Italics are mine – Frank Trejo – Yesterday’s News Today
“This right of interposition, thus solemnly asserted by the State of Virginia, be it called what it may – State right, veto, nullification, or by any other name – I conceive to be the fundamental principle of our system, resting on facts,…and I firmly believe that on its recognition depend the stability and safety of our political institutions…” John C. Calhoun July 26, 1831
What is interposition? It is the right of the States, reserved in the Tenth Amendment, to judge for themselves, of the violations of the Constitution by the federal government and that, in such an instance, the United States Supreme Court has no jurisdiction and is in fact, prohibited by the Tenth Amendment, from hearing such a dispute.
The basis of this principle lies in the fact, that the federal government is the child of the States and must therefore, do their bidding. The U.S. Supreme Court being part of the federal government has no authority to dictate to the States in any dispute between the State and the federal government concerning any federal usurpation of power. This authority is exclusively reserved to the States, in the Tenth Amendment.
What does this mean? It means that when the federal government erects ‘a multitude of new offices’ and sends hither ‘swarms of officers (bureaucrats) to harass our people and eat out their ‘substance’ the States have reserved to themselves the power to escort said ‘officers’ of the federal government who are attempting to enforce unconstitutional law, to the State line and to subject them to arrest and trial in said State, if they ever come back. If we had Governors and Legislatures that had the morality to so act, many of our problems would disappear.
It means that if the law of this land, which State officials have sworn to uphold, was actually upheld, all the States would have to do would be to assert their reserved power of interposition to protect the right of parents to exercise their common law, parental authority over their children’s education without interference from the federal government. That holds true for highway speed laws and everything else the federal government has taken upon itself to regulate that which are States Rights. The threat to withhold funds should States not comply? First of all, federal government has no Constitutional right to control our education. Secondly, it’s not their God-damn money!
It means that in such instances, the Governors and State Legislatures prevail and their word is final, not the Supreme Court of the United States.
The rights of the Sovereign States, secured in the Tenth Amendment and the true meaning of the Union of (or United) States have been successfully buried by the federal bureaucracy which has indulged itself for too long, in a drunken power binge. It’s time we dug up the Tenth Amendment, clean it off and use it because IT IS STILL THE LAW OF THE LAND!
James Madison set it down very clearly in what is known as Mr. Madison’s Report of 1799, wherein he said:
“The States, then, being the parties to the Constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently, that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.”
However, Madison felt that the exercise of the States’ right to interposition should not be lightly used and be laid down certain guidelines, for its use. He felt that its exercise should pertain only to situations where there was usurpation of power by the federal government and that such usurpation should be willful, dangerous, deliberate and palpable breach of the Constitution by an exercise of powers clearly not granted to it. (HEW, OSHA, LEAA, HUD.etc ?) He believed that the object of interposition was solely that of arresting the progress of the evil usurpation, in order that the authorities, rights and liberties reserved to the states, or to the people, be maintained. Under these circumstances, its use was considered proper…Mr. Madison continued his report:
“However, true, it may be that the judicial department, is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last, in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the Constitutional compact, form which the judicial as well as the other departments, hold their delegated trusts.”
Madison outlined the principle that the federal judiciary may not encroach upon the reserved powers of the States. It is precisely because we have allowed this basic principle of our government to fall into disuse that, there have evolved the many problems we have with us today.
This veto power is present in our law, in five instances. We are all familiar with (1) the power of the President to veto an act of Congress.(2) Congress may veto the President by an override of his veto.(3) the U.S. Supreme Court may veto them both – only if legislation is not in harmony with the Constitution. (4) Veto power of the people, when they sit as jurors (Jury Nullification) They do not know that they have the clear cut right to refuse to convict any citizen for breaking an unjust law, as both the Moylan 1969, and
Dougherty (1972) cases make clear, even though the federal judiciary refuses to allow jurors to be told of this right.
And fifth, we have the right of the Sovereign States to veto any Act of Congress which is willful and dangerous usurpation of power – the right to interpose itself between the federal government and the citizens of the State “to prevent the progress of evil’, against said citizens.
The object of a Constitution is to restrain the government, not the people. We must insist upon that object being restored. Until it is, federal encroachment, usurpation, tyranny and oppression will continue. That’s what freedom of speech, assembly and petition are all about. (End of article by The National Educator 1975)
“I AM SORRY I ONLY HAVE ONE BAT TO SWING FOR MY COUNTRY.”
Claire Kelley in the Justice Times – 1986
Italics are mine – Frank Trejo – Yesterday’s News Today.
“A statute valid when enacted may become invalid by change in the conditions to which it is applied.” (Nashville, C.& L. Ry. V. Walters, 294 U.S. 405 – 415) (1935)
This is a basic principle that lawyers as well as laymen tend to forget, in arguing the law. There are three prime examples of this principle that come immediately to mind.
First, we have the legal tender laws, passed during the Civil War, making U.S. Notes legal tender for all debts, public and private. (When U.S. Notes circulated bankers couldn’t collect interest. The reason Lincoln was murdered)
The legal tender cases are still quoted today, whenever the “money issue” is raised. However, the fact that the U.S. Notes had convertibility into gold and silver, was what courts based their opinions of constitutionality upon. But they are no longer ‘U.S.’ Notes, nor are they convertible. The condition to which the legal tender cases were applied, have changed, therefore, the legal tender laws, argued on these grounds, are no longer constitutional, even if they were so deemed, prior to inconvertibility.
This fine line of argument has been too long overlooked by those arguing the money issue, although it is well known to government attorneys, who simply remain silent about it. Secondly, we have the 55-mph speed limit law, which was passed during a (contrived) ‘gas shortage’ with the intent to ‘save fuel’.
Here too, we have a change in the conditions, rendering the 55-mph limit invalid, because it is presently being applied during a well known gas GLUT. The original purpose for the law no longer exists and therefore, it is invalid, constituting grounds for dismissal of speeding tickets.
Third, we have the Social Security law, which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled constitutional because it established a ‘trust fund’ and was alleged to have been fiducially sound. But that is no longer the case today. The money is spent as soon as it comes in and the trust fund is filled with government I.O.U’s. The conditions have changed and therefore the law is invalid. (Also see: Abie State Bank v. Bryan, (1931) 282 U.S. 765)
In other words, we go back to the intent of the law and if the law is being executed contrary to that intent, then its application is invalid. This is a valuable tool, when arguing the law, with the court. We must never underestimate the importance of researching the intent of the legislators, when dealing with statutes.
