JUSTICE BLIND? Hamilton also pointed out that the +quot;judiciary will have neither FORCE

Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

JUSTICE BLIND? 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 allowed." 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. Cute people. 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 convicted." 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 occur. 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 doing. 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 country today. Let's rein in this abusive power before we no longer have the ability to do so . . . the traitors are at the gate! 


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank