J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________

Los Angeles, California                                       February 16, 2005
 
Mission Statement                  JNJ Library                     PayPal Support
Federal J.A.I.L.                           FAQs                    What?MeWarden?

 
That Division of Power between The Government and The Governed
Only when the governed do the enforcing will enforcement work.
 
Re:  Feedback on "Constitution in Form Only."  The following is an exchange between a Virginia J.A.I.L.er and Barbie of J.A.I.L. from which we can learn something. We welcome friendly exchanges, as long as they are done in good faith-- as the below is. Our thanks to this Virginia J.A.I.L.er for being a testing ground for us, also, to be able to hone up on the principles we present. It is important that the People know and understand the distinction between the natural authority of the People and the delegated power of government that derives not by Nature, but from the People.
 
----- Original Message -----
To: VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 8:05 AM
Subject: Re: Ron Is Half-and-half..........

Good morning, Barbie. Thank you for your words of encouragement. I'd like to comment if I could.
 
The general proposal of your email is that we have a Constitution in form only, and that it is to be compared to a loaded gun with no bullets to enforce it. I respectfully disagree. There are 'enforcement provisions'. I don't think the Constitution is a gun sans bullets so much as I think the Constitution is a fully loaded gun with no general population as a whole brave enough to pull the trigger. In the Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2 unmistakably declares: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Clause 3 fortifies the Supremacy Clause by mandating that "judicial Officers" of the several states take an "Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution." Courts have ruled that the United States also constitutes a "state".
 
Article I Section 10 of the Constitution states that no state can pass any laws impairing the obligations of contracts. In an indirect way of speaking, contracts are the "enforcement provision" of the Constitution. Contract law supersedes all other types of law, as contract law is the law on which all other laws are based. When a judge takes an Oath of Office, he is entering into a binding contract with the American people, in which he affirms that he will uphold the Constitution. The Bible states at Galatians 3:15 that, even though a contract is made between mortal men, once that contract is confirmed (executed), then NO MAN may disannul (void) or add anything to (change the wording of) that contract. When a judge violates his Oath of Office, the proper action is to send that judge an affidavit, affirmed and notarized under penalty of perjury. It should require that judge to affirm with his own affidavit under penalty of perjury and notarized, that his actions were correct, and to rebut each and every charge in your affidavit on a point-by-point basis. If he does not do so, or fails to answer altogether, then he is in default, and has admitted your charges as truth. In a court of law, an unrebutted affidavit always stands as truth.
 
Your asseveration that people are unable to force judges to obey their Oaths of Office is incorrect. That Oath constitutes a contract, and if he breaches that contract, he may be tried just as any regular citizen may. The Courts have ruled that if a judge intentionally commits wrongs, then he ceases to act as a judge, and acts as a private citizen, and is not immune from prosecution. What if your affidavit doubles as a novation, which holds that if a judge fails to answer your affidavit, or gives a deficient answer (one not sworn to under penalty of perjury and notarized which rebuts the charges levied in your affidavit on a point-by-point basis) then he agrees to voluntarily relinquish his rights to due process, including but not limited to, immunity of any type, statutes of limitations, appeals of any type, trial by jury, jurisdiction/venue? If he does not answer, or gives a deficient answer, then he has voluntarily given up his option of immunity under contract. Since no state may pass laws impairing the obligations of contracts, the courts could not use state statute or [state] Constitutional provisions of immunity to protect him.
 
Last, I would like to address your asseveration that "If indeed you get "results" in getting obedience from government officials in performing their official duties according to law, then that is like a "win" in Las Vegas. They need a few winners in order to keep the people fooled into believing that there is legitimacy in the program. If people never got "results" in government action, as you call it, it would quickly reveal the fraud that it really is. They like people like you who believe in the integrity of government, because without that, it would fail completely..." Christ said that if a kingdom is divided against itself, it could not stand. Why on Earth would the government not decide cases in favor of citizens, and set its agenda back? I disagree with your statement. My results are not like a 'win in Las Vegas'. My results are from faith in God, along with application of the knowledge He has graciously bestowed upon me, and not of 'blind luck' or government easement. The judges here [state and federal] know my name quite well, and they hate me. They get very uncomfortable when they see me coming, because they know I'm going to stick someone's feet in the fire. I LIKE IT THAT WAY. They should fear and respect the people because their power comes from us.
 
Trust me when I tell you, I am the last person that any judge would ever 'give' a win in order to appease me. To the contrary, every judge I've ever been involved with has gone out of his way to deny my rights (even if breaking the law to do so). I am simply taking that power of their self-perceived discretion away from them, and letting them know that if they do not honor their Oaths of Office they will be prosecuted, and they are not immune. To 'give' me a win in the General Registrar case would drastically alter the state's voter registration laws and procedures contrary to the state's alleged intent. It will set their voter identification law agenda back at least 50 years. Given the way states are pushing to use the SSN to identify people, I think you would agree that NO STATE will "voluntarily" do that!  
 
There is already one state judge who stands to be prosecuted in this matter for a host of crimes, and, because he is bound by an Oath of Office, he has REFUSED to come to her aid since I served her with the affidavit. (Before I served her with the affirmed notarized affidavit, he ran to help her every chance he got). Now all of a sudden, he is deathly silent. Why? Because he wants to appease me out of the kindness of his heart? RIGHT! He is afraid for his job as well as his legal future because it has become terrifyingly clear to him that I am playing the one card he simply forgot about. The Commonwealth's Attorney has also gone out of his way to avoid representing her. Is it a coincidence that attorneys are also under an Oath of Office? Methinks not. The bottom line is that these people are NOT going to proverbially stick their necks out for her, because they KNOW she broke the law, and she's been caught dead to rights. She affirmed that fact by defaulting on the affidavit which accused her of the crimes.
 
I am happy to help you any way that I can, but I cannot avail myself of the idea that my method is blind luck. It has worked every time I have used it. God has provided me with this knowledge, and I intend to use it!

Suffolk, Virginia
 
Thank you for your comments. I think I said the Constitution is like an UNLOADED gun-- it's there, but not operable. Another illustration is a car without gasoline-- no matter how expensive and high-tech. Without gasoline it's not going anywhere.
 
Yes, the Constitution is a beautiful document, as it READS-- everything you cite is great, as far as a reading assignment goes. But how can the People in general ENFORCE obedience to those terms on the tyrannical government we have?  Now, apparently you are an exception-- apparently YOU have what it takes to get them to cooperate. I say "Congratulations!"
 
However, that doesn't negate the fact that the People need a formal written enforcement provision to be able to use in order to force the orderly and lawful obedience to the Constitution by government--  as a formal process and procedure. There are enough people out there who, despite all the demands they make, citing this and that from the Constitution, and any other laws on the books that apply, are not able to get them addressed in court. Ron and I speak from 18 years of trying to get redress in the courts, at all levels, state and federal. Our facts and citations of law are ignored!
 
What I am saying is, that it is undeniable that there is NO enforcement provision by which the People can enforce the terms of the Constitution. Contract or not-- judges don't care because we can't do anything about it. The People are blocked procedurally from getting judicial redress. That's why we need J.A.I.L.
 
Let me ask you, despite the fact that you apparently have everything under control and personally you don't need J.A.I.L., do you realize that nevertheless J.A.I.L. is needed generally by the People in order to have a method spelled out on the books to get government compliance with constitutional requirements?  Would you lose anything by backing J.A.I.L. and making it available to the People generally? No one has to implement it unless they choose to do so. But do you agree it would be nice to have it available just in case someone would need it?
 
Think of a building that has never caught on fire. Regardless of that, wouldn't it be nice to have a fire escape JUST IN CASE it did catch fire some day?  Even if Superman wouldn't need the fire escape-- he could just jump down or fly down out of the building if it caught fire. But most people couldn't do that. So should Superman (I'm just using that to illustrate my point-- I'm not calling you names) deny having the fire escape installed for the possible benefit of others who may need it, even if he doesn't? We have to think beyond ourselves. It's the People generally that have to be able to protect themselves against a tyrannical government, without violence.
 
I'm not arguing your ability to do all that you say you can. I'm just saying that regardless of everything the Constitution provides in writing, and maybe even provides in practice when they want to-- there is still not an enforcement clause available to the People to use when they feel the need to do so, in any particular case.  You say "There are enforcement provisions" and yet you cite only things that government is supposed to do-- in other words, government enforcement of itself. I find that the People can't rely on government enforcing itself-- the People have to enforce the Constitution because government has a conflict of interest.  So what if it's a contract, or an Oath, or whatever else it is, if they don't want to be bothered with it, they won't, because it isn't enforceable BY THE PEOPLE. Law is only as good as its enforceability!  And enforceability has to be by whomever's interests are at stake, or in jeopardy. And that's the People! It's their interests that must be protected against a tyrannical government, as pointed out in the DOI.
 
I'm glad you're a Brother In Christ. However, J.A.I.L. is for unbelievers as well as Believers. Actually Ron was led of Christ to write the J.A.I.L. Initiative, and Christ will allow J.A.I.L. to succeed in His Good Time. In the meantime, we are told to "occupy until He comes" which means we must be busy doing His Work here on earth. For Ron, it is continuing the J.A.I.L. campaign for as long as it takes. J.A.I.L. is the ministry to which Christ has called him. Ron was ordained in 1977 and has graduated from several Bible Colleges. So Ron and I both have a personal relationship with Christ as our Savior and we understand what that is about.
 
Meanwhile, the People still need J.A.I.L. to be available to them as an enforcement provision for constitutional obedience by any judge which will in turn affect government as a whole. If anyone doesn't see the need for it, then they don't have to use it. But it should be made available for those who will need it nevertheless.
 
Thanks again for writing. I hope you will support this cause.
 
-Barbie
victoryusa@jail4judges.org
 

----- Original Message -----
To: VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 11:15 PM
Subject: Re: Feedback

Hello Barbie,
 
First, I thank you for having intelligent conversation with me concerning this issue. Alot of people have their minds in a "set" process, regardless of whether their information is reliable or garbage, and don't want to hear what others have to say. Ultimately, they wind up passing along 'bad' information which always seems to get into trouble some poor jabroni whose zeal has run ahead of his knowledge, and he charges forward without knowing what he's doing. I think everyone benefits with dialogue, as it promotes a pool of ideas from which a basic common knowledge may be structured.
 
Second, I continue by using your own argument against you. I do not say this to discourage you in any way, but to prepare you for the arguments that you will undoubtedly receive from judges and lawyers. You have argued that Constitutional contracts and Oaths cannot 'make' a judge obey the law, because they are naught more than paper and ink. You are pushing for an enforcement clause in the Constitution, but I fail to see how that would be any sort of silver bullet? If you cannot force a judge to honor a lawful and Constitutional contract, what on Earth makes you think that he will obey any sort of enforcement clause? Is not such an 'enforcement clause' also only merely paper and ink? What would make an 'enforcement clause' in the Constitution any more enforceable than any of the other Articles or Amendments?
 
What forces judges and lawyers to honor agreements is when you bring to light in the public forum the fact that they are breaking the law. That makes people ask questions, and judges are terrified of in inquisitive public. Judges and lawyers fear contracts (including the Oath of Office) because it forces them to assume personal liability for their actions and statements, and takes away their safeguards of "immunity", and "hiding behind their office". Government officials routinely either fail to file their Oaths of Office altogether before taking office (as the law requires), or they are rewording their Oaths from what the law requires them word for word to say. When a judge or lawyer does this (rewords or fails to file altogether), HE IS NOT UNDER OATH TO THE CONSTITUTON. However, he is at such time impersonating a state officer, committing fraud by accepting paychecks from the state for the performance of the duties of an office that he is not qualified to hold, etc. When such is the case, the judge or lawyer is not acting as a state actor, but as an individual. Immunity will NOT shield him from prosecution. He is committing crimes, and may be charged with such. Galatians 3:15 provides some Biblical insights into what God has to say about contracts.
 
Now, Barbie, I'll be the first to admit that most people are not nearly as tenacious as I am. Call it a weakness if you must. I just believe in a no nonsense, in-your-face approach. Tersely speaking, I like to give the Courts a dose of their own medicine. We may have some different ideas, but we're working towards the same goal. I am involved in several tense prosecutions right now, and it really puts a demand on my time (you'll notice that even this email came to you after 2 a.m. my time) as far as balancing it all with work and life. For me to even pretend that I could pledge any significant amount of undivided time to J.A.I.L. right now would not be fair to you or me.
 