Also, it is well to remember, that a court decision sustaining the constitutionality of a law, does not preclude an attack upon the constitutionality of that same law, on other grounds. For example, let us take a violation of the vehicle code, for which you may have a jury trial (DUI).
Many states have laws reducing the jury to eight, rather than the common-law twelve. This has been declared ‘constitutional’ (even though it isn’t) by the U.S. Supreme Court. However, in all of their decisions reducing juries down from twelve, none of those decisions are based upon the 1787 ordinance of the Northwest Territory, therefore the people in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin and that part of Minnesota east of the Mississippi River, could raise the issue of the twelve person jury on different grounds i.e., said Ordinance. For example Sec. 14 says:
“It is hereby ordained and declared, by the authority aforesaid, that the following articles shall be considered as articles of compact, between the original States and the people and States in said territory, and Forever remain Unalterable, unless by common consent, to wit:
‘Common consent’ means a direct vote of the people, not an indirect vote by the legislators. The Ordinance goes on to say in Article 11:
“The inhabitants of said territory shall always be entitled to the benefits of…trial by jury; … and of judicial proceedings according to the course of common law. …All fines shall be moderate;…No man shall be deprived of his liberty or property (money, i.e., traffic fines – CK) but by the judgment of his peers,…”
This document was incorporated into the U.S. Constitution (Art. V1, cl.1) and the judges of every State concerned, are bound to uphold it. (Art. V1, cl. 2)
It appears to me, that the member States of the Ordinance of the Northwest Territory are duty bound to observe and enforce this law by giving twelve person jury trials for every traffic offender that pleads not guilty. If a demand by a traffic violator for a jury trial, is not honored by the court it would be interesting to appeal, pre-trial, for a writ of Mandamus, demanding that the court be made to do his duty under said law. (The meaning of Mandamus is explained in an earlier article)
One could appeal to their State Appellate Court and go on up from there, if necessary.
This would not be a mere exercise for the fun of it, but should be done, to teach the judges the law and give them the opportunity to obey it. If they decline to do so, at least they will stand without excuse on Judgment Day, before the Supreme Judge of all the world. (I’ve got a better idea, Claire. Sue the sob for violating your Constitutional Rights)
This writer believes that a return to the common-law jury trial for all alleged crimes is the only safeguard of our liberties. (You know what the bureaucrats would say? That it would cost too much money. I say much less, a mere pittance, compared to all the trillions that are squandered by government. Like the recent bailout of foreign banks that cost us between 35 and 50 billion, so I’ve read. The reason this was done? Because the International Bankers ordered it. They are the rulers not the three branches of government.)
Being tried at ‘common-law’ requires at least witnesses against the accused, a corpus delecti (absent in traffic cases), and the right to argue the law to the jury, in addition to twelve of one’s peers. The battle for restoration cannot begin too soon. Let those who are so inclined, have at it….end of article.
Not too long ago, somewhere in our country, a judge dismissed hundreds of tickets issued to speeders by camera – quoting the 6th Amendment to the Constitution (“…to be confronted with the witnesses against him…”) Can you imagine bringing in the camera as a witness. As much as I detest most judges, once in awhile some will give me hope.
Several years ago, I got ticketed for making a left turn on a no left-turn intersection between the hours of 4pm to 6pm – as if I had to have a watch on. I was also ticketed for not wearing a seat belt – I have to wear two belts? I went to court before a judge and I had discovered the officer put down the wrong address where the violation occurred. When the judge asked the officer if he had anything to say he said he wanted to amend the ticket – to correct the address – he was turned down.
Being that the judge dismissed the ticket I asked that the ticket for not wearing a seat belt should also be dismissed – she said no. I told her I wanted to appeal and I was sent to the appeal window. They wanted $100 just to appeal. Bastards! I paid the $25 for the no seat-belt ticket and left fuming.
Most all articles I post, especially Claire’s, have to do with the laws of our country. If you have lawyer friends or relatives who are lawyers refer them to this web site. The articles they will read, and there are over 100, will be information that they may have never learned in law school. Remember the saying “we learn the establishment way” – the 10th plank of the communist manifesto.
THE ANSWER TO OUR PROBLEMS IS IN THE CONSTITUTION. WE STILL HAVE ONE BUT IT’S IGNORED. NOT ONLY BY CONGRESS, BUT BY MANY PEOPLE IN OUR COUNTRY. IF THERE ARE THINGS IN IT THAT DON’T APPLY – LET’S CHANGE THEM. BUT DON’T ACCEPT THE BULLSHIT THAT IT TAKES TOO LONG TO AMEND. OUR FOUNDING FATHERS WERE FULL OF WISDOM. THEY GAVE US THE FIFTH ARTICLE OF THE CONSTITUTION – THE AMENDMENT PROCESS TO CORRECT OR IMPROVE THINGS.
IN THE NEXT ELECTION WE SHOULD MAKE OBEYING THE CONSTITUTION AN ISSUE. ASK CANDIDATES QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION AND SHOULD THEY HESITATE IN ANSWERING THAT IS YOUR CLUE NOT TO VOTE FOR THAT PERSON. YOU WOULD BE SURPRISED OF THE IGNORANCE IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW BY POLITICIANS. THEY WERE BROUGHT UP IGNORANT OF IT.
AND ALL THAT TIME, FOR MANY YEARS, WE WERE BEING TOLD BY THE COMMUNISTS AND SOCIALISTS IN OUR COUNTRY THAT WE WERE THE MOST EDUCATED AND INFORMED PEOPLE IN THE WORLD. WE WERE BEING MADE IGNORANT AND DIDN’T KNOW IT. THEY DID IT THROUGH ACADEMIA AND THE PRESS. IT’S REPORTED THAT THERE ARE OVER 10,000 SOCIALISTS PROFESSORS IN COLLEGE TEACHING OUR YOUNG SOCIALISM. ONE REPORT READS 90% OF OUR PEOPLE HAVE NEVER READ THE CONSTITUTION AND 25% ARE ILLITERATE. THIS IS WHY THE THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT ARE SO CORRUPT, WORKING OUTSIDE THE CONSTITUTION. THIS DIDN’T HAPPEN BY ACCIDENT – IT WAS ALL PLANNED.
WANT AN EXAMPLE? OBAMA WAS TEACHING CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IN COLLEGE. THE WAY HE IS GOVERNING IS QUITE THE OPPOSITE OF OUR CONSTITUTION. HOW HE INDOCTRINATED STUDENTS IN THE CLASSROOM WOULD BE INTERESTING TO FIND OUT.
