J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles,
California
April 18, 2022
______________________________________________________
Fine Tuning
The
Importance of
J.A.I.L.
----- Original Message -----
From: Dorothy E
Robbins<</FONT>
Sent: Friday,
April 15, 2022 1:58 PM
Subject: My
response to 4/15/'05
May I as a student and
teacher of the "Constitution of the united States of America"
(please note original capitalization) make some comments?
And, before we begin let it
be known that the word "government" must be given modifiers to have any
meaning as far as who are the governors and who, the governed.
"Civil government" is quite different from
"self-government"! When you read the following comments you will
discover that some modifiers will be used. (End of
lecture?)
So ,
firstly: regarding "enforcement."
"My personal opinion on an
"Enforcement clause in the Constitution" is this-that it does exist"
Gary (He wrote to J.A.I.L. claiming that the
Constitution is an Ex Parte Restraining Order.
--j4j)
Who delegated the powers
that be to those in civil government? If you know who ratified the
document we call the "Constitution of the united States of America,"
you will know who the "enforcers" were supposed to
be. Parties to a contract must keep the contract or they must
face the consequences. "We the People" have not held those to whom
we delegated those powers. As the
Constitution has never been abrogated (to abolish by the authority of
the maker or his successor), it is still in force and we are
still the enforcers. (More on this
later.)
Secondly: re. "The 'states' can dissolve
the Compact. " Gary
Yes, however,
there's that little word can; Point: We the people
may but can we? (Was it Teddy Roosevelt that said,
"The biggest clubs are under the best apple trees"?
)
The can was tried about 140 years ago and the "biggest
clubs" won! Lots! Not, of course, because secession was unthinkable
to our founders nor is unconstitutional. No, but because the
club wielders were unconscionable, unethical men. Times change so
let's try a different method. That brings us to the next
point.
Thirdly: civil "government WILL NOT enforce its own
responsibilities...." Ron. The objects of "ex parte" will
resist, but, as our beloved Founders stated, we will put our trust in
the One who knows our cause is just!
For the support of
J.A.I.L., "with a firm reliance on Divine Providence for its
success we pledge our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred
Honor."
Fourthly: Perhaps a few words re. "Ex Parte Restraining Order "
are appropriate. See "firstly" above. The "ex parte" are we
the people.
A bit of history will support this. When the delegates to
the Constitutional Convention went home to their respective
states, this Constitution was gone over "with a fine tooth
comb" by the people of the states. Not until the
people had delegated their representatives to do so could those
representative delegates go to the Continental Congress and for
the people they represented vote for that
Constitution.
As they were honorable men (!) that is what they did. They waited
to be delegated and they voted accordingly; and notice, it was in
lieu of the people. Who ratified and who are the "parte"? The people!
Therefore, it is "the people" who may, must and can (with God's
help) do what needs be done to enforce it in spite of what was
said: "but is not enforceable by the People as it should have
been."
Fifthly: It may be true that
as Gary stated, we have tacitly " 'consented' to far more
power to the gov. than was originally intended," but , to abrogate the Constitution, it must be
done expressly: "To repeal; to annul by an authoritative
act; to abolish by the authority of the maker or his successor;
applied to the repeal of laws, decrees, ordinances, the abolition of
established customs &c." That authoritative act is clearly
spelled out in the Constitution itself in Article
V.
This brings us to the most important point of this
whole dissertation, as Barbie said: "Let the
People now decide their own destiny, by
taking control of it! Pass J.A.I.L.
"
Dorothy
Robbins
AJIC North-Central
California
(Response by Barbie)
Dear
Dorothy:
To
assure covering everything you mention, I'll respond
seriatim:
1.
We really have only one
Constitution
I
think more confusion is caused when people ask "What Constitution?"
Such a question plays right into the hands of the usurping forces in
power. The sooner people put out of their minds anything that took
place since the ratification of THE Constitution of the United States--
(and that's what I call it, knowing that the fraud that has taken place
does not nullify the one and only organic
Constitution of 1787)-- the sooner we can clear our thinking to the
truth and DO what needs to be done to fulfill
our duty in claiming that truth. As long as we
bend whatsoever toward the fraudulent results of the usurpation, such
as "acknowledging" that there are more than one Constitution, that we
shouldn't capitalize certain letters, or words, or names because it
"means" something else, we give credence to the fraud which we mustn't
do. It's like looking through a "glass darkly." The People have to
clean up that glass and remove the darkness, so we can see clearly what
has happened to us, and how, and why. We have to throw off the
confusion that has entangled us, distorting our
thinking.
