

                               EQUAL PROTECTION? 

               This illegal grab of power by all branches of government
          is called usurpation.  It is: "to seize and hold (a position,
          power, etc.) by force  or  without  legal right."  As you can
          see, this  is exactly  what has  been happening  in our great
          country. 
               A law professor, Raoul  Berger  of  Harvard  University,
          made the statement:  "On the  contrary,  it is never too late
          to challenge the usurpation of power. .  -- Usurpation -- the
          exercise of power not granted  is not  legitimated by repeti-
          tion." 
               A great many people realize this but those in government
          wouldn't be  overjoyed for  you and  I to  know it.  And they
          would be even less  happy when  we take  the action  that the
          professor recommends.   As  he says,  just because a practice
          has been going on for a long time does not make it legal. 
               If it was against the law  when it started, no amount of
          talking or usage will make it within the  law now.   Ignoring
          of our  Constitution and  the assuming  of powers  we did not
          grant has to be stopped.
               Carved in the  stone face on  the Supreme Court building
          is the statement:  "Equal Protection Under the Laws." 
               Compare that  statement with the state of our protection
          today.  It's apparent that it was carved a long time ago. 
               Their  decisions  today  just  serve  to   justify  some
          government action, not to protect a citizen's rights. 
               Let's see,  what  did their  oath say?   That  they will
          "administer justice  without respect to persons, and do equal
          right to the poor and the rich.. "
               Perhaps they  are administering  justice without respect
          to persons and that's how they  now use  their power  only to
          justify some governmental action? 
               This is equal protection under the laws? 
               Can you think of  any rich  and/or  powerful  person who
          gets the same justice as the average citizen?  How about some
          members of Congress who ignore (break) the law and nothing is
          done to satisfy justice?   How about  Nixon?   There  was  no
          right for  Ford to issue that pardon.  How about Spiro Agnew?
          (Spiro who?) Our  ex-vice  president  pleaded  guilty  to tax
          evasion.   Anything happen  to him?  No!  How about a Kennedy
          who swam away from his car and didn't report the incident for
          over eight  hours?   What if  that were  you or I?  Does that
          oath mean they can disrespect any person they choose and then
          administer  justice  as  they  define  it?   Equal protection
          indeed.
               This is el toro caca and their duty is still  to protect
          the American  citizen from  illegal and unlawful practices by
          the government.   We  have the  absolute right  to demand and
          expect protection from the judicial branch, not persecution.
               The issue of the  independence  of federal  judges is of
          importance to us.  If they are not  independent of  the other
          two  branches of government, we  can't expect protection from
          
          them if  their  opinion  will go against  some  other part of
          government. 
               If  they are not independent, we get into what is called
          'collusion'  which  is   "acting  together  through a  secret
          understanding."  The  law dictionary is more specific in it's
          definition:  "A secret combination, conspiracy, or concert of
          action between two or more persons for fraudulent  or deceit-
          ful purpose." 
               Look at  what's been  going on  lately .  . .   with the
          beginning  of  the  so  called  tax  rebellion,  the Internal
          Revenue Service,  way back  in 1973, has been conferring with
          federal  judges  on  the  necessity  of  handing  out  prison
          sentences in tax cases. 
               This  has been revealed in IRS memos which were received
          through the  Freedom  of  Information  Act.  The minutes of a
          meeting of IRS officials show that they  have been conferring
          with US attorneys and  judges to point out  the problems they
          are having with 'tax protestors.' 
               One recommendation  of the  memo was to "Wage a campaign
          to  educate  U.S.  attorneys  and  federal  judges  with  the
          importance of prison sentences on cases."  This is  just  one
          area where the "secret  combinations"  are going  on  that we
          know of . . .  In how many other areas is our central govern-
          ment conducting the same  type educational campaigns for U.S.
          attorneys and federal judges? 
               I guess  the recommended prison sentences does not apply
          to an ex-vice president.
               Is there any way a  citizen  could  feel  they are being
          afforded the protection of a judicial  branch in  a situation
          as we have it today?  Hardly.  There  would be  only one in a
          hundred judges that could make an honest  decision  after all
          the brainwashing by the other branches of government. 
               This could easily be defined as "action  of  two or more
          persons for a  fraudulent or deceitful  purpose."    The very
          definition of collusion!   And judges  are to  make impartial
          decisions?
               Alexander  Hamilton, in  The Federalist Papers, had some
          strong words on the function  of the  judicial  branch of our
          new government that judges are to be interpreters  of the law
          and "It is impossible to keep the  judges too  distinct  from
          every other avocation than that of  expounding  the laws.  It
          is peculiarly dangerous to  place them  in a  situation to be
          either corrupted or influenced by the executive." 
               With that  statement in  mind, to what branch of govern-
          ment does the  Internal Revenue Service belong?   Why, to the
          executive of course! 
               As was pointed out, an adverse decision can  be appealed
          to the next higher  level of  the  judicial  system.   If the
          answer of the higher  court is  the same, in face of signifi-
          cant constitutional  challenges, better  check the definition
          of the word collusion again.
               It  is  a  bit  suspicious  to  note decisions  in these
          so-called case law books that  are on similar  issues  around
          the country all with the same decisions, even  to many  words
          
          being similar. 
               These generally  seem to occur after the judicial system
          has had  its annual  conference.  Strange?  Is this where our
          socially  redeeming issues  are discussed?  The nature of the
          decisions certainly suggest at least that. 
               It was reported in a book on American Jurisprudence that
          the Supreme Court now wants to become involved in the area of
          foreign affairs.  Can you imagine the nerve  of these people?
          They must  figure they  have been able thus far to invade any
          area  they  desire  and their  next target  is to be  foreign
          affairs.   Where do they find the authority for this trespass
          on powers  reserved to  another branch of the central govern-
          ment?  Did the people authorize it?
               Now the new chief justice, in a speech before a national
          meeting of the Bar Association, (his fraternity buddies) asks
          members to help stop this  trend to  'federalize' crimes.  He
          insists  the courts  are now  overworked  and  by making more
          crime a federal issue, the courts will be overwhelmed.  Aw...
          makes you want to cry!  Why doesn't  he request  the Congress
          eliminate  all  federalized  crimes  for  which  they have no
          authority to try?
               One area we can point to that shows clearly the judicial
          branch is  amending  the  Constitution  by decree  to violate 
          Article  V (Amendment  process), is  concerning  the  writ of
          habeas  corpus.  The Constitution is plain and definite . . .

               "The Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be  suspended,     
               unless when  in cases  of Rebellion  or Invasion the    
               public Safety may require it." 

               Congress  is the only branch of government  given  power
          in the Constitution to suspend the Writ. 
               The judicial department does it all the time by refusing
          to  consider  the  petition,  refusing  to  grant  the  writ,
          refusing to act on the petition  or requiring  specific forms
          to apply for a writ, etc.  Of  course, their argument is that
          they are overworked and underpaid so they have to concentrate
          on important issues which is a load of hogwash. 
               The Writ cannot be  suspended  and if  it is, it is only
          the Congress who has the authority to do so!  There are basic
          requirements spelled out in  our Constitution  which  must be
          followed and not changed by  edict by a branch of our govern-
          ment which has no right to make a law.

                WHEN YOU REGISTER, PLEASE LET ME KNOW WHAT

                   YOU THINK ABOUT A MONTHLY NEWSLETTER.


