I have the impression that the gun industry is now the clutches of the US government. In a recent case in which a gun manufacturer was sued for “its part” in a school shootout, the parties settled for $73 million. I have now approached that Connecticut court to petition for a Writ of Error Coram Nobis.
My motive for taking the action below has almost nothing to do with gun rights. It has to do with truth rights. We citizens have a right to see that the court is not yet another area of our life in which lying runs rampant.
Note: This procedure for asking for a writ is many centuries old. Someone alerts the court, actually the king, to the fact that the court has been defrauded. The phrase “error coram nobis” means there was an error in “the things before us.” The Latin word for “us” — nobis — refers to the royal we, the king.
To Connecticut Superior Court, Waterbury. August 19, 2022
From Mary Maxwell, citizen
In regard to the February 2022 settlement of: DONNA L. SOTO, ADMINISTRATRIX (ESTATE OF VICTORIA L. SOTO), ET AL. v. BUSHMASTER FIREARMS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, ET AL x06-uwy-CV15-6050025-S
This is a petition, respectfully submitted, for a Writ of Error Coram Nobis. This refers to a common law writ. For federal law, it is protected by the All-Writs Act of 1911, as expressed at 28 USC 1651 as: “(a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.”
In regard to fraud upon the court, the precedent is Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v Atwood. Justice Robert Jackson wrote, in 1944:
“No fraud is more odious than an attempt to subvert the administration of justice. The court is unanimous in condemning the transaction disclosed by this record…. The resources of the law are ample to undo the wrong and to pursue the wrongdoer …. Remedies are available to purge recreant officers from the tribunals on whom the fraud was practiced. Finally…, to nullify the judgment if the fraud procured it …. Such a proceeding is required by settled federal law….”
Earlier, in 1827, Justice Story said: “Every court must be presumed to exercise those powers belonging to it, which are necessary for the promotion of public justice; and we do not doubt, that this court possesses the power to reinstate any cause, dismissed by mistake”. (In the Palmyra case, 12 Wheat. 1, at page 10, 6 L. Ed. 531.)
The case at hand is a settlement of approximately $73 million, approved by the Connecticut Superior Court. It was brought by the estates of 9 persons who allegedly died on December 14, 2012 at the hands of a man using a gun known as the Bushmaster, manufactured by Remington Arms.
The Superior Court first rejected the case, as federal law gives manufacturers of guns some protection from the consequences of how that gun gets used. However, on appeal, the Connecticut Supreme Court granted Soto et al the right to sue, under the provisions of a state consumer law that deals with the way a product is marketed. In this instance it was ruled that the Bushmaster was marketed to young, at-risk males.
The way in which I see this court as having been defrauded, is that the case was not genuinely adversarial. The court was used as the backdrop for what is known as a psy-op. I believe the shooting never occurred and the entire story of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre (“20 children and six educators”) is a story concocted by various persons, somewhat like a false-flag. I have authored the book Unreality: Sandy Hook Messes Minds, based on researching the case.
The following very odd things that occurred during the 8-year life of Soto v Bushmaster suggest that it was never adversarial, and that both the plaintiffs and the defendant were “in on it.”
- The party being sued, Remington/Bushmaster, did not seek Discovery or cross-examine any witnesses.
- Although other guns were allegedly found at the scene, a Sig Sauer and a Glock, defendant Bushmaster did not attempt to say that those guns did the killing.
- Although a Bushmaster gun is extremely noisy, its sound cannot be heard on the school’s audio, for December 14, 2012, yet the defendant did not present this negative evidence.
- Although a helicopter camera had shown, close to the time of the event, that a man had put a rifle in the trunk of a car (and thus it was not carried into the school), Bushmaster did not offer this in rebuttal of the plaintiffs’ claim.
- When James Fetzer, moved to intervene in this case to show that no one died, the Defendant, Bushmaster, who would benefit from Fetzer’s presentation, opposed his request.
- For no apparent reason, Bushmaster requested the school records of the 20 children. This gave the plaintiffs an opportunity to ask the court to protect the privacy of the alleged child victims. Hence, and contra the public’s right to see such records, the court granted the request that they be sealed.
- Oddly, 17 of the allegedly bereaved families did not join this very lucrative case, and one teacher, allegedly wounded by the gun, Natalie Hammond, withdrew her name. (Why?)
Thus, far from being a fight between the two Parties, this lawsuit was more like a Soviet show trial. It fulfilled objectives which certain factions are attempting to achieve, namely the weakening of both our Second Amendment right to bear arms and our First Amendment right to free speech.
I identify four other likely objectives of the trial: to intimidate citizens from continuing to shout “false flag,” to dissuade manufacturers from gun-making, to cause persons who were skeptical of Sandy Hook to feel confused and frustrated, and to make it appear that courts are under someone’s control.
Of course, that last one is unbearable for any person who understands that America’s claim to greatness is based on the rule of law. A Connecticut woman named Maureen Crowley rendered her opinion, on social media, that the Sandy Hook psy-op involved not only Homeland Security, the FBI and FEMA, but also “organized crime.” If this is so, everyone, including judges, may be frightened into silence. Therefore, it is a public duty of citizens to protect court personnel. That is why I am here petitioning for a Writ of Error Coram Nobis.
In his online book, Sandy Hook Truth: Memo to POTUS, the late whistleblower David Steele said:
“I managed a false flag event for the Central Intelligence Agency in my capacity as Clandestine Operations Officer stationed overseas. I have personal experience with ‘legalized lying’ whereby ostensible orders ‘from the highest authorities’ mandate lying to the Court and lying to the media and the public, in support of national security objectives. Individuals ordered to lie are offered both full immunity and severe penalties if they fail to lie as ordered.”
Sidney Powell’s 2014 book, Licensed To Lie, is about the DoJ’s lies, but there it is the prosecutors who are “granted” immunity.
Lying to a court is diametrically opposed to achieving justice. Truth is a very great value and we need Connecticut’s Court to act now to protect it. In England, a writ for the correction of error could be granted only after the king has signed Fiat justiti, ruat caelum — “Let justice be done even if the heavens fall.”
Some words of inspiration are as follows:
“No Man is wise at all Times, or is without his blind Side.” — Desiderius Esrasmus, The Alchymyst (1497)
“All truths wait in all things, They neither hasten their own delivery nor resist it…. Only what proves itself to every man and woman is so. Only what nobody denies is so.” — Walt Whitman, I Celebrate Myself (1855)
“It is written that ‘My house is a house of prayer,’ but you have made it a den of thieves.” (Matthew 21:13, King James Version)
Yours very respectfully, Mary Maxwell, PhD, LLB
175 Loudon Rd, Apt 6, Concord, New Hampshire, 03301
Email address: MaxwellMaryLLB@gmail.com