2.
The word "government"
I
think for purposes of defining government from the perspective of the
intention set forth in the Declaration of Independence (DOI), which I
believe must be the focal point of definition, the simpler it is, the
easier to grasp and analyze regarding its proper role and relationship.
While defining government can get to be a complex matter, I don't
believe we have to get to that point for purposes of viewing the
Constitution from the perspective of the DOI.
The
DOI establishes the meaning of government only in the general sense of
its relationship to the People, government's creator. If we go beyond
that perspective, we get into trouble because of the fraud that
government has actually become since ratification of the Constitution.
We can't allow ourselves to get tangled up in the web of deceit caused
and created by government through its usurpation of power. The People
have to free themselves completely from that web of deceit that has
entangled us for over 200 years!
So in
analyzing and deciding what the People must do to correct the problem
of tyrannical government, we have to go back to Square One as I've said
before and start from the point of legitimacy. I see that point as
being the date of ratification of the organic Constitution, because I
see no fatal flaws in the Constitution as written EXCEPT FOR the lack
of an enforcement clause specifically spelling out the process by which
the People can independently
(not rely on government whatsoever) enforce its
terms against a wayward "government" (i.e., within the meaning of the
DOI perspective). Don't get tangled up in complexities-- that's part of
the "web of deceit." The People are deceived because of
complexities, among other things.
I get
perplexed when I hear "WE are the government." We, the People,
are the authority OVER government, but that's not to say that we ARE
government. Again-- from the perspective of the DOI, there are two
different entities: (1) the People, and (2) the government. One
created the other to serve and protect their interests. How does that
make them the same? One is the creator, and the other is the created.
One is superior and the other is inferior. Through usurpation of power,
the created has taken on power OVER its creator. Clearly, this goes
directly against the Laws of Nature. So it isn't a legitimate
power-- it's power alright, but not
legitimate. It's counterfeit! Just like FRNS-- they're
counterfeit "money" created by the counterfeit
power.
3. What is the
Constitution?
Before getting into the
"enforcement" discussion, we should determine what the Constitution
is-- what kind of a document is it? There are people who say that
it is a "contract" or a "compact." To me, and for purposes of
J.A.I.L., that classification carries a high disrespect for that
Document. I capitalize that word because it is a Supreme Document-- it
was written on behalf of the People, within the meaning of the
relationship declared in the DOI, and it specifically provides
that it is the Supreme Law of the
Land.
Not everyone accepts that
statement. I have to quote Harmon Taylor:
"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.
....the Constitution doesn't even qualify to be the lining in the
bottom of most bird cages." The only part
of that with which I can agree is that we never had a constitutional
government. But that doesn't take away from the Constitution. The
Constitution means what it says and says what it means. Apparently if
we believe that, we're "clueless." That's what our treasonous judiciary
wants us to be:
"Clueless."
Rather than hold the Constitution as authority, the
unconstitutional government, represented and spoken for by the
unconstitutional judiciary, reverses the status by debunking the
Constitution and lifting itself up, by usurpation, as "the
authority," and anyone who doesn't accept that reversal is considered
"frivolous." I note that deciding something is "frivolous" is a
conclusion, and in my experience, there's
never been a judge who has supported that conclusion by findings of
fact. I used to be perplexed about that, but now I realize that
government is a fraudulent operation and we cannot expect its decisions
to be supported by fact.
The
Constitution is not a contract or a compact,
because it is not an agreement between
parties. As I said above, from the perspective of the DOI, there are
two different entities: (1) the People, and (2) the government.
One created the other to serve and protect their interests. The People
and its created government are not equal "sides" that would form an
"agreement." The created product (entity) doesn't and cannot
"agree" to be created, nor to the terms of its creation. Clearly, the
Constitution is LAW. And violation of that LAW is TREASON! As I
recall, it was in Ex Parte Young where it was discussed that
officials committed "treason against the Constitution."
Don't take my word for it--
just analyze the facts yourself. The
People created the government by the
Constitution. Just
contemplate that point-- THINK about it. Can that be remotely
considered as a contract? or a compact? The fact that there never was a "constitutional government"
means that it never operated as such-- not
that it was never created. That's why the date of ratification is the
turning point of legitimacy of government.
