Posted on 08/15/2003 11:52:57 AM PDT by 45Auto
Theories come and go. One of my favorites among the 'gone' was an alleged substance called "phlogiston." The phlogiston theory was eventually replaced by what we now know as "oxidation," which is equally just a theory. But back in the heady age of enlightenment days (1697) there was a lot of impressive math and many royal banquets that downright proved that this "phlogiston" was the very stuff of fire. Things that contained it burned, those that didn't, well... Of course there arose the inevitable nay-sayers, which the proponents of phlogiston labeled the "antiphlogistians," and this before the era of 'spell check.' But a theory is only labeled as such when two or more people disagree on something, otherwise it is called a widely held belief, maybe even fact. Oxidation does appear to explain rust and fire as far as you need for any practical purpose. But it's still only a theory despite it's popularity or functionality, and there are nay-sayers to it too, ("antioxidationians?") though extremely few and far between. I have faith we will come up with something else some day then look back and laugh at our "simplistic" oxidation theory as we do phlogiston today. Lest we forget, many eons before all this the theory was "fire?! Bad!!!"
Oxidation demonstrates a blindness of ours. It's really quite a functional theory that has played the starring role in the creation of most everything you see around you, literally just about the entire industrial revolution on down. Such a successful theory therefore becomes in most folks' minds nearly a 'fact,' certainly one of those widely held beliefs. But phlogiston theory had it's helpful side for a time, and was likewise 'belief' for nearly 100 years in certain circles, until our clever little fingers made devices with which to see ever smaller things. The lesson is if you allow a theory to become belief, worse still treat theory as fact, you may fail to see a better alternative, you risk thwarting your own inspiration.
In a 'state of the theory address' you'd hear that some folks are working on a 'Grand Unified Theory,' which it's proponents lovingly call "GUT." This attempts to explain 'it all;' the very existence of the universe and everything. The folks working on the smallest ends of the universe talk of a finding a "God particle" even. (careful there, boys) All other theories and facts, so the scientific mind says, must all fit or be 'explainable' by any GUT you cough up. And the near-fact-anymore "unified field theory" which 'gives us' light, radio waves and magnets, (some stick gravity in there too) has been worked in nicely to few of these scientist's GUT s. But there's a big problem getting the JFK theory to fit into any of them though, so I say back to the chalkboard, eggheads. Beyond the GUT s the argument still rages as to whether God is 'in' the universe or vice-versa. But don't forget all this theorizing goes on within one teeny-tiny speck buried deep within this enormous universe of ours, namely your head. I think it's neat this little corner of the universe that I am seeks to understand itself, I'll leave it at that.
There's one "theory" above all that mystifies me. It's only a 'theory' because that's what folks tell me it is. They look at what I show them and 'disagree,' decrying it as a specific subset of 'theory' theory known as the "conspiracy theory." What mystifies me is that it's a theory at all, because it is indeed fact: there's a judiciary out there somewhere isn't there? That gets me called a conspiracy theorist, trying to tell folks there IS a judiciary, specifically how it was created. And the entirety of it is set out in a lot of ink on paper, you can read it all yourself if you have a few million years of vacation time. But the most important proof of the existence of a judiciary would be only those documents which established it, and thankfully they are few. The 'big bang' creating what is now seen by the believers as the "Unified Judiciary" is widely thought to be a document called the constitution, but this is wrong. It was an event called "An Act to establish the Judicial Courts of the United States" 1 and it blew into this corner of the universe on September 24, 1789.
Let me state for the record that the constitution is in no way binding upon you or I. It is a mere plan of government, and is only to be 'sworn to uphold' by anyone who's office is created by it, like the president or congress-critters. I will digress enough to point out that the "we, the people" bit was the whole scam. The Articles of Confederation were a central government plan that was operable upon the states. How could a future uber-fed arrest and try a state for a violation!? The lawyers, mainly, who put the constitution in motion played the 'we, the people' card in order to make this envisioned strong fed operable upon the people. Now they did have someone they could arrest, and set forth the 200+ year process of writing the millions of 'laws' we now have for this purpose. It is one of the biggest lies ever that 'we, the people' had anything whatever to do with the establishment of the constitution. The lawyer Lysander Spooner, who seems a sort of Studs Terkel 2 of his day, laid the 'binding contract' and 'we, the people' fallacies open quite nicely way back in 1870.
