Constitutional Guardian for Justice and for Lawless America!: 2012

Friday, June 1, 2012

The Left - Watch What They Do, Not What They Say!: For Greater Glory - Vice President Marco Rubio

The Left - Watch What They Do, Not What They Say!: For Greater Glory - Vice President Marco Rubio: “For Greater Glory” the movie being released today staring Andy Garcia “A CUBAN AMERICAN FROM FLORIDA” depicts a historic event in Mexico ...

Black Robe Regiment Pastor: “With 'Friends' Like The U.S. Government, Who Need...

Black Robe Regiment Pastor: “With 'Friends' Like The U.S. Government, Who Need...: “With 'Friends' Like The U.S. Government, Who Needs Enemies ?” As social morals continues to make a nose-dive downwards across our n...

Contact Congress: ~ DOJ Eric Holder Suing Sheriff Joe " Obamas Gun r...

Contact Congress: ~ DOJ Eric Holder Suing Sheriff Joe " Obamas Gun r...: CONTACT YOUR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS BELOW! & DEMAND THEY STOP BARAK OBAMA & ERIC HOLDER ! ITS TIME TO UPHOLD OUR LAWS NOT FIGHT THOSE WHO ARE...

Voluntary Taxes and Liberty

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Ancient Civilizations John Anthony West: The Invisible Science

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Does Obama Really Believe His Own BS? – Patriot Update. My answer is, NO he does not. He knows what he's doing and is for agenda 21 and for the UN takeover!

Does Obama Really Believe His Own BS? – Patriot Update

This is a call for action America! Please do your homework on this issue, as we are losing our civil rights here in America!

Penny Young Nance, Chief Executive Officer and President
Concerned Women for America

President Obama and his green science czar, John Holdren, are insisting that Congress must ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), a move that would kick off a massive global redistribution of power and wealth.

But what makes this latest Obama power-grab so frightening is the fact that many in Congress are listening -- giving serious consideration supporting a treaty that has been called a “progressive dream”.

This is hardly a dream. In fact, ratification would create a free-market nightmare forcing the U.S. to surrender its sovereignty around the world, and require American businesses to pay international royalties, and submit to an international tribunal.

Concerned Women for America is urging ALL members of our online team to read the alert below and then take fast action – letting your Senators and key leaders know that you oppose the Law of the Sea Treaty.

The Obama Administration and Leftist supporters of a globalist agenda are attempting to surrender our sovereignty through the ratification of the 1970s Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) – a move that would grant the United Nations control of our territorial waters as well us requiring us to surrender half of our offshore oil revenue!

But that’s just the tip of this iceberg … ratification would put a U.N. body in charge of 70 percent of the earth’s surface – effectively muzzling U.S. law while granting ruling authority to radical environmentalists who would have the authority to tax countries for using their own property.

All in the name of global governance!

When it first surfaced decades ago, President Reagan smelled a rat and rejected it. However, times have changed, and Obama and his socialist cohorts are pushing for passage, appealing to the Senate that LOST must be ratified for the good of the world.

Sadly, many are listening!

+ + Anti-American agenda surfaces

LOST, presents a grave threat to our national sovereignty by subjecting our military and U.S. businesses to mandatory international dispute resolution by others who may be motivated by anti-American agendas. The decisions made by the “Authority” would be final and devoid of any appeals process.

Further, LOST would force U.S. companies to literally handover strategic technologies to Third World countries – many are either declared or potential enemies of the U.S.

This provision alone strips businesses of their natural and constitutionally protected right to private property. But it could also require us to voluntarily hand over military secrets to countries which seek to harm us!

+ + What Liberty-loving Americans Must Do

Back on May 23, The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on LOST in an attempt to bring the truth to light about the serious threat LOST represents to our sovereignty and security.

Friend of Concerned Women for America, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) is leading the charge to sink this treaty, and has begun circulating a letter in the Senate urging lawmakers to oppose the LOST treaty.

As of this writing, DeMint still doesn’t have the support needed in the Senate to defeat LOST.

That’s why I’m writing you today. This is a frightening crisis that demands immediate grassroots attention.
I’m urging all members of our CWA team to schedule faxes for immediate delivery to key members of the Senate -- urging them to sign Sen. DeMint’s letter opposing ratification of the LOST treaty.

Our exclusive faxing system gives grassroots Americans an unprecedented opportunity to reach key lawmakers – including your two Florida senators and key decision-makers who have been entrusted to protect your freedom and security.

Don’t allow them to be coerced by Obama’s statistic regime. Don’t allow him to surrender our sovereignty and security to support his radicalized agenda.

