[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Dead Constitution See other Dead Constitution Articles Title: The So-called Supreme Court-Judiciary Act of 1789 I am, I admit, constantly amazed at how little Americans bother to study issues, and continue to accept the errors and non-sense that is served up to them on nearly a daily basis. Correction, on a daily basis. One of the most important of these is about what is called a court within the United States today. We are advised in the Bible not to go into THEIR courts. In fact, we are advised that if it is neccessary, to give our coat to our enemy on the steps of the court rather than enter into the court. Ever wonder why that is? Here is a lesson; the so-called separation of powers detailed within the Constitution has never existed, and we can prove this by simply looking at the so-called Supreme Court. For starters, the so-called Supreme Court came from Congress, and not from the Constitution; http://www.answers.com/topic/judiciary-act-of-1789 The Judiciary Act of 1789 established the lower federal courts. Under Article III, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution, "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." In the Judiciary Act, the first Congress created federal trial courts and federal appeals courts to comply with this provision. This type of information is not hidden; it is posted right in plain sight for anyone to look at. The difference is, you need to WANT to look. "I opposed this bill from the beginning… . The constitution is meant to swallow all the state constitutions, by degrees; and this to swallow, by degrees, all the State judiciaries" (Clinton 1986, 1531). Now, attorneys will argue with me (of course!) that this Judiciary Act was simply fullfilling the mandate of the Constitution. However, what the Congress creates, the Congress controls. For example; In 1866, Congress reduced the number of justices to seven. There is another point to this, of course. What do you know about the flag of the United States? I mean, besides that it is red, white and blue? Do you suppose that there is anything about the flag that is left to chance? Or, is everything about the flag covered in the federal statutes? MILITARY FLAG WITH THE GOLD FRINGE Martial Law Flag "Pursuant to 4 U.S.C. chapter 1, §§1, 2, & 3; Executive Order 10834, August 21, 1959; 24 F.R.6865; a military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a YELLOW FRINGE border on three sides. The President of the United States designates this deviation from the regular flag, by executive order, and in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the military. The placing of a fringe on the national flag, the dimensions of the flag and the arrangement of the stars in the union are matters of detail not controlled by statute, but are within the discretion of the President as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy." 34 Ops. Atty. Gen. 83. President, Dwight David Eisenhower, by Executive Order No.10834, signed on August 21, 1959 and printed in the Federal Register at 24 F.R. 6865, pursuant to law, stated that: "A military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a yellow fringe border on three sides." Why is it that EVERY so-called court in America now flies such a flag? Are we being told something? THE LAW OF THE FLAG The Law of the Flag, an International Law, which is recognized by every nation of the planet, is defined as: "... a rule to the effect that a vessel is a part of the territory of the nation whose flag she flies. The term is used to designate the RIGHTS under which a ship owner, who sends his vessel into a foreign port, gives notice by his flag to all who enter into contracts with the ship master that he intends the Law of that Flag to regulate those contracts, and that they must either submit to its operation or not contract with him or his agent at all." Ref.: Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41 By the doctrine of "four cornering" the flag establishes the law of the country that it represents. For example, the embassies of foreign countries, in Washington D.C., are "four cornered" by walls or fencing, creating an "enclave." Within the boundaries of the "enclave" of the foreign embassy, the flag of that foreign country establishes the jurisdiction and law of that foreign country, which will be enforced by the Law of the Flag and international treaty. If you enter an embassy, you will be subject to the laws of that country, just as if you board a ship flying a foreign flag, you will be subject to the laws of that flag, enforceable by the "master of the ship," (Captain), by the law of the flag. When you enter a courtroom displaying a gold or yellow fringed flag, you have just entered into a foreign country, and you better have your passport with you, because you may not be coming back to the land of the free for a long time. The judge sitting under a gold or yellow fringe flag becomes the "captain" or "master" of that ship or enclave and he has absolute power to make the rules as he goes. The gold or yellow fringe flag is your warning that you are leaving your Constitutionally secured RIGHTS on the floor outside the door to that courtroom. This is exactly why so many judges are appointed, and not elected by the people. The Federal judges are appointed by the President, the national military commander in chief. The State judges are appointed by the Governors, the state military commanders. The judges are appointed because the courts are military courts and civilians do not "elect" military officers. The gold-fringed flag only stands inside military courts that sit in summary court martial proceedings against civilians and such courts are governed in part by local rules, but more especially by "The Manual of Courts Martial", U.S., 1994 Ed., at Art. 99, (c)(1)(b), pg. IV-34, PIN 030567-0000, U.S. Government Printing Office, Wash. D.C. The details of the crimes that civilians can commit, that are classed as 'Acts of War,' cover 125 pages in the Manual of Courts Martial. And, of course, I am going to be told how foolish I am for posting such silly information! Nothing could be further from the TRUTH! Pursuant to the "Law of the Flag," a military flag does result in jurisdictional implications when flown (Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41, 45, 185 Ill. 133, 49 LRA 181, 76 Am). Under the powers designated by these statutes, the President may: seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communications, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens.... (United States Senate Report 93-549, 19 November 1973). FLAG #1: Flags with gold fringe, gold braid, gold eagle, gold spear, or gold ball atop the flagpole establishes the jurisdiction of the admiralty, maritime or administration jurisdiction. President Roosevelt describes this type of flag in 1933 and it’s described by Army Regulation in 1979. This is an article 1 (of the Constitution) jurisdiction court flag “guilty until proven innocent” of the war powers act. U.S. ARMY AR 840-10 MANUAL FOR COURTS MARTIAL. Gold fringe flag is admiralty except indoors. Indoors the gold-fringed flag only flies in military courts and therein when dealing with administrative matters are summary court martial proceedings against civilians. FLAG #2: Article III (three) of the united states constitution describes the jurisdiction of the court by the American flag of peace under Title 4 U.S.C. 1. This flag is described as red, white and blue with stripes of red and white horizontally placed in alteration. Under the jurisdiction of the American flag of peace the united states constitution is alive and well and all rights are preserved. People are ‘innocent until proven guilty.’ The jurisdiction of the ‘American Flag’ is the determining factor upon which all citizens rights are determined. The following is one of the most important cases ever reported on in the United States. You should pay close attention to it. HALE v. HENKEL 201 U.S. 43 at 89 (1906) Hale v. Henkel was decided by the united States Supreme Court in 1906. The opinion of the court states: "The" individual" may stand upon "his Constitutional Rights" as a CITIZEN. He is entitled to carry on his "private" business in his own way. "His power to contract is unlimited." He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. "His rights" are such as "existed" by the Law of the Land (Common Law) "long antecedent" to the organization of the State", and can only be taken from him by "due process of law", and "in accordance with the Constitution." "He owes nothing" to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." When this case was decided, most courts in America flew the flag of peace, which is not a flag; it is a banner, and it was mounted on the wall of the court, and did not fly from a pole, which is only used for military flags. So, what changed? Read this, carefully; He owes no duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom ... The principle of the Constitution was to create a powerful central government, and it was quite successful. It certainly did create the most powerful government ever seen on the face of the earth! However, for the people to accept that Constitution, rules were written into the Constitution WHICH FORBIDS THE GOVERNMENT FROM TOUCHING THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA, unless...... the people first touched the government, and asked for something. I wrote a post some time ago; The United States government is not violating the Constitution, and in that post, I detailed exactly why the Constitution does not apply to Washington, DC, and the basis of the Income Tax in Social Security. But if the United States government is not violating the Constitution, then who is? We, the people, are, every time we go to the government and ask for a benefit of a privilege. We are, every time we accept a contract with the so-called government and sign on the dotted line. We are, and most people are content with the situation, so it is not something that will change any time soon. Is there a solution? Yes, there is; it is called Leaderless Resistence (see the post), and I will fill in the blanks within that post when I complete the next part of it. That being said, are you a United States citizen, and what does that mean? (Esp. if you have a Social Security number!) http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Slaughterhouse/Miller.asp U.S. SUPREME COURT Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36 ... Hence, the fifteenth amendment, which declares that the right of a citizen of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The negro having, by the fourteenth amendment, been declared to be a citizen of the United States, is thus made a voter in every State of the Union. ... ... But it had been held by this court, in the celebrated Dred Scott case, only a few years before the outbreak of the civil war, that a man of African descent, whether a slave or not, was not and could not be a citizen of a State or of the United States. This decision, while it met the condemnation of some of the ablest statesmen and constitutional lawyers of the country, had never been overruled, and if was to be accepted as a constitutional limitation of the right of citizenship, then all the negro race who had recently been made freemen were still not only not citizens, but were incapable of becoming so by anything short of an amendment to the Constitution. ... ... It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other, and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual. ... From the dissent; http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Slaughterhouse/Bradley.asp The question is now settled by the fourteenth amendment itself, that citizenship of the United States is the primary citizenship in this country, and that State citizenship is secondary and derivative, depending upon citizenship of the United States and the citizen's place of residence. When the federal courts speak of how the Fourteenth Amendment changed and enlarged the powers of the United States government, you now know why. From another dissent, speaking of the new Thirtenth and Fourteenth Amendments; http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Slaughterhouse/Swayne.asp ... These amendments are a new departure, and mark an important epoch in the constitutional history of the country. They trench directly upon the power of the States, and deeply affect those bodies. They are, in this respect, at the opposite pole from the first eleven. ... But of course, not to worry, because we always have those wonderful Esquires to watch over us, right? That is to say, attorneys. There is no such thing as a "license" to practice law. They are "admitted" into practice. Who issues them a license? The BAR? http://landrights.com/Atty-license-fraud.htm AS PER THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT; A. The practice of Law CAN NOT be licensed by any state/State; Schware v. Board of Examiners, 353 U.S. 238, 239 B. The practice of Law is AN OCCUPATION OF COMMON RIGHT! Sims v. Aherns, 271 S.W. 720 (1925) The "CERTIFICATE" for ``Attorneys´´ from the State Supreme Court: 1. ONLY authorizes, A. To practice Law "IN COURTS" As a member of the STATE JUDICIAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT. B. Can ONLY represent WARDS OF THE COURT. 2. INFANTS 3. PERSONS OF UNSOUND MIND SEE CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM, VOLUME 7, SECTION 4. 4. A. "CERTIFICATE" IS NOT A LICENSE.... The "STATE BAR" CARD IS NOT A LICENSE!!! A. It is a "UNION DUES CARD" B. The "BAR" is a "PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION." (A corporation.) 1. Like the Actors Union, Painters Union, etc. 2. No other association, EVEN DOCTORS, issue their own license. ALL ARE ISSUED BY THE STATE. C. It is a NON-GOVERNMENTAL PRIVATE ASSOCIATION. 1. See Attorney General Dan Morales' letter. 2. As per this letter; the State does not issue licenses and they are not issued by his office! The State Bar is; A. An Unconstitutional Monopoly, Article 1, Section 26, Texas Bill of Rights. B. A ILLEGAL & CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE; C. Violates Article 2, Section 1, Separation of Powers clause of the Constitution. D. There is NO POWER OR AUTHORITY for joining of Legislative, Judicial, or Executive as the BAR and SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS are doing. ALL MEMBERS OF BOTH ARE MONOPOLISTIC BAR MEMBERS! E. In violation of the RIGHT TO WORK LAWS of Texas. V. State Bar Rules. . . at Article III, Section 2. . . Enrollment in the State Bar: "Each person who becomes licensed to practice law is REQUIRED TO ENROLL IN THE STATE BAR WITHIN 10 DAYS "BEFORE" OR "AFTER" RECEIVING A LICENSE TO PRACTICE LAW. ENROLLMENT IN THE BAR AND LICENSE ARE NOT THE SAME. THE BAR CAN NOT LICENSE ANYONE!!!!! "Woe unto you (A woe is a curse) Lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge; you entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in you hindered..." Luke 11:52. When did this start? http://www.passaicbar.org/pcba_history.html The Certificate of Incorporation of the Passaic County Bar Association was executed on April 19, 1889, and was filed with the Secretary of State on April 20, 1889 under a Special Act of the Legislature of 1877 providing for the incorporation of Bar Associations. In the mid 1870s. Before the death of the original Thriteenth Amendment (see the post; The Original Thirteenth Amendment), BAR associations were not legal in America. Therefore, this type of organization came about only after the Civil War (See the post; The New Draft), in which Washington, DC, took control of the nation. In essence, if you really want to understand where America went wrong, simply look at the numbers of attorneys serving as politicians, and think about it. How is it that the entire government of the United States, all of the various states, and the city and counties of America are under the control of the so-called judcial branch of the so-called government? Of attorneys, who are officiers of the court? And who hold sway in a court room under the gold fringed flag, denoting that the President and his Excutive Orders are supreme in that venue? Oh, and before you say it, excusing the 1789 formation of the one supreme court by the Congress by saying that it had to be done.... where is the legislation authorizing the Presidency, or, the Congress? Why, in the Constitution! That is also where the authority for the one supreme court rests, and that court HAS NEVER SAT. Not once, in the history of the United States. Do Idaho Attorneys Have a License to Practice? "Think of it as a state being" by Hari Heath Does membership in the American Automobile Association give ordinary Americans a valid license to drive? Would membership in the National Rifle Association permit one to carry a concealed weapon? By joining the North American Hunting Club would a person be licensed to hunt in North America? If answer to the previous questions are no, then why is membership to a state bar association construed