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 -----
February 03, 2005 8:05 AM
Subject: Re: Ron Is
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
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!
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
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
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
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 11:15
Subject: Re: Feedback
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
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.