WHAT? The Constitution
Ex Parte Restraining
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.
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
The Document is a Ex Parte
Restraining Order. No party to which a R. O. applies happily accepts such
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
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--
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
are no longer sufferable!
Let the People now decide
their own destiny, by taking control of it!
ACIC, National J.A.I.L. Admin.
To be added or removed, write to VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate,
minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one
striking at the
-- Henry David Thoreau <><
----- Original Message -----
From: Liberty Creed
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
My personal opinion on an ' Enforcement clause in
the Constitution' is this-that it does exist. The 'states' can desolve the
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 1:59
Return To JNJ 2005
To JNJ Library Index for All Years