MANY BELIEVE THAT COMMUNISTS AND SOCIALISTS BEGAN TAKING OVER OUR INSTITUTIONS IN THE EARLY SIXTIES. THEY’VE BEEN AT IT ALL THESE YEARS WHILE WE WERE WATCHING “PEYTON PLACE”- “THREE STOOGES.”
SO, WHAT’S MY POINT? OUR WHITE HOUSE HAS BEEN PAINTED RED.
“I AM SORRY I HAVE ONLY ONE BAT TO SWING FOR MY COUNTRY.”
(Congressman Ron Paul – 1983)
Italics are mine – Frank Trejo – Yesterday’s News Today
Ron Paul has been in government for many years. Most recently, a candidate in the attempt to win the nomination for the Presidency. Unfortunately, he was running for a third party that NEVER wins. The Democrats and Republicans, with the help of the controlled press, have it all locked up. I say that because it’s the truth.
I wish people like Paul would go back to the GOP (The Democratic Party is too far gone to change) and change it from the ground-up. In due time they could get rid of people such as McCain, Collins, Snowe, and the repugnant Arlen Specter of Penn. At least the “compassionate conservative” Bush, who left conservatism in ruin is gone. Unless something drastic happens, the Conservatives in the GOP have been demonized so badly by the likes of the above that it may be finished. Already some non-conservatives in the GOP are calling to abandon conservative principles and become more “moderates.” In other words – think like Democrats.
In an earlier article I wrote that if Obama won you could kiss America good-bye. I think I was right. But it started many years ago before Obama. We have a criminal government on our hands that has been in operation unconstitutionally for too long. This time around is different. Obama is the radical the powers at be have been waiting for. The bankers agenda has always been to reduce us to third-world status. And now with Congress in control by communists and socialists, they’ve got their stooge in the White House.
Who is going to stop this from happening? Where is the Supreme Court? Where are the State governors? What happened to law and order? Now you can understand the importance of the checks and balances our Founding Fathers left us. You are witnessing democracy in action – the worst form of government – mob rule.
Close to 70 million voted for an aspiring dictator, that no matter how bad he damages our lives and furthers the destruction of the Constitution, the uninformed will vote for him again. Our only chance is for a miracle to occur by getting rid of democrats in the House and Senate to stop this radical. The following lengthy article was written by Ron Paul many years ago:
* * * * *
Great leaders are not politicians, they are statesmen. Today’s conventional politicians are not statesmen. (They are criminals) The few statesmen like leaders in the world today do not hold government office, but under favorable circumstances, nothing should prevent them from participating in politics. America today – like the rest of the world – is desperate for statesmen leadership.
Presently, it’s doubtful if that leadership will present itself, and if it does, it’s likely to be rejected. While a growing number of people are demanding statesmanship of their leaders, the majority simply want “errand boys” to deliver the loot from the federal treasury to their special interests. If America is to survive as a free nation, this must change. The majority must demand more from their leaders – political pragmatism must be rejected.
It is said that to become a high elected official the individual must have “fire in his belly” and a willingness to do whatever’s necessary to achieve a political victory. True recruitment to find non-political leaders is impossible, it’s claimed, since those individuals lack “fire in the belly.”
It must be recognized that two kinds of government exists. (One controlled by the International Bankers, and the other a government called for in the Constitution. This exists on paper only – not in practice) There is leadership which strives to restrict government and limits its power (Conservatism) and there is leadership in expanding government and exerting power (Democracy) One strives to protect the liberty of the individual, (Conservatism – not the Bush kind) the other serves the special interests. (Democrats – mob rule) No leader can do both at the same time, it’s either/or, no matter what a leader claims. (All Presidents have been controlled by the owners of the Federal Reserve since 1913. Whoever controls the money controls everything else – even us. Guess who holds 80% of home mortgages?)
Regardless of the direction the country is going moving toward more freedom or less, leadership is crucial. The form of the leadership will vary; the leader’s role will of course depend on which direction the country chooses to go. Prevailing attitudes – a reflection of the ideology of the intellectual leaders – will determine the course a country follows.
Both types of leaders have an innate desire to lead and influence society. True leadership is probably rarely taught, but is natural to a few. The uses of leadership can vary – one is to rule and to coerce, the other is to restrain those who would rule and coerce.
The character of the two types of leaders is completely different; one has a moral character and one has a amoral character. The statesman has no desire to exert power, use government for his own ends, direct others, or plan the economy; the politician desires power with his leadership role. The statesman will lead, but abhors possessing authority over others. On the other hand, the politician has a passion for political control and politically prostitutes himself on a daily basis.
Many politicians will rationalize their goal to achieving power by claiming they need power to help the down-trodden. But this is merely the means to achieve their end. Decent leaders with a potential for statesmanship will present themselves, and if the intellectual climate is right, they can accelerate and direct a movement toward a free society. A key role will be to inform and convince people of the advantages of a planned society.
When conditions are completely antagonistic toward freedom, the potential statesmen are jailed or shot, or relegated to obscure social or geographic places. When totalitarian ideas prevail mere survival is an achievement for statesmen. For instance, a Leonard Read (founder of the Foundation for Economic Education) could not subdue an Adolph Hitler, either with force, normal political action, or subtle education. The intellectual die had been cast (Kant, Hegel and Nietzsche) when Hitler came to power. The statesmanlike leaders could barely escape with their lives to plant seeds elsewhere for a new generation – as Ludwig von Mises did. (Economist)
THE BAD GUYS: MODERN POLITICAL LEADERS
Modern political leaders are willing to do almost anything to achieve political power. (like running government outside the Constitution by subverting the three branches of government – the checks and balances.) They are essentially never recruited in the true sense, although sometimes they are “chosen” to represent some special interest. Their success depends on a “fire in the belly” determination to gain the power and prestige of public office. Most Americans, when they vote, are truly looking for an honest statesman, but are repeatedly disappointed when, after the election, they find out they got a pragmatic, conniving politician. This is the main reason that only half of those eligible bother to register to vote and only half of those registered actually vote.
The economic system of interventionism (government mismanaged economy) produces political pragmatists. They thrive in the power struggle to favor one group at the expense of the other, through regulations, taxation, and inflationary policies.
Success is literally measured by being un-statesmanlike – i.e., serving special interests or geographic areas. The only choice for voters becomes which special interests will be served. Rarely it’s a choice between one who serves the general welfare by equally preserving liberty for all individuals.