Take immediate action right now by going here.

Vastly underreported by the liberal media, the threat of the LOST treaty is unknown by the vast majority of Americans who would be aghast if they knew the truth.

Stand at the wall right now for them by appealing to your senators as well as other key leaders urging them to follow the actions of Ronald Reagan who had the wisdom to turn his back on this socialist scheme.

With your help, CWA is hopeful that we can deluge Senate offices in a sea of fax opposition over the LOST treaty!

But it starts with you.

Go here now to see our fax targets, our personalized letters and to take action!

Thank you in advance for standing with Concerned Women for America!

Blessings,

Penny Young Nance
Chief Executive Officer and President

P.S. After scheduling your faxes for fast delivery, forward this message to your friends and family, urging them to join with you in the fight to protect our sovereignty and security by clicking here.

Sunday, May 27, 2012

CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYER HAS READ THE ENTIRE BILL

Sent: Thu, May 24, 2012

Wait until you read this... A retired Constitutional lawyer has read the entire proposed healthcare bill. Read his conclusions and pass this on as you wish.

The Truth About the Health Care Bills - Michael Connelly, Ret. Constitutional Attorney Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be

unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected. To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are

saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession. The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business, and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats, and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled by the government.

However, as scary as all of that is, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated, If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.

The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. That Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people, and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with! I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care. This legislation also provides for access, by the appointees of the Obama administration, of all of your personal healthcare direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide...If you decide not to have healthcare insurance, or if you have private insurance that is not deemed acceptable to the Health Choices Administrator appointed by Obama, there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a tax instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn't work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the due process of law. So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much, out the original ten in the Bill of Rights, that are effectively nullified by this law It doesn't stop there though. The 9th Amendment that provides: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;The 10th Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control. I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights... Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution." If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it, without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway, I would hope the

American people would hold me accountable.

For those who might doubt the nature of this threat, I suggest they consult the source, the US Constitution, and Bill of Rights. There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.

Michael Connelly

Retired attorney,

Constitutional Law Instructor

Carrollton , Texas

[Mickey Chilton]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/connelly.asp

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/health-care-overhaul-constitutional/

AFTER HAVING READ THIS, PLEASE FORWARD....

If you don't care about our constitution, or your rights under it, just do nothing.

WE MUST HOLD CONGRESS ACCOUNTABLE BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.

Saturday, May 26, 2012

Georgia Ballot Challenge: Obama Walks On By

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Lone Star Watchdog: Why the Feds Want to Remove or Compromise the Offi...

Lone Star Watchdog: Why the Feds Want to Remove or Compromise the Offi...: The Office of the Sheriff is oldest office in this country. It is older then the office of the President of the United States. The office o...

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Sheriff Joe Arpaio: Obama Birth Certificate a Forgery | Vision to America

TalkShoe - Call - Lawless America with William M. Windsor

Black Robe Regiment Pastor: “ Nancy Schaefer's Murder; 2 Years Later, Nothing'...

Black Robe Regiment Pastor: “ Nancy Schaefer's Murder; 2 Years Later, Nothing'...: image from ndependentmail.com “ Nancy Schaefer's Murder; 2 Years Later, Nothing's Change...

Sunday, May 13, 2012

http://overruledmovie.com

Friday, May 11, 2012

How the Rockefeller Fund Killed Keystone | FrontPage Magazine

The Secret Government: FBI wants flat-out totalitarian spying on the internet

By Jim Wicker. Dull Clipper Blades!

Hello, my name is Jim Wicker. Do you have dull clipper blades? Clippers aren't working properly? Are your scissors not cutting as they should?

I provide a sharpening service, with 20 years experience, that specializes in clipper blades, and scissors. I can sharpen all clipper blades from the small trimmers to the large animal blades. I'm also able to repair problems in the clippers themselves.

I can sharpen all shears from the tiny mustache shears to the large upholstery shears. I can do all hair shears including the convex Japanese shears. I also do sewing shears as well as pinking shears.

So if you're in need of some sharpening, I'd appreciate the opportunity to assist you. Feel free to drop them off if you're in the area or you can mail them. Some local pick ups can be arranged.

PRICES;

Regular scissors $4 to $5 depending on the size.

Large upholstery shears and pinking shears $5

Hair stylist and Barber shears $13 - $18

Clipper blades $5

Large animal clipper blades (Stewart & Lister) $6

I've taken the liberty of including a few of my cards should you or any of your customers need my services.