Let's assume for the moment that the constitution matters, though. Any way you look at it the present judiciary does not resemble anything you could concoct out of the constitution, even if you had a dozen monkeys randomly rearranging it's 4,543 words. Never in a million years. This is where the 'theory' moniker gets slapped on the simple facts of the creation of the judiciary. There's a strong propensity for a total brain melt-down trying to reconcile three things:
1. The millions of us who have lost our lives, fortunes or liberty at the hands of this judiciary over two centuries in the name of justice and the American Way,
2. The fact that the present judiciary, supposedly one of our 'constitutional' checks-and-balances-schtick 'branches,' isn't in the constitution, and
3. the high-falutin' characters that run that show swear to uphold the constitution.
Maybe they mean "the rest of it."
The vast differences between what we were sold as to what the judiciary 'branch' was going to be and the deal we actually got are astounding, but widely unknown. The same folks who established the judiciary ran congress, which controlled the money supply which in turn had it's usual effect on the press of the day and subsequent writers of history. The Act was rightly a HUGE amendment to the constitution, so why wasn't it put forth as such? Indeed, why was it even necessary? If you're creating a three-branch government out of thin air with a constitution, what's the problem, just do it. But the facts are unfortunately clear; the constitutional 'form' of the judiciary was intentionally left quite vague, in fact too vague as a convenient "mistake" as we shall see. The Judiciary Act was then written to fill the blanks, and in secrecy, just as the constitution itself was. Then this mess was passed into 'law' by a lawyer-stacked congress thus amending the constitution by clearly unconstitutional means. The way the whole deal was played out was so we non-lawyers would have no say on the matter, history does still show we in fact issued a resounding NO WAY!, some of my forbears envisioned letting a length or rope do the talking. 3 Thousands attempted in vain to 'knock on the door' of their new government to challenge the constitutionality of the Act. But that convenient "mistake" meant the same congress couldn't seat a supreme court to work for us or anyone, because the constitution provided no number of justices. We were 'conveniently' left without a supreme court, by design of lawyers with 'unconstitutional' plans afoot, for a full 11 months while the lawyer-congress established a judiciary nobody but lawyers wanted.
For a few decades afterward everyone not a lawyer was still pretty mad, so the lawyers in congress passed 'laws' whenever they needed to silence their critics. These 'laws' bore names and excuses for their "need" that belied their real purpose. (a process you see going on in earnest today, no?) But many were really just threats of the use of violence to suppress any well founded criticisms of this whole deal called "government." In fact right along with the Judiciary Act came the "Alien" and "Sedition" acts precisely to squelch dissent, that first a full 158 years before Roswell. I might add, talk about foresight! There's been a slew of similar sugar-coated laws since and on up to our present sorry state of homeland security, but despite the nice-face government puts on any of them they're still only a violent put down of any criticisms. Lawyers in congress lay claim to the power to determine what and when "we the people" can say anything about "our" government supposedly "of the people, by the people and for the people." The schmucks.
Any input of the people of the day would have recognized the "mistakes" at the constitutional convention, such as the constitution calling for a supreme court but failing to set a number of justices to sit upon it, and we would have corrected it. That's why they bolted the door. One draft of the constitution was found left sitting in a tavern during the convention, Washington subsequently threatened to kill anyone who made such a mistake as letting 'we, the people' know what they were up to in there. Secrecy for "national security" reasons, you see, is not a modern creation. But if we actually had some input in writing the constitution we would have foiled the plan of the 'founding lawyers' by insisting on the type of judiciary we wanted right then and there. But they never would have wanted a constitution like that, those lawyers. I'm sure they would have packed it in to come back another day with a 'better' plan, the same one just with different sauce no doubt.
"We" did try to stop all this, but alas this was all done before C-SPAN and email, we were left clueless by a bought-off press proclaiming "we, the people" were all happily bundling together under the loving, new strong federal government. (and that's what 'history' says too) That's part of the beauty of the "we, the people" maneuver; the propaganda made it sound like what was being attempted was to do just that, get a government we were all 'behind.' But the real, legal force of those words "we, the people," the way their authors and all subsequent lawyers see it, merely makes that central government operable upon the people, making them now 'harassable' and 'arrestable' by the feds whereas under the Articles we were untouchable by a central government. Prior to that your county sheriff had sole power to arrest, and only the people could bring any charges over any matter.
When news of the reality of the situation finally did trickle out a lot of folks were hopping mad as I've mentioned, but the lawyers were a few paces ahead of us still. Our energies were subverted in the same way the NRA or Greenpeace does today; our activism was given a false target, a diversion that gave us the appearance our voices would be heard, but was itself another part of the same plan, namely the Bill of Rights. The timing of it's release for consideration, falsely as "amendments" to the constitution, was such that we figured the flaws of the constitution and unconstitutionality of the Judiciary Act would be straightened out to our satisfaction. Not to be. By playing the Bill as if "amendments," the confusion was created as to whether 'constitutional authorities' plied and granted us those rights, or if they were as we thought they were to be: our ultimate check upon the government. Again, we were sold the image of the latter, but the way lawyers play it they are all part of the constitutional mud... you need a lawyer to wade through it. I've heard it said you can still get some satisfaction out of the Bill of Rights if you're quick on your toes, but that this has become even harder since '9-11,' what with all the high-science theory about trading liberty for security.
This huge Judiciary Act conflicted with the constitution in it's entirety and was not properly put forth as an amendment to it, but that's half the problem or less. The judiciary we got is in direct conflict with the spirit and will of the people who had thrown off just such a system a few years before in the revolution, that was the reason for all the secrecy, subterfuge and vagueness surrounding the constitutional and legislated forms of the judiciary. For all time before mankind picked up arms in revolution on this continent, the 'sovereign' was a man or the state. As such, the ultimate authority to initiate prosecution and certify any outcome of 'justice' was in the hands of that man or state. The opposite of that condition is called liberty, and that's what we thought we had obtained via the revolution. The lawyers went to work and wasted no time reestablishing just such an "adversarial government" right here in America for their own benefit. The constitution and Bill of Rights were part of the ceremony, but their golden calf was the Judiciary Act. The whole thing was accomplished under an early form of what's now called "psyops;" twist words, control the media and lie. After you've set up your authority, buy off minions in need of a job and a system to believe in and give them guns to enforce the deal, all conveniently covered in culture and the press as 'upholding the law,' such as the Sedition Act and now this USA-PATRIOT garbage.
So think of this next time you face one of the pompous black-robed critters sitting high on the bench, seeking to make you clean before the eyes of the Lord by extorting money or worse from you because your seat belt wasn't fastened; the entire justice system IS a fraud. Every lawyer that ever stroked the judiciary (always to personal gain, you can go to hell for all they care) is engaged in a fraud, and a criminal one at that; an ongoing act of treason against the true wishes of "we, the people" as expressed in lead and eventually our coat buttons emanating from the barrels of OUR GUNS, starting in Lexington and Concord in April, 1775. That every last act of congress ever is in complete fact illegal, unconstitutional and without any authority is introduced in the link above, and this includes the First Judiciary Act, so that one is double-damned in that there was no lawful authority to pass any act, let alone one purporting to "fill in the blanks" of the constitution itself.
Not that there's any need, if you grasp the above facts, but it is interesting to look at a few specifics buried in that Judiciary Act. Doing so clarifies the purpose of those lawyers by showing what they really wanted and what it was they worked so effectively to hide before telling us it was "the law."
One thing accomplished by the Act was to "fix" that convenient "mistake" by establishing the number of supreme court justices. But rather than say "seven" or "nine," it was left to congress to establish the number at their will. The result is that the court has been since it's inception an entirely political body, not an independent third branch of the government. To wit: President Jefferson (who tellingly didn't list "president" as one of his accomplishments on his own tombstone) faced this political beast before he took office. Fed up with the fed as "we" were, we swept the federalists out of congress and the presidency in 1800. (evidence we didn't like the lawyers and their handiwork) But before the new government was assembled in March 1801, the federalist lame-duck congress scrambled to hang onto control of at least one 'branch' of government; the judiciary. The Judiciary Act of February 13, 1801 did more damage in an area we'll get to next, but the main deal was they reduced the number of supreme court justices from 6 to 5, thus most assuredly denying Jefferson and the anti-lawyer party from having a chance to seat an anti-lawyer on the supreme court. What's that got to do with "upholding" constitutional principles? Jefferson struck back by having his party, which stacked the new congress, amend the act effectively shutting the court down for a few of it's terms. (again denying 'we, the people' one third of our government for a time) He could have had his partisans amend the Act to increase the number of supreme court justices to eleven, so they would then hold an anti-lawyer majority, but he was elected by the anti-judiciary ire of the people and expanding the court wouldn't have gone over too well with his constituents. The guy was genius, but none the less recognized and played the pure political nature of the courts. Andrew Johnson was a bit more above board when the same shenanigans overtook him during the "reconstruction."
Worse than it's unconstitutionality, illegality and purely political construct, the Judiciary Act soiled all over the spirit expressed so well in the Declaration of Independence by setting up new offices in which new swarms of officers would be sent hither to harass ourselves and eat out our own substance, and in our own name to boot. This, allegedly, under authority of a government by, for and 'of' us. That Judiciary Act of 1801 further increased the number of such officers to swarm on us, indeed every such judiciary act (there's been many over the centuries) has served to increase offices and swarms, the numbers never go down. These offices not mentioned in the constitution are very familiar today, glorified ad nauseum as they are in vast swaths of prime-time broadcast television in which we are informed as to what brand of underwear these officers prefer and who's baby certain of them may be carrying. These offices 'we, the people' killed and died to remove from our midst now bear the names "US attorney," "federal prosecutor," "federal marshal" and concepts like "circuit court," "court of appeals" "districts" (and their courts) and the ever popular "attorney general." Perhaps "The King, dammit!" looks good for it's simplicity? Advocating any of these things openly would have left their proponents unable to walk out of any tavern around the time of the revolution, but refer back to the "psyops" comments above to see how they were slipped to us anyway.
