Archive for the ‘Judicial’ Category
by Nicholas Testaccio
Following “the Laws of the Union” requires integrity, and diligence. We have swayed so far from the rule of law that being honest with ourselves appears to be difficult, at best, and as we go forward, reaching a level that approaches the impossible.
The Constitution is a uniform document, and if every clause is not given its due force or proper execution, the document means nothing. Most will blame corrupt representatives, judges, and agencies while ignoring the fact that it is our responsibility to uphold “the Laws of the Union.” “We the People” are both the author and enforcers of our own laws. We created a Nation, wherein we maintain sovereign authority over the state. Our words, our laws, and our powers are first and foremost in a document, in which we laid out the rule of law.
In 1901, Mr. Justice White, writing for the court, ruled that “The government of the United States was born of the Constitution, and all powers which it enjoys or may exercise must be either derived expressly or by implication from that instrument.” – Downes v Bidwell, 182 U. S. 244
I am a citizen of a Republic, wherein my rights are intended to be unalienable. I am not the subject of a democratic tyranny wherein the majority decides what rights I may or may not have. I am not the subject of men and women whose desires have no regard for what is good, but only for what they covet. To my mind their lust extends beyond the good fortune of others, for even that is the subject of their gain.
“An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” - Norton v Shelby County, 118 US 425
I have learned, over the years of frustration, that the simpler the terms, the more that will be twisted and corrupted from the author’s few succinct words. In the few words quoted from “Norton v Shelby,” it should be construed that acts that violated the principles of the Constitution are void before agents of government attempt to enforce whatever the legislature had in mind.
I, once again, quote the writings of Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper #78; “There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
Hamilton elaborates on the concepts that Jefferson laid out in our Declaration that prescribes the concept of a Nation, in which, the People retain sovereign powers over the state, and those we elect to protect and enforce that design. A Nation of People, for the first time in history, holds the ultimate authority over those who serve their interests. We have moved so far from that plan that it is almost impossible to convince the majority to act based on the principle “sovereignty, itself, remains with the people, by whom and for whom government exists and acts.”
Failure to comprehend our system is where we will fail to maintain our Republic and fall into a tyranny.
The people of New York have now given us every reason to believe that the Nation is in grave peril. They have given us Alvin Bragg, Letisha James, Kathy Hochul, and a judge of the most contemptible demeanor, judge Juan Merchan. The list goes on, but it should be clear to so many in this country that we have now crossed the Rubican into Civil War. It is cold right now, but it will either fizzle into an all out tyranny run by a mob of the most corrupt and vile people, or it will turn hot when the people see that ‘evil is no longer sufferable.’
We are pushed to the very brink by falsehoods that have become the truth, or at least the truth in the minds of people who are gullible fools. That those who have abandoned reason and logic have placed us in a state of confusion and turmoil. Confusion and turmoil are the definition of Civil War. We no longer know who is in charge, the rule of law, or the zealous mob of “useful idiots.”
A particularly important issue that has come to fruition in the trial and conviction of Donald Trump. In the NYC case brought by Alvin Bragg, Trump was denied the most elementary aspects of our rights, and it was done in collusion with twelve jurors who were selected for their apparent prejudice, in a borough that consistently votes for tyranny. In the end, to assure a conviction, judge Merchan gave instructions to the jury that should have had him impeached.
As a jurist, when giving instructions to the jury, you must be sure that they are given all the facts, including their right and duty to negate the law when it is unjust or unconstitutional. In his “Commentaries On The Constitution”, Justice Story, without expressing any opinion on whether or not the central government had any authority to “punish[] the licentious of the press” notes a particular aspect of our legal system and jurist prudence; “And the same act authorized the truth to be given in evidence on any such prosecution; and the jury, upon the trial, to determine the law and the fact, as in other cases.”
It should be noted that most who sit in a jury box are ignorant of their duty to protect the rights of the defendant by way of jury nullification if necessary. Jefferson wrote “I consider trial by jury as ...
