Hamilton also pointed out that the "judiciary will have
neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgments and that there
would be no liberty if the power of judging is not separated
from the legislative and executive powers." (Paper No. 78,
The Federalist Papers. All references to 'paper no.' are
from this book.) No force or will . . . How do they make
their decisions become law? Voodoo and black magic still
work in Washington.
Let's see if federal judges believe their actions have
"no force or will" . . . In 1980, a federal judge actually
ordered the US government to pay for all medicaid abortions.
I realize that abortions are an emotional issue and we will
not make any comments on that here. However, by what
authority does a federal judge order the government to do
anything? A federal judge has no power for such an 'order'.
The only branch of our government that can approve the
expenditure of funds is the House of Representatives. And
ONLY in accordance with an appropriations bill. Yet we have
a member of the black robe cult ordering the government to
pay for all medicaid abortions. What a crock!
How far have we come from the intent of the framers of
the Constitution? How can this fit into the definition of
"good behavior?" This judge should have been impeached for
such a violation of constitutional authority. Was he? Of
course not. After all, he is a lawyer and all the other good
old boys will protect and defend his right to break the law.
In Texas, there is another federal judge who feels he
can issue orders to the state of Texas. This is in the area
of state prison reform. While I'm certain the prison
conditions are really bad, it is still a state function and
of no concern to any federale.
This comes into the area of the elected officials of the
state being responsible to the people that elected them. If
the people don't like what the elected officials are doing,
the ballot box is the answer. Yet along comes a federal
judge who feels he did come down off the mountain carrying
the tablets and orders the state to make what he considers
necessary prison reforms.
By what right? Simply because of his black robe or
title? Then it is reported in the media that the judge has
issued a stern warning to state officials "That they cannot
use the state fiscal crunch as an excuse for evading his
prison reform orders." How's that for assuming power and
authority? I wonder what he found in the Constitution which
gives him the right to issue an order?
As President Jackson once remarked about Chief Justice
Marshall: "He has made the decision now let him enforce it!"
I wonder what kind of tricks the judge feels he has up
his judicial sleeve to enforce prison reforms? No force or
will according to Hamilton? There is no question that the
judicial branch doesn't believe that.
Hamilton also said there could be no liberty if the
power of judging is not separated from the legislative and
executive powers. Did that hit the nail on the head?
Exactly the problem we are facing today. Federal judges are
making 'law' by their orders and decrees and enforcing laws
in direct opposition to the intent of the Founding Fathers.
What happened to our liberty?
To prove their contempt for our Constitution, the high
court has just ruled that it is OK for the feds to violate
the law. The case involved a DEA agent who was murdered in
Mexico recently. The DEA put a bounty on a doctor who they
say kept the agent alive while he was being tortured. The
doctor was kidnapped in Mexico and brought to the US for
trial. Where is their right to pull a stunt like that?
That the agent was murdered is part of the dangers of
having an undercover assignment. I'm certain all agents
consider the danger before accepting such a job. It's like
being in the service . . . you can get wounded or killed.
The danger comes with the job. Now the whole might of the US
government comes down on a small town Mexican doctor. The
high court agreed 6 to 3 that it was a legal operation. They
have said, in essence, it's OK to commit a crime in the
interest of justice. Justice here means the way the high
court defines it . . . 1984 newspeak again. What garbage!
There is NO authority in the document to pull a police stunt
like this . . NONE!
If there is no power which says it's OK to go into a
foreign country to kidnap one of their citizens, then it's an
illegal act of our government. They need to be reminded that
the Tenth Amendment is still part of the document and it
precludes ANY action which is not specifically allowed!
These supreme court 'justices' must have taken their lessons
from communist Russia or China where such acts are allowed.
Or, looking at this in another light, is it possible
they are taking orders from little George, or the UN or the
powers behind them to push the idea of one world government?
It's a known fact that when one world government is in full
operation, sovereignty and borders are a thing of the past.
If they assume the US government can commit a crime to
'avenge the death of one DEA agent', why has no interest
been shown in the torture, death and illegal imprisonment of
US service men? Their definition of equality again?
There is another power judges have assumed for them-
selves to prove they do not believe that they have no power
or force as pointed out by Hamilton. That is the power of
contempt of court. This is one that is being completely
abused by judges in general. And the ones who feel they are
the bearers of laws on tablets of stone are the worst abusers
of the 'power' of contempt of court.
Wives, Mothers, daughters, all manner of relatives have
been put in prison for not wanting to testify against other
loved ones. And I mean, not for overnight or some similar
short period, but for months. Because some still refuse to
cooperate, prosecutors have been reported to have remarked
that they "should rot in jail and not be released when the
grand jury expires."
Can you imagine such claptrap? And the courts do not
even censure such idiotic and illegal outbursts. How far
down the road to tyranny have we already come?
The use of the contempt citation was to be to coerce a
person to do what the court wanted. However, if a person
still refuses, what purpose is served to keep that person in
prison for months?
Is it just as a warning to others that "his honor" will
be obeyed? Where is the protection we are guaranteed by the
judicial branch? When these people are forced to obey their
oaths to "administer justice. . .faithfully and impartially
perform all duties. . . agreeably to the Constitution" then
perhaps a sense of justice will be restored to this country
and we can again depend on the judicial branch for protection
and not persecution.
One thing I might point out is that when Congress
approved rules governing the judicial branch, judges were
given 'discretion' or latitude when making decisions yet all
this discretion does not give them any right to overlook or
ignore the basic document. They must obey our laws also.
