Archive for the ‘Judicial’ Category
by Nicholas Testaccio
From time to time I will pass along, to those on my e-mail list, an article that I have read. Recently, I circulated an article titled “Election 2020: The Worst Case Scenario Is The Most Likely One”. At the end of the article, the author Brandon Smith suggested “community based security” as a means of solving some of the current issues rather than accepting what might come about by embracing more government intervention. I commented to the author that “community based security” is a requirement in that the Constitution commands that we maintain “A well regulated Militia” in order to fulfill the duties imposed at Article I, § 8, Cls. 15 & 16, and Article II, § 2, Cl.1.
In the e-mail I sent to my list, I wrote “I've taken the time to e-mail Mr. Smith inferring that his idea is another term for Militia, and how the Constitution commands it”. Inferring, as the dictionary defines it means “to derive as a conclusion from facts”, “to involve as a normal outcome of thought”, or simply to “indicate”. Why would I make that inference? The Militia Act of 1792 reads as follows, “That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment…” The Militia Act of 1792 was repealed by the Act of 1795 and revised in 1861 to include all able-bodied males.
I have mentioned in at least a few articles that on April 19, 1775, Captain John Parker and 70 Militia mustered on the Green in Lexington as a show against the force of 700 Regulars that Thomas Gage had sent to disarm the militia. That company of Militia did not just appear on the Green. They were required by law to be organized, armed, and trained to fulfill the duty of “citizen soldier” under British law. In the case of Parker’s company, they stood upon the principle that their duty was to stand up against an unlawful act. This belief can be traced back hundreds of years in English law. Instead of “redress of grievance”, the colonists received threats and punishment for their complaints to the crown and parliament. Contrary to the rights secured in the English Bill of Rights, and previous incarnations of guarantees, British regulars marched to disarm the lawful Militia.
As the record shows, someone fired a shot on that day that later became known as “the shot heard round the World”. It was the beginning of a nation conceived in liberty, and the long and arduous path that has brought us to protests, riots, looting, destruction, and the death of many at the hands of those who wish to destroy this nation.
We have been on the path of a fledgling nation to a modern day superpower. Yes, we have made many mistakes along the way, but we strove to correct them. Today we are in the midst of, what I believe is the definition of a civil war. The power structure is not clear, and there are factions that wish to tear us apart. They are doing so by threats and violence. Amid this they are calling for the abolishment of police.
There is no need to dissolve, limit, or defund police departments around the country. What needs to be done seems simple enough to me. By the historical record, “a member of a group of men pledged to take up arms at a minute's notice during and immediately before the American Revolution”, our police can be redefined and restructured to be our modern Minutemen.
What is the difference between a policeman and a minuteman? While minutemen were called to duty, police are there patrolling the streets on a constant basis. Police are armed and organized under the command of the local government. Minutemen were able-bodied men of the community, armed, and trained. In essence, a “community based security” operating under the militia statutes enacted by the State government. Police, on the other hand operate by the edicts of, far too often, unconstitutional acts of the local and State governments.
Let us take some quite simple steps before we place the brave men and women who serve every day into the lawful role “to execute the Laws of the Union”. We admit to ourselves that our idea of “doing something” is akin to doing nothing at all, or even worse when we are doing the wrong thing. I received a question from a so-called pro-2nd group, and for those insulted by the term so-called, the dictionary defines it as “used to show that something or someone is commonly designated by the name or term specified”. Having settled that misconception, I move on to more pertinent issues.
The question referred to the way those who argue for the right to keep and bear arms using the “individual right” theory are wrong because it is not being done by my method. To which I reply, good grief!, why would you do it my way? I simply ask that you do it the way the Framers of the Constitution, those men and women who sacrificed, wrote it into law.
Granted, I have taken the time, several years, to read through the history, the acts, and the laws surrounding the foundation ...
No Comments »
by Nicholas Testaccio
I have struggled over the last few months to complete an article. It’s not because I don’t have something to contribute to the latest problems. It’s certainly not because there aren’t many issues that should be commented on in the face of the propaganda that is being spewed out to the general public. It’s definitely not because there isn’t a myriad of questions that never seem to be asked.
I am frozen by the fact that despite the evidence
placed right in front of us, most Americans will do nothing at all, while some
will do nothing more than contribute to the downfall by either applying the
same methods that are proven failures, or actually promoting the divide.
One of the issues we face today regards immigration. Let’s
set the record straight right from the start so that readers will go into this
article with a clear picture. I am not against lawful immigration wherein a country
has the Sovereign authority to protect its borders, and its people from harm of
any type.
The Declaration of Independence reads that “[King George] has endeavoured to prevent
the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for
Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their
migrations hither…”
At the time that our first law was ratified, the
population of the Colonies was approximately Thirteen Million people who occupied approximately Four Hundred Thirty Thousand, square miles,
or more than Two Hundred Seventy-Five
Million acres.
America was sparsely populated, and would certainly
benefit from an influx of people, particularly those who would be needed
tradesmen. There was also the fact that Westward of what was to become the
United States, was a vast landmass. The Founders were cognizant of the fact
that there were Hundreds of Millions of
acres that could become productive parcels of land.
Simply put, the Colonies needed an influx of migrants
who were capable, adventurous, and hungry for Liberty as it was hitherto unavailable
to the World’s population. America needed immigrants willing, and able to
create a great nation.
Do we need migrants today that are unskilled? Do we
need to have millions come across our borders who pillage our coffers? Do we
need to have those entering the country and shouting that we should leave here
as it is no longer our country? Do we need to have violent gang members coming
here to establish their brand of crime?
The answers to these questions should be obvious. We
need to protect our sovereignty, and not allow this nation to become a staging
ground for civil war, and the loss of all our rights.
Next up is the question of taxation. Despite what may
or may not be believed about this point of law, taxation as it is today saps
billions of dollars out of the economy and accomplishes next to nothing other
than pilfering the wealth of the nation in order to promote an oligarchy. It is
done by convincing the people that taxing provides for the running of government,
offers assistance to the needy, and a host of other, often unnecessary, and
unconstitutional acts.
Taxation as it is applied today is unlawful to begin
with. As the Supreme Court stated in Stanton v Baltic that “it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no
new power of taxation”. So why are we paying a direct tax on the wages, or
income we receive?
In 1947, undersecretary of the Treasury Beardsley Ruml
concluded that if we start withholding small amounts of money from paychecks of
Americans that they would simply go along with it. 26 U.S.C. requires that the
Secretary send, by December 31 of that particular year, a notice to anyone who
owes money to the government. Ruml reasoned that people would not voluntarily
comply with a large bill received at the end of the year. However, taken in small
doses there would not be any pushback.
While there is no law that anyone can find that
requires the individual living and working in the United States to pay a direct
tax on the money he earns, the government takes Trillions of dollars from the American people by the hands of an
unchartered agency that the Supreme Court has stated was not created by any
organic act of Congress. It simply exists to terrorize the public into handing
over their property to an out of control government.
So, the question often comes, why do people who don’t pay taxes go to jail? Simply put, we currently lack the courage, spirit, and knowledge to act as the Founders of this nation did and had hoped that future generations would. However, there are a few out there who rise to the occasion, listen, comprehend, and act accordingly; see The Government v Whitey Harrell.
What Marcy Brooks, the foreman in the above case, did was
to go beyond the indoctrination, and take a stand for justice. That jury did
something that most would never consider. They rendered a just decision based
in fact as applied to law, and justice.
Next up, the legal profession and the courts. Those
who opposed the Constitution during the ratification debates realized that given
time, and the position that they were granted, the judiciary would corrupt the
rule of law, and centralize power to the government. It should be fairly
obvious that we now have a judiciary that does not follow the limited delegated
authority granted by We the People in our Constitution. The judges placed in
such high positions work to implement their own agenda, and thereby place
liberty in jeopardy.
Anyone who has gone through the court system can tell
you that it does not serve justice at all, it functions to create a criminal
base, and therefore wealth for those who belong to the private organization
known as the Bar. It is also creating a class of elites who are not brought to
justice for any of their crimes.
While I could go on about the condition of our legal
system, none said it better than H.L. Menchen who wrote; “All the extravagance and incompetence of our present government is
due, in the main, to lawyers, and, in part at least, to good ones. They are
responsible for nine-tenths of the useless and vicious laws that now clutter the
statute-books, and for all the evils that go with the vain attempt to enforce
them. Every ...
No Comments »
by Nicholas Testaccio
The first law of this nation is the Declaration of Independence. It outlines the relationship between government, and the People who are governed by “consent.” It note’s “that [we] are endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights” as a principle of restricting bureaucratic intrusions and highlighting the fact that we are a nation of sovereigns who answer to a Higher Power.
It is declared in unique form for the entire world to be made aware “that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed”. It goes on to assert, “That whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it”.
The Declaration then details the many abuses of the government that the good People of the 13 Colonies were forced to endure, and therefore “declare the cause which impel[ed] them to the separation.”
Among the many causes, the delegates noted; “He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.” This seems most notable to me when considering the current political landscape where rights have been converted into privilege by the vermin we continually re-elect, but even more important is the mindset of those who consider themselves to be patriotic.
There are few who stand up “with manly firmness” to tell our representatives that they have crossed the line. Instead we grovel, hope, and pray for a resolution in a game that our abusers have instituted for their own benefit.
We philosophize in great detail about how, what, when, and where. We speak circles around theories and events that may never occur, nor do we have the historical basis for those events.
We have allowed changes to the Constitution without a bona fide amendment process. We’ve allowed the meaning of the words to be interpreted away when it was understood that “In expounding the constitution of the United States, every word must have its due force, and appropriate meaning; for it is evident from the whole instrument, that no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added. The many discussions which have taken place upon the construction of the constitution, have proved the correctness of this proposition; and shown the high talent, the caution, and the foresight of the illustrious men who framed it.” – Holmes v. Jennison et al., 14 Pet. 540, 570-571, 614, 618 Appx.
We’ve allowed so many incursions into our rights and powers that we can no longer call this nation a functional Republic. It is exactly or might be considered far worse than what the Colonists endured.
How do we approach restoring the Republic without a violent revolution?
Before answering the question I’ve posed, I should express my doubts as to whether it is possible at this point to avoid bloodshed.
This nation was founded on a principle. It is a principle that seems to be impossible for almost every American to comprehend and embrace. That belief is stated in the Declaration as a government of the People that “deriv[es] its just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Let me expand on that a bit. We judge the Law, we “execute the Law”, and we enforce the Law. We do not sit on juries and rubber stamp statutes that infringe our rights. We do not allow for the creation of agencies that go beyond the scope of government’s limited authority. We do not allow government thugs to perform functions specifically enumerated to ourselves.
The Founders instituted a government that had little power to act without the People taking the specific steps or expressing the authority to resolve an issue. On a subject that I’ve almost beaten to death in my articles, the expressed authority “to execute the Laws of the Union” is in the hands of We the People. That is to say, “the whole people”, acting with the recognized authority in the institution that flows throughout the Constitutions, and both state and federal statutes. It has not been changed, nor can it be changed without re-writing literally hundreds of statutes, the constitutions of the states and federal government, and the admission that there has been an obvious violation of fundamental law.
On that subject, today, I will only say that if we are avoiding the return of power to the People in its constitutional forms, we are embracing the destruction of liberty, and more importantly, the inevitability of a bloody revolution. Stop claiming that you are opposed to bloodshed when you endorse it by the aversion of the People’s stated authority.
This nation has morphed into an oligarchy with a population of dreamers. One side dreams that they will destroy the other with lies and deceit. While they preach tolerance, they are the most intolerant people. Their motto seems to be that you can speak freely only if you agree with me.
The other side dreams that they can do the same thing over and over and obtain different results. An example of which is to go into a court that has consistently worked to violate most of our rights and expect it to turn around because it is the law.
What plagues us today troubled the colonists back then; men with no scruples, and those with swords to enforce the exploitation. How do we overcome?
This system is dependent on the voracity of the various components, which are executive, legislative, and judicial. Three branches, taught to us in school, that function to limit abuses by the other. This is all well and good, but it is not a legitimate diagram of our form of government.
There is the state, the People, and our jury system; it was pure beauty in its simplicity. The system has been corrupted, in main part by a branch with little oversight, and our willingness to do nothing but follow its often-illegitimate decrees.
The delegated authority of the courts was to function as a stop-gap to unlawful acts of any branch, agency, or bureaucracy that stepped on the law. However, what the Founders hoped ...
No Comments »
by Nicholas Testaccio
Richard Henry Lee, one of Virginia’s representatives to the Continental Congress having made the long journey to Philadelphia presented a resolution on June 7th, 1776 that proposed the separation of the Thirteen Colonies from the state of Britain.
The Lee Resolution declared, “That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; that measures should be immediately taken for procuring the assistance of foreign powers, and a Confederation be formed to bind the colonies more closely together.”
However, there were states that were not ready to take the steps necessary to break the bonds with England. On July 1st, the Congress selected Thomas Jefferson of Virginia, John Adams of Massachusetts, Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania, Roger Sherman of Connecticut, and Robert R. Livingston of New York to draft “A Declaration”.
John Adams convinces Thomas Jefferson to write the first draft and in just three days the man from Virginia writes what will become one of the most poignant doctrine of history, proclaiming not only the reasons for “dissolv[ing] the political bands” of one people to another, but also detailing what was to become the most unique governmental enterprise known to man … A government “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”, and subject to the popular sovereignty of the People.
After a long and arduous fight the “bands” were broken and a new nation was formed. The struggle was not over as the men from Virginia stood their ground to guarantee “certain unalienable Rights”. Once again the political genius that helped form this nation instituted a Bill of Rights.
Sadly, this Fourth of July we lament the end to the Bill of Rights for despite the admonition that “Congress shall make no law” every branch of this government, its bureaucrats, and unconstitutional agencies treat the document as if it were a blank sheet of paper that may be interpreted away by fiat, and tyrannical acts. Unalienable rights will eventually become irrelevant while being replaced with pretend rights that aid in the destruction of family, safety, honor, and integrity.
Today we live in a world where common sense is overwritten by political correctness. Our rights are no longer “endowed”, but rather privileges granted by the state.
Hordes of immigrants are granted favor for their religion, free speech is that which is consigned to zones and does not offend select groups, and this government of the People has declared it has no obligation to redress a grievance.
The body of the People most “necessary to the security of a free state” is gone through deceit and outright lies, and without our knowledgeable consent.
We quarter thousands of our friends, neighbors, and family as those who stand ready to write tickets, arrest for pretend offenses while allowing invaders to rape and destroy our traditions and laws.
We are subject to forfeiture of property, invasions of our home by teams of armed men, sometimes holding defective warrants, sometimes holding silent warrants, and always held by those without the recognized authority “to execute the Laws of the Union”.
We are subject to the ignorance, corruption, and ambivalence of a grand jury no longer under the control of the People, but rather subject to the machinations of often vicious and ambitious prosecutors.
We are held for criminal prosecutions derived from unconstitutional acts, and often deprived of knowing the nature and cause of the accusation, and unable to confront those in the state who make such fictitious claims.
We are subject to the whims and fears of an uneducated jury improperly, and erroneously instructed by a black robed administrator of the state.
We are fined or jailed for protecting our property, speaking out, resisting unlawful arrests, and attempts to reclaim our sovereignty.
Rights that are clearly defined are attacked and eroded ongoing, while those activities most repugnant to the sanctity of a free republic are lauded as something to be honored.
We are cowed to a federal oligarchy that imposes its will through schemes, or artful design that erodes, confuses, and confounds liberty while the state stays silent as its People are laid bare to tyranny.