Leaders today who serve the special interests are similar to those of ancient history who exerted power in their own interest. There is no longer an acceptance of the “divine right of kings,” but political success and power are achieved by demagogues at the polls. (most Democrats in Congress with a few hypocrite Republicans) Today, it is the “divine right of special interests groups.” The burning desire of the modern political leader is not for the truth, but for control of the economy and others (government control of our institutions – especially big industries)
The desire is fueled by an arrogance that they know what is best for everyone, based on a presumed knowledge that they cannot possibly possess. (Like running the banking, auto industries and housing markets. And I may add – running government itself) This arrogance is illustrated by a current Democratic presidential candidate who was quoted recently in the Wall Street Journal as saying:
“The longer I am in public life the more I am convinced that I am ideally suited for governing. I absorbed facts quickly. I am a good decision maker because I am not an agonizer. I’m very confident of my own abilities. A lot of people don’t understand how any single human being can think he can govern the country. I have absolutely no doubt that I can, none whatsoever.”
This comes from someone who believes in economic planning and the “new” industrial policy. This is pure, unadulterated arrogance. The last thing I want or this country needs is an economic planner who makes decisions “very fast.”
This is the stuff of which tyrants and despots are made (Obama) The only confidence we need in a leader is that he recognizes that he lacks the ability to run the country, that individuals and the market are superior to politicians and bureaucrats, and that liberty is superior to government coercion. Today’s leaders are required to be egomaniacs. This is the inevitable consequence of economic intervention, in which government is required to plan and play favorites and the politics of force and fraud prevail. (taxation, deficits and inflation.) (Among many other, government is now in the car dealership business)
The age of interventionism and welfare-ism breeds boastfulness and rudeness that are interpreted by constituents as the characteristics of someone “who will fight for their interests.” Success is measured by both the rhetoric and the goods delivered to the district or the particular special interest. (earmarks) It is openly recognized that the role of the politician is to get for his district its “entitlement” – its share of the loot from the treasury.
Yet, in reality, no loot exists to be plundered when annual deficits of $200 billion are occurring (Trillions now) Fulfilling one’s solemn obligation to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution is, unfortunately, of minor consequence to politicians.
Political leaders, as distinguished from statesmanlike leaders, are intellectually dishonest and insist that to compromise a principled position is actually noble, necessary and the way we must operate to “keep government running.” Therefore, trading votes is not only expected, but is seen as wise and the method whereby one becomes a better and more shrewd leader, thus “deserving” even more support at the next election. Since political success is the ultimate goal, deception is never seen as negative. (We should revive the term limit issue)
This system of expediency and compromise can only produce demagogues and the destruction of freedom. Efficient control over others and the economy is considered good. Confidence in making decisions very fast is proudly promoted by the presidential candidates wanting to control us. (Witness how quick the Stimulus bill was shoved down our throat. And most in Congress weren’t given time to study and debate it. We have makings of a dictatorship and the Congress is responsible for subverting the three branches of government – where are you Supreme Court? Yea, yea, I know – its politics.)
It becomes a choice of which designer we should have for the social order – entirely ignoring the goal of individual liberty. Politicians have no understanding or confidence in free institutions and free individuals – they place confidence in the planners themselves instead. They see themselves as “inspired” to rule – not much different in practice than kings of old who claimed a “divine right” to rule others.
Modern political leaders reject the importance of private contracts; government rules are written for everything. Individual rights are never defended; special class “rights” (which are actually demands and wishes) are used as guidelines. The leaders have become social engineers of all flavors and characteristics. Television and the modern techniques of polling are of exceptional help to demagogues. Truth, liberty and the Constitution are relegated to the dung heap. Power and political success replace the tools of persuasion and justice.
The desire and arrogance to run things prompts men to cultivate their own political careers years long in advance, as they thrust themselves on the people. This system reaps a harvest of malcontents and power seekers using the system to serve their own political careers. Fear tactics become more important than facts.
Charisma is critical, but only because it has become the art of deceiving. And yet these traits are unnatural to man’s best character. Exerting tyranny over one’s fellow man represents anti-progress, non-production, and the evil side of man. It is truly the stuff of which tyrants and despots are made. (The despicable behavior of Senator Dodd and Representative Frank during hearings of the bail-out of banks. And yet, they were the one’s responsible but twist things around to blame others.)
THE GOOD GUYS: STATESMANLIKE LEADERS
Statesmen make themselves available; if times are right, the people call on them. Their “fire” is for truth, honesty and freedom, not political power or success in the next election. Temporary solutions cannot solve long-term problems. Good leaders – statesman – can change events and accelerate trends.
They cannot overcome overwhelming odds. Solzhenitsyn (Russian dissident) can “lead” but he also must serve time in Siberia and suffer the sentence of exile. The principles the Founding Fathers stood and fought for were obviously more important to them than political power and material well-being. Their goal was truth, justice and liberty, not a seat in Parliament or a King’s appointment to a position of rank. (Washington was offered to be a “King” of this “new” country but refused.)
Every generation has its statesmanlike leaders – rarely, however, are accepted and used. Aggressive, militant leadership generally dominates society. Lech Walesa (Poland) is a true statesman, a leader of the people – but has no official position. He requires no television commercials nor public relations firm to promote his image. He leads even with the government’s threat to destroy him and his credibility. He’s so strong the State cannot afford to kill him. (But in our country? JFK – RFK – ML KING – LINCOLN. What difference does it make who killed them? They meant well, but were murdered).
His motivation is solely to improve the human condition and reject the status quo of Communist oppression. He does not set out seeking a professional political career, as one might in Poland, by joining the Communist Party and working up through the ranks in order to “lead.”
The conditions are somewhat similar in America today. To become President one must hire public relations firms, compromise principles and please powerful interest groups. (third parties should be so lucky. They don’t raise enough money – other than seeking help from patriotic organizations that are denigrated and ridiculed by the main-stream media, communists and socialists. We are at war against forces that have dominated our institutions for too long. The sooner you think this way, perhaps it’ll make you mad enough to battle. All voters – throw the bastards out of office! They are destroying your country)…continuing…
Statesmen, however, are totally unconcerned about partisan politics – their concern is to restore a free society, not exercise control over others. However, charisma is critical for the politician if he is to achieve success in American politics. Today, the candidate’s television appearance is much more important than consistency in defending a set of principles. (Principles in politics are gone like the sanctity of marriage and family unit are beginning to disappear. Charisma has been “compromised” by the ability to bull-shit people, like many politicians at all levels. “Change” and people didn’t understand what was meant and didn’t bother to ask – especially the controlled press.)
