home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
The World of Computer Software
/
World_Of_Computer_Software-02-387-Vol-3of3.iso
/
t
/
tyranny1.zip
/
CRIMINAL.TXT
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1992-02-18
|
17KB
|
264 lines
FEDERAL 'CRIME'
I just arrived at the office after an exasperating ride
on the expressway. Traffic was slow and extremely heavy
this morning. My own lack of patience surprises me.
My secretary walks in with a cup of hot coffee and now
I can get down to business. I feel the tension ease and
look over the papers I left on my desk last night.
Just then, my secretary calls on the intercom to tell
me a United States Marshal wants to see me. She sounds
nervous.
"Have him come in, Betty."
"Mr. Ronald Smith? I'm Jack Foster of the US Marshal
service. You have been indicted by a federal grand jury on
the charge of racketeering. Here is a copy of the indict-
ment. Please sign this receipt and I'll be out of your
way."
I felt my heart sink into the pit of my stomach as I
signed the receipt. What the hell was all this, I wondered?
Is this a result of my dispute with the coal miners union?
They promised they were going to get me!
I have never broken any law other than perhaps speeding
or parking where I shouldn't have. I know I have broken no
law now.
The charge of racketeering is under what the politicos
call the RICO laws. A study of these laws in the criminal
code will reveal they are the very definition of a "Bill of
Attainder."
What is a bill of attainder? It's an act of any
legislative body that proclaims a person guilty and inflicts
punishment without the benefit of a trial. The 'crime' with
which they accuse you under RICO need only be 'chargeable
under state law'. (Title 18, USC, Sec 1961) You do not
have to be convicted of the charge under state law. It's an
obvious violation of the Fifth Amendment guarantee. No
person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law.
The colonists had a great deal of trouble with Britain
prior to the revolution. Parliament would pass laws which
predetermined guilt without the protection of a jury trial.
The Founders made certain that bills of attainder were
explicitly forbidden. This positive restriction is in
Article I Section 9 of the Constitution. Each state is
further absolutely prohibited from passing any bill of
attainder. (Art I, Sec 10)
Where does the federal government obtain its juris-
diction to pass a law which resembles a bill of attainder?
How far does their jurisdiction allow them to go?
To find the answer, we must first look at the introduc-
tory statement of our Constitution, the Preamble.
Here is the first part of the explanation to jurisdic-
tion . . . It comes from us . . . We The People! The
Founding Fathers wanted a better, more tranquil life when
they set up the document for themselves and their posterity.
When it was ratified by the people in 1789, we gave
federales jurisdiction. You and I are that posterity.
Let's examine the range of powers of the federal
government to see how far jurisdiction reaches. The
government has NO power other than what is in the Constitu-
tion.
This is a basic premise. James Madison points out in
The Federalist Papers, No. 45 that powers delegated by the
proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and
defined. (Any reference to 'paper no.' are from The
Federalist Papers.)
The Constitution cannot be changed except by the
amendment process which is clearly described in Article V.
WE MUST APPROVE of any changes in the document. As
Hamilton, Washington and others have spelled it out, it is
unalterable except by the people.
To prevent the federal government from assuming any
powers which we did not permit, the Tenth Amendment is
forcefully clear. Any power which has not been delegated to
the federales can't be assumed because it still belongs to
the people. Can't be much plainer than that.
We MUST use this amendment to measure whether ANY
federal officials are seizing and exercising powers which we
have not allowed. This includes all three branches of the
government.
Two more points will set up our study of their juris-
diction. The first we will find in Art VI, cl 2. This
is the supremacy clause and puts everyone on notice that
the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
The next is in Article VI also. In clause 3, we find
that ALL government officials are ORDERED take an oath or
affirmation "to support this Constitution."
The supremacy clause holds the key words to jurisdic-
tion. All laws of the United States shall conform with the
requirements and limitations of the Constitution. When the
laws fit in with that command, they have jurisdiction.
Otherwise, they have acted beyond their authority and they
have NO jurisdiction. There can be nothing more simple than
this statement.
Yet we know the national government feels they actually
have jurisdiction whenever they say. This comes from long
and concentrated application. First, they depend on you and
I not knowing what our Constitution says or what it means.
This has been intentional. Secondly, greed and the love for
power can be a sickness. Perhaps someday we'll find a cure
for it. Until then, it's up to you and me to demand that
they obey our Constitution. As Thomas Jefferson said,
eternal vigilance is the price of liberty!
The predicament we face today did not happen overnight.
These usurpations of constitutional authority come on very
slowly. Each little step beyond what we agreed to leads to
another small step. It's immaterial if it be the Congress,
the Executive or Judicial branch. If it is beyond what we
have allowed, it's not law and jurisdiction is lacking.
Yet the federal government does charge citizens with
crimes and convicts them in federal court. This only
happens because citizens blindly accept criminal jurisdic-
tion of the national government. This jurisdiction has to
be challenged each time. They do NOT have it.
Our opening story is fictional. However, the federal
government has no qualms about setting up an individual and
then charging him with a crime. There is no easier way to
quiet dissent and suppress the spirit of liberty.
