  How much do the federal and state governments take, after all, for government health-benefits programs of one kind or another?  In 2008, the federal government spent at least 20 percent of its budget on health care, not including care for Veterans, Native Americans and some other specific groups.  The National Governors Association calculates, too, that the states spend approximately 30 percent of their budgets on all health-care programs for civil-service employees and Medicaid recipients.  Nonetheless, Democrats maintained this unfair burden on uninsured taxpayers and perpetrated a miscarriage of justice through one of their own,  Clinton-appointed Ann Aiken, which injustice has constituted an injustice perpetrated against citizens in all the other 49 states, as well.     Conflict of interest in the courtroom of that Clinton-nominated, Democratic judicial appointee?  Certainly, Ms. Aiken facilitated substantially more Democratic Party fund-raising as a "judge" than when a Democratic Party fund-raiser.  She enabled her political party to raise tens and even hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign funds over multiple election cycles through her politicization of the courtroom, by refusing uninsured taxpayers any measure of Constitutionally-prescribed relief whatsoever.  Ironically, she has been most effective as a catalyst for party fund-raising while on the bench.     Democrats were perfectly willing in Case Number 00-6406, among others noted, to warp the mission of our nation's court system to serve narrow political interests and cheat American citizens who look to the courts for de-politicized, impartial justice and relief.    P.S.  Lest any measure of Constitutionally-prescribed judicial relief be granted during the Bush Administration, when the American public would "misinterpret" the Republican Administration's compliance with court order as responsibility for, and political credit for, health-care reform, the Clinton-nominated, Democratic judicial appointee, and former party fund-raiser, mentioned, and other appointees, approved exploiting uninsured taxpayers to pay for the personal health care of others, while those taxpayers go without the health protection that they could otherwise reasonably expect with use of those same funds--money from their family budgets--for their own health needs.  However, uninsured taxpayers are not second-class citizens.  They do not exist simply to pay for the government health benefits of others while they themselves do without health benefits. Charles H. Savage/Editorial Columnist Author of "Court Watch" Continental Features/ Continental News Service, Inc.    STATEMENT OF PURPOSE Over the years, Continental Features/Continental News Service, Inc. (and its original parent company Inkslinger's Review) never published a mission statement.  We simply honored commitments readers noticed we valued in the pages of Continental Newstime magazine and other publications of CF/CNS.  Whether news is breaking in the national(U.S.) or world arena, regardless of the subject matter--defense, business and trade, national security, international relations, public finance, environmental policy, Constitutional liberty, traditional civil rights, social-welfare programs, labor-management disputes, the progression of U.S. Supreme Court decisions--the Continental News Service specializes in covering the unreported and under-reported U.S. and world news.  In fact, one observer wrote that we report "both national and international issues which newspapers and magazines usually treat too generally or, despite their importance, not at all..." Dear reader, you yourself might wonder why CF/CNS does not jump on the bandwagon of any politician in the U.S.  Our editorials and commentary discuss both public policies which have merit and those of which we disapprove, while not endorsing the candidacy of any politician.  Actually, there are at least 3 reasons for this position.  One, the Continental News Service and Continental Newstime magazine thereby maintain our journalistic objectivity.  Two, we vividly recall the sense of betrayal we and other Americans experienced after reposing the public's trust in various Administrations, only to be rewarded with the thanklessness of revelations of political scandal OR violation of public law.  Three, we dedicate ourselves seriously, anyway, to the principle of constitutionalism, a government based on written, rights-based, non-discriminatory objective laws, not government based on the self-interested, momentary and arbitrary will of any man or group.  Yes, our position is fully consistent with that of Washington, Franklin, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and America's other Founding Fathers--and, indeed, with that of America's forefathers generally. As a result, the outcome of our efforts, here at CF/CNS, is a newsmagazine that satisfies a multitude of vital and casual human interests. *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     * Publisher's Note: The Continental News Service division of CF/CNS, during its 28 years of operation, has conducted investigative reports into the funeral-home industry; the market-research industry; the adequacy of Congressionally-authorized food-stamp allotments(periodically); gas-pump price gouging and fuel smuggling; service deficiencies in Employment Department programs; churches' unbiblical assertions about tithing obligations; school-tutoring programs; the CIA's MKULTRA "program"; the consumer abuses perpetrated by non-profit organizations which operate contests/games/sweepstakes; DUI classroom instruction that notoriously fails to rehabilitate drinking drivers; the unanticipated consequences of various media organizations' abandonment of toll-free telephone numbers; evidence that the overseas-based Association of Christian Journalists has been infiltrated by the Putin regime in Russia; and the cancer-research activities of Fort Detrick, Maryland...Yes, Continental News follows, and inspects, news developments and events near and far in defense of the public interest. _______________________________________________________ Cartoon Corner Editorial Cartoon by Cliff Ulmer