mirror of
https://github.com/nhammer514/textfiles-politics.git
synced 2025-01-14 08:49:34 -05:00
161 lines
9.6 KiB
Plaintext
161 lines
9.6 KiB
Plaintext
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
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.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|