Thank you

Jim Wicker

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Bret Baier's Invitation to Debate Natural Born Citizenship Accepted

Sunday, April 29, 2012

Dems Crafting Bill to Use IRS Code to Remove 2nd Amendment Rights | Vision to America

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Black Robe Regiment Pastor: “ Nancy Schaefer's Murder; 2 Years Later, Nothing'...

Black Robe Regiment Pastor: “ Nancy Schaefer's Murder; 2 Years Later, Nothing'...: image from ndependentmail.com “ Nancy Schaefer's Murder; 2 Years Later, Nothing's Change...

Monday, April 23, 2012

Ethics, judicial conduct agencies get lawmakers' scrutiny

Sunday, April 22, 2012

Parental Alienation

Parental Alienation: Video : Jayne Major, Ph.D. (Parenting Educator & Child Custody Consultant, Breakthrough Parenting Services, Inc. ) gives expert video advice on: What is "parental alienation"?; Why do parents engage in parental alienation?; How do I prevent parental alienation? and more. Behaviour & Communication.

Saturday, April 21, 2012

Bill Windsor, founder of LawlessAmerica.com and GRIP, and candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives.

I am also in the movie as many of you already know. Please pass this on to your friends and family who you know. I'm also asking, if you would so kindly help us pay for gas and hotel expenses. As gas and hotels are not sheep. You can send the money to Bill Windsor by sending him on email at, Bill@LawlessAmerica.com. If you would like to help him, as he will be driving to all 50 states interviewing victims throughout the states. And as you know, gas and hotels are not cheap. Any offer as a gift, will surely help for the cost for travailing expenses. Again, thank you also for your help!

Lawless America...The Movie will expose Judicial Corruption and Government Corruption for the world to see

Lawless America...The Movie will film victims of judicial corruption and government corruption from all across America.The government and the mainstream media have done everything possible to keep this story from being told. But a 50-state film trip begins on June 14, 2012, and the pandemic of government corruption will be exposed for the world to see.Lawless America...The Movie is all about exposing the fact that we now live in Lawless America. We no longer have laws that are enforced because judges do whatever they want to do. America has also become lawless because government officials are dishonest and/or corrupt.The movie will expose corruption in every state. The Movie will focus on victims. Corrupt judges and corrupt government officials will be exposed, and we will confront a number of the crooks.If anyone has ever questioned the story of a person who has expressed the view that they were a victim of the government or of judges, this movie will prove that the odds are that the corruption report was true. In fact, there are probably tens of millions of victims in the United States who never realized what happened to them.One feature length documentary movie is being produced. It will be shown in theaters, on Netflix, Blockbuster, and other such video places, and the movie will be presented at the Sundance Film Festival and other film festivals.In addition, videos will be produced for each state and for each type of corruption. Everyone who is interviewed for the film will record a three-minute segment that will be done as testimony before Congress as well as a 30-60 minute on-camera interview with Bill Windsor, founder of LawlessAmerica.com and GRIP, and candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives. The legislators in each state will receive the testimony from those in their state, and the members of the U.S. House and Senate will receive all of the testimony nationwide.Over 688 people are already scheduled to be interviewed for the movie. We will continue to accept as many requests as possible. The 50-state road trip is planned to take 143 days. The road trip starts in Atlanta and heads North and travels counterclockwise around the country. From Olympia, Washington, we will head up to Juneau, Alaska. Upon the return to Atlanta, Bill Windsor will fly to Honolulu as the 50th state.All filming will be done either at the State Capitol, at a courthouse in the state capital, or in a meeting room near the Capitol. For those who are unable to travel to the capital, you can still appear in the videos by recording your own video or by being interviewed on camera by Bill Windsor using a webcam and Skype. Webcams are available on loan to those who need one for their interview.It is our plan that this movie can educate many, many people about the reality that America is broken. We will expose many corrupt judges and government officials. We hope to generate a lot of publicity about corruption that the mainstream media usually hides from the public.We will deliver proposed judicial reform legislation to the governor and legislators at each state Capitol. We will make room in the film schedule for anyone with a great story of corruption. Email bill@lawlessamerica.com. For more information, go to www.LawlessAmerica.com.Please ask all of your friends to join this cause as the goal of this movie is to recover our fundamental rights by educating millions of Americans. Your friends need to be counted in that number. Take Action · via www.Causes.com

Tuesday, April 17, 2012

A Failed Constitution

The State of the Union under a failed Constitution

February 8, 1995

The time has come when it is necessary for someone to take upon himself the task of bringing to the attention of his fellow citizens that those who are sworn to uphold the Constitution are not doing so. That as a result the Nation is embarked on a very dangerous course, the ill effects in terms of financial cost,¹emotional cost and loss of constitutional rights, can be seen everywhere. This writer proposes to make his case to his fellow Citizens by writing a series of articles under the banner of the Federalist, numbered in sequence after those written by James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. They signed: "PUBLIUS". This writer will sign: "PUBLIUS II."