This Fourth of July, we may drink our beer, eat our hot dogs, and celebrate the acts of some celebrity, or sports figure as the nation falls into decay, and the forces of evil encroach on every aspect of our lives.
No Comments »
Fiction is meant for entertainment. When grandpa told you stories about his youth, and he embellished a bit, his idea was to make it exciting. It’s done for the entertainment of the child.
When your fishing buddy tells the story of the one that got away, everyone has a good laugh while chiding him on the details.
I loved the Bourne series of the books, and the movies. The movies were a far cry from the books, but they were action packed. The movies were exciting, entertaining, and added the visual effect that you might not have imagined in the books. The fight sequences drew the viewer into the story, while the books told a story of intrigue about two mortal adversaries.
Fiction is all well and good when it’s made for the enjoyment of the public. When the fiction is part of the legal system it is a means of dismantling the law. It is not designed for the well being of the people, but rather the consolidation of power by government, and the powerful forces that choose our elected representatives.
These fictions lead to erroneous notions, concepts, and case law that are an affront to “A Declaration”, and The Constitution of the United States. The design can be nothing else but a strategy to bring us into the slow but inevitable decay of tyranny.
It seems to be the general belief that our unalienable rights are not unlimited, and that they can be regulated and licensed. In order to sanctify the blatant contradiction of the fact that the People “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”, fictions are created as points of law. Often cited, as the proof is the statement that “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater”. This fiction of law is based in part on the half-truth related to the opinion of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes writing for the court in Schenck v United States, 249 U.S. 47.
The fiction occurs because of the fact that the common man will not sit down and examine the details, nor take the time to read the actual case, from which this massive fraud derives. I say massive because men, women, talking heads, government crony’s, and even those pretending to be patriots repeat it. Someone said it somewhere along the line so it is believed, and truth will not overcome the combination of ignorance, and ego.
The case is based on the fact that Schenck, and others, were inciting people to violate a law that the congress actually had the power to create. It was 1917, and the United States was entering the war in Europe. Congress declared war, and as delegated at Article 1, Section 8, the Congress used its power “To raise and support Armies”.
I am a firm believer in the fact that those powers delegated to the government should be recognized as valid, but I am diametrically opposed to perceived or created powers based on interpretations. I do not subscribe in any way to the notion that we have a living Constitution. All these maneuvers are of course fictions created by the courts, and carried out by myths, compliance, and conspiracies.
In Schenck, Justice Holmes wrote, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic”. The controlling aspect of the statement points to the fact that the act inflicts an injury to wit, “causing a panic”. Even to the most casual observer a panic can, and will inflict some form of harm on those in the theater.
Holmes goes on to say, “The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent”.
In Schenck, the defendants were charged “with the mailing of printed circulars in pursuance of a conspiracy to obstruct the recruiting and enlistment service, contrary to the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917”.
Holmes clarifies by writing “We admit that, in many places and in ordinary times, the defendants, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done”. Congress had declared war on Germany for the sinking of the Lusitania, an act that was considered an attack on the sovereign United States. In order to prosecute this war they exercised their power to protect this nation by calling forth the men of this country.
This entire case pivoted on arguments that were inadequate, and obviously detrimental to congresses authority “To raise and support Armies”.
Schenck could have argued that the war created a “clear and present danger that” it “will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent”.
The obvious underlying fact of the matter for those of you who run from the term “conspiracy theory” would have been that the Lusitania was indeed stocked with munitions, that congress should have been aware of this violation at least by way of their oversight of the War Department, and that the entire scenario was cooked up by J.P. Morgan and his associates who had lent the British and French over One Billion Dollars.
The British and French were loosing the war so Morgan and his associates needed a means of bringing the United States in to save the day, or more appropriately the money. None of this would have been a complete secret from the members of congress as not to make a viable defense. Over and above this is the fact that if congress perceived a “clear and present danger” then it had the duty to muster Militia to exercise its duty to “repel invasions”.
The congress does of course have the delegated power “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States” in ...
No Comments »
Recent Form Posts