Fine Tuning The
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 1:58 PM
Subject: My response to 4/15/'05
May I as a student and teacher of the "Constitution of the united
States of America" (please note original capitalization) make some comments?
And, before we begin let it be known that the word "government" must be
given modifiers to have any meaning as far as who are the governors and who, the
governed. "Civil government" is quite different from
"self-government"! When you read the following comments you will discover that
some modifiers will be used. (End of lecture?)
So , firstly: regarding "enforcement."
"My personal opinion on
an "Enforcement clause in the Constitution" is this-that it does exist"
Gary (He wrote to J.A.I.L. claiming that the Constitution is an Ex Parte
Restraining Order. --j4j)
Who delegated the powers that be to those in civil government? If you know
who ratified the document we call the "Constitution of the united States of
America," you will know who the "enforcers" were supposed to
be. Parties to a contract must keep the contract or they must face the
consequences. "We the People" have not held those to whom we
delegated those powers. As the Constitution has never been
abrogated (to abolish by the authority of the maker or his successor), it is
still in force and we are still the enforcers. (More on this
Secondly: re. "The 'states' can
dissolve the Compact. " Gary
Yes, however, there's that little word
can; Point: We the people may but can we? (Was it
Teddy Roosevelt that said, "The biggest clubs are under the best apple trees"?
can was tried about 140 years ago and the "biggest clubs" won! Lots!
Not, of course, because secession was unthinkable to our founders nor is
unconstitutional. No, but because the club wielders were unconscionable,
unethical men. Times change so let's try a different method. That brings us to
the next point.
civil "government WILL NOT enforce its
own responsibilities...." Ron. The objects of "ex parte" will
resist, but, as our beloved Founders stated, we will put our trust in the One
who knows our cause is just!
For the support of J.A.I.L., "with a firm reliance on Divine
Providence for its success we pledge our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred
Fourthly: Perhaps a few words re. "Ex Parte
Restraining Order " are appropriate. See "firstly" above. The "ex parte" are
we the people.
A bit of history will support this. When the
delegates to the Constitutional Convention went home to their respective
states, this Constitution was gone over "with a fine tooth comb" by the
people of the states. Not until the people had delegated their
representatives to do so could those representative delegates go to the
Continental Congress and for the people they represented vote for that
As they were honorable men (!) that is what they
did. They waited to be delegated and they voted accordingly; and notice, it was
in lieu of the people. Who ratified and who are the "parte"? The people!
Therefore, it is "the people" who may, must and can (with God's help) do
what needs be done to enforce it in spite of what was said: "but is not enforceable by the People as it should have
Fifthly: It may
be true that as Gary stated, we have tacitly " 'consented' to far more
power to the gov. than was originally intended," but , to abrogate the Constitution, it must be done
expressly: "To repeal; to annul by an authoritative act; to abolish by
the authority of the maker or his successor; applied to the repeal of laws,
decrees, ordinances, the abolition of established customs &c." That
authoritative act is clearly spelled out in the Constitution itself in Article
This brings us to the most
important point of this whole dissertation, as Barbie
said: "Let the
People now decide their own destiny, by taking control
of it! Pass J.A.I.L. "
(Response by Barbie)
To assure covering everything you mention, I'll respond
1. We really have only one
I think more confusion is caused when people ask "What
Constitution?" Such a question plays right into the hands of the usurping forces
in power. The sooner people put out of their minds anything that took place
since the ratification of THE Constitution of the United States-- (and that's
what I call it, knowing that the fraud that has taken place does not
nullify the one and only organic Constitution of 1787)-- the
sooner we can clear our thinking to the truth and DO
what needs to be done to fulfill our duty in claiming that
truth. As long as we bend whatsoever toward the
fraudulent results of the usurpation, such as "acknowledging" that there are
more than one Constitution, that we shouldn't capitalize certain letters, or
words, or names because it "means" something else, we give credence to the fraud
which we mustn't do. It's like looking through a "glass darkly." The People have
to clean up that glass and remove the darkness, so we can see clearly what has
happened to us, and how, and why. We have to throw off the confusion that has
entangled us, distorting our thinking.