When the Founders wrote our Constitution, three
distinct and separate branches of government were es-
tablished. The three are separate yet interwoven. Article
I charges the legislative branch with making laws and with
certifying the election of the executive branch. They are
also involved in the selection of judges and they establish-
ed rules for operating the judiciary and courts.
The executive branch, under Article II, is charged to
see to the proper execution of laws. Yet it also has the
power to veto a law passed by the legislative branch. The
executive also selects judges.
Article III designates the judicial branch as the
interpreter of laws. Actually, they are to be the protector
of citizens against oppressive actions by the other branch-
es. The judicial branch was intended and expected to be the
'weakest' branch of government.
In this separation of branches, no branch can employ
any of the powers of either of the other branches. This has
just been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in their decision
on the constitutionality of the Gramm-Rudman law.
By the same token, the executive branch has no
authority to enforce any law which does not conform to the
supremacy clause. This applies with equal constraint to the
judiciary.
Sadly, they pay no attention to this detail in the
federal bureaucracy lately. The Congress has delegated
legislative powers to the executive branch completely
without constitutional permission. We see the executive
branch issuing regulations which operate on equal footing
with laws legally passed by Congress. The executive uses a
publication called the Federal Register. They even have a
special set of regulations called the Code of Federal
Regulations! Did you agree to allow the branch charged with
seeing the laws are faithfully enforced to reverse roles and
make laws?
It's not unusual to hear some member of the judicial
branch issue orders to obey some such law or regulation.
Where does that power come from?
James Madison pointed out in paper no. 47, where the
power of one department exercises the power of another
department, the fundamental principles of a free constitu-
tion are subverted.
In paper number 48, he said, "It is agreed on all sides
that the powers properly belonging to one of the departments
ought not to be directly or completely administered by
either of the other departments. It is equally evident that
none of them ought to possess, directly or indirectly, an
over-ruling influence over the others in the administration
of their respective powers."
Madison further pointed out in Paper No. 44 that this
violation of constitutional power would depend on the
failure of the executive and judicial branches to exercise
their independent powers. This is collusion between those
two branches.
Webster defines the word collusion as "A secret
agreement for a fraudulent or illegal purpose."
The definition in Black's Law Dictionary is more
detailed. "An agreement between two or more persons to
defraud a person of his rights by the forms of law, or to
obtain an object forbidden by law."
This is exactly what we have been talking about. They
are assuming power over American citizens in violation of
law. And they assume jurisdiction even where it is
forbidden by law. By these actions, they are defrauding us
of rights secured to us by the Constitution.
What recourse do we have? Let me be the first to say
it will not be easy. These people do whatever they want and
there will be much resistance to any change.
Call your Representatives and Senators at their local
offices and question their assumption of jurisdiction.
There is enough ammunition here to give them fits.
Any attempted exercise of jurisdiction has to be
challenged in courts if necessary. That at best would be a
long shot if we go back and look at the definition of
collusion. It's a bit like a hen going into a den of foxes
and insisting that they have no right to take her life!
Still, they must be challenged at any rate. Filing suit in
federal court for violation of constitutional rights is
another alternative.
Here is a potent federal criminal law. It's in Title
18 of the United States Code and the section is 241.
"If two or more persons conspire to injure,
oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen in
the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or
privilege secured to him by the Constitution or
laws of the United States, or because of his
having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the
highway, or on the premises of another, with
intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or
enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured --
They shall be fined not more than $10,000 or
imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and
if death results, they shall be subject to
imprisonment for any term of years or for life."
Using this law, you can file a formal criminal
complaint with a federal grand jury empaneled near your
hometown. Simply name the persons who are violating this
criminal statute. Spell it out in plain language. You can
expect to appear before the grand jury to present evidence.
Many would call this tactic drastic. It's not as
radical as what they are doing to our republic and to our
rights as citizens. Their intent is to make us a nation of
slaves instead of freemen. We must use every means at our
disposal to reverse this.
One argument I can hear now . . . They have "sovereign
immunity." Cow paddies. You and I are the sovereigns. Our
Constitution does NOT say any federal official has sovereign
immunity. They don't have it by any stretch of the imagina-
tion. The argument will continue . . . "The courts have
agreed we have sovereign immunity." Look at the word
collusion again. Nevertheless, you can defeat this immunity
issue in federal court.
The British King, the Parliament and English judges had
sovereign immunity. Don't you think our Founders didn't
know that? Of course they did! That is why immunity was
not extended to the central government. In a republic, they
are responsible individually for their transgressions.
Congress are the first dudes we have to go after to
eliminate these blatant violations of our law. If Congress
ignores these demands, then we should throw them out of
office for official misconduct. We must elect people who
believe in our Constitution and who will obey the oath to
support it. We have the finest form of government ever
devised by man . . . If it is operating properly.
For this evil to continue, all good people need to do
nothing. What can the future hold for America?
Remember what Cicero said to the Romans just before the
empire collapsed? "Beware of the traitor within the gates."
'Nuff said!
YOUR SUPPORT ALLOWS ME TO KEEP CHECKING ON
THE FEDERALES FOR CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS.
PLEASE REGISTER. . . THANKS!