Kittitas County Superior Court Judge November election candidates: Chief Deputy Prosecutor Paul Sander, Judge Frances

Chmelewski and Jim Denison. Would Jim Denison be impartial or would he perpetuate the legacy of Judge Cooper? Could Denison be truly impartial vis--vis a lawyer opposing his law firm partner Jeff Slothower? Has Kittitas County not seen enough of the old buddy justice rendering system? Dear candidates for Judge, Your claims of fairness and assurances of impartiality while seeking election are impressive. Once elected will you live up to them throughout your career? The two links below show what could happen at the end of your stint on the bench if and when you stray from the path of justice. http://www.scribd.com/doc/100476093/Judge-Michael-E-Cooper-Michael-DarlandFREEDOMWORKS-WA-Help-Promote-Idea-for-Internet-Governance-to-Go-From-US-NGOs-toITU-at-WCIT-2012 http://freespeech-internetcontrol.com/ Who could ever believe that after a life time on the bench Judge Michael Cooper: 1. Could not differentiate between matters of law and matters of fact. 2. Did not know that allegations of defamation, perjury, fraud and coercion are matters of fact that cannot be disposed of through a summary judgment without trial? 3. That all parties have a right to be heard and their voices must be considered and addressed with impartiality. 4. That a Judge should never end a hearing by publishing his obvious bias saying: "It's been my pleasure" to a home town crony attorney. Ellensburg attorney, Jeff Slothower, in this instance. Check out documents # 23, 26 and 51, to name but a few, under the 'Authoritative Documents section of www.freespeech-internetcontrol.com I recommend the precise language and eloquence of Ellensburg attorney, Jeff Slothower. (See Document # 26 P. 5 Lines 11 -15) Jeff Slothower: "When he filed it he lived in Africa for a number of years. In fact, he went to Africa and was planning to go to Africa when the agreement was filed."!

In the face of such compelling, clear, precise arguments and eloquence, Judge Cooper elected to ignore all matters of fact. He promptly granted a dispositive summary judgment and cancelled the trial that was scheduled to be heard after Judge Coopers retirement! Adding salt to the wound judge Cooper closed the hearing saying: "It's been my pleasure. We'll strike the trial date for the 18th of November." (See Document 26 - P.13) That marathon hearing took place on October 11, 2011. Now in 2012, post retirement, Judge Michael Cooper and attorney Jeffrey Slothower, both of Ellensburg, are fast gaining international notoriety and are sadly becoming the laughing stock of the legal community around the world. Both Judge Cooper's name and Jeff Slothowers have been circulated in at least 193 countries around the globe. At the request of Michael Darland, Bellevue, (Digital Systems Precursor of Voice Link Mosaix and Avaya) the hasty ruling granted by judge Michael Cooper, denying me free speech at the end of a marathon hearing could very well help reach consensus in favor of Internet control passing from US NGOs to ITU UN organization. Obviously Judge Cooper's partisan, unfounded and hasty ruling cost me justice and heavy irreparable damages. But more importantly, Judge Cooper's ruling, handed down without trial, while blurting out: "It's been my pleasure" at the close of the hearing may end up costing the American economy billions of dollars. How pleasing will that be to American citizens and corporations in todays fragile economy? Appropriately enough, at a recent conference organized by the Department of Electronics and Information Technology (DEIT) of the Government of India at NALSAR University of Law, Justice City Campus, Shameerpet, India on April 5th and 6th 2012, some world renowned law professors and other distinguished figures among Internet technology experts commented as follows: "The International Telecommunication Union enshrines the free flow of information as a basic human right." (Denied to me without trial, with pleasure by Cooper while the US controls Internet.