The statesman has no assurance or pretense of knowledge; he is confident, quiet, and aware that he cannot run the country, other people’s lives, or the world. He knows he doesn’t have all the answers, but he is sure of the rightness of his underlying principles and does not fluctuate on his position, he is not a pragmatist.
A statesman expresses views clearly and openly, clarifying and explaining his positions – avoiding demagoguery. He is persuasive and forceful, but without abuse – it is the politics of non-violence that he advocates and practices. He is a sower of seeds, the harvest to be enjoyed by future generations. He lacks an obsession with success in the election. Ideas are important to him and he rejects all coercive government actions.
Others can help “cultivate” a statesman, even though one cannot be “created.” A statesman must receive encouragement and support by those who agree with his position on the issues for him to be effective. The spirit of the times and the mood of the country must be right for the statesman to achieve success. The extant of the intellectual groundwork done by others will decide the success or failure of good leaders. Success does not necessarily reflect the ability of a good person. Statesmen are in a position of leadership when the proper conditions exist. Great leaders do not necessarily occupy political office. I suspect America’s next great leader will not either. (Maybe when I get back from buying a six-pack and quit my job as a dishwasher, then, and only then, will I consider running for the Presidency. After all, the present guy was only a community organizer in the beginning.)
Those willing to deceive and use power in an age of intervention and inflation are more likely to be given the role of leadership. Their infatuation with forced, materialistic redistribution fit the temper of the times. Short-term schemes to consume and redistribute previously produced wealth must be rejected, if we are to survive as a free nation. The time must come when we accept as our leaders only individuals who place the highest priority on defending the principles of individual freedom, and who posses a deep concern for the political economic conditions that our children will endure…(end of article)
DEMOCRACY – “A FORM OF GOVERNMENT IN WHICH THE WILL OF THE WORTHLESS PREVAILS.” – ARISTOTLE
“I AM SORRY I ONLY HAVE ONE BAT TO SWING FOR MY COUNTRY.”
By James Shelby to the Justice Times – 1988
Italics are mine – Frank Trejo – Yesterday’s News Today.
Two days after George Bush (patsy of the bankers) was elected president of the United States, President Reagan signed legislation making the TPBR the law of the land. The bill, passed by the Senate in October, was accepted by the House with few changes during a House-Senate conference committee on another bill making technical corrections to the 1986 Tax Reform Act.
Attached as an amendment to the technical corrections bill (itself packed with more tax breaks for special interests), the TPBR allows taxpayers to sue the IRS for damages when it commits unjustified action resulting in harm, financial or otherwise, to taxpayers. (Lobbying is the fuel that adds to the fire in hell called the U.S. Congress.)
It also allows taxpayers to collect from the IRS all professional (lawyers, accountants, etc.) fees when IRS makes claims of tax deficiencies that turn out to be false. All fees incurred by the tax payer from the first administrative appeal through Tax Court (unconstitutional) are recoverable under the provision.
The IRS, reluctantly, has already begun publishing notices outlining the rights of taxpayers – required by the TPBR – which must be given to all taxpayers before meeting with the IRS, according to Damon Thompson, press secretary to Sen. Pryor the sponsor of the bill.
“Gibbs and his people have resigned themselves to the bill and are moving fast to implement its provisions,” Thompson said.
“The ombudsman is already empowered to act in behalf of taxpayers,” and all of the bill should be in force by the middle of next year. The new ombudsman has the power to order IRS to cease and desist in proceedings against taxpayers if he determines that improper procedure or disregard for the taxpayer’s rights is present. The proceedings would be halted until IRS comes into conformance with the law.
But because the ombudsman reports to the IRS commissioner, IRS critics look for a mediocre effort, at best, by the taxpayer ombudsman. (Don’t you think Congressmen contemplated how ridiculous this was – the Fox, again, guarding the Hen House? This is akin to staff personnel in banking committees coming from the banking industry.)
The bill also requires the IRS to allow taxpayers to audio and video-tape interviews and meetings with IRS agents, and to permit the presence of lawyers and accountants of taxpayers at all meetings. It extends the notice of levy from 10 to 30 days and forbids IRS from basing promotions and salary increases on the performance of agents in audits and seizures.
Only two changes were made in the bill during its compromise in the conference committee: First, the time during the civil process from which professional fees are recoverable – from first notice, in the Senate version, to first administrative appeal, in the final law; and second, the limitation of damages in suits against IRS to the government and not individual agents. (Why not? Agents trample on your rights – you sue – and it doesn’t cost him a dime? Keep in mind that a lot of articles posted are old and many changes may have occurred)
All the provisions in the TPBR represent a significant “watering-down” of the bill since its inception more than two years ago. The original bill would have shifted the entire burden of proof in civil tax cases to the IRS and would have required IRS to give a “Miranda” warning to taxpayers, including a statement about Fifth Amendment rights, before any proceeding began. These two were the first to be stricken from the bill when the compromise for passage began last year. (So, the whole thing was nothing but show from the criminals in Congress. Sen. Pryor was reelected for grandstanding against the IRS and the KGB continues with its heavy-handiness against citizens. Ernesto Miranda was at my Boy’s Club center at the time I was there.)
Whether or not the bill as passed will be effective won’t be known until well into 1989, when all of its provisions have gone into force. Thompson played up the bill, however, saying a battle had been won. “During the last few years, with government revenues down, Congress increased the power of the IRS without a commensurate increase in oversight of the IRS conduct, and some (hundreds and hundreds) resulted,” he said. “Congress, because of the need to increase collections, had been looking the other way while the IRS was zealously using its new authority. (Instead of Congress watching their spending it was easier for them to allow the IRS to destroy citizens.)
He said the TPBR re-asserts Congress’ authority and “started wresting the kind of control that Congress should have had all along.” The IRS, he said, resents the new-found backbone of the Congress. “They are saying ‘We don’t want Congress telling us what to do.”
After decades of relative independence in the huge federal bureaucracies, the perception among bureaucrats (mental midgets) is that they – not Congress – have the right to make laws, because they have been doing just that. (Isn’t that something – THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE THE LAW – NOT CONGRESS! Unfortunately, this is true. Earlier I wrote that Congress creates the wording for legislation but when it gets to the IRS they write it in such a way in their rules and regulations that benefit them and citizens can go to hell.)