4.
Enforcement of the
Constitution
That brings us
right into the next point. The reason the date of ratification of the
Constitution is the turning point of legitimacy of government is
because there was no means provided within the Constitution for the
People to enforce it. I think it's clear that the People ARE, or would
be, the enforcers. Rather than say, in relation to the
Constitution, "Parties to a contract must keep the
contract," say that everyone must obey the Constitution
(The Law) and laws in pursuance
thereof.
Yes, the People,
by the
Constitution, created
government and delegated to it its
restricted powers. While it is true that the Constitution has never
been specifically, knowingly, voluntarily, and
intelligently
abrogated by the
People, the system (unconstitutional government) likes to say that the
People (individuals) have, by practice, custom and usage abrogated it
by failing to enforce it-- by remaining silent, thereby "impliedly
waiving" their rights and "consenting" to become SLAVES. I shudder with
righteous indignation every time I hear that "explanation" from
our unconstitutional de facto government, and sadly, even from many
"patriots" who try to justify judges' actions on that basis. (I
call them "court apologists"). I'm sorry to say that they are
accessories to treason, if they promote such
propaganda.
While it is
established prima facie that the People "should be" the
enforcers of the Constitution, I wonder if they actually ARE since
there is no specific constitutional provision spelling out HOW they are
to enforce it. While the Second Amendment provides a means for the
People to protect themselves when necessary,
it should only be the ultimate means
when peaceful means (like J.A.I.L.) fail. A peaceful means would be the
Grand Jury; however the Constitution fails to provide specific
Grand Jury process and procedure for the People to implement, and thus
the power of the GJ has been usurped and transformed into an arm
of the prosecution. J.A.I.L. will restore GJ power to the
People.
Dorothy, you say
that the Constitution "is still in force and we are still the
enforcers." To my way of thinking, I don't believe the
Constitution
can be "in force"
absent a specific means of enforcing it. I
will say this, however: By nature, the People
(each individual) are sovereign OVER its created government, and that
includes the States. States didn't create people. [If the Eleventh
Amendment can be said to be the People's relinquishment of sovereignty
to the States, courts have ruled (bless their hearts) that 42/1983 is
an exception to that Amendment. (Again, I believe that's in Ex
Parte Young). But I can't believe that the People, by the
Eleventh Amendment, willingly gave up the respect by the
State to their birthright, and consented to
be regarded as subjects or slaves of the
State. People can't give up the right itself-- it's unalienable.
But they can give up any respect to it. (To me, that's a disrespect to
their Creator who endowed them with it in the
first place.)] This Eleventh Amendment discussion is a "rabbit
trail."
Since the People
by nature are sovereign OVER government, as they are the creator
("institutor"), by the Constitution, of
government, it logically follows that the People have the
inherent right to enforce it-- with or
without a constitutional provision. The DOI states that the People have
the duty to throw off "such government" and provide "new guards" for
their future security. But it doesn't say HOW that is to be done, or
WHAT the new guards are to be. That's why a constitutional provision
was necessary-- to set forth the process and
procedure.
Dorothy, you
said it is
"the people" who may, must and can (with God's help) do what
needs done to enforce it in spite of what was said: "but
is not enforceable by the People as it should have been."
It's that "do what needs to be done" that should
have been included in the Constitution. To leave it unspecified leaves
the danger of resorting to all-out violence which, if nothing else
works, WILL BE the outcome. The Framers should have foreseen that
possibility-- indeed probability --and spelled out a specific
non-violent, lawful means of enforcement by the
People.
* * * * * *
*
The rest of what
you say has, I think, already been covered here. This leaves us
with your final statement: This
brings us to the most important point of this whole
dissertation: "Let the
People now decide their own destiny, by
taking control of it! Pass
J.A.I.L. "
Thanks, Dorothy,
for your most informative response. It certainly gave me an opportunity
to thoroughly examine what you stated and to share this with our
readers. Perhaps there will be others who, when all is said and
done, can enlighten us even more to the need for J.A.I.L. The more
we examine these facts and issues, the clearer the need for J.A.I.L.
becomes!
-Barbie
ACIC, National
J.A.I.L.
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!
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 <><
Return To JNJ 2005
To JNJ Library Index for All Years