"The justice delivery system has remained flawed and its channels have been silted." "This has led to a scenario where the common man chooses to sulk in despair." I add: Or the common man can take his case to the INTERNET COURT OF WORLD OPINION in spite of a judge Michael Coopers self serving ruling barring him from doing so to save embarrassing the judge and his protgs! Please note that among some of the hasty decisions, Judge Cooper reached in less than 30 minutes, he ordered Google to deny me the right to free speech globally! Oddly enough, while it is clear to all that judge Cooper's 'quick to please' dispositive judgment flew in the face of numerous issues of material fact, Mr. Ramanjit Singh Chima, Policy Analyst for Google India Pvt. Ltd. pointed out at that conference that: US judges are often asked to consider on a matter about regulating content online, whereas they had themselves probably never been largely exposed to the online world. Mr. Singh Chima goes on to say: That brings in the realization that neither lawyers nor judges have the answers all the time. But our life and that of our progeny for generations to come is affected. It is evidently no small responsibility to be a judge in todays linked up world. In our global village, even a small time judge, from a small one horse town like Ellensburg can cause waves that travel fast around the globe. Thus, the poor judgment of such a judge no longer affects just the life of one family but that of the entire family of nations and their economy. Beyond wishing that the best candidate wins, I pray that the winner will discharge his responsibilities honorably right up to his/her very last ruling! Most sincerely, Louis Leclezio. cc. To all candidates for Kittitas County Superior Court Judge position An insight into how retired Judge Michael Cooper, Jeff Slothower, Ellensburg and Michael Darland, Bellevue, are helping promote consensus in favor of Internet governance passing from a majority of US NGOs to the ITU at WCIT 2012:

The Resume of the DEIT Seminar at NALSAR University of law in India provides an in depth and wise road map on the future of Internet governance and regulations. Prior to benefiting from such wisdom I had read, among others, the following article on the subject of Internet governance: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57449375-83/u.n-could-tax-u.s.-based-web-sites-leakeddocs-show/ That article conveyed to me the impression that the pot is calling the kettle black. The whole article should be reviewed and rewritten from a positive point of view and not from such a negative one. As is, it appears designed to protect the home turf by pointing a finger and crying wolf too often. By contrast, the article by Jovan Kurbalija on 2 Jul 2012 in Diplo is one of the best I have read on the subject of Internet governance. IMHO, it is an impartial analysis written from an impartial academic stand point. http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/webinar-digest-mid-year-review-internet-governancedevelopments I am not a scholar. I am humbly speaking from first hand experience only. Does the US and/or Google respect Article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights? My web site www.freespeech-internetcontrol.com speaks to the contrary. Reminder: Article 19 states: people shall have the right to access information through any media and regardless of frontiers. According to the evidence throughout my web site, there is no difference between a censor in China, Russia or the Arab States and a despotic biased Judge in America: Therefore, the world can and should reach consensus for Internet control to pass from the US NGOs to the ITU UN at WZIT 2012 in Dubai in December. Check out my case in point: My true to life story is the one of the little guy from Africa. You can read all about it on www.freespeech-internetcontrol.com