It goes without saying these offices are not in the constitution, and that there was no authority granted by 'we, the people' to create them. The desired effect was no less than the mayhem characterized by the hellion 'federal marshal' Wyatt Earp and his boys. Earp's deal was "the feds versus everything else," the sheriff said he'd look away if anybody would be so kind as to gun down the 'federal marshals,' and somebody did. In 1789 we recalled having just killed a bunch of our own relatives who elected to stayed loyal to the crown (and some German mercenaries and duped Indians too; the 'liberty for security' swap no doubt) in order to kill off once and for all the very concept of these offices. The lawyers brought them back in spades; know anyone who's ever been eaten by the IRS or jailed for similar 'offenses' where no living flesh has been personally wronged? What we wanted, and took arms against kin to obtain, was a system wherein the government never again would be 'authorized' to initiate any prosecution whatsoever, that 'adversarial government' thing. That's all I want and I hope you do to. If not, stop calling yourself a "patriot," please, if you grant anything other than jail time for anyone who holds one of those massively amoral offices (especially attorney general) you stain the very blood of our forbears who fought so we could live without them. Ashcroft is only the present jail-fodder in chief, they all have knowingly been urinating on your corpse since you were born, at least since back when mom and dad were duped into filing your birth certificate with the state.
But the worst of all crimes committed in the name of the Judiciary Act was that these 'new' courts would be allowed to establish their own rules. Much mayhem, where to begin...
One rule the supreme court established off the bat effectively relieved them of their most important work, that being the determination as to whether anything the other two 'branches' were up to was 'constitutional' or not. It also completely deprived you and I of any guarantee of justice, all in one stroke of the pen. By allowing the courts to establish rules, opportunity was taken to write rule 7(c), which "commands" that all indictments "shall be signed by the attorney for the government." That would be one of the multiple-fraud attorneys for the government... Those folks are collecting multiple paychecks from all over the place and can thank their lucky stars for their club memberships and the Mercedes that this system affords them. If told not to sign something, guess what they do? They can simply beg off on signing anything not to their liking, such as anything which would expose the fraud. Many (tens of thousands perhaps) Grand Jury indictments made by 'we, the people' have been nullified using this rule. More tyranny has occurred in this land under this cover than you could possibly comprehend. Not to worry though, just know their office is a fraud, get up a militia and clean 'em out, no problem right?
Another rule established from the outset was immediately violated by the supreme court itself nearly in the same instant. George Washington, a much bigger "comeback kid" than Bill Clinton could ever hope to be, tossed a softball to the court which they, with a wink and a nod, smacked out of the park. In July, 1793 he sent 29 questions to the supreme court upon which he sought clarification regarding the 'constitutionality' of matters of treaties, the "laws of nations" and the "laws of the land." Sounds like important stuff. In a cover letter sent along with the 29 questions was his open ended question as to whether the executive could consult the court from time to time to advise, before the fact, on whether proposed legislation or treaties would ultimately pass constitutional muster. This seems a no-brainer; why wouldn't we eject "unconstitutional" language from such things before we pass them and then find, after much expense and litigation, that they are indeed unconstitutional? The short answer is that lawyers want all that expensive litigation. Unfortunately for the lawyers on the supreme court, (every supreme court justice has been a lawyer) they had already set their rules, and that included one that stated that the supreme court would never entertain anything that had not been properly adjudicated before the lower courts on up through the lawyer-food chain, the supremes being the last stop on that train. This too can serve to allow the court to beg off on checking the 'unconstitutionality' of anything, unless they want to. But guess what they did; they ruled on Washington's questions anyway, in violation of their rules because the questions and the matter in the cover letter had not been properly adjudicated in any lower court. Guess who would have gotten to rule on whether the supreme court had just violated their own rules: the supreme court! Starting to see the box we're in here? It's all because of the golden-calf "First Judiciary Act."
(Excerpt) Read more at federalobserver.com ...
"Any way you look at it the present judiciary does not resemble anything you could concoct out of the constitution, even if you had a dozen monkeys randomly rearranging it's 4,543 words. Never in a million years."
You know you've started a bunch of people scurrying, don't you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.