No Comments »
I have been asked as to what is the nature of ‘common law’? It is not an easy question to answer, given that most are unfamiliar with law in general, and today, few understand our unique form of government “instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” This statement from our Declaration deserves some explanation before going further.
Prior to the Revolution, conducted by our Insurrectionist Founders, men were subjects of monarch’s who ruled by the Divine Right of Kings. They governed their people by the fallacious concept that an individual was placed on a throne by birth right. God had determined that the individual should be the person who ruled. And that person was given allegiance by his people, but if they failed to do so, they were brought into line by the power of the “Sword.” There has always been plenty who would wield the “Sword” against his fellow man for one reason or another.
Those Fifty-Six Insurrectionist’s, who signed their own death warrant, and had “Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms” saw the monarch as “A Prince whose character [was] thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, [was] unfit to be the ruler of a free people.” So, the fight for a government “of, by, and for the people” became a reality for those who sought to abide by law that “We the People” would compose, defend, and prosecute.
There is a history of common law, and it is best that I allow historic figures to explain. I will attempt to give some light to the subject using their words, and case law.
Common Law seems simple enough to me, but to the average person who has been inundated with reams of papers by those claiming some sort of expertise, promoting some foolishness, and judicial legislating, the prescription is anathema to common sense.
Blackstone gives a simple explanation by writing, “THE policy of our ancient constitution, as regulated and established by the great Alfred, was to bring justice home to every man’s door, by constituting as many courts of judicature as there are manors and townships in the kingdom; wherein injuries were redressed in an easy and expeditious manner, by the suffrage of neighbors and friends.”
Our system is that of common law. If you have been harmed in some way, you are entitled to relief. As Justice John Marshall explains in Marbury v Madison, 5 U.S. 137.
“If he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy? The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. *** Blackstone states two cases in which a remedy is afforded by mere operation of law.
'In all other cases,' he says, 'it is a general and indisputable rule, that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law whenever that right is invaded.'
“And afterwards, [still quoting Blackstone] 'I am next to consider such injuries as are cognizable by the courts of common law. And herein I shall for the present only remark, that all possible injuries whatsoever, that did not fall within the exclusive cognizance of either the ecclesiastical, military, or maritime tribunals, are, for that very reason, within the cognizance of the common law courts of justice; for it is a settled and invariable principle in the laws of England, that every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress.'”
Over the years, there have been numerous hucksters, charlatans, and even those who are of goodwill, who paraded out schemes designed, somehow, to enforce the law, or that the law was some form of secret code designed for the elite to enslave us all. While we have been enslaved to a certain extent, the law does not allow for, and indeed it does provide an ultimate authority for the people to claim redress and enforce our sought remedy.
I sincerely hope that those who read this understand that this nation was formed in turmoil. A bloody revolution fought over years, wherein the end result was a Nation “constructed on the principle that the Supreme Power resides in the body of the people.” - Chisholm v Georgia 2 U.S. 419, 457
How do we attain, and even maintain such a lofty goal? Those who debated the Constitution were not ignorant of the fact that tyranny would always be a threat. The Bill of Rights arose out of that historical record. Patrick Henry, a student of human nature, understood the dangers of leaving questions, or even clearly defined words at risk to the will of the oppressor.
Henry insisted that a Bill of Rights be added over the objections of James Madison who thought it to be superfluous. This is important to demonstrate that both Henry and Madison were correct in their arguments. Madison noted that government is given certain powers to which they must comply, but Henry argued that there would be those, in the future, who would usurp the powers, and prohibitions clearly stated. Today, we argue and ignore the words of both men.
The Bill of Rights bolsters the principles of common law by citing numerous components of the means to enforce common law; freedom of religion, speech, the press, the right to peaceably assemble, and to redress the government. Security against unreasonable search and seizure. Warrants to be issued upon probable cause. A grand jury and a petit jury. Thomas Jefferson noted, “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”
Blackstone wrote, “as all wrong may be considered as merely a privation of right, the one natural remedy for every species of wrong is the being put in possession of that right, whereof the party injured ...
