Fritz: All Fritz/All Fritz.zip/All Fritz/FILES/MISCEOUS/TRAITOR2.LZH/JUSTICE.TXT

Text File | 1992-06-20 | 18KB | 275 lines

                               JUSTICE BLIND?


              Hamilton also  pointed out that the "judiciary will have
         neither FORCE nor WILL  but merely  judgments and  that there
         would be  no liberty if the power of judging is not separated
         from the legislative and executive powers."   (Paper  No. 78,
         The  Federalist  Papers.    All references to 'paper no.' are
         from this book.)  No force  or will  . .  . How  do they make
         their  decisions  become  law?   Voodoo and black magic still
         work in Washington.
              Let's see if federal  judges believe  their actions have
         "no force  or will"  . .  . In 1980, a federal judge actually
         ordered the US government to pay for all  medicaid abortions.
         I realize  that abortions  are an emotional issue and we will
         not make  any  comments  on  that  here.    However,  by what
         authority  does  a  federal  judge order the government to do
         anything?  A federal judge has no power for such an 'order'.
              The only branch of our government  that can  approve the
         expenditure of  funds is  the House  of Representatives.  And
         ONLY in accordance with an appropriations bill.   Yet we have
         a member  of the  black robe  cult ordering the government to
         pay for all medicaid abortions.  What a crock!
              How far have we come from the intent  of the  framers of
         the Constitution?   How  can this  fit into the definition of
         "good behavior?"  This judge should  have been  impeached for
         such a  violation of  constitutional authority.   Was he?  Of
         course not.  After all, he is a lawyer and all the other good
         old boys will protect and defend his right to break the law.
              In Texas,  there is  another federal  judge who feels he
         can issue orders to the state of Texas.  This is in  the area
         of  state  prison  reform.    While  I'm  certain  the prison
         conditions are really bad, it is  still a  state function and
         of no concern to any federale.
              This comes into the area of the elected officials of the
         state being responsible to the people that elected  them.  If
         the people  don't like  what the elected officials are doing,
         the ballot box is the answer.    Yet  along  comes  a federal
         judge who  feels he  did come  down off the mountain carrying
         the tablets and orders  the state  to make  what he considers
         necessary prison reforms.
              By  what  right?    Simply  because of his black robe or
         title?  Then it is reported in the  media that  the judge has
         issued a  stern warning  to state officials "That they cannot
         use the state fiscal crunch  as  an  excuse  for  evading his
         prison  reform  orders."    How's that for assuming power and
         authority?  I wonder what he found in  the Constitution which
         gives him the right to issue an order?
              As President  Jackson once  remarked about Chief Justice
         Marshall:  "He has made the decision now let him enforce it!"
              I wonder  what kind  of tricks the judge feels he has up
         his judicial sleeve to enforce prison  reforms?   No force or
         will according  to Hamilton?   There  is no question that the

         judicial branch doesn't believe that.
              Hamilton also said there  could  be  no  liberty  if the
         power of  judging is  not separated  from the legislative and
         executive powers.    Did  that  hit  the  nail  on  the head?
         Exactly the  problem we are facing today.  Federal judges are
         making 'law' by their orders and  decrees and  enforcing laws
         in direct  opposition to  the intent of the Founding Fathers.
         What happened to our liberty?
              To prove their contempt  for our  Constitution, the high
         court has  just ruled  that it  is OK for the feds to violate
         the law.  The case involved a DEA  agent who  was murdered in
         Mexico recently.   The  DEA put a bounty on a doctor who they
         say kept the agent alive while  he was  being tortured.   The
         doctor  was  kidnapped  in  Mexico  and brought to the US for
         trial.  Where is their right to pull a stunt like that?
              That the agent was  murdered is  part of  the dangers of
         having  an  undercover  assignment.    I'm certain all agents
         consider the danger before accepting such  a job.   It's like
         being in  the service  . .  . you  can get wounded or killed.
         The danger comes with the job.  Now the whole might of the US
         government comes  down on  a small  town Mexican doctor.  The
         high court agreed 6 to 3 that it was a legal operation.  They
         have  said,  in  essence,  it's  OK  to commit a crime in the
         interest of  justice.   Justice here  means the  way the high
         court defines  it .  . .  1984 newspeak again.  What garbage!
         There is NO authority in the document to pull a  police stunt
         like this  . . NONE!
              If there  is no  power which  says it's  OK to go into a
         foreign country to kidnap one of their citizens, then it's an
         illegal act of our government.  They need to be reminded that
         the Tenth Amendment is still  part  of  the  document  and it
         precludes  ANY  action  which  is  not  specifically allowed!
         These supreme court 'justices' must have  taken their lessons
         from communist Russia or China where such acts are allowed.
              Or,  looking  at  this  in another light, is it possible
         they are taking orders from little George, or  the UN  or the
         powers behind  them to push the idea of one world government?
         It's a known fact that when one world  government is  in full
         operation, sovereignty and borders are a thing of the past.
              If they  assume the  US government can commit a crime to
         'avenge the death of one  DEA  agent',  why  has  no interest
         been shown  in the torture, death and illegal imprisonment of
         US service men?  Their definition of equality again?
              There is another power  judges  have  assumed  for them-
         selves to  prove they  do not believe that they have no power
         or force as pointed out by  Hamilton.   That is  the power of
         contempt  of  court.    This  is one that is being completely
         abused by judges in general.  And the ones who  feel they are
         the bearers of laws on tablets of stone are the worst abusers
         of the 'power' of contempt of court.
              Wives, Mothers, daughters, all manner of  relatives have
         been put  in prison  for not wanting to testify against other
         loved ones.  And I mean,  not for  overnight or  some similar
         short period,  but for  months.  Because some still refuse to

