J.A.I.L. News Journal
Los Angeles, California                                             April 15, 2005

WHAT? The Constitution Is An
Ex Parte Restraining Order??
A claim made by Gary Minette of Liberty Creed garmin@tds.net
What do you think of that claim?  (See "original message" from Gary Minette.)  Here's someone else who says there IS an enforcement clause in the Constitution, but it isn't one that should be implemented by the true sovereigns-- the People.
Also he doesn't cite the Article or section# of the enforcement clause he alludes to. And, the People can't trust "the states" any more than they can trust the feds or the judiciary as far as enforcing the Constitution goes. I don't see anyone presenting anything that improves J.A.I.L. enforcement.
I've said so many times, government WILL NOT enforce its own responsibilities. It was probably assumed that the "grand jury" would be the enforcement body (theoretically being made up from the People as an independent, non-government body with autonomous authority), but there isn't a spelled-out provision setting forth that description and the specific means of it doing so. And you see what the "grand juries" have evolved into --hand puppets of the prosecutors. Grand juries are supposed to keep prosecutors in line also. (Would that now be a conflict of interest??)  Had there been a specific process and procedure in the Constitution, this prosecutorial manipulation couldn't have happened. The J.A.I.L. process is the only one that will work-- it can't be a government function!
The Document is a Ex Parte Restraining Order.  No party to which a R. O. applies happily accepts such a reality.
Hmmmmm--  here's where I again show MY "cluelessness" -- (I don't really apologize for it. I don't believe I'm alone. I believe the evil powers that have usurped control INTENDED for the People to be "clueless." That's how this tyranny flourishes. I don't believe the People should apologize for being the victims of this evil sinister plot. Too bad we've been entranced for over 200 years!)
First time I've heard this idea: Ex Parte Restraining Order
There are others who can analyze this better than I, but I take it the Continental Congress "presented" the R.O. on behalf of the People. To what "judge" was it presented for consideration? I take it the R.O. was/is against the newly created government. I wouldn't think that the "judge" before whom the R.O. was "filed" could be any part of the newly formed government against which the R.O. was written.
At any rate, I don't see any evidence that the Constitution is an EPRO. Call me "clueless" --call me "blind" --call me "dense."  I plead guilty, but I don't apologize, for the reasons stated above. I believe it's been fraud from the get-go --ever since "ratification." I firmly believe in the Constitution AS A CONSTITUTION and despite its imperfections, is a grand document that does exist, but is not enforceable by the People as it should have been. Just think-- all this fraud for the past 200+ years could have been prevented!
Regardless of whatever sinister plot was behind the ratification of the organic Constitution in 1787, I believe the People, now that they've awakened from their 200-year slumber, must take matters back to the Declaration of Independence and what was intended there, and read the Constitution IN LIGHT OF THAT INTENTION. And then, the People must pass J.A.I.L. to enforce that Constitution as written, in accordance with the DOI, as a "new guard for our future security." (I've grown to dislike that word "security" because of its connotations today-- you know, "Homeland Security" ?   "Social Security"? ).  --but "security" within the meaning of the DOI. 
Mr. Minette says We have 'consented' to far more power to the gov. than was originally intended.  If WE consent then the issue of 'just' is moot. Since it was all fraud from the time of ratification, what could the People have legitimately "consented" to? "Just" means the absence of fraud, does it not? As I said, the People must take matters back to what was in fact "originally intended." (None of this "we impliedly consented" etc. The People were/are victims of FRAUD-- and fraud vitiates everything it touches-- forever!)
Let's get past all this fraudulent twisting of terms and manipulations against the People. We've put up with it for over 200 years-- isn't that long enough? ("Ex Parte Restraining Order," "compact," "contract," "law merchant," "admiralty law," "UCC," "corporate U.S.," "bankrupt U.S.," "implied consent to become enslaved," "14th amendment citizen," "non-resident alien," --that's enough already.)
  These evils are no longer sufferable!
Let the People now decide their own destiny, by taking control of it!
Pass J.A.I.L.
ACIC, National J.A.I.L. Admin.

J.A.I.L.- Judicial Accountability Initiative Law - href="../../State_Chapters/dc/DC_initiative.doc">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!
E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
Get involved at JAIL_SALE_USA-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To be added or removed, write to VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org
"..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    <><

----- Original Message -----
From: Liberty Creed
To: VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 9:33 AM
Subject: Re: The "Legal Reality" Must Be Brought In Line With the Declaration of Independence

In defense of the both of you.
I would pose that both of your are right, and to see why the context must shift slightly.  It is true we have no 'Constitutional' gov.  The Document is an Ex Parte Restraining Order.  No party to which an R. O. applies happily accepts such a reality.
And,  'just power from the consent of the governed'.  We have 'consented' to far more power to the gov. than was originally intended.  If WE consent then the issue of 'just' is moot.
My personal opinion on an ' Enforcement clause in the Constitution' is this-that it does exist.  The 'states' can desolve the Compact.
----- Original Message -----
From: VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org
To: www.jail4judges.org
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 1:59 AM
Subject: The "Legal Reality" Must Be Brought In Line With the Declaration of Independence

Return To JNJ 2005

To JNJ Library Index for All Years