Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Fine Tuning The Importance of J.A.I.L.

Expand Messages
  • victoryusa@jail4judges.org
    J.A.I.L. News Journal ______________________________________________________ Los Angeles, California April 18, 2005
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 18, 2005
      J.A.I.L. News Journal
      Los Angeles, California                                             April 18, 2005

      Mission Statement                  JNJ Library                     PayPal Support
      Federal J.A.I.L.                           FAQs                    What?MeWarden?
      Fine Tuning The
      Importance of J.A.I.L.
      ----- 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 later.) 
      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"? )
      The 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.
      Thirdly:  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 Honor."
      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 Constitution.
      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 been."
      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 V.
      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. "
      Dorothy Robbins
      AJIC North-Central California

      (Response by Barbie)
      Dear Dorothy:
      To assure covering everything you mention, I'll respond seriatim:
      1. We really have only one Constitution
      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 "government"
      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 Land.
      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: "Clueless." 
      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.
      The 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 ConstitutionJust 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 government.
      4. 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 thereof.
      Yes, the People, by the Constitutioncreated 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 People.
      * * * * * * *
      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. becomes!
      ACIC, National J.A.I.L.
      J.A.I.L.- Judicial Accountability Initiative Law - www.jail4judges.org
      Contribute to J.A.I.L. at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603
      See our active flash, http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm
      JAIL is a unique addition to our form of gov't. heretofore unrealized.
      JAIL is 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, 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    <><
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.