         cooperate, prosecutors have been  reported  to  have remarked
         that they  "should rot  in jail  and not be released when the
         grand jury expires."
              Can you imagine such  claptrap?   And the  courts do not
         even  censure  such  idiotic  and illegal outbursts.  How far
         down the road to tyranny have we already come?
              The use of the contempt citation was to  be to  coerce a
         person to  do what  the court  wanted.   However, if a person
         still refuses, what purpose is served to keep  that person in
         prison for months?
              Is it  just as a warning to others that "his honor" will
         be obeyed?  Where is the protection we are guaranteed  by the
         judicial branch?   When these people are forced to obey their
         oaths to "administer justice.  . .faithfully  and impartially
         perform all  duties. .  . agreeably to the Constitution" then
         perhaps a sense of justice will  be restored  to this country
         and we can again depend on the judicial branch for protection
         and not persecution.
              One thing  I  might  point  out  is  that  when Congress
         approved  rules  governing  the  judicial branch, judges were
         given 'discretion' or latitude when making  decisions yet all
         this discretion  does not  give them any right to overlook or
         ignore the basic document.   They must obey our laws also.
              It should be brought out that a great  percentage of the
         people we  have elected  to Congress are lawyers.  Why?  This
         is probably one of our biggest  mistakes.   Lawyers take care
         of lawyers  and judges  are lawyers.   They are simply taking
         care of their own.  Please tell me, if you can, where it says
         in our Constitution that judges must be lawyers?
              Do you think King Solomon of the Bible was a lawyer?  Do
         you think our judicial branch would allow him  to be  a judge
         today?  I think the answer to that is obvious.
              In the  beginning of our newly formed nation, people had
         little use for lawyers.  Signs were posted  at many  city and
         village limits  with the  admonition, "No peddlers or lawyers
         allowed."
              An important  point which  must be  noted .  . . Reports
         have surfaced  lately that  an amendment  to our Constitution
         was proposed which would have prohibited lawyers from working
         for the  federal government.  It was proposed around 1820 and
         would have been the thirteenth amendment.
              A quick look at our amendments  shows the  thirteenth to
         be  the  one  which  abolished  slavery.  It was proposed and
         ratified in 1865.  The twelfth amendment was adopted in 1804.
         Sixty years  without an  amendment being  proposed?  Possible
         . . but?  It was found somehow in the  archives in  the state
         of Virginia  where it  had been  considered in 1820.  Did the
         legal profession do a number on this proposal and at the same
         time give us the royal shaft . . . again?
              This is an area where readers can get involved to see if
         it was hidden in other states . . . or what happened to it?
              Our Constitution is the supreme law of the  land and all
         judges are  bound by  oath and  the Constitution to obey that
         supreme law.  There is no discretion to  break a  law, ignore