THE PROBLEM: The nation does not now and has not for some years experienced constitutional or representative government. That is because notwithstanding that the US Constitution was specifically written to prevent any single "same hands" group from accumulating all powers of government, one particular group has succeeded in doing precisely that. James Madison, author of the US Constitution, wrote: ²"No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty than that ... the accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." For then the laws are made not to serve justice, but rather to serve the personal profit of those who make them. To avoid the "same hands" accumulation of power, the Constitution incorporated a system of "separation of powers" and "checks and balances". This system created three separate branches of government. The Legislative (Congress), which makes the laws, the Judiciary (the Courts), which interprets the laws and the Executive (the Presidency), which enforces the laws. By separating the powers of government in this manner it was intended that each branch would serve as a "check" and "balance" to the powers of the other two. This was done in order to make certain that the government would never possess sufficient power to oppress the people. However for many years now, all three branches of government and the powers they command to control all government, ³legislative,

⁴executive⁵and judiciary have effectively "accumulated in the same hands". Those "same hands" belong to the legal profession. As a result the "same hands" lawyer/judges now make the laws, interpret the laws and enforce the laws, thus defeating the spirit, intent and purpose of the Constitution. Such control by this or any other group is unconstitutional because it violates both the separation of powers/checks and balances principles of the Constitution and the principle of representative government. These constitutional violations strike at the very heart and soul of the US Constitution. These violations emasculate the Bill of Rights create an elitist class similar to the European aristocracy of the eighteenth century, unaccountable to anyone but themselves. These violations enable both the Government and the elitist class, under color of law, to oppress the people, in ways too numerous to Decalogue in a single article. The control acquired has also seriously undermined the integrity of the legal profession. Fortunately the profession still contains a substantial number of very honest individuals upon whom the nation can rely for the furthering of this just cause. The solution: The solution lies in returning constitutional government to the United States by ascertaining that members of the legal profession not be permitted to exercise control over either the Executive or the Legislative branches of government. The solution can be achieved through the ballot box by voting lawyers out of office, or through the courts, by constitutionally challenging their election to the non-judiciary branches of government. Lawyers would continue to function in all other areas as before. In other words constitutional government requires the people to control the legal profession, not the legal profession to control the people. The reader is asked to remember that space limitations control the writer's ability to fully document arguments made. Let us begin with an examination of our rights as citizens under our Declaration of Independence: The Declaration of Independence holds certain truths to be self evident, "that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying it's foundations on such principles, and organizing it's powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect, their safety and happiness." ⁶It is clear at the present time that the nation's government has become destructive of the ends intended in the Declaration of Independence. The people are more distrustful of their elected officials than ever before, and deeply disturbed with government's inability to provide them with many of their rights under the Constitution. Among which are: Honest government, moral leadership, security, freedom from oppression, proper education, affordable access to the nation's system of justice, and affordable health care. It is therefore the right of the people to alter the government.⁷(In this case only to enforce the Constitution as written). What is unclear to the people is what to do or how to do it. The fundamental source of the nation's problems is not easily apparent. That source does not principally lie in the flawed nature of particular individuals who are elected to government office, for all human beings lack perfection. Rather the "flaw" lies with the way in which the "system" itself is being made to function by those responsible for its functioning. The "systemic flaw" is that the nation, although generally unaware of it, has elected to effective control of the Legislative and Executive branches of government, a plurality or majority of the "same hands" legal profession, as have already acquired absolute control of the Judiciary Branch of government. It is the members of the legal profession who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution.⁸It is to them that the nation looks for protection from the oppression of government. It is they who bear the full responsibility of bringing to the nation's attention that the Constitution prohibits single group "same hands" control and that such control has occurred. They have done neither. Instead they have both acquired unconstitutional control for themselves and concealed the fact from the nation. Yet it is probable that many in the profession are not even aware of what has occurred. For many years the legal profession has proceeded, unchallenged and unchecked, knowingly or not, with a history of constitutional violations and abuses against the people of the United States. These activities escalated in the last half century with the establishing of the so-called "Integrated Bars" in the individual States ⁹to which all practicing lawyers were required by law to belong, thus making every lawyer and judge "a part" of the judiciary. "Integrated Bars" were unconstitutionally¹⁰created by the Judiciary Branches of the States as an "arm" of the State Supreme Courts. After which State Constitutions were amended to transfer the admission and disciplining of lawyers and judges to the Judiciary Branch of Government of the individual States.¹¹Thus the legal profession became accountable to none but it's own peer group, unlike any other profession in the land. These and similar activities, whether by design or otherwise, produced a consolidation of all government power in the hands of the legal profession resulting in the following:

1. The profession has acquired virtually unlimited political power in the land, and with that the ability to make laws to serve its personal profit rather than justice.