HOWEVER, I do believe in your cause, for ours are one and the same. Every safeguard helps. Everyone deserves to live free from fear of oppression from the government. We may go about it a little differently, but we will arrive at the same place. In that regard, if there is anything I can do to help you in any way, please let me know, and I'll do my best.
 
Blessings,
 

 
Dear J.A.I.L.er
 
Again, thank you for your comments. I'm afraid you miss the point altogether of what we are trying to convey-- the People must established an official process, on the books, by which THEY can enforce the terms of the Constitution on a wayward government. There has to be that "stand off" (if you will)-- that division of power between the government and the governed. All authority cannot be placed in government alone-- there has to be a final, ultimate, autonomous and sovereign power OVER government (now I'm speaking about among mankind-- not the Power of Christ). The Constitution, to be made whole, effective and workable, has to provide within its text, not only the power delegated to the government by the People, but also the People's own sovereign and independent authority OVER their delegated powers. You see-- delegated power is NOT ultimate power within the sphere of mankind. The People MUST be able to enforce their delegated power given to government. There has to be that distinction and division.
 
"...governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers FROM the consent of the governed, ..."  DOI.  Do you see the division there??  "From the consent of the governed" indicates that the inherent power of the governed [i.e., the People] is superior to the delegated power given by them to the government. By nature, there cannot be effective enforcement of the delegated power within that delegated power. By nature, that enforcement of the delegated power necessarily must be by the delegating power. Do you see the distinction between "delegated" power and "delegating" power-- the one that delegates TO, and the one that receives that delegation FROM.  That's two opposite sides of the "fence." And the fence must be there as a dividing point between the two.
 
The DOI goes on to state what happens if the government (to whom power is delegated by the governed) fails to execute that delegated power as specified by the governed in the Constitution:  "...that whenever any form of government [receiving delegated power from the governed] becomes destructive of these ends [i.e., the duties delegated to it by the governed spelled out in the Constitution], IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR ABOLISH IT, AND TO INSTITUTE NEW GOVERNMENT.... " (Emph. added).  Again do you see the necessity of that division between government and governed??  That is a natural division, not a political one. It's one that exists by nature, BUT to make it work as it should, it must be spelled out as a provision in the Constitution in order to provide that "guard" specifically, to protect the governed from a disobedient government. 
 
A good illustration of why that division between the government and the governed must be specifically provided in the Constitution, is that when the Constitution was written, the federal judiciary was considered the "guardian of People's rights."  The Supreme Court has stated that in many of its case decisions. That "guardianship" was to be carried out by Due Process of Law which is defined as "The touchstone of due process is protection of the individual against arbitrary action of government, Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U.S. 114, 123 (1889)".  Daniels v. Williams (1986) 474 U.S. 327, 331. 
There again, you see the division between the individual and government. But the fallacy here is that the federal judiciary is government.  By nature, we can't expect government, on its own, to respect that division. That's why the judiciary must be held accountable to the People, in order to see that the division between government and the governed IS respected and enforced.
 
You say: If you cannot force a judge to honor a lawful and Constitutional contract, what on Earth makes you think that he will obey any sort of enforcement clause? Is not such an 'enforcement clause' also only merely paper and ink? What would make an 'enforcement clause' in the Constitution any more enforceable than any of the other Articles or Amendments?
 
As I said above, by nature government will not enforce itself. Only when the governed do the enforcing will it work. Enforcement of the Constitution has to be from outside the "jurisdiction" (if you will) of the Constitution-- outside the realm of the field of delegated powers, beyond the parameters of restricted power delegated to the government.  And that's the realm of the governed-- the People.
 
I believe this is important enough to put out as a J.A.I.L. News Journal. The People have to understand how important this distinction is, if we are ever going to be able to restore the ability to exercise our liberty and freedom. There is a distinction between government and the governed, and by nature it's "jurisdictional."  It's "natural jurisdiction" -- the natural jurisdiction of government and a separate and independent natural jurisdiction of the governed. They must be recognized and exercised in their natural spheres-- the delegated power and the delegating power. For over 200 years, the delegating power has been asleep at the wheel, and the delegated power has ruled the roost by usurpation, and these evils are no longer sufferable!

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! AddRemove@jail4judges.org
E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
Get involved at JAIL_SALE_USA-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
 
"..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