It should be brought out that a great percentage of the
people we have elected to Congress are lawyers. Why? This
is probably one of our biggest mistakes. Lawyers take care
of lawyers and judges are lawyers. They are simply taking
care of their own. Please tell me, if you can, where it says
in our Constitution that judges must be lawyers?
Do you think King Solomon of the Bible was a lawyer? Do
you think our judicial branch would allow him to be a judge
today? I think the answer to that is obvious.
In the beginning of our newly formed nation, people had
little use for lawyers. Signs were posted at many city and
village limits with the admonition, "No peddlers or lawyers
An important point which must be noted . . . Reports
have surfaced lately that an amendment to our Constitution
was proposed which would have prohibited lawyers from working
for the federal government. It was proposed around 1820 and
would have been the thirteenth amendment.
A quick look at our amendments shows the thirteenth to
be the one which abolished slavery. It was proposed and
ratified in 1865. The twelfth amendment was adopted in 1804.
Sixty years without an amendment being proposed? Possible
. . but? It was found somehow in the archives in the state
of Virginia where it had been considered in 1820. Did the
legal profession do a number on this proposal and at the same
time give us the royal shaft . . . again?
This is an area where readers can get involved to see if
it was hidden in other states . . . or what happened to it?
Our Constitution is the supreme law of the land and all
judges are bound by oath and the Constitution to obey that
supreme law. There is no discretion to break a law, ignore
a law or violate the rights of our citizens.
Hamilton was clear when he said our rights could only be
preserved. . "through the medium of courts of justice,
whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the
manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all
the reservations of particular rights or privileges would
amount to nothing." (Also Paper No. 78) So now you should
begin to see how closely the people in the black robes have
followed the intent of the Constitution.
Have you ever wondered how judges earned the title "Your
Honor?" There is a specific clause in the Constitution
which prohibits any title of nobility. Article I, Section 9,
clause 8 states: "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by
the United States:" so where does the title "Your Honor"
come from? Is this more of their desire to be the most
important branch of our government?
Another area where the rights of our citizens are being
completely eroded is what the courts call 'plea bargaining.'
This was a 'law' passed by Congress to lessen the workload on
the federal court system. It has now worked out to be a big
part of the numbers game for efficiency ratings and promo-
tions for the legal troops.
It has an added advantage that where important people
are brought to court for a violation of law, it allows them
to plead guilty to a lesser charge and the substantial charge
or charges are dropped. Isn't it simple how easily we can
take care of our friends?
With all the 'sting' operations going on today, it's
easy for the government to trap someone in a conspiracy
charge. (Conspiracy is really a 'thought' crime . . . I
thought about robbing a bank so I'm guilty of robbing the
bank.) Let's see how plea bargaining works in a case like
this. First, you are surrounded by lawyers which is a
distinct disadvantage already.
The US Attorney offers to drop a specific charge or
charges if you will plead guilty to one charge on the
indictment. Notice, I didn't say plead to a lesser charge.
Something important happens at this point.
First, the US Attorney now will not have to work to get
a conviction on his record. Secondly, your attorney will not
have to work either to secure your freedom and acquittal. He
will still be able to go home with your money while you go to
prison. Thirdly, the court and the judge will have no work
to go through except to decide how many years you will serve
in the can.
See how neat it all works out? Not only have you
eliminated all their work, you have given up many constitu-
tional rights to challenge the conviction. And . . . let me
point out something very important . . . even though they say
they will drop a specific charge to get you to plead, those
charges are still on the record and will be a major factor in
determining if and when you may be eligible for any parole.
Let me tell you what your lawyer will say. . " if you
take their plea agreement, you will probably only get
probation or at the most, a year or two sentence but if you
insist on going to trial, you could get twenty years if
That statement is an admission that your lawyer couldn't
get an acquittal if his own life depended on it. He would
probably have a problem finding his own behind with two
hands. It will not matter whether you are guilty or not,
they will try to get you to accept the agreement.
One of their favorite statements you will hear is "Don't
worry." You'd better worry . . . This is the state of our
judicial system today. There have been cases where as many
as seven men have been sentenced in less than 30 minutes all
as a result of a plea bargain.
It's a bargain all right, for the US Attorney because
their numbers game has increased, for the judge and the court
for the same reason and for your attorney because he has made
his money with no work. What did I say about lawyers taking
care of lawyers?
There are exceptions to this rule but I assure you, they
are few. I'll wager that our founding fathers turn over in
their graves when all these violations of what they intended
And now we have a situation where federal judges have to
have a US Marshal as a body guard. It wasn't too long ago
that even the president could walk up and down Pennsylvania
Avenue without a Secret Service guard. What has happened?
Do you think that their contempt for our Constitution
and honest laws that conform to the document has in turn bred
contempt for the law by some of our citizens?
Many people will say this couldn't be happening because
all the lawyers and judges who work with and study the law
would know these things are against the Constitution and
would do something about it. Surprise! They don't know the
Constitution and if they do, they want to ignore it because
it hinders their ability to exert their power over people.
If you ask any lawyers why they don't study the
Constitution, honest ones will tell you that they have had no
need to study the Constitution because there were no
questions about it on their state bar examination. Put that
in your pipe and smoke it for awhile.
I have heard a federal judge make the statement that
"justice may be blind but it is not stupid." I have to agree
with him in that justice is not stupid, it is exactly what
the judges say it is and they know exactly what they are
You have a good idea now also. There have been
suggestions that the lady called justice is blindfolded
because she is crying over the state of justice in this
Let's rein in this abusive power before we no longer
have the ability to do so . . . the traitors are at the gate!