2. The profession has maximized its ability to acquire the highest possible share of the nation's wealth for itself. 3.The profession has collectively though not individually, become the most corrupt, least respected and according to its own surveys, least trusted profession in the land.¹²4.The profession has (perhaps unwittingly), imposed on the nation enormous secondary costs essential for protection from the predatory nature of the profession.¹³5.Members of the profession, sworn to uphold the Constitution and the concepts of representative government and separation of powers, have (perhaps unwittingly for many) violated their oath by creating and operating a government, substantially without either. The pursuit of power and control of government by the legal profession is the natural expression of any group's attempt to maximize its own members, power and financial rewards. That is human nature. That is why the Constitution is opposed to any "single interest group" acquiring such control, whether tinker, tailor, soldier, sailor, lawyer, doctor or native, American chief. What has occurred though not a "conspiracy", does have precisely the same effects. In law that is known as a "constructive conspiracy."These matters raise a number of critical questions: I. How and when did the profession acquire control? II. What are the abuses that allowed such control and the abuses that now afflict the nation? III. Why is the nation still generally unaware of the existence of the problem or how serious it is? IV. Who specifically is responsible? V. What can and should be done about it? Subsequent articles will address these questions. Most important at this point is for the nation to become aware that as a direct result of the legal profession's unconstitutional control of all government an abundance of laws have been enacted, interpreted and enforced, for the personal profit of the profession, not justice. This imposes on the people of this nation a very high financial and emotional cost, as well as substantially depriving the people of their ability to exercise their full constitutional rights in any of the following areas: 1. Access constitutional remedies under the Bill of Rights, or 2. Gain reasonable access to the nation's courts, or 3. Exercise their first amendment right of free speech, or 4. Be free from a corrupt judiciary, or 5. Be free from the oppression of merit less lawsuits, or 6. Receive a fair trial, or 7. Live reasonably free from crime, or 8. Enjoy the right of self-determination through State constitutional amendments, or 9. Access affordable health care, or 10. Access safe and meaningful universal education or 11.Access divorce without war, or 12. Receive fair treatment in bankruptcies, or 13. Receive fair treatment in the adoption of children, or 14. Be free from the criminalization of activities not criminal anywhere else in the civilized world, or 15. Be free from oppressive and unreasonable regulation imposed by bureaucrats immune from accountability and the democratic process 16. Have the President pick his judges and Supreme Court Justices free of unwarranted influence, as well as many other areas too numerous to mention. Excluding lawyers, and any other "same hands" group that may emerge, from the Executive and Legislative branches will correct the problem. A similar problem existed in Britain in 1832.¹⁴There the British Lords (called Peers), controlled both the House of Lords and the House of Commons until they were excluded by Law and/or practice. The solutions called for here will do the same for this nation as excluding Peers from the Commons did for the British. This writer is merely calling for action tried and true and the application of sound and well established historical legal precedent. The first step and purpose of these articles in achieving either solution, requires informing and educating the people about the nature and extent of the problem, and how to resolve it.

PUBLIUS II (Ronald Bibace)

About the author, This writer became aware of the problem in 1985. The views presented here were first developed and articulated by this writer in 1989. This writer has become a constitutional scholar in pursuit of the justice of this cause. Sufficiently so that Professor Albert Blaustein,¹⁵a world renowned constitutional lawyer, international consultant, and prolific author of numerous books on the law, having never before heard the proposals articulated here, was persuaded that this writer's views are sound and should prevail in a court of Law, and has said so in writing. This writer is President and co-founder of a national organization dedicated to the restoring of constitutional and representative government. This writer like James Madison loves the law but is not a lawyer. This writer, like Alexander Hamilton, is an immigrant and a naturalized American citizen.

1 Estimates of financial costs to the nation vary between $300 billion and $1 trillion per year.

Federalist # 47, Jan 30, 1788

The US Senate has had an absolute majority of lawyers for years. The House of Representatives has had an overwhelming plurality and a near majority for just as long. Both the President and Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet are lawyers. The Judiciary consists 100% of lawyers.

Declaration of Independence, 1776

All lawyers and judges are required to swear an oath upholding the Constitution.

In Florida the State integrated Bar was created in 1949.

The Supreme Courts of the individual States created these entities in which the Court alone makes the law, interprets the law and enforces the law, affecting all citizens in the State in violation of the separation of powers principle of the Constitution. Many legal scholars have said so. No case has yet been brought to test the issue in federal court.

In Florida it was done by constitutional amendment to Article V of the Florida Constitution.

American Bar Association survey 1994. Occupational crime by Dr. Gary Green. (Nelson Hall 1990).

Professor Steve Magee, University of Texas at Austin. Economist, White House, Nixon era.

The Great Reform Act of 1832 by E.J. Evans 1983 (Methuen & Co. N.Y., N.Y.).

Albert Blaustein (1922-1994) Professor Emeritus, Rutger's University, Constitutional Consultant and counsel to Russia, Bolivia, Canada, Poland, Nepal, Uganda, Niger, Peru, Brazil, and many more. Author of more than 25 books, among which "Constitutions of the World" 22 volumes, updated annually.

Obama Lawyer Admits In Court Birth Certificate On White House Website Is A Forgery

Thursday, April 12, 2012

Tea Parties host birth certificate review at church in SCW - Your West Valley News: Topstory

Tea Parties host birth certificate review at church in SCW - Your West Valley News: Topstory: Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his Cold Case Posse presented their preliminary findings in their investigation of President Barack Oba…

Monday, April 9, 2012

Leaflet: Obama Put On Notice

Saturday, March 24, 2012

Ethics committee opens second look into Republican Rep. Vern Buchanan - TheHill.com

Friday, March 2, 2012

Sheriff Joe Arpaio: Obama Birth Certificate a Forgery | Vision to America

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

The Missing 13th Amendment

(Original)
Amendment XIII
If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honor, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.

Quote from The Missing 13th Amendment

The Missing 13th Amendment
"TITLES OF NOBILITY" AND "HONOR"

In the winter of 1983, archival research expert David Dodge, and former Baltimore police investigator Tom Dunn, were searching for evidence of government corruption in public records stored in the Belfast Library on the coast of Maine. By chance, they discovered the library's oldest authentic copy of the Constitution of the United States (printed in 1825). Both men were stunned to see this document included a 13th Amendment that no longer appears on current copies of the Constitution. Moreover, after studying the Amendment's language and historical context, they realized the principle intent of this "missing" 13th Amendment was to prohibit lawyers from serving in government.

So began a seven-year, nationwide search for the truth surrounding the most bizarre Constitutional puzzle in American history -- the unlawful removal of a ratified Amendment from the Constitution of the United States. Since 1983, Dodge and Dunn have uncovered additional copies of the Constitution with the "missing" 13th Amendment printed in at least eighteen separate publications by ten different states and territories over four decades from 1822 to 1860.

In June of this year, Dodge uncovered the evidence that this missing 13th Amendment had indeed been lawfully ratified by the state of Virginia and was therefore an authentic Amendment to the American Constitution. If the evidence is correct and no logical errors have been made, a 13th Amendment restricting lawyers from serving in government was ratified in 1819 and removed from our Constitution during the tumult of the Civil War.

Since the Amendment was never lawfully repealed, it is still the Law today. The implications are enormous.

The following was found at: http://www.barefootsworld.net/consti12.html
Click on the above link, find this part on that web page.
It has a lot of good footnotes, links, pictures, and references that are not shown here.