No Comments »
by Nicholas Testaccio
There are times when I become maudlin over the affairs of the Nation and the World. At those points in my life, I feel the need to lash out with a rant. I see, what to me is an obvious lack of spirit, desire, the absolute soul crunching failure to protect that, which is most precious to the human spirit. I want to run through the streets yelling at the top of my lungs – DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR AMBIVALENCE AND IGNORANCE?
I am very fortunate in that my grandparents saw fit to take that journey from Italy to a country over Three-Thousand miles away. I did not know my paternal grandfather as he passed away when my father was still a boy. He came with a skill and used it to set-up his business as a barber. I wish that I could have spent time with him as I did with my maternal grandfather Vincent. Unfortunately, I was just Ten years old when Grandpa Vincent passed away. In the short period of time I had to spend with him I learned about tools. I learned about the soil as he had quite a large garden in the middle of Brooklyn, New York. There was an apricot tree some thirty feet high that produced hundreds of its sweet fruit. Three peach trees from which we would snack. Strawberry’s, blackberry’s, figs, and nuts that often made breakfast a delight when I’d spend the summer days with my grandparents.
Grandpa was a veteran of WWI. He came to America, walked from the ship to the local recruiting station, and joined the army. Several years later he would warn the young men in the family that “War is a terrible thing.”. As far as I know all the men in my family served in WWII if they were able. I had the privilege of hearing about some of the events that took place at Pearl Harbor on that dark day from one of those men. He laughed as he noted “We didn’t know what was going on.”.
History is replete with stories from the men and women who survived the turmoil and the vicissitudes of turbulent, dark, and dangerous times. For some of those who survived it was a scar that would not heal. For others, the realization that they made it through made them stronger. They could laugh at the past, taking note of the actions they took, and be thankful for another day.
In Henry V, William Shakespeare wrote what would become a battle cry throughout the ages as commanders often took the time to read Henry’s speech. Generals read the words to rouse the spirits of their own men, some of whom would lay down their lives. As I think ahead to what might befall this nation, in the midst of strife, I would like to call together those who see that our country is under siege. We are facing an enemy unlike that, which Henry and his tired, hungry troops faced.
On October 25, 1415, Henry’s depleted force of some Five Thousand Men, were blocked from their return to England by an army of Twenty Thousand French. At Agincourt, Henry used everything he had in front of him to his advantage. The English Men-At-Arms slaughtered about one-third of the French army, while Henry suffered the loss of but a few hundred. Against tremendous odds King Henry V was able to defeat the French in what is marked as one of the great military victories throughout history.
In Shakespeare’s soliloquy of what Henry V might have spoken to his men, he calls forth that spirit that stirs all to victory. The battle was in front of a tired group of soldiers, stressed by the campaign they had fought. This battle was for all that was left within them, and the pages of history that would place the appropriate label upon their victory or loss.
“That he which hath no stomach to this fight,Let him depart. His passport shall be made,And crowns for convoy put into his purse.We would not die in that man’s companyThat fears his fellowship to die with us.”
As you scroll through the pages of history, you may have a glimpse of what was, but more importantly, what may come. Patrick Henry tells us “I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.”. Yet, we are allowing our history to be destroyed by factions that I am convinced are part of a plan influenced by communist agitators and their promotors.
Henry went on to shout “Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun!”. And now we come to the point of my rant, as I see a downfall aided by those who have no inkling of their complicity in our demise.
Let me repeat. “As a citizen, I know the government *** to be republican; and my short definition of such a government is one constructed on this principle -- that the supreme power resides in the body of the people.”.– Chisholm v Georgia 2 U.S. 419, 457. If this be the case of a nation “of, by, and for the people”, then a method of retaining that sovereignty over a servant government should be enumerated in our founding documents. And if that means be so stated, then it must be employed for the purposes of which it was made law.
A Declaration made on July 4th, 1776 explains the principles of this nation where that foundation created government “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it”.