2. The word
I think for purposes of defining government from the
perspective of the intention set forth in the Declaration of Independence (DOI),
which I believe must be the focal point of definition, the simpler it is, the
easier to grasp and analyze regarding its proper role and relationship. While
defining government can get to be a complex matter, I don't believe we have to
get to that point for purposes of viewing the Constitution from the perspective
of the DOI.
The DOI establishes the meaning of government only in
the general sense of its relationship to the People, government's creator. If we
go beyond that perspective, we get into trouble because of the fraud that
government has actually become since ratification of the Constitution. We can't
allow ourselves to get tangled up in the web of deceit caused and created by
government through its usurpation of power. The People have to free themselves
completely from that web of deceit that has entangled us for over 200 years!
So in analyzing and deciding what the People must do to
correct the problem of tyrannical government, we have to go back to Square One
as I've said before and start from the point of legitimacy. I see that point as
being the date of ratification of the organic Constitution, because I see no
fatal flaws in the Constitution as written EXCEPT FOR the lack of an enforcement
clause specifically spelling out the process by which the People can
independently (not rely on
government whatsoever) enforce its terms against a wayward "government" (i.e.,
within the meaning of the DOI perspective). Don't get tangled up in
complexities-- that's part of the "web of deceit." The People are deceived
because of complexities, among other things.
I get perplexed when I hear "WE are the
government." We, the People, are the authority OVER government, but that's
not to say that we ARE government. Again-- from the perspective of the DOI,
there are two different entities: (1) the People, and (2) the government.
One created the other to serve and protect their interests. How does that make
them the same? One is the creator, and the other is the created. One is superior
and the other is inferior. Through usurpation of power, the created has taken on
power OVER its creator. Clearly, this goes directly against the Laws of Nature.
So it isn't a legitimate power-- it's power
alright, but not legitimate. It's counterfeit! Just like FRNS-- they're
counterfeit "money" created by the counterfeit power.
3. What is the Constitution?
Before getting into the "enforcement" discussion, we should determine what
the Constitution is-- what kind of a document is it? There are people who
say that it is a "contract" or a "compact." To me, and for purposes of
J.A.I.L., that classification carries a high disrespect for that Document. I
capitalize that word because it is a Supreme Document-- it was written on behalf
of the People, within the meaning of the relationship declared in the DOI, and
it specifically provides that it is the Supreme Law of the
Not everyone accepts that statement. I have to quote Harmon Taylor:
"The problem is NOT with the 'judges,' where the
question that arises has to do with the 'Constitution.' The problem is with
those who have not yet realized that we do not now have, and have never had, a
'constitutional Government.' The Constitution was and is a 'compact.' It was
never, and is still not, Law. Thus, it was never the Supreme Law of the Land.
....the Constitution doesn't even qualify to be the lining in the bottom of most
bird cages." The only part of that with which I can
agree is that we never had a constitutional government. But that doesn't take
away from the Constitution. The Constitution means what it says and says what it
means. Apparently if we believe that, we're "clueless." That's what our
treasonous judiciary wants us to be:
Rather than hold the Constitution
as authority, the unconstitutional government, represented and spoken for by the
unconstitutional judiciary, reverses the status by debunking the Constitution
and lifting itself up, by usurpation, as "the authority," and anyone who
doesn't accept that reversal is considered "frivolous." I note that deciding
something is "frivolous" is a conclusion, and in my
experience, there's never been a judge who has supported that conclusion by
findings of fact. I used to be perplexed about that, but now I realize that
government is a fraudulent operation and we cannot expect its decisions to be
supported by fact.
Constitution is not a contract or a compact, because it
is not an agreement between parties. As I said above,
from the perspective of the DOI, there are two different entities: (1) the
People, and (2) the government. One created the other to serve and protect their
interests. The People and its created government are not equal "sides" that
would form an "agreement." The created product (entity) doesn't and cannot
"agree" to be created, nor to the terms of its creation. Clearly, the
Constitution is LAW. And violation of that LAW is TREASON! As I recall, it
was in Ex Parte Young where it was discussed that officials committed
"treason against the Constitution." Don't take my word for
it-- just analyze the facts yourself. The People
created the government by the
Constitution. Just contemplate
that point-- THINK about it. Can that be remotely considered as a contract?