as a "license" for attorneys to "practice" law? by Hari Heath Alfred Adask published an article in the AntiShyster Magazine a while back entitled "Deemed to be Licensed." It was a humorous expose' on the fact that Attorneys in Texas don't actually have a physical license to practice law but are somehow "deemed" to be licensed by reason of their membership in the State Bar Association. I found this to be a curious situation and thought I would conduct an informal investigation of Idaho's "license to practice law." It is, after all, against the law, to practice law without a license in Idaho. Surely our Idaho Attorney's wouldn't knowingly break the law. I ran into some attorneys that I knew, and during the course of our conversations, I asked if I could see their license to practice law. One continued to talk about hunting and fishing and avoided the subject. The other mumbled something about he was once issued a certificate years ago, but neither could show an actual license. As Mr. Adask pointed out in his article, this non-issued "license" which all judges and attorneys are "deemed" to have, furthers the independent, non-accountable grip the private bar associations have on the judicial branch of government. Our Idaho Constitution doesn't require any "license to practice law." Some time passed since my original informal investigation on the Idaho "license to practice law." As a defendant who was actively litigating my right to travel without a drivers "license," so long as I didn't injure others, or damage their property, I thought this could be a prime opportunity to see if the prosecutor and magistrate prosecuting me were "licensed." Subpeona The Idaho State Bar ignored my first letter seeking a copy of the Prosecutor Payne's and Magistrate McGee's "license to practice law," so I issued a Subpoena Duces Tecum demanding either a copy of their licenses or a letter on their letterhead stating that they did not have a license to practice law. The Idaho State Bar responded by sending a letter on its letterhead stating: "The Idaho State Bar does not have physical "licenses to practice law" for our members, so I am unable to provide you with copies. However, I can give you the following information: Douglas Paul Payne is an active member in good standing of the Idaho State Bar. He is currently licensed to practice law in Idaho. Daniel J. McGee is also a member in good standing of the Idaho State Bar. He is currently a judge in the state and, therefore, does not practice law. Sincerely, Annette Strauser, Membership Administrator." Motion to dismiss I then incorporated this in a Motion to Dismiss and filed it with the court (Benewah county case number CR 97-00407). Excerpting from my Affidavit in Support of Motion to Dismiss: No license to paractice law Both Prosecutor Douglas Paul Payne and Magistrate Daniel J. McGee do not have "licenses to practice law," as required by statute to hold and conduct the public offices which each officer has assumed. This fact is further evidenced in Exhibit B, a true and correct copy of a letter from Annette Strauser, Membership Administrator for the Idaho State Bar, attached hereto. Idaho Code 31-2601 requires that the Prosecuting Attorney be "... an attorney and counselor at law duly licensed to practice as such in the district courts of this state..." Idaho Code 1-2206 (2) requires that Attorney Magistrates be "...currently licensed to practice law in the state of Idaho." As evidenced in the letter from Annette Strauser (Exhibit B), Prosecutor Payne and Magistrate McGee do not have "licenses to practice law." Further in the letter, Ms. Strauser claims that Douglas Paul Payne "is currently licensed to practice law in Idaho." To follow up this letter and clarify its contradictory statements, which first states that there are no "licenses to practice law" and then states that Douglas Paul Payne "is currently licensed to practice law in Idaho." I called the Idaho Supreme Court and Annette Strauser, on the morning of April 22, 1998. In my phone call to the Idaho Supreme Court I was informed, by the several clerks that I talked to, that when a new attorney passes the bar exam and is sworn in at the Supreme Court, then the Supreme Court issues a Certificate of Admission. I then called Annette Strauser to confirm this process and to try get a better explanation as to how an attorney can be "licensed to practice law" when there are no "licenses to practice law." Strauser confirmed that the process described by the Supreme Court clerks to admit a new attorney to the bar was correct. Strauser further explained that the "license" for an attorney was different than, for example, a hunting or fishing license, which was an actual paper license. Strauser told me to think of an attorney's license "as a state of being." Strauser also stated that to become a member of the bar and maintain status as a member in good standing, an attorney must pay membership fees, provide information about any trust accounts they may have, and occasionally participate in continuing legal education requirements. I have also learned from prior phone conversations with the Idaho State Bar, that the bar is a private association, not a governmental entity or office. >From the evidence and information that I have been able to gather thus far, an attorneys' "license to practice law" is not any kind of bona fide "license," but rather a certificate of membership in a private non- governmental association, which makes some attempt at self regulating its members. At best, it may be an "implied license," and best was described by Idaho State Bar Membership Administrator Strauser "as a state of being."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||