Fifteen years later The United States Constitution was ratified as the “Supreme Law of the Land”, defining the delegated authorities, and restrictions for the operation of such a country, wherein the People ...
No Comments »
by Nicholas Testaccio
In the late 1930’s, Abbott and Costello introduced the nation to a comedic routine that they had performed in Vaudeville. It was a sketch that played on certain words in order to create confusion, but more importantly it gave us enjoyment, pleasure, and a piece of entertainment for the ages.
Today, our elected representatives have turned the English language upside down, around, and around, to confuse and confound the people they supposedly serve. While Abbott and Costello brought us laughter, our servant government brings us derision, turmoil, and angst. There is no upside to allowing government to wander from the strict meaning of the law as set out in the Constitution.
Playing words for an outcome that produces laughter is one thing, but when you twist the legal nomenclature of your founding documents you morph into a society hell bent on self-destruction.
Article IV, Cl. 3 of the U.S. Constitution requires that “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution”.
The oath binding our representatives to the Constitution should not be taken lightly. The Constitution is a written contract produced by “We the People” instructing those we elect or appoint to be our servants. The words are clear, and they were extensively debated by those who took up the responsibility to produce the rule of law, by which this nation should be guided. It does not live in the minds of the foolish, the despots, and the corrupt. It means what it says to the extent, to which we may decide to alter or change its provisions, restrictions, and delegated authorities.
Article V allows for changes by “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof”.
If there are changes to be made then it should be done by the process laid out in the Constitution. For more than One Hundred years, the government comprised of our representatives have made changes that restrict, encumber, and suppress the people those servants are elected to serve. While writing on the provisions set out by the delegates to the constitutional convention, Alexander Hamilton commented that “There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”.
For more than One Hundred years, a government of the People has operated in a manner “that the servant is above his master”. Prior to the last century the idea of regulating every aspect of the lives of the people who elected them to office was met with stiff resistance. The courts ruled by “What *** those who framed and adopted [the Constitution] underst[oo]d the terms to designate and include”. The terms were not fictions of law, but rather hard and fast rules set out to maintain a Constitutional Federal Republic.
Article IV, § 4 reads in no uncertain terms, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion”. Were I to be granted the task of some play on the word “Invasion”, I would consider it to be interpreted by the words for which was originally declared in that an internal force “has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.”. I see no other way to interpret the promotion of such agencies that enforce the myriad of rules and regulations that not only restrict, but also feast on the labor, production, and property of the populace.
We have “public officials” playing the words of the Constitution to suit their avarice rather than applying them in “the common parlance of the times in which the Constitution was written” for instructing “those for whom the instrument was intended”. In no uncertain terms, the rendering of the Constitution into a bastardized document has been promoted by usurpers, tyrants, and to their own foolishness a segment of the population that is functionally illiterate. As comedic was the confusion laid out by Abbot and Costello in their use of “who” and “what”, the reinterpretation of the Constitution into a living document is regrettably tragic. Should I say disastrous, foolish, and ignorant to a level so profoundly deep as to give new meaning to the word idiotic.
“In expounding the Constitution, every word must have its due force and appropriate meaning, and no word is to be regarded as unnecessarily used or needlessly added.” Where it states a specific delegated authority or restriction, it is not to be interpreted to mean anything other than what is clearly written. Under Article I, § 8 there are eighteen clauses that constitute the “Powers of Congress”. Under § 9, the Constitution enumerates eight clauses that list the “Powers Denied Congress”. And at § 10 of Article I, the Constitution lists three clauses that detail the “Powers Denied to the States”. So, when the Constitution provides for specifically enumerated powers, or denies certain powers it does not mean to leave room for the laws to go beyond, or in many ...
No Comments »
by Nicholas Testaccio
Dr. Miles Bennell here singing, “Great Googamooga, can’t ya hear me talkin’ to ya? It’s a Ball of Confusion. That’s what the world is today.”.
