- J.A.I.L. News Journal ____________________________________________________ Los Angeles, California June 3, 2002Message 1 of 1 , Jun 3, 2002View SourceJ.A.I.L. News Journal
Los Angeles, California June 3, 2002"Power is the great evil with which we are contending. We have divided power between three branches of government and erected checks and balances to prevent abuse of power. However, where is the check on the power of the judiciary? If we fail to check the power of the judiciary, I predict that we will eventually live under judicial tyranny." - Patrick HenryThe Evolution of Our Federal CourtsI have taken an excerpt from the webpage of Michael Joseph Kearns, full credentials below, and share it with all of you to educate those of you who aren't yet aware, about the danger that we now face, and have faced for decades without knowing it. Justice Harlan stated (quoted below) "we have in this country substantially and practically two national governments; one, to be maintained under the Constitution, with all of its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument,...." My question is, by what authority was the "second" government created? More specifically, by what authority did Congress act outside and independently of the Constitution, which created the Congress?It must be concluded that anything done "outside and independently of the Constitution" is void ab initio, having in truth no force nor effect. The only reason it is given de facto force is because we have in power a "force" which operates by usurpation of de jure power, running under the guise of "government" (the "second government" described by Justice Harlan.) In truth and in fact, constitutionally we can have only ONE government, despite what the usurpers have created by counterfeit power. The passage of time doesn't make the counterfeit "government" any more legitimate. It is just as bogus today as it was when devised by our froward Congress.We must forever keep in mind that the final authority within government is the judiciary, and it is up to the judiciary, in the final analysis, to see to it that our Constitutional Republic is maintained. When the judicial system fails, all else fails. The usurping force remains in power because the judiciary have allowed it to do so. The federal courts were designed to be the guardian of our rights, as the Supreme Court has well established. As we quote Justice Harlan below:"No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the Constitution."Regardless of the federal courts, however, our state courts are also bound by the State and Federal Constitutions, and it is here that J.A.I.L. will have its major impact. Remember, our state courts are corrupt because the federal courts are themselves corrupt. However, state courts are not dependent upon the federal system to maintain their own constitutional integrity. The People must implement J.A.I.L. as soon as possible to end this scourge.Send your comments to Mr. Kearns, at the contact points shown below.-Barbie- victoryusa@...Michael Joseph Kearns
c/o 8916 Datapoint, Suite 3225
San Antonio, Texas 78229
210-614-5698 (fax and computer modem line)
email: jrkearns@...The following are excerpts taken from: http://users2.ev1.net/~jrkearnsThis Web Page is going to take you through a journey by one man in his search for the truth. You will see from the Federal government's own documents, the massive fraud pulled on the people of the nation, to steal their private property and their rights............ [T]he courts are not making "legal decisions" --they are making "decisions legal." In the engineering world, this is called reverse engineering.
Also, this illustrates that the courts are doing nothing more than making a ruling legal by affirming a decision that has already been made administratively.
Some questions are:What are the criteria to be "truly deserving" of (whatever you want to name, such as a truly independent, impartial court and judge, the best and most effective attorney, and on and on one could go ad nauseam)...?Was I "truly deserving" yesterday? Could I be "truly deserving" tomorrow?
This line of ruling from the Supreme Court shows you that the "law" is not in force today, but public policy is; and public policy changes at any time the people in power say that the public policy has changed.
In order to truly understand this problem, one has to fully digest the true status of the "law" and how the Federal government is really operating and not just how the Federal government says it is operating.
Justice Harlan gave Americans fair warning of what was possible to happen, back in 1901, by stating in a dissenting opinion:
"The idea prevails with some -- indeed, it found expression in arguments at the bar -- that we have in this country substantially and practically two national governments; one, to be maintained under the Constitution, with all of its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise.
"I take leave to say that if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system of government will be the result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism.
"It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of a government outside of the supreme law of the land finds lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the Constitution." See Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), Harlan dissenting.
The start of the quest is to first determine whether the nation is under the contract the people have with the Federal government, the Constitution for the united States of America (1789), or not. The answer to that question can be found in documentation from the Senate of the UNITED STATES in Senate Report 93-549.
See for yourself what the document says.
THINK ON THIS - - - CAN THE NATION BE UNDER AN EMERGENCY CONDITION AND THE CONSTITUTION AT THE SAME TIME?
An anonymous legal scholar has so graciously pointed to a Supreme Court decision that states "the Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, . . ." in the whole paragraph in Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2, 120(1866):
"Time has proven the discernment of our ancestors; for even these provisions, expressed in such plain English words, that it would seem the ingenuity of man could not evade them, are now, after the lapse of more than seventy years, sought to be avoided. Those great and good men foresaw that troublous times would arise, when rulers and people would become restive under restraint, and seek by sharp and decisive measures to accomplish ends deemed just and proper; and that the principles of constitutional liberty would be in peril, unless established by irrepealable law. The history of the world had taught them that what was done in the past might be attempted in the future. The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, [71 U.S. 2, 121] and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false; for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it, which are necessary to preserve its existence; as has been happily proved by the result of the great effort to throw off its just authority."