But the TPBR, however weak, was a reminder that the people still have the power in America, if they will only exercise it through their representatives (criminals) in Congress. What they need to do now is assert more of it in order to make true reform a reality.
It’s hard for me not to be pessimistic. For those that are tired of my personal remarks, pay no attention. The important thing is to learn what others have said in the past.
“I AM SORRY I ONLY HAVE ONE BAT TO SWING FOR MY COUNTRY.”
(Editorial by the Justice Times)
Italics are mine – Frank Trejo – Yesterday’s News Today
How true, if we forget the past we’re bound to repeat it. The decade of the 80s weren’t good for banks. The present crisis is just history repeating.
25,000 businesses closed their doors last year – went bankrupt and terminated jobs. Did the taxpayers repay the losses of the investors? NO!
Thousands of farmers faced foreclosures last year – when the bankers demanded that loans be repaid. Did the taxpayers rush to their rescue and pay off the loans so the farmers could keep their land? NO!
Now today, 10 Big U.S. Banks are on the brink of a financial crisis. Are they taking their losses and their lumps like other Americans do in the private enterprise system? NO!
The reason why the Big Banks are in financial trouble is that, over the last 10 years, they lent $80 billion in unsecured loans to such as Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Rumania, Poland, and Hungary.
Anybody with common sense would have known that those were bad loans when they were made. Those foreign borrowers didn’t provide the financial statements, the information, or the security that American businessmen and farmers have to provide when they apply for loans. (Doesn’t this sound a little like lending a person whose salary is $30,000 a year the money to buy a $300,000 house?) Now, the foreign loans are coming due and it is clear that the Communist and LDCs can not pay them back.
But that’s not all. Banks often “roll-over” loans IF the borrower can pay the interest due on the loan. (Roll-over means that the borrower gets more time to pay back the principal) But the foreign countries are so bankrupt that they can’t even pay the interest!
When that happens to a U.S. businessman or farmer. that’s the end of the line. That means bankruptcy-or foreclosure. You are wiped out! You get sympathy from your neighbors – but the taxpayers don’t come to the rescue and pay off your loans and debts.
The Big Banks think they are a specially privileged class. (Have you seen any indictments of those that managed “Big Banks” that went broke? The administrators of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – that made off with millions? That the Congress allowed this travesty to happen to the American people? Privileged? I’d say so. This is what happens when you have criminals running our government)… They are demanding a Big Bank Bailout straight out of the pockets of the long-suffering American taxpayers.
This should be called “The Big Bank Bailout of 1983.” It isn’t robbery OF a bank – it’s a rip-off OF the U.S. taxpayers BY the Big Banks. (NO! NO!NO! it’s a crime committed by the three branches of government for allowing bankers to rape us financially. It’s been going on since 1913.)
The big Banks have worked out a clever scheme through a middleman in the hope that most Americans won’t realize what a rip off this is. The Big Banks are asking that the U.S. Treasury give $8.4 billion to the International Monetary Fund (IMF); then the IMF will give the $8.4 billion to the deadbeat Communists and LDC governments; and then those foreign governments will give the $8.4 billion to Citibank, Chase Manhattan Bank, Bank of America, and the other Big Banks to cover the overdue interest payments. (Remember, the rich International Bankers are the ones that invented Communism.)
And who picks up the tab? YOU DO! – because the U.S. Treasury gets all its money from the American taxpayer.
Do you know how YOUR U.S. Senators and Congressmen will vote on the Big Bank Bailout of 1983? You had better get in touch with them fast because the pressure is on to rush this appropriation through before the American people find out what is happening. (Now you understand why Obama wanted the Stimulus package approved before you woke up in the morning. But because the Democrats control, it passed. After the fact, the American people are beginning to understand what a con job these radicals foisted upon them. It is loaded with socialist programs, new energy and health programs that are normally debated but are being shoved down our throats by telling the weaklings in the GOP to go to hell – being shut out of debate. That’s the way socialists and communists behave in a democracy – the worst form of government.
There’s lots more to the Big Bank Bailout plan, $8.4 billion is only the beginning. (No shit!) American banks have made $80 billion in bad loans to foreign borrowers. (Now, the criminals are bailing out foreign banks) In order to conceal from the American people what they are doing, the Big Banks’ financial statements list these bad loans as “assets.” Will the auditors go along with this scheme? (Take the “t” out of the word assets and it can be applied to us)
The other part of the cover up involves the Federal Reserve (Private Corporation – for new readers) which, under the law, is supposed to supervise the banks. (The Fox guarding the Hen house) But the Fed has been pressuring the banks to make MORE bad loans (homes) to those same bankrupt foreign countries (like banks that are bleeding for cash) in order to keep the interest payments coming. Apparently, the Federal Reserve has passed the word to its bank examiners to give the banks a hard time UNLESS these banks INCREASE their bad loans to foreign countries. (Derivatives, any one?)
The American taxpayers must NOT be forced to pay for the mistakes of the Big Banks. Those mistakes were made by identifiable men in identifiable Big Banks and THEY must be held responsible. The financial loss must fall on the directors of the Big Banks and on the stockholders who hired them. The interest payments on the bad loans can and should be made out of the Big Banks’ capital and earnings. This will NOT affect the depositors’ money.
The $8.4 billion appropriation to the International Monetary Fund must be defeated! Stop the Big Bank Bailout of 1983!
In an earlier article I made the comment that these things don’t happen by accident. These monetary rapes have always been around. Before, because of the complicity of the press and others, people were kept in the dark. What is so sad, there is no excuse for this to happen again, with access to information by the tons. There will be a few criminals thrown out next year, but overall, this will continue until we are completely destroyed. And we will be destroyed, on the course criminals in government are taking us on. I just hope it’s not now – until after I run out of tamales.
I AM SORRY I ONLY HAVE ONE BAT TO SWING FOR MY COUNTRY.”
(A follow up of an earlier article)
Italics are mine – Frank Trejo – Yesterday’s News Today – 1987
COMMITTEE APPROVES INSPECTOR’S OFFICE OVER IRS AS AGENTS DESCRIBE PRESSURES TO HARASS AND SEIZE.
Washington – The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee has approved legislation that includes a major element of the proposed Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights, sponsored by Senator David Pryor of Arkansas.
Pryor, who is a member of the committee, won approval of language that would establish an independent inspector general’s office at the Treasury Department with the authority to review operations of the IRS (KGB). The Committee added the language to a bill dealing with the routine operations of the inspector general.
The inspector general measure is one of 17 provisions that comprise the Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights, which Pryor designed to try to prevent the abuse of taxpayers. “This is the first of what I hope are many legislative victories” for the bill, Pryor said.
“We have found from the testimony of past IRS employees, abused taxpayers and current IRS employees that there is no more critical issue than the establishment of an independent inspector general to watch over the IRS.”
“We need an office where abused taxpayers and IRS employees can take their problems and know they will be looked into by someone whose paycheck doesn’t depend on the IRS commissioner,” Pryor said.
Less than a month earlier, Pryor had invited half-a-dozen current IRS employees to testify before his committee to describe the pressure IRS agents are under to increase revenues. Five IRS officers said the agency is stressful and employees are under pressure to produce.
Claiming that some of the service’s managers are “incompetent and unprofessional,” Robert Miller, an IRS employee for 14 years, said, “The IRS is a highly stressful organization. All of the revenue officers I have known have felt tremendous pressure. We’ve always felt under the gun, and those pressures are becoming worse and worse.”
(I’ve felt that way before when carrying out duties that I knew were wrong)
Pryor introduced an IRS internal memo issued to group managers in Baltimore from field branch chief Wilbur McKean in which McKean called the collection report for January…” a sorry report. The revenue officers that are performing above a satisfactory level will be rewarded, and the ones who are not will be documented with corrective action taken. Your midyear evaluation will be prepared in one-and-a-half months. You will be evaluated on your accomplishments or lack of accomplishment. Need I say more?”
IRS Commissioner Lawrence Gibbs (Liar) told Pryor’s committee earlier that enforcement personnel were not evaluated on a quota system. However, Shirley Garcia said, “We have revenue officers comparing how much they collect on a daily basis. The competition is there.”
Garcia said many IRS recruits are “under the impression that the more seizures they make and the more harassment they give, the faster they will get ahead.”
John Pepping, an IRS officer from Los Angeles IRS said one group manager had a sign taped to the wall that read: “Seizure Fever, Catch It.”
Pepping said it was uncommon for managers to have contests for revenue officers in which those finishing at the top of certain statistical categories were awarded an extra hour of leave per week…end of article
The main purpose of the IRS is to keep people in fear. The collection of illegal withholding of your wages is secondary. The collection of taxes on wages, prosecution of those that don’t pay, and the administration of the monetary system all are enforced under the 2-4-5 planks of the communist manifesto. Go to the internet and click on the following: 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto. So please don’t call me a “wacko.”
I AM SORRY I HAVE ONLY ONE BAT TO SWING FOR MY COUNTRY.”
This Article appeared in the Justice Times – 1985
Italics are mine – Frank Trejo – Yesterday’s News today
This article is quite lengthy. But it is important to point out the damage done to the Constitution by those in our country who have made our people forget the Constitution. The number did on us runs so deep that many federal judges accept that our Constitution doesn’t apply any longer. Many tax rebels attempted to use the Constitution in court as evidence to help in their defense and were held in contempt.
An Article 111 judge is: 1) A constitutional judge who is able to rule on issues and questions of constitutional merit and importance, and 2) A judge who is properly qualified to exercise the judicial power of the United States pursuant to Article 111, Section 1, of the United States Constitution. Article 111, Sec. 1, states that:
“The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior , and shall at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.” (Remember this – the key word is “diminished.”)
In order for a judge to be properly qualified to exercise the judicial power of the United States, two indicia must be present: 1) Appointed by the President to serve for life, and 2) To receive a guaranteed compensation free from any type or form of diminution.
“No provisions of the Constitution…are more explicit and specific than those pertaining to courts established under Article 111.” National Mutual Insurance Company v. Tidewater Transfer Company, Inc. 337 US 582, (Frankfurter, J., dissenting)
In order for any court to exercise the judicial power of the United States and rule on constitutional issues, the judges of those courts must be properly qualified.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in Pacemaker Diagnostic Clinic of America v. Instromedix, Inc., 725 F2d 537 (1984), stated: “The lesson of the Framers is that those who exercise the judicial power of the United States under Article 111 must be Article 111 Judges.” Also in Pacemaker, the Court stated: “The Judiciary is the principal check on the usurpation of power by the other branches.” (And yet, the Court is guilty of usurping the Constitution. The other two branches full of criminals have allowed the Court to make law. This was one of the great worries of our founding fathers besides the control of the monetary system)
And continuing, the Court quoted John Rutledge in the 11 Annals of Congress, 739-40, as follows: “So long as we have an independent judiciary, the great interest of the people will be safe.”
It is, therefore, imperative that any judge who is about to exercise the judicial power of the United States must enjoy Article 111 protection to ensure that “the great interests of the people will be safe.” The people interests must be protected from the encroachment and/or usurpation by the other branches of government.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in another recent decision, stated in U.S. v. Woodley, 726 F2d 1328, that no court could receive or exercise Article 111 judicial powers if the judges could be either directly or indirectly influenced by either of the other branches of the government, or their departments. (The IRS is in the Executive Branch. I mention at times the meanings, because many people have been made ignorant of our Constitution and don’t know many things about how government is suppose to function.)
The Congress (legislative branch) of the United States Government, eliminated the protection of the property (rights) of the people of the United States by and through passage of the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939 (found at USC, Section 111) (Reminder: No Act or Statute can change what’s written in the Constitution without permission from the people via the 5th Article of the Constitution – the Amendment process. The reason why they get away with unconstitutional “Acts” is because you’ve been brainwashed into believing that the Constitution is a “living document” that it can be changed as we go along. Because they say the Amendment process takes too long. There are many laws in the Constitution that this criminal government doesn’t adhere to and you know why they are still there? Because no one can take them off except you and I. The diminution of judges salaries of which this article is about is still in there. And incredibly as it may sound, young people majoring in law aren’t schooled in the Constitution. Their bar exam has to do with case law and other bullshit but not the meaning of the Constitution. Tenth plank communist manifesto – education controlled by government)
The Act diminishes the compensation of Federal judges, and by so doing, made them dependent, or at least subject, to the influence of the IRS and/or the tax commission of the state in which they reside.
