12 April A.D. 2005
While this tickles the ears of your regular readers, you're still
presuming something into existence that doesn't exist. What this "law
clerk" has no clue about, and is trained to have no clue about, is the
legal reality that we do not now have, and have never had, a
"constitutional Government."
So, to measure ANY "judges" decisions by the Constitution is simply
ludicrous. The problem here is not necessarily with the "judges." There may be problems, but those problems are not likely to be problems with legal reality, which legal reality the "judges" very likely know,
understand and apply, and which legal reality this "law clerk" is
confessedly clueless about.
This is the same generic problem with the popular Court-slamming books that circulate today. Either those authors are clueless, or else they're expecting there to be enough book-buyers who are clueless, to make money off the lies and crap they write and publish. At the end of the day, the problem will prove itself. The problem is NOT with the "judges," where the question that arises has to do with the "Constitution." The problem is with those who have not yet realized that we do not now have, and have never had, a "constitutional Government." The Constitution was and is a "compact." It was never, and is still not, Law. Thus, it was never the Supreme Law of the Land.
And, if you REALLY and TRULY want to make a difference regarding the judiciary, it will help immeasurably to evaluate those opinions from a standpoint of legal reality. This "law clerk" is not yet there. To promote this writing as something competent is to confess the same problem.
I used to be "there." See http://www.apfn.org/apfn/okc_coverup.htm and search that page for "Taylor." You'll zoom to the top of The Terre Haute Litigation materials. The "pure Constitution" argument was characterized on appeal as (1) frivolous, (2) without merit, (3) of no authority, and (4) ludicrous. My life forever changed the instant I read their opinion, for it finally was "OK" for me to accept the legal reality that the Constitution doesn't even qualify to be the lining in the bottom of most bird cages.
I'm no longer living a day dream, and, actually, I'm no longer living a
nightmare, either. There's a tremendous peace of mind that accompanies coming to terms with the stark cold essence of our legal reality. We've "been had." The sooner we come to accept that fact, the sooner we make constructive progress. It's possible to win a game where the player doesn't know the rules, but that is all the more difficult where the game is designed by masters to be a game that can't be won by 99.99999% of those who play. Said another way, the only way to win is not to play. And, we can't get to the stage of not playing until such time as we understand, in very good detail, the rules of the game(s) at issue.
We don't get "there" by still thinking that anything about the "federal
government" has one stinking thing to do with the "Constitution."
Keep up the good work.
Harmon L. Taylor(our response)Dear Mr. Taylor:
Thank you for your comments regarding our past JNJ on the testimony of a former Law Clerk losing faith in the judiciary. He cannot be blamed for being "clueless" regarding the lack of force and effect of the organic Constitution, as most of us were "clueless" to the "legal reality" due to the fraud and deception of our tyrannical and treasonous government-- which is not really "government" at all, since it does not fulfill the role of government for this country as described in the Declaration of Independence. What we have is an illegitimate force, sometimes referred to as an "oligarchy of hegemony" or "de facto government," operating under color of government by usurpation of power. This evil is no longer sufferable!You say the legal reality [is] that we do not now have, and have never had, a "constitutional Government." The question is, Harmon, is that the fault of "the Constitution" or of "government."? Which came first, the Constitution, or government? The Declaration states that governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed for the purpose of securing the natural rights of men. The organic Constitution was written on behalf of the People (i.e., the governed) for the purpose of creating a government designed to protect the interests of the People, delegating certain rules by which government was to be restricted in power while carrying out that protection for the People. The government, being the product (the creation) of the Constitution, to be legitimate must be subservient to its creator (the Constitution), and ultimately to the People.
Apparently I am showing my "cluelessness" when I admit that I am perplexed by your statement to measure ANY "judges" decisions by the Constitution is simply ludicrous. You seem to imply that judges aren't required to obey the Constitution, saying The problem is with those who have not yet realized that we do not now have, and have never had, a "constitutional Government." The Constitution was and is a "compact." It was never, and is still not, Law. Thus, it was never the Supreme Law of the Land.
Mr. Taylor, are we, as an ordered society, to accept the idea that we have no ruling document in this country --and never have had one-- that establishes the character and conception of its government, setting forth the principles reflecting the consent of the governed and regarded as the Supreme Law of the Land? And are we to accept the idea that judges, or others functioning "as government" are legitimately a renegade force owing no obligation to obey the principles set forth in the Constitution? Are you saying that this "legal reality" is any justification for this lawless power holding sway over the People of this Land?
I am certainly "clueless" regarding any idea that the People don't have the right to hold judges accountable under constitutional requirements ---and that such expectation is "simply ludicrous"? Why do judges take an oath to uphold the Constitution, or at least claim that they do? Why do judges cite the Constitution as an authority when it fits their fancy to do so? Why do judges often claim that something is "unconstitutional"? If there is "no constitutional government" then what difference does it make?I will agree that the organic Constitution has had no force nor effect since its ratification, because there is no enforcement provision included in it for the People to implement against "unconstitutional government." However, that doesn't mean that the Constitution doesn't exist-- that it's not the Supreme Law of the Land as it provides that it is. Despite the fact that the Constitution lacks an enforcement provision, the People still have the expectation that the government they created by the Constitution will be obedient to it, according to the written consent of the governed contained therein. Even without a written enforcement provision, the People's expectation is still there-- and rightfully so!Charles Lincoln, the "clueless" lawclerk, presented his testimony based on his experience and background. We are grateful that he shared his testimony with us. It honestly told about what he experienced working with the judicial system, and how he was led to believe, through his formal education and research, that judges were to rule according to law-- most of us believe that to be true. To be "clueless" to the "legal reality" that we have "no constitutional government" and never did have, doesn't take away from the fact that we have the right to expect that we do have a "constitutional government" and if we find out that we don't (become "clued in") then we must take necessary action to correct that "legal reality" and bring it in line with the Declaration of Independence.The fact that you aren't "clueless" I ask, what are you intending to do about the "legal reality" you describe? What does your following statement boil down to? It's possible to win a game where the player doesn't know the rules, but that is all the more difficult where the game is designed by masters to be a game that can't be won by 99.99999% of those who play. Said another way, the only way to win is not to play. And, we can't get to the stage of not playing until such time as we understand, in very good detail, the rules of the game(s) at issue.
What are the "rules of the game"? We'd better learn fast, because time is of the essence. Until we learn the "rules of the game", or you tell us what they are and how to handle them, I recommend that we concentrate on getting J.A.I.L. passed in as many states as possible, as soon as possible. I believe the People will accomplish their freedom by following the "rules of the J.A.I.L. game."
-BarbieRon BransonAuthor/Founder
J.A.I.L.- Judicial Accountability Initiative Law - www.jail4judges.org
Contribute to J.A.I.L. at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603
See our active flash, http://www.jail4judges.org/Flash.htm
JAIL is a unique addition to our form of gov't. heretofore unrealized.
JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!
JAIL is taking America like a wildfire!To be added or removed, write to [email protected]
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless
minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is
striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <><To JNJ Library Index for All Years