There seems to be a difference of opinion between the legislative branch of the Federal government and the Judicial branch as to the effectiveness of the Constitution in a state of war. This difference certainly needs to be explored to find the real truth, after all that is exactly what we all want, is the truth.
The Supreme Court of the United States of America has stated the truth about the courts of the United States as far back as 1933, in an obscure case brought by a U.S. Court of Claims Judge concerning the diminishment of his salary while he was still in office. This case, Thomas S. Williams v. United States, 77 L.ed. 1372 (1933) is called by the government of the United States a "judicial embarrassment," but the fact of the matter is that this particular case opinion tells the story about the United States Courts under Article I, III and IV. The reader only has to read this case about 10 to 15 times before all that is said will sink in.
To come to the truth of what is really happening in the courts of the United States, one has to undertake a study of the three (3) articles in the Constitution under which courts of the United States are created and may operate, Article I, III, and IV.
Article I courts are legislative courts and are created by Congress and operate within very special limited areas of operation. Article III courts are of the third Branch of government, the Judicial Branch, and are supposed to be independent of the other two Branches of the government with no influence or coercion from those two Branches of the government on the Judicial Branch. Article IV courts are created by Congress for the territories, and even though called territorial courts, which they are, the said territorial courts are still under the thumb of Congress and not independent but serve their master, the Congress.
There are actually three areas in the court concerning jurisdiction. There is the court itself, operating on a location that is actually specified by statute or Rule, see Rule 54(c), above listed, and the cause of action needs to be authorized by the Congress or the Constitution as a cause of action requiring the judicial power of the United States, and the "judge" is required to be a member of the third branch of the government, the Judicial Branch, with no coercion or intimidation from either of the other two branches of the government, in order to be a true independent impartial decision maker.
The Supreme Court of the United States covered the matter of Article III courts very thoroughly in Northern Pipeline Company v. Marathon Pipe Line Company, 458 U.S. 50 (1982) in Footnote 39:
Our precedents make it clear that the constitutional requirements for the exercise of the judicial power must be met at all stages of adjudication, and not only on appeal, where the court is restricted to considerations of law, as well as the nature of the case as it has been shaped at the trial level. The Court responded to a similar suggestion in Crowell by stating that to accept such a regime, "would be to sap the judicial power as it exists under the Federal Constitution, and to establish a government of bureaucratic character alien to our system, wherever fundamental rights depend, as not infrequently they do depend, upon the facts, and finality as to facts becomes in effect finality in law."
While Northern is principally about the power and the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Courts under Title 11, the case also goes into a lengthy discussion about Article III courts and their power and jurisdiction or the lack thereof.
Historical precedents are mentioned in Part II, Section A, from the Founding Fathers and their reasons for the need for an independent and impartial Judicial Branch of the government. The whole Part A is very informative and illustrative of the need for the judiciary's independence and impartiality, with one of the reasons being for the confidence of the people to reside in the decisions of the judiciary, and not be made a mockery of. Compare that with today when the judiciary is nothing more than a stooge for the people in power and everybody knows it, but to date lacks the courage to rectify the situation.
Northern Pipeline is full of case cites for the student of the history and functioning of the federal courts, and sums up the matter by stating:In sum, our Constitution unambiguously enunciates a fundamental principle - that the "judicial Power of the United States" must be reposed in an independent Judiciary. It commands that the independence of the Judiciary be jealously guarded, and it provides clear institutional protections for that independence.
There is much more in this website-- too much to include here. But what we did include should be enough to make one realize that this is not just theory, but very real. It should provoke a sense of outrage in all of you and make you realize all the more how vital J.A.I.L. is to our future security. J.A.I.L. preserves that judicial independence while, at the same time, bringing about judicial accountability. J.A.I.L. is not just an "option" --it is a very essential and fundamental ingredient in maintaining our Constitutional Republic!
J.A.I.L. is an acronym for Judicial Accountability Initiative Law
JAIL's very informative website is found at www.jail4judges.org
JAIL proposes a unique new addition to our form of government.
JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!
JAIL is spreading across America like a fast moving wildfire!
JAIL is making inroads into Congress for federal accountability!
JAIL may be supported at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603
To subscribe or be removed: add-remove-jail@...
E-Groups may sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
Open forum to make your voice heard JAIL-SoundOff@egroups.com
Ask not what J.A.I.L. can do for me, but ask what I can do for J.A.I.L.
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is
striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <><