Editorial by Barbie, ACIC, National J.A.I.L.
Hello folks, I just read the below exchange, sent
to us by one of our Texas JAILers, Aleithia Artemis (thanks Aleithia),
and it is so illustrative of what routinely happens when the "powers that
be" are not accountable to the People. That's the nitty-gritty of it all!
Once J.A.I.L. is in place, these things will not continue.
Just imagine (you don't have to imagine-- it's
happening!) the ease with which government-- whatever branch-- simply
(and I mean SIMPLY) changes
what they don't "like" in our Constitution, or laws in pursuance thereof,
to "fit" their agenda-- as THEY see fit. The thing I
can't imagine (but yet it's been happening for
over two centuries-- incredible!) is that a relatively small handful of
men (and women)-- what, maybe a hundred or so? -- are able to carry
off this tremendous scam on the entire American People-- how many
hundreds of millions?-- and the People not only allow it to continue, but
worse-- they allow themselves to be brainwashed into thinking it's FOR
The judiciary routinely dismiss suits filed against
judges, saying they're filed by "disgruntled litigants" who don't "like"
the decision made against them. That's mighty convenient, isn't it? But
it's okay for government to --not file suit-- but simply
change unilaterally what they don't "like" in
the law and especially the Constitution, even ignore it
The fact is --which judges simply throw off-- that
there has been no decision in many, if not most,
of the suits against judges. That has certainly been the case of Ron
Branson! There has never been a decision in Ron's several cases against
judges because there has never been the process due in order to litigate
the merits of the case to bring about a
decision! Yet the judiciary "conveniently use" the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine to summarily dismiss suits against judges for
lack of due process, that says a suit may not be brought to federal court
after a final state court decision-- and
even presenting evidence on an appeal that there could not have been a
decision due to the lack of due process in order to reach one-- all of
which is ignored-- the appellate court writes up an opinion containing
so-called "facts" totally misrepresenting the true facts brought on
appeal, to fit their conclusion: Dismissal AFFIRMED.
Of course if it's not the Rooker-Feldman abuse,
there's always the "judicial immunity" abuse used to stonewall judicial
accountability for their misconduct of law, even shown by black-and-white
evidence on the record. It's really quite SIMPLE, isn't it?
Besides arbitrarily denying redress of grievances,
the judiciary can as a "bonus," at their whim, capriciously impose
sanctions against a plaintiff or petitioner in any amount they dream up,
for filing a "frivolous" appeal (or "frivolous" motion, or whatever the
charging document may be). The term "frivolous" is a
conclusion-- not a fact. There are certain
criteria that must be established by evidence in order to conclude an
action is "frivolous." But how often are findings of facts offered by a
judge when deciding "frivolous" anything? Opposing counsel don't even
have to write up a script for the judge to sign. SIMPLE, isn't it?
You see, folks, all of this legal trash ultimately
winds up washing up on the steps of the United State Supreme Court.
That's where it all ends up. The judiciary, and government in general,
may think that it's all gone and "settled" once the decision by the SC is
made, (more and more 5-4 decisions-- I like how Aleithia describes
them: "the five Supremacists")
but it isn't. It's all still there, piled up in
front of the SC. The rubbish must be approaching the front doors by now
after so many years of accumulation. While the system may consider the
matters "closed" -- far from it! The People are slowly waking up to the
fact that the system of government is a FRAUD, being led by the final
backstop-- the judiciary.
Folks, We the People are in
truth and in fact the "final backstop" of government in this country. All
the People have to do is exercise their
inherent political power! Government power is not
omnipotent power-- it is delegated power by the
People for the purpose of protecting their
inherent, unalienable rights. Was that purpose carried out in the recent
USSC case (another 5-4 decision) of Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. _____, decided
Think about it-- how simple it
is for five people to
overthrow a most fundamental Right of the People throughout this country
to own private property and have it protected
(that's secured, not seized) by government. The "greater good" is
not government's interests, but the People's
interests. "Raising tax revenues," "providing jobs," "beautifying cities"
are NOT in the People's interests if they are at the
expense of People's sacred and fundamental Rights. The term
"public" when used by government turns out to be "government" regarding
interests, or "good." The Kelo decision is supposedly in
the "public's interests" --yet who actually benefits? As the saying goes,
"Follow the money." All the rationality in
the world doesn't negate the fact that People's fundamental Rights are
taken from them by government. Rights that are unalienable, are indeed
alienated. The Rights themselves are nonetheless unalienable as a matter
of self-evident truth however alienated (i.e., stolen) they are by
government greed and fraud. How simple it is--
by a measly five human beings!
