Wolfgram: The Official Blacklisting of a Patriot Philosopher Lawyer.







At 17 years, John E. Wolfgram dropped out of high school to join the U. 

S. Marine Corps in 1961. In 1965 - 66, as a deep penetration Recon 

Marine in Viet Nam, he began asking questions about the war, and more 

importantly, about the morality of the system of government that got us 

into it. After a five year tour of duty, he returned to school. At first 

it was part time, but by 1971 he was deeply interested in the crossover 

of the philosophies of science and ethics. After exhausting the 

philosophy department at the University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee, in 

1973 he transferred to the higher powered Philosophy Department at 

Madison. There he determined that what America needed and did not have, 

was a scientific understanding of its own "philosophy of law"; not just 

as an academic mater, but how it really worked to allow the depth of 

systemic corruption that caused massive domestic injustice and 

international war.



There was no one in the existing "philosophy of law" that even 

understood the issue, let alone anyone that was studying it enough to 

teach it. So, he determined his own logical course of study on how to 

become a real Philosopher of Law. Naturally, since law was the topic, he 

would become a lawyer, and then about ten years later, he would become a 

judge, and then an appeals court judge. Then, about twenty five years 

after he left the University of Wisconsin, he would be ready to writ 

about, and teach, The Philosophy of American Law, from the inside. That 

was his plan. 



He graduated from Southwestern University School of Law at Los Angeles 

in 1977, passed the California Bar the first time and entered law 

practice at Sacramento later that year. For most of the first 10 years 

his law practice was a normal practice in civil law and criminal 

defense. In the mid 1980s a series of events came to the Sacramento 

Grand Jury that set Wolfgram on an irreversible course of political 

dissidence. In one year a Superior Court Judge was busted getting a 

"Lewinski" from a prostitute, in his car. The District Attorney got in a 

fight in a gay bar in San Francisco and tried to use his position to get 

out of the arrest; and the Sacramento Sheriff got drunk and crashed his 

squad car.



The Grand Jury thought these events might involve moral turpitude and 

wanted to investigate. The Judges wanted to sweep it all under the 

carpet. When the Grand Jury issued a report with such findings, the 

judges refused to publish it. And when they recommended that the next 

Grand Jury take the investigation farther, the judges appointed a 

retiring judge to be the grand jury foreman to control it 



Wolfgram was alarmed at the audacity of the judges, to take that 

investigation away from the people. But worse, the law was written in 

such a way as to allow the judges to control grand juries for whatever 

end they wanted. That seemed to defeat the very purpose of having a 

grand jury.



By mid 1988, Wolfgram had 11 years of practice, and he thought it time 

to become a judge. So, he ran for judge in a neighboring county on an 

anti corruption platform where as judge, he would set the Grand Jury 

Free to explore corruption in government. To say that he was not very 

well received by the corrupt powers that be is the understatement of the 

decade. He was harassed and arrested by police, and even by a prosecutor 

while in trial with the blessing of the judge. He was arrested while 

going about his business in the court house, taken to jail and brutally 

beaten by deputies to point of breaking four ribs, falsely charged with 

crimes and run through phony trials where he was not allowed to defend 

himself.



In all, he has been jailed over 25 times and has never been convicted of 

a jailable offense. When he sought help from the State Bar, they charged 

him with "mental incompetency" and tried him for his philosophic beliefs 

and ordered him "involuntarily inactive" , because Wolfgram believes, as 

the basis of his legal philosophy, that the Constitution, as it is 

written, (not as interpreted by judges) is the Supreme Law of the Land, 

and that is the law that he was developing into a legal practice.



His "competency trial", with hearings one or two days a week, lasted for 

almost a year. At trial, Ed Rosenthal, an expert on marijuana (Editor of 

High Times Magazine) who had worked with Wolfgram in trial defense, and 

with over forty other attorneys was asked to rate Wolfgram against the 

broad spectrum of attorneys that Mr. Rosenthal had worked with. This is 

what he said at Vol. XV, page 38:



Q. "How would you rate Mr. Wolfgram against the broad spectrum of 

attorneys that you've assisted in marijuana cases? 



A. Well, in dedication, he's way at the top. In putting in time into the 

case and actually dedicating himself to the case, he's way at the top. 

In terms of preparation of the case and understanding the case, he's in 

the top quarter. And in trial room work, I have to tell you that I have 

two different things to say. Sometimes I do think that he ranges a 

little wide of the mark or of the issue, but that's up, really, for the 

court to determine that. And, on the other, he get out all the points 

that he's supposed to get out, which is the more important thing, 

because he brings to the court the issues that are really at stake. So, 

I would say he's very effective."



On recross examination, the State Bar prosecutor wanted to know about 

Wolfgram's "ranging a little wide of the mark". So, she asked at XV-41:



     Q. You mentioned in your rating of Mr. Wolfgram that he ranges a 

little wide of the mark; what were you referring to when you made that 

statement?



     A. He has a 19th century view of the Constitution in that - in 

terms of being a 19th century Libertarian, I think, and so that he tries 

to relate Constitutional issues directly to the courtroom and the 

courtroom procedure. And so, rather than sticking with just the evidence 

and issue at hand, he brings in larger implications and significance and 

symbols of what those - of the meaning of the issue - or the facts, I 

should say.



     Q. Just of the facts or the issues as well?



     A. Oh, and the issues."



That is why, as a lawyer, Wolfgram is "mentally incompetent". He is very 

effective for the defense, and he brings the constitutional implications 

of the facts and the issues into the courtroom, for the Jury. No lawyer, 

the State Bar commands, should be allowed to do that. They control 

lawyers with their license, so they pulled Wolfgram's.



Had he followed through on his basic plan, Wolfgram would have become a 

"Philosopher of Law" much like Judge Robert Bork. But things went 

"wrong" and in the end, Wolfgram could never be an "insider" like Judge 

Bork, because he dared to challenge the basic premises of the legal 

system as no insider could. If you wish to compare Wolfgram's Philosophy 

of Law to that of Judge Bork, bring up "Bork". 



You can judge for yourself whether Wolfgram is "mentally incompetent", 

or has done, as a blacklisted lawyer and philosopher, what no American 

has ever done: Developed and articulated an American Philosophy of Law, 

and through it, accurately describe what went wrong and why our system 

is so corrupt. Wolfgram is presently writing a book addressing that 

issue. Bring up "Prelude" to get a summary of what he is writing. Judge 

his mental competency for yourself.