or a compact? The fact that there never
was a "constitutional government" means that it never
operated as such-- not that it was never created. That's why the
date of ratification is the turning point of legitimacy of
Enforcement of the Constitution
That brings us right into the next point. The reason
the date of ratification of the Constitution is the turning point of legitimacy
of government is because there was no means provided within the Constitution for
the People to enforce it. I think it's clear that the People ARE, or would be,
the enforcers. Rather than say, in relation to the Constitution, "Parties
to a contract must keep the contract," say that everyone
must obey the Constitution (The Law) and laws in pursuance
Yes, the People, by the
government and delegated to it its restricted
powers. While it is true that the Constitution has never been specifically,
knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently
abrogated by the People, the system (unconstitutional
government) likes to say that the People (individuals) have, by practice, custom
and usage abrogated it by failing to enforce it-- by remaining silent, thereby
"impliedly waiving" their rights and "consenting" to become SLAVES. I shudder
with righteous indignation every time I hear that "explanation" from our
unconstitutional de facto government, and sadly, even from many
"patriots" who try to justify judges' actions on that basis. (I call them
"court apologists"). I'm sorry to say that they are accessories to treason, if
they promote such propaganda.
While it is established prima facie that the
People "should be" the enforcers of the Constitution, I wonder if they actually
ARE since there is no specific constitutional provision spelling out HOW they
are to enforce it. While the Second Amendment provides a means for the People to
protect themselves when necessary, it should only
be the ultimate means when peaceful means (like
J.A.I.L.) fail. A peaceful means would be the Grand Jury; however the
Constitution fails to provide specific Grand Jury process and procedure for
the People to implement, and thus the power of the GJ has been usurped and
transformed into an arm of the prosecution. J.A.I.L. will restore GJ
power to the People.
Dorothy, you say that the Constitution "is still in
force and we are still the enforcers." To my way of thinking, I don't
believe the Constitution
can be "in force" absent a specific means of enforcing
it. I will say this, however: By
nature, the People (each individual) are sovereign OVER its
created government, and that includes the States. States didn't create people.
[If the Eleventh Amendment can be said to be the People's relinquishment of
sovereignty to the States, courts have ruled (bless their hearts) that 42/1983
is an exception to that Amendment. (Again, I believe that's in Ex Parte
Young). But I can't believe that the People, by the Eleventh
Amendment, willingly gave up the respect by the State
to their birthright, and consented to be regarded
as subjects or slaves of the State. People can't give
up the right itself-- it's unalienable. But they can give up any respect to it.
(To me, that's a disrespect to their Creator who
endowed them with it in the first place.)] This Eleventh Amendment
discussion is a "rabbit trail."
Since the People by nature are sovereign OVER
government, as they are the creator ("institutor"), by the
Constitution, of government, it logically follows that the
People have the inherent right to enforce it-- with or
without a constitutional provision. The DOI states that the People have the duty
to throw off "such government" and provide "new guards" for their future
security. But it doesn't say HOW that is to be done, or WHAT the new guards are
to be. That's why a constitutional provision was necessary-- to set forth the
process and procedure.
Dorothy, you said it is "the people" who may, must and can (with God's
help) do what needs done to enforce it in spite of what was said:
"but is not enforceable by the People as it should have been."
It's that "do what needs to be done" that should have
been included in the Constitution. To leave it unspecified leaves the danger of
resorting to all-out violence which, if nothing else works, WILL BE the outcome.
The Framers should have foreseen that possibility-- indeed probability --and
spelled out a specific non-violent, lawful means of enforcement by the
* * * * * * *
The rest of what you say has, I
think, already been covered here. This leaves us with your final statement:
This brings us to the most important point of
this whole dissertation: "Let the
People now decide their own destiny, by taking control
of it! Pass J.A.I.L. "
Thanks, Dorothy, for your most informative response. It
certainly gave me an opportunity to thoroughly examine what you stated and to
share this with our readers. Perhaps there will be others who, when all is said
and done, can enlighten us even more to the need for J.A.I.L. The more we
examine these facts and issues, the clearer the need for J.A.I.L.
ACIC, National J.A.I.L.
J.A.I.L.- Judicial Accountability Initiative Law - www.jail4judges.org
J.A.I.L. at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603
See our active flash, http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm
is a unique addition to our form of gov't. heretofore unrealized.
powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!
To be added or removed, write to VictoryUSA@...
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate,
minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one
striking at the
-- Henry David Thoreau <><