Political Parties Are Private Entities Whose Influence Must Be Reduced- A Harsha Sankar Article

Dear Editor,                                                          December 2019                       
       
         The political parties, while they have an American Constitutional right to exist, are indeed private organizations and their influence in picking officeholders needs to be curtailed.

       
          This is why Top Two Primary System(aka Nonpartisan Blanket Primary) needs to be adapted in all 50 states and in all elections.
       
          In the primary election that is at least a few months prior to the general election, all officeholder candidates from all parties and even those not affiliated with a party contest and compete. All voters, irrespective of party affiliation, vote.

         The Top Two with the most amount amount of votes will only be allowed to contest and compete in the general election later that year.
       
          The Top Two Primary System will diminish a party's stranglehold on a particular locality, state senate and delegate district, and even an entire state. It will encourage more people to run for office and it will diminish the influence of PACs and money in political races.

                                                          Very Truly Yours,

                                                           Harsha Sankar
                                                           908 Valley Ridge Road
                                                           Covington, Virginia 24226

Resolution To The 2nd Amendment Crisis in Virginia- A Harsha Sankar Article

Dear Editor,                                                           January 2020

         
 Virginia Sanctuary Counties need citizen representation that transcends the current norms.

 
  Proposal: Draft Resolution Highlight Points

1. All 2A Virginia Sanctuary Counties agree to pay .5% extra sales tax to the Virginia state government treasury. That money goes to Virginia State Police to augment their security support of schools and complexes in excess of 10,000 square feet. This surcharge should last 4 years.

2. In exchange of abiding by the preceding condition, both parties agree to have revamped state senate redistricting for the next four years. Each state senate district will no longer be strictly based on population. Instead each state senate district will consist of a minimum of two and a maximum of three counties which are contiguous to each other.

3. Both parties will agree that extra regulations by state agencies and additional laws passed pertaining to firearms laws after the 2018 fiscal year become null and void in effect.

4. After four years, with the revamped state senate in effect, everything will be subject to either renegotiation or reconfirmation.

These are the terms and conditions and there will be the resolution of this ongoing dispute. There will be the peace.

                                                            Very Truly Yours,

                                                             Harsha Sankar
                                                             908 Valley Ridge Road
                                                             Covington, Virginia 24426

Pariah Politician To Judicial Tyrant- Part Two ( A Harsha Sankar Article)

Dear Editor,                                        October 2019

This is the second and final part of "Pariah Politician To Judicial Tyrant."

         

This certain judge from a Southern state  was enamored with the unbridled power of "judicial hacktivism", especially in criminal cases. He would substitute his biases and would openly acknowledge that it affected his "rulings". He certainly should have been perceived as subjective, arbitrary, and disproportionately heavy handed.

Moreover, he has an erroneous and dangerous philosophy that judges should mediate and serve as public participants. Nothing can be further from what the U.S. Constitution and what common sense natural law state. Judges are like referees and umpires who officiate. They are supposed to be totally detached, neutral, impartial, and have absolutely no stake in the litigants' matters. They are supposed to hear the cases presented and then apply the relevant law in a very cold manner. Judges also do not resolve disputes in civil cases to their whim and fancy. They merely adjudge it according to the written law.

Not only was he abusive as a legislator and judge, he was also very ignorant and so is a certain elected official. They both do not understand "mental health" and that makes them dangerous. Too often people equate sociopathic, psychopathic and deviant behavioral, character, personality, and psychological defects with "mental illness". That simply is not the case.

While poverty breeds crime, people in poverty should not be treated as criminals. Yet both their sentiments are in conflict with this analogy. I have spoken to him personally on "mental health" issues. He honestly believes that "mental health issues" can and should be used to increase punishment/punitive damages and increase the level of intent of an individual's act of crime or liability. Obviously only the reverse is true. There is an attorney in that Southern state who would be able to educate them properly on these issues since no one is willing to listen to me on this.

                                                     

                                                                               Very Truly Yours,

                                                                                 Harsha Sankar
                                                                                 908 Valley Ridge Road
                                                                                 Covington, Virginia

From Pariah Politician To Judicial Tyrant-Part One (A Harsha Sankar Article)

Dear Editor,                                               September 4th, 2019

 

          From Pariah Politician To Judicial Tyrant, Part One!

         

          Somewhere in Eastern United States is a politician who by illicit political means only became a judge.He became a symbol of the totally degenerate and unaccountable power that Bar Associations have over society by its total vice grip of the judiciary and its implementation of their will as their guise of law.

Both he and fellow politician, while both members of different parties, were both "Psychopathic Peas In A Pod" who as "Pariah Politicians" implemented a extremely brutal regime in an East Coast area back in the Nineties and 2000's. Both networked with the likes of violent and uncouth rogues such as Judges , prosecutors, and notorious hyper-aggressive attorneys  to enforce their own professional and personal "thugocracy" in terrorizing the people into abject submission and docility.

Known for utilizing his corrupt and tyrannical conflicts of interests, this former Bar attorney/legislator  had fellow attorney/legislator put him in front of the queue when the judgeship became vacant. Judges of other inferior courts were bypassed in the process and he violated the separation of powers principle by taking that leap from the legislative to the judiciary.

I warned people what he represented. As someone raised in a small area, he had "no business" seeking judgeship in a place in which he is already acquainted with so many of its people. Not only could he not have been objective, he did not even try when he "ascended" to that position. He would later state to people(litigants and others) if they wanted a stranger to decide their life. People, not autocratic judicial officials, should have the freedom to decide their own lives.

                                                                             Very Truly Yours,

                                                                              Harsha Sankar
                                                                              908 Valley Ridge Road
                                                                              Covington, Virginia 24426

Why Saudi Arabian Oil Refinery Attacks Are False Flags Operations- A Harsha Sankar Article

Dear Citizen,                                                                                      September 27th,2019

The following are listed reasons why the attacks on the Saudi Arabia oil refineries are indeed a false flag operation. All must look at all matters objectively and without emotion.

1. The Houthi attack on those refineries did indeed take place. The false flag operatives just merely piggy-backed on the Houthi attack.
2. The damage to the spherical gas containment tanks could not have been damaged by any Iranian weapons.
3. 14 of these tanks were hit in exactly the same place. The odds of that happening are zero if the attacks came from Iran.
4. None of those tanks exploded. How convenient for the Saudis?
5. The only weapon that can cause the damage caused because it is not incendiary is depleted uranium rounds. Only that can enter a tank without causing an explosion.
6. Since those tanks did not explode, those tanks were empty and purged. Again, how convenient?
7. Only USA, Russia, or China makes that kind of munitions.
8. Israel is really the only nation in the Middle East that has that in stock. Since Israel and the Saudis are very close, hmmm?
9.All 14 tanks have a one foot diameter hole. How precise? Again, DU was used.
10. If Iran did it, all the weaponry would have to overfly all the US Naval assets and their Aegis Radar System. The USA would have a record of it. Yet the USA will not release recorded tapes,simply due to the fact that none existed that indicate an Iranian attack.
11. There is no way the US Military could have missed those attacks. It would have immediately warned Saudi Arabia if those attacks came from Iran. America's Missile System , such as Hawk, would also have been able to shoot it down immediately. After all, protecting these oil fields is a top priority for the US Military.
12. The Saudis say everything will be fully operational in a month's time. An attack from Iran would have delayed fully operational status for about a year.

Please contact all elected officials and urge that each of them convince other elected officials to not support military action against Iran.

                                                    Very Truly Yours,
                                                    Harsha Sankar

                                                    908 Valley Ridge Road

                                                    Covington, Virginia

Those who make the law should be elected! Those who apply and enforce the law should be selected!- A Harsha Sankar Article

Dear Citizen,                                                          October 30th,2019

       

Those who make the law should be elected! Those who apply and enforce the law should be selected! Elections for sheriff, prosecutors, treasurers,school board members,and even court clerks are not a good idea. It makes their role too political and affected by the winds of populism. They need to be appointed instead and subject to re-confirmation every 4-8 years by both the local executive and local legislative government branches.

The U.S. Constitution requires States to have the same form of divided government as the federal government. Local governments too should have that same form of divided government. Every county, just like every city, should have one elected representative to head the executive branch and then have elected representatives to represent a specific area within that county.

The "mayor" of the city and county should nominate candidates for sheriff or police commissioner,for school board members, for treasurer,and for court's clerk(since that is an administrative position, therefore belonging in the executive branch). The legislative branch will approve nomination with a majority vote or disapprove the nomination with 60% of their vote.