It adds its weight for Internet control to pass from the US to the ITU UN at WCIT2012 in Dubai in December. That 'first hand' experience related throughout the above web site demonstrates that if the USA and Google do not defend and protect open, fair and free speech within and outside its own jurisdiction area - Who could ever believe that the USA and Google would be benevolently concerned about an open, fair and free Internet for the rest of the world! Whereas, in the real world, there is no difference between a censor in China, Russia or the Arab States and a despotic biased Judge in America. Whereas, nonetheless, the Google V.P., Vint Cerf, asserts that the Internet is most open, free and fair under US control. That statement is divorced from reality and obviously designed solely to protect the home turf. "Open, fair and free Internet under US control is the palatable and politically correct claim made by Vint Cerf for the gallery. In that Trojan horse, rides the protection of growing revenues for Google and a few other US corporations. Who could ever believe in that kind of altruistic benevolent talk coming from the US financial field? In that arena, is it not well known that the bottom line is all that counts? However, no matter how powerful a nation is, or how well capitalized any US Corporation is, if neither that nation nor such a corporation are truly open to treat all world citizens fairly and equally; if neither are committed to equitably and freely share revenues with all global Internet stakeholders - both the nation and the corporation may end up stifling their jealously guarded control of their global Internet goose. Understandably, neither the US Government nor the US corporations want to lose the nesting place of their Internet goose. But, has that same globally fed Internet goose not yet laid enough golden eggs for long enough for the compounding financial benefit of too few in the USA mostly? Has the time not finally come for all the global stakeholders who have helped feed that Internet goose, to partake in the fair sharing of its golden eggs? Check out Googles market value for example:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=GOOG Paradoxically, the fastest growing Internet markets are outside USA borders! http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/statistics/ That being the case, is it normal, in 2012 and thereafter, for Google and US NGOs mostly to control the worlds Internet? At WCIT 2012, will the world not readily agree that the neutral ITU under the UN umbrella is best qualified to protect the Internet goose nest and distribute its golden eggs fairly to all stakeholders around the world? Has it not been widely recognized that the mighty Internet success and wealth rests on the individual small shoulders of all global Internet consuming citizens? While we all add to the Internet success, on a personal level, my web site www.freespeechinternetcontrol.com highlights the true story of blatant censoring and discrimination, without trial, by the US and Google against world citizens like me, the little guy, from Africa. Since my factual story illustrates clearly that the USA and Google do not walk their talk and do not care about Article 19 to ensure that the Internet is equally "open, fair and free for all." Since Human Rights and Internet will remain high on the WCIT 2012 agenda: http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/webinar-digest-mid-year-review-internet-governancedevelopments The majority of countries represented at WCIT 2012 should reach a logical consensus in favor of Internet control passing from the US to the ITU for the fairest Internet further growth and the impartial protection of the human rights of every world citizen. Who else other than the neutral ITU (International Communications Union) acting under the umbrella of the United Nations could ensure: That Internet transparency becomes truly open to all. That Internet revenues get fairly distributed between all countries whose citizens contribute to the vast Internet success and wealth.

That the Internet becomes truly free of the kind of territorial discrimination presently prevailing under US control. Link to my first letter addressed to Dr. Hamadoun Tour ITU: http://www.scribd.com/doc/97536947/Michael-L-Darland-Fuels-Internet-Control-Debate-byDenying-Free-Speech-to-Louis-Leclezio The above referred to letter is exhibit # 49 under the chapter: 'Authoritative Documents' in support of the Trial Brief that is available through: www.freespeech-internetcontrol.com Find out from the above letter to Dr. H. Tour and from the transcript of a US Court hearing (Document # 26 P. 5 lines 11 - 15 under Authoritative Documents Chapter on the web site) how an attorney from the one horse town of Ellensburg, Jeff Slothower, had to mention Africa three times within a few other meaningless and lawless words for me to be promptly denied free speech with pleasure across international borders without a trial! From the fastest growing Internet markets in Africa and from other parts of the world, end users and consumers should join hands to applaud and to thank Dr. Tour, the various media and organizations involved for their positive vision of the Internet after WCIT2012. Their vision and valuable help to disseminate an urgent call for a much welcomed consensus to be reached is the only way to assure open, fair and free Internet through governance by the UN after WCIT2012. That will be for the ultimate benefit of all. Did JFK not say: You can fool some of the people some of the time But you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. That old Trojan horse claim flogged by Mr. Vint Cerf and other negative media on the subject of open, fair and free Internet under US control belongs to antiquated history. Once Internet control will have passed from the US to the UN, it will favor the Internet's truly equitable and accelerated planetary growth. More details, coming up soon, on how a modern global version of Reaganomics, could/should be implemented world wide in order to accelerate Internet growth through ITU governance after WCIT 2012. As the most Honourable Dr. Tour said on June 20, 2012: http://www.itu.int/en/osg/speeches/Pages/2012-06-20.aspx By working together, we will make this world a better place.

A world where everyone has equitable, affordable and secure access to the Internet wherever they live and whatever their circumstances. A world where the social and economic benefits of ICTs have reached all the peoples of the planet.

And a world where social and economic justice prevails. That is positive forward and onward looking at its very best! Louis Leclezio. P.S. Health permitting, I look forward to presenting my true to life testimony at WCIT 2012. cc. International media & various world organizations, US Congressman and Senators.