Yes, that is what I awoke with in my head this very morning. I showered, shaved, brushed my teeth, and gargled so that I might look and smell good for my computer. Heck, who else am I doing it for? I am restricted from moving around, going down to the local watering hole, and perhaps imbibing a beer or two with the regulars. If I go anywhere, the fascist mask Nazi’s demand that I must wear a face obliterator to prevent the spread of germs for a virus that doesn’t really appear to be as deadly as they keep promoting.
My head has been in a perpetual state of turmoil as I watch my country torn apart by psychotic, megalomaniac’s, power hungry bigoted sociopaths that occupy both the halls of government and the media.
By the way, it is extremely important to note that those people are chosen to govern by our vote, a process that has now proved that the Founders were correct in setting out parameters for eligibility. What does a person think about when they cast a vote for someone who not only is an incessant liar, but does the exact opposite of what they promise? Top that off with a two party system, and tyranny, turmoil, and dissolution are inevitable.
Onward!
It has been over two months since the election, or whatever else you might call it considering the confusion, and we are headed toward an administration that has promised to hunt down Trump supporters and make them pay. Yes, that has been the rhetoric that has come from that side, and it is most certainly validated by last year’s turmoil in which several cities, including DC, were set ablaze, pillaged, and plundered. Just like the good old days. Wonderful!
I did not hear people condemning the violence then. While video of fires and looters were all over, the media proclaimed it was mostly peaceful, and our newly elected vice-president was proclaiming the virtues of the rioter’s behavior, she was also assisting in their release from jail.
But! But when protesters stormed the capital there was no end to the condemnation by both sides of the aisle. Accusations of sedition and treason were spewed from the leftist media and incoming communist party members. Trump was blamed, again, by his mere existence.
And of course, after a second impeachment, the FBI comes out with the fact that they had received information that the storming of the Capitol was planned. What else is new? It’s not that we don’t already know that the DOJ is thoroughly corrupt and filled with democrat partisans.
For those of you who do not know, Kevin McCarthy played the role of Dr. Miles Bennell in the 1956, original edition of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. I have made mention of the character before because I believe, unswervingly, that I am watching the people of this nation, and probably the world being consumed by some sort of entity that does not allow for rational thought.
Follow me now, especially those who are condemning the violence and warning that “they”, the democrats, are coming for our second amendment rights. I may have to wander a bit before I come to my pressing question, but I promise I will arrive at some point. My mind is all over the place right now trying to understand what is taking place.
Mark Levin pointed out that in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia the democrats went around the State legislatures by going to the executive and judicial branches in order to affect changes in voting. It is clear as the nose on your face, but since you are wearing that ridiculous mask you may not see your nose. I should also note that the full videos of Levin and two constitutional law professors has been removed from YouTube.
To provide for the selection of the delegates to the Electoral College the U.S. Constitution requires “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…” I am not going to discount the Twelfth Amendment, which explicitly explains how the election of a president is to take place. I’m simply going to recommend that you go read it, and hopefully understand that the current process is a corruption of the Electoral College.
In support of the claims that the election was corrupt, I contacted my State representative here in Pennsylvania to advise him of the law. He told me that there was nothing that the legislature can do. I objected, but he told me that their counsel advised them that there was nothing that the legislature could do.
In my quest for truth, justice, and the American way, no I am not Superman, I sent my representative and the leadership the following:
-----I am linking to McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892). Of particular importance, according to SCOTUS comes at 34 & 35 where the Court rules;
-----"The appointment of these electors is thus placed absolutely and wholly with the legislatures of the several states. They may be chosen by the legislature, or the legislature may provide that they shall be elected by the people of the state at large, or in districts *** This power is conferred upon the legislatures of the states by the Constitution of the United States, and cannot be taken from them or modified by their state constitutions *** Whatever provisions may be made by statute, or by the state constitution, to choose electors by the people, there is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated."
-----I hope that McPherson clarifies the fact that the legislature has the ultimate authority to place the electors, and in particular when public officials and courts ...
No Comments »
