This case is going to be a hum dinger.
North Carolina Judge rules post-Civil War Reconstruction never
In an ongoing legal battle between John Ainsworth and the State of
North Carolina over a, North Carolina Superior Court Judge Forrest
Bridges ruled that the Reconstruction Acts passed by the United
States Congress in 1867 never really happened. The issue centers on
Mr. Ainsworths position that he will renew his drivers license if and
when the current State of North Carolina can prove that it was
Mr. Ainsworth states that two States claiming to be The State of
North Carolina� have entered the American Union; the first as one of
the original 13 states, the second as a direct result of the
Reconstruction Acts. Mr. Ainsworth challenges the constitutionality
of the Reconstruction Acts which created the second State of North
Judge Bridges ruling took place on February 19, 2007 in a rather
bizarre setting. The hearing was originally scheduled for 10:00am,
moved to 2:00pm and finally called at 5:15pm, 15 minutes after the
closing of the Courthouse, the doors to the court house and the doors
to the court room were locked. No one, other than those already
present, were able to enter the court room. Mr. Ainsworth claims that
the locked doors along with the Judges actions violated the
Constitution and were intended for intimidation.
Mr. Ainsworth presented historical facts, Supreme Court rulings, laws
passed by Congress, along with documents, including a copy of the
letter of surrender of the original State of North Carolina to prove the
second state was created without constitutional authority. After Mr.
Ainsworth presented less than half of his evidence Judge Bridges
stopped Mr. Ainsworth and said I have heard enough, your arguments
are absurd this is a phantom about nothing...they are without
foundation in law or fact.
Judge Bridges found himself in an awkward position. If he ruled that
Reconstruction did happen, by law the Prosecution would have to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt� that they were authorized by the
Constitution. By ruling that the Reconstruction Acts were in fact a
phantom about nothing,� Judge Bridges relieved the Prosecution
from answering Mr. Ainsworths challenge to the lawfulness of their
Mr. Ainsworth questions the authority of Judge Bridges to rule that
historical facts are not facts and did not happen. When asked why the
unconstitutionality of Reconstruction is such an important issue, Mr.
Ainsworth responds, There has never been a meaningful hearing on
the Constitutionality of Congress authority to annul States in the
Union and dictate the creation of new States in times of peace.
Reconstruction laws are the basis the Supreme Court rulings that: (1)
make children of illegal immigrants United States citizens, (2) force
the federal protection of abortion in Roe v. Wade and (3) open of the
door for homosexual marriages. A ruling in my favor would reverse all
Mr. Ainsworth will be back in Court on May 14, 2007 in his
continued efforts to return lawful and accountable government to