💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › politics › equaprot.txt captured on 2020-10-31 at 15:12:28.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
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.