Only the legislators and head of the executive branches should be elected since both branches are involved in the law-making process.

                                                 
                                                                        Very Truly Yours,

                                                                         Harsha Sankar

                                                                         908 Valley Ridge Road

                                                                         Covington, Virginia 24426

Public Balloting Ensures Representative Democracy; Representative Democracy Ensures Constitutional Governance

America's failed legal system is due to same-hands governance currently being administered by the  transnational and unconstitutional Bar Associations.

To establish constitutional government, representative democracy must exist. To establish representative democracy, public ballots must exist.
The choice of public "servant" must be open and transparent. Secrecy breeds dictatorial traits and tendencies!

Real Reforms Start With Public Balloting- A Harsha Sankar Article

Dear Editor,                                                     November 2019

Half-baked republics lead to democratically elected dictatorships!That is why governance is too important to be left to the votes of the anonymous.

America is brutally ruled by its ruling class, the Attorney "Lawyer-Lobbyist Regime". This happened not because attorneys acted unilaterally. It only happened because people themselves co-operated with the forces of tyranny, enabling this "Ruling Class" to achieve such domination and intimidating influences.

The one flaw, although not the only flaw, that the despotic "Attorney Profession" exploited to achieve such ascension is the voting process is still secret. Not every adult citizen is qualified to pick law-making public servants. That is why voting is not mentioned in the immutable Bill of Rights. Voting is only a civil right(comes from government) and not an unalienable right. Secrecy in casting ballots should not decide who serves in government.

Any adult citizen who casts his or her ballot publicly is qualified to vote.

I would rather someone vote for a candidate who opposes my choice of candidate as long as he or she casts his/her vote publicly than for someone to vote for my choice of candidate but choose to do it secretly, benefiting from its convenience.

From 1888 to 1896, nearly all states adopted the concept of secret ballot. The same arguments for secret ballot made in the late 19th century can be made now and that is the secret ballot was necessary to root out voter intimidation and bribery.Of course, voter intimidation and bribing people to vote with direct payment are against the laws now and even back then. Anyone caught engaging in such activity will be subject to criminal penalties.

The worst thing to fear is fear itself. That came from FDR in 1932 and that will always hold true. In addition, while it is true that public ballots may entice a voter to be influenced with a bribe, one has to have the confidence in their fellow voter that voters will not commit a crime by accepting a bribe to vote a certain way. If a voter succumbs to such corruption, then one has to feel that the transparent system of governance that public ballots enhance and promote will eventually hold those voters accountable for such an illegal act.

For good governance to exist, people have to be willing to take risks. Choosing lawmaking public servants is a public responsibility and not a luxury or convenience. Public responsibilities require public disclosure.

                                                                 

                                                                  Very Truly Yours,

                                                                  Harsha Sankar

                                                                  908 Valley Ridge Road

                                                                  Covington, Virginia 24426

Lead Attorney Is Brother of Whistleblower in Duke's $112.5 Million Settlement- Hypocritical And Corrupt Conflicts Of Interests

The Roanoke Times, a corporate media outlet, have always had an aversion to publishing letters that dealt with the "legal profession". Thank God for independent outlets such as the Virginian Review.  

Casey's article "Local lawyers score $112.5 million settlement from Duke University" in late March 2019 is testament of how corrupt, hypocritical, and non-sensical the legal system has become.

Sheer lawlessness has resulted and yet the media portrays these highly predatory vultures as saviors and as "Davids vs Goliaths". Nothing could be further from the truth considering attorneys on both sides generate revenue from the same case in an attorney-monopolized judicial system.

There is no way anyone can state based on reading this article whether the claim against Duke University is legitimate. However, there may have been no proof of damages in this lawsuit.

The main point I want to cite for now is this. In the lawsuit filed on the behalf of American taxpayers against Duke, the "whisteblower" against Duke happens to be the brother of a lead attorney whose law firm filed this lawsuit against Duke. For the record, that "whisteblower" will now receive nearly $34 million for his exposure.

Providing arguments by any counsel requires total objectivity, no bias, and zero conflicts of interest. Yet the conflict of interest and inherent bias are so obvious.

When will this madness ends? 

Very Truly Yours,

Harsha Sankar
908 Valley Ridge Road
Covington, Virginia 24426