Fritz: All Fritz

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ Fritz: All Fritz / All Fritz.zip / All Fritz / FILES / MISCEOUS / TRAITOR.LZH / 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!