The Original Thirteenth Amendment
Ratified March 12, 1819

The Founders held an intense disdain and distrust of "Nobility" as a result of a long history, during Colonial times, of abuses and excesses against the Rights of Man and the established Common Law and Constitutions by the "Nobility", and therefore placed in the new Constitution two injunctions against acceptance of Titles of Nobility or Honor or emoluments from external sources. The Revolutionary War for Independence was primarily waged to eliminate these abuses and excesses of the "Nobility" and the "Monied Classes" from the life of the Nation, recognizing the Equality of all men.
As there was no penalty attached to a title of nobility or honor in the Constitution as originally ratified, the Original Thirteenth Amendment was proposed in December of 1809 to institute penalty for accepting or using a "Title of Nobility or Honor" to set oneself apart from, or superior to, or possessing of any special privileges or immunities not available to any other citizen of the United States, and to eliminate the widespread use of "emoluments" as bribery and of the legislatures and judiciary used to further the causes and positions of "Special Interests". It was an attempt to keep politicians and civil servants "Honest" in their service to the citizens.
As noted in the discussion in Article 1 of the Constitution, the original Thirteenth Amendment, was ratified in 1819, adding a heavy penalty upon any person holding or accepting a Title of Nobility or Honor, or emoluments from external powers by making that person "cease to be a citizen of the United States" and "incapable of holding any Office of Trust or Profit under the United States". This Amendment was proposed, properly ratified, and was a matter of record in the several States archives until 1876, by which time it was quietly, and fraudulently deleted, never repealed, during the period of Reconstruction after the Civil War and the presently acknowledged Thirteenth Amendment was substituted. The original records of the original 13th amendment were thought to be destroyed at the time of the burning of the capitol during the War of 1812, but have since been found in the archives of the British Museum, the national archives and in the archives of several of the States and territories. The fact of its existence had been lost to memory until, by chance, researchers discovered in the public library at Belfast, Maine an 1825 copy of the U. S. Constitution. Subsequent research shows that it was in the records of the ratifying states and territories until 1876, the last to drop it from record was the Territory of Wyoming after 1876. The most intriguing discovery was the 1867 Colorado Territory edition which includes both the "missing" Thirteenth Amendment and the current 13th Amendment, on the same page. The current 13^th Amendment is listed as the 14th Amendment in the 1867 Colorado edition.
The 1876 Laws of Wyoming which similarly show the "missing" Thirteenth Amendment, the current 13th Amendment (freeing the slaves), and the current 15th Amendment on the same page. The current 13th Amendment is listed as the 14th, the current 14th amendment is omitted, and the current 15th Amendment is in proper place.
For further discussion and the history of the Original Thirteenth Amendment see "Demon of Discord, Ratification and Suppression of the Original Thirteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States."
On December 3, 1860, the month after Lincoln was elected, President Buchanan asked Congress to propose an "explanatory amendment". It was to be another 13th Amendment, to eradicate and cover-up the deletion of the Original Thirteenth Title of Nobility and Honour Amendment. This proposed amendment, which would have forever legalized slavery, was signed by President Buchanan the day before Lincoln took office.
This amendment to the Constitution relating to slavery was sent to the states for ratification by the Second Session of the Thirty-sixth Congress on March 2, 1861, when it passed the Senate, having previously passed the House on February 28, 1861. It is interesting to note in this connection that this and the ratified Anti-Slavery amendment of 1865 are the only resolutions proposing amendments to the Constitution to have been signed by the President. The President's signature is considered unnecessary because of the constitutional provision that on the concurrence of two-thirds of both Houses of Congress the proposal shall be submitted to the States for ratification.
The resolve to amend signed by President Buchanan on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln's inauguration, read:
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the following article be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by three-fourths of said Legislatures, shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution, viz:
"ARTICLE THIRTEEN, No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."
In other words, President Buchanan had signed a resolve that would have forever permitted slavery, and upheld states' rights. Only one State, Illinois, Lincoln's home state, had ratified this proposed amendment before the Civil War broke out in 1861. It appears at 12 Stat. 251, 36th Congress. Two more State legislatures ratified it, beginning with Ohio on May 13, 1861, followed by Maryland on January 10, 1862.
But the onslaught of the Civil War taught that the Nation may be in even greater peril from the States than they ever were from the Nation. And so, after more than seventy years of national life, the people, by the presently acknowledged 13th Amendment and the two following, laid upon the States restrictions which a few years before would have been impossible. The Constitution had gone forty-six years (1819 - 1865) without an Amendment.
In the tumult of 1865, the original Thirteenth Amendment was removed from our Constitution. In a Congressional Resolve to amend dated December 5, 1864, approved and signed by President Lincoln, February 1, 1865, another Amendment numbered XIII (which prohibited slavery in Sect. 1, and ended states' rights in Sect. 2) was proposed. When, on January 13, 1865, a two-thirds vote was taken in the House of Representatives for proposing the currently presented 13th Amendment "in honor of the immortal and sublime event" the House adjourned. It was then presented to the States for ratification. Two months later, April 9, 1865, the Civil War ended with General Lee's surrender. On April 14, President Lincoln was assassinated, dying on April 15th.
On December 18, 1865, the "new" 13th Amendment loudly prohibiting and abolishing slavery (and quietly surrendering states rights to the federal government) was proclaimed adopted by Secretary of State Seward, replacing and effectively erasing the original Thirteenth Amendment that had prohibited acceptance of "titles of nobility" and "honors" and "emoluments", and dishonest politicians have been bought and bribed and have treasonously accepted graft from external sources ever since, with no thought of penalty.