Folks, is it time for J.A.I.L.
I'd say it is way past
Signature gathering is happening now in South
Anyone at least 18 years of age can help-- no other
or call (605) 231-1418
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 9:23 PM
Subject: RE: - who owns who.........for due
Talk about legislating from the bench! My own comments in Bill
Walker's amended text, below. Mr. Walker, feel free to
contact me if you like, at info in sig-line.
From: Big Al
Subject: Fw:- who owns
who.........for due considerations..........
Original Message -----
Dear Mr. Schulz,
� a recent federal court
decision �completely refutes any
challenge to the legality
of the 16th Amendment. In sum, this case, Walker
v United States, in
combination with other judicial rulings grants
�complete control of the
entire Constitution itself.
� the power of Congress is now
Does this mean Congress has power over judges? Over the Prez and armed
we had power over Congress, then this could be a good
� the repeal of the 16th
Amendment has received more
applications for a convention from the states than any other
subject in the history of this nation. In total, 39
applied to Congress for a convention to repeal the
16th Amendment. As Congress has not acted to accept
any recessions of these applications, it is clear
these applications remain in effect to this
date. (Please see pages 689,
776 in the overlength brief referred to in the accompanying
court order for more specific information. This
brief can be downloaded at
website www.article5.org.) The total of
39 states is at least one more state than is required for
ratification of an
amendment repealing the 16th Amendment and five more states
that are required for a convention to be called for that
So a Repeal here seems to be a pretty popular
� until the ruling by Chief
Judge Coughenour in Walker v United States it was universal
opinion, � that it was obligatory
Congress call a
convention if the proper number of states
because there had been a
judicial ruling in this matter this universal
�has now been replaced by an
official government policy entirely
contrary to that opinion.
Talk about legislating from the
Perhaps Coughenour could benefit from a petition similar to the
one circulating about the 5 Supremacists in the Kelo v. New
That basic policy is Congress may ignore any directive of
the Constitution imposed on it
by the word "shall."
In short, Congress
or any agency created by it is
not bound by the Constitution. In his ruling Judge Coughenour
altered the meaning of the word "shall" from
its previous obligatory
meaning to that of an option on the part of
THIS is how some judges legislate from the bench!
And how easy it is to do an end-run around the Constitution, or
ANY law, ordinance, statute, code, etc. You just capriciously
invent a conveniently different meaning from the original
intent when the law went into effect.
Indeed, under the
Walker v United States
ruling, there is nothing to prevent Congress from passing an
"amendment" to the Constitution with the issue never even
being submitted to the states or
people for ratification.
Therefore, if the IRS states the 16th Amendment is legal, that
agency as a representative of Congress
is correct regardless of any facts to
Hold on there, Nellie. Exactly when did IRS become a
"representative of Congress?"
And yes, I have direct personal experience (although not w/the
IRS on this) of Facts and Law not
"right" granted to the people in the Constitution from voting,
to free speech, to trial rights are totally at the
discretion of the government as they all
are expressed by the word
"shall" in the Constitution and thus are now merely
options controlled entirely by the
Very conveniently different meaning of a term from when law
first went into effect.
approved of the legal tactics used by the local United States
Attorney to achieve this goal.
None of the officials
contacted have refuted a single allegation made in that
My experience with the local US atty in my case was that he
(politely) said over the phone, that all he ever does is defend
dirty government agents. OK, he phrased it much
better than that, and took a long time to say it. But that was the
Thank you for your time.
Cc: Dan Bryant, DOJ
Charles Rossotti, IRS
Connie Brod, C-Span
Roscoe Bartlett, U.S. Congress
Ron Paul, U.S. Congress
Webmaster's Note: Please see our page on Eminent
Domain Abuse for more information.
Judicial Accountability Initiative Law - www.jail4judges.org
Contribute to J.A.I.L. at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood,
See our active flash, http://www.jail4judges.org/Flash.htm
JAIL is a unique addition to our form of gov't.
JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY
E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
Get involved at JAIL_SALE_USAemail@example.com
To be added or removed, write to firstname.lastname@example.org
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an
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