         a law or violate the rights of our citizens.
              Hamilton was clear when he said our rights could only be
         preserved. .   "through  the  medium  of  courts  of justice,
         whose duty  it must  be to  declare all  acts contrary to the
         manifest tenor of the Constitution void.   Without  this, all
         the  reservations  of  particular  rights or privileges would
         amount to nothing."  (Also Paper No. 78)   So  now you should
         begin to  see how  closely the people in the black robes have
         followed the intent of the Constitution.
              Have you ever wondered how judges earned the title "Your
         Honor?"      There  is  a specific clause in the Constitution
         which prohibits any title of nobility.  Article I, Section 9,
         clause 8  states:   "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by
         the United  States:"   so where  does the  title "Your Honor"
         come  from?    Is  this  more  of their desire to be the most
         important branch of our government?
              Another area where the rights of our citizens  are being
         completely eroded  is what the courts call 'plea bargaining.'
         This was a 'law' passed by Congress to lessen the workload on
         the federal  court system.  It has now worked out to be a big
         part of the numbers  game for  efficiency ratings  and promo-
         tions for the legal troops.
              It has  an added  advantage that  where important people
         are brought to court for a violation of  law, it  allows them
         to plead guilty to a lesser charge and the substantial charge
         or charges are dropped.  Isn't  it simple  how easily  we can
         take care of our friends?
              With  all  the  'sting'  operations going on today, it's
         easy for the  government  to  trap  someone  in  a conspiracy
         charge.    (Conspiracy  is  really  a 'thought' crime . . . I
         thought about  robbing a  bank so  I'm guilty  of robbing the
         bank.)   Let's see  how plea  bargaining works in a case like
         this.  First,  you  are  surrounded  by  lawyers  which  is a
         distinct disadvantage already.
              The  US  Attorney  offers  to  drop a specific charge or
         charges if  you  will  plead  guilty  to  one  charge  on the
         indictment.   Notice, I  didn't say plead to a lesser charge.
         Something important happens at this point.
              First, the US Attorney now will not have to work  to get
         a conviction on his record.  Secondly, your attorney will not
         have to work either to secure your freedom and acquittal.  He
         will still be able to go home with your money while you go to
         prison.  Thirdly, the court and the judge  will have  no work
         to go  through except to decide how many years you will serve
         in the can.
              See how neat it  all  works  out?    Not  only  have you
         eliminated all  their work,  you have given up many constitu-
         tional rights to challenge the conviction.  And . .  . let me
         point out something very important . . . even though they say
         they will drop a specific charge to get  you to  plead, those
         charges are still on the record and will be a major factor in
         determining if and when you may  be eligible  for any parole.
         Cute people.
              Let me  tell you  what your lawyer will say. .  " if you

         take  their  plea  agreement,  you  will  probably  only  get
         probation or  at the  most, a year or two sentence but if you
         insist on going to  trial,  you  could  get  twenty  years if
         convicted."
              That statement is an admission that your lawyer couldn't
         get an acquittal if his own  life depended  on it.   He would
         probably  have  a  problem  finding  his  own behind with two
         hands.  It will  not matter  whether you  are guilty  or not,
         they will try to get you to accept the agreement.
              One of their favorite statements you will hear is "Don't
         worry."  You'd better worry . . .  This is  the state  of our
         judicial system  today.   There have been cases where as many
         as seven men have been sentenced in less than 30  minutes all
         as a result of a plea bargain.
              It's a  bargain all  right, for  the US Attorney because
         their numbers game has increased, for the judge and the court
         for the same reason and for your attorney because he has made
         his money with no work.  What did I say  about lawyers taking
         care of lawyers?
              There are exceptions to this rule but I assure you, they
         are few.  I'll wager that our founding  fathers turn  over in
         their graves  when all these violations of what they intended
         occur.
              And now we have a situation where federal judges have to
         have a  US Marshal  as a  body guard.  It wasn't too long ago
         that even the president could walk  up and  down Pennsylvania
         Avenue without a Secret Service guard.  What has happened?
              Do you  think that  their contempt  for our Constitution
         and honest laws that conform to the document has in turn bred
         contempt for the law by some of our citizens?
              Many people  will say this couldn't be happening because
         all the lawyers and judges who  work with  and study  the law
         would  know  these  things  are  against the Constitution and
         would do something about it.  Surprise!   They don't know the
         Constitution and  if they  do, they want to ignore it because
         it hinders their ability to exert their power over people.
              If  you  ask  any  lawyers  why  they  don't  study  the
         Constitution, honest ones will tell you that they have had no
         need  to  study  the  Constitution  because   there  were  no
         questions about  it on their state bar examination.  Put that
         in your pipe and smoke it for awhile.
              I have heard a federal  judge  make  the  statement that
         "justice may be blind but it is not stupid."  I have to agree
         with him in that justice is  not stupid,  it is  exactly what
         the  judges  say  it  is  and they know exactly what they are
         doing.
              You  have  a  good  idea  now  also.    There  have been
         suggestions  that  the  lady  called  justice  is blindfolded
         because she is crying  over  the  state  of  justice  in this
         country today.
              Let's  rein  in  this  abusive power before we no longer
         have the ability to do so . . . the traitors are at the gate!