This web page revised and updated on 080709

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Court Rules 2010 Bodyke Decision Did Not Eliminate Judicial Review of 'Adam Walsh Act' Sex Offender Classifications

Saturday, February 4, 2012

Uniform Commercial Code - Article 1

Saturday, January 28, 2012

Corruption within the Court, makes "Fraud upon the Court": Landmark Supreme Court Cases, for you to review an...

Landmark Supreme Court Cases, for you to review an...: Landmark Supreme Court Cases Marbury v. Madison (1803) Holding: Established the doctrine of judicial review. In the Judiciary Act of...

Landmark Supreme Court Cases, for you to review and share!

Landmark Supreme Court Cases

Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Holding: Established the doctrine of judicial review.
In the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress gave the Supreme Court the authority to issue certain judicial writs. The Constitution did not give the Court this power. Because the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, the Court held that any contradictory congressional Act is without force. The ability of federal courts to declare legislative and executive actions unconstitutional is known as judicial review.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
Holding: The Constitution gives the federal government certain implied powers.
Maryland imposed a tax on the Bank of the United States and questioned the federal government's ability to grant charters without explicit constitutional sanction. The Supreme Court held that the tax unconstitutionally interfered with federal supremacy and ruled that the Constitution gives the federal government certain implied powers.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
Holding: Separate schools are not equal.
In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the Supreme Court sanctioned segregation by upholding the doctrine of "separate but equal." The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People disagreed with this ruling, challenging the constitutionality of segregation in the Topeka, Kansas, school system. In 1954, the Court reversed its Plessy decision, declaring that "separate schools are inherently unequal."

Cooper v. Aaron (1958)
Holding: States cannot nullify decisions of the federal courts.
Several government officials in southern states, including the governor and legislature of Alabama, refused to follow the Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision. They argued that the states could nullify federal court decisions if they felt that the federal courts were violating the Constitution. The Court unanimously rejected this argument and held that only the federal courts can decide when the Constitution is violated.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Holding: Illegally obtained material cannot be used in a criminal trial.
While searching Dolree Mapp's house, police officers discovered obscene materials and arrested her. Because the police officers never produced a search warrant, she argued that the materials should be suppressed as the fruits of an illegal search and seizure. The Supreme Court agreed and applied to the states the exclusionary rule from Weeks v. United States (1914).

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
Holding: Indigent defendants must be provided representation without charge.
Gideon was accused of committing a felony. Being indigent, he petitioned the judge to provide him with an attorney free of charge. The judge denied his request. The Supreme Court ruled for Gideon, saying that the Sixth Amendment requires indigent criminal defendants to be provided an attorney free of charge.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
Holding: Police must inform suspects of their rights before questioning.
After hours of police interrogations, Ernesto Miranda confessed to rape and kidnapping. At trial, he sought to suppress his confession, stating that he was not advised of his rights to counsel and to remain silent. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that police must inform suspects of their rights before questioning.

Terry v. Ohio (1968)
Holding: Stop and frisks do not violate the Constitution under certain circumstances.
Observing Terry and others acting suspiciously in front of a store, a police officer concluded that they might rob it. The officer stopped and frisked the men. A weapon was found on Terry and he was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon. The Supreme Court ruled that this search was reasonable.

U.S. v. Nixon (1974)
Holding: The President is not above the law.
The special prosecutor in the Watergate affair subpoenaed audio tapes of Oval Office conversations. President Nixon refused to turn over the tapes, asserting executive privilege. The Supreme Court ruled that the defendants' right to potentially exculpating evidence outweighed the President's right to executive privilege if national security was not compromised.

Texas v. Johnson (1989)
Holding: Even offensive speech such as flag burning is protected by the First Amendment.
To protest the policies of the Reagan administration, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag outside of the Dallas City Hall. He was arrested for this act, but argued that it was symbolic speech. The Supreme Court agreed, ruling that symbolic speech is constitutionally protected even when it is offensive.

Contact Us | Careers | Privacy & Security Policy | Judicial Conduct & Disability | Glossary of Legal Terms
Widgets | Translate | Browse Aloud | Operating Status

This site is maintained by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts on behalf of the Federal Judiciary.

The purpose of this site is to provide information from and about the Judicial Branch of the U.S. Government.

NAME: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
E-MAIL ADDRESS: FREEDOM FOR AMERICANS
ZIP CODE: FOR ALL WHO LIVE IN AMERICA
IF YOU AGREE THEN SIGN HERE: Michelle Christensen
IF YOU DON'T AGREE THEN SIGN HERE:_______________________