Both Crowell v. Benson, 285 US 22, and the United States v. Raddatz, 447 US 667, were cases in which the High Court approved the use of administrative agencies and magistrates as adjuncts to Article 111 courts. The line of reasoning laid down in the above cases was used by the High Court in Northern Pipeline Company v. Marathon Pipeline Company 458 US 50, to determine that Section 1471 of Ch. 11 U.S.C. had impermissibly removed most, if not all, of the essential attributes of the judicial power from the Art. 111 district court and vested those attributes in a non-Art. 111 adjunct. Section 1471 granted the bankruptcy judges a very broad jurisdiction that was, in many respects, similar to the jurisdiction of an Art. 111 Court.
The bankruptcy courts were created by Congress to function as Art. 111 (judicial) courts. Congress had overstepped its authority to create legislative courts, and the High Court so ruled that the section in question was, in fact unconstitutional, because Congress had given those courts the same or similar jurisdiction as an Art. 111 but had by Statute stated that the judges of said courts were to serve for 14-year terms and that their salaries were to be declared by the Congress and were/are subject to change during their tenure if so desired by the Congress.
If that same line of reasoning displayed in Crowell v. Benson, supra, is applied to 4 U.S.C. 111, one can readily see that Section 111 impermissibly removes most of the essential attributes of an Art. 111 judge, i.e. diminution of a guaranteed compensation through taxation. The U. S. Supreme Court, in Evans v. Gore, stated:
“Any diminution which by necessary operation and effect withholds or takes from a judge a part of that which had been promised by law for his services must be regarded as within the limitation.” Evans v. Gore, 253 US 245, 254
And they went on to say that:
“The prohibition (against diminution of compensation) embraces and prevents diminution by taxation, and has been so construed in the actual practice of the Government.” Supra, p. 255…And:
“A tax upon the net income of a United States District Judge, assessed under the Act of February 24, 1919, c. 18, 40 Stat. 1062, Sec. 213,…by including his official salary in the computation, operates to diminish his compensation, in violation of the Constitution, and is invalid.” Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 US 165; United States Glue Co. v. Oak Creek, id, 321, distinguished 262 Fed. Rep. 550, reversed, … Supra, p. 263
It would then logically follow from the foregoing that 4 U.S.C. 111 is likewise unconstitutional, as it attaches a federal and/or a state income tax upon the net salaries of the entire collection of public servants, which includes federal judges.
Federal judges are expressly exempt from taxation, or other diminution of their compensation, under the provisions of Art. 111, Sec. 1, as previously ruled by the High Court in Evans, supra.
Said Act directly or indirectly influences Art. 111 judges, and by its very operation seeks to make the judiciary dependent upon other branches or departments of government, through the diminution of their compensation. There is no other more effective way to control a man than through the control of his purse strings.
The Act, by its operation and application, destroys the spirit and intent of Art. 111, i.e. mainly to keep to the Federal judiciary independent from outside influences that would affect the judgment of those judges exercising the judicial power of the United States.
In determining the Woodley case, supra, the 9th Circuit relied upon O’Donoghue v. U.S., quoting the High Court as follows:
“The acts of each department should never be controlled by, or subjected , directly or indirectly, to, the coercive influence of either of the other departments.” O’Donoghue v. U.S. 280 US 516
No judge is capable of performing his oath concerning the judicial power conferred by the Constitution upon the judicial branch of government (Art. 111) so long as that judge is affected in any way by the IRS and/or the State Tax Commission, and the Public Salary Act. In the Marathon case, supra, the High Court stated:
“The judicial power of the United States must be exercised by courts having the attributes prescribed in Art. 111. These attributes are clearly set forth: …a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.”
Congress never had the power to pass an act which would place such an influence (tax) on the judiciary, nor even on the sovereign people whom the judiciary was to protect; and the executive branch, through the Justice Department, is outside the law in their application, administration, and enforcement of any form of diminution of federal judges’ compensation.
It is clear that judges can be independent only if they are protected under the provisions of Art. 111, and not subjected to any influence, coercion and/or intimidation by any party to an action. In the Woodley decision, supra, the Court makes it clear that there is no difference between a judge glancing back over his shoulder at Congress, or one with an eye over his shoulder at the IRS and/or the State Tax Commission.
The judge who may be intimidated or directly or indirectly influenced psychologically and/or financially by the IRS or a Tax Commission, cannot fairly or objectively conduct a trial or act on an appeal in which the interests of the IRS or the State Tax Commission are at stake. This is an obvious conflict of interest. Therefore, any and all judges of the United States subject to diminution of salary through taxation are not afforded Art. 111 protection, and cannot act without prejudice in matters concerning the IRS or the State Tax Commission, to which they are subject.
As stated by the High Court in Marathon, supra:
“Basic to the constitutional structure established by the Framers was their recognition 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.” The Federalist No. 47, p. 300
To ensure against such tyranny, the Framers provided that the Federal Government would consist of three distinct branches, each to exercise one of the governmental powers recognized by the Framers as inherently distinct. ‘The Framers regarded the checks and balances that they had built into the tripartite Federal Government as a self-executing safeguard against the encroachment or aggrandizement of one branch at the expense of the other.’ Buckley v. Valeo, 424 US 1, 122 (1976)
“The Federal Judiciary was therefore designed by the Framers to stand independent of the Executive and Legislature – to maintain the checks and balances of the constitutional structure, and also to guarantee that the process of adjudication itself remained impartial.
‘Hamilton explained that importance of an independent Judiciary in the Federalist Papers, number 78, and made it quite clear that the Judiciary must be truly distinct from both the Legislature and the Executive. He stated: “…liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have everything to fear from its union with either of the other departments.’ Hamilton also stated that:
“Periodical appointments, however regulated, or by whomsoever made, would, in some way or another, be fatal to the courts’ necessary independence. If the power of making them was committed either to the Executive or Legislature, there would be danger of an improper complaisance to the Branch which possessed it; if to both, there would be an unwillingness to hazard the displeasure of either, if to the people, or to persons chosen by them for the special purpose, there would be too great a disposition to consult popularity, to justify a reliance that nothing would be consulted but the Constitution and the laws.’
“The Court has only recently reaffirmed the significance of this feature of the Framers designed:
“A Judiciary free from control by the Executive and Legislature is essential if there is a right to have claims decided by judges who are free from potential domination by other branches of government.” United States v. Will US 217-218 (1980)
“As an in-separate element of the constitutional system of checks and balances, and as a guarantee of judicial impartiality, Art. 111 both defines the power and protects the independence of the Judicial Branch. It provides that ‘The Judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish Art. 111 Sec. 1.”
The inexorable command of this provision is clear and definite: The judicial power of the United States must be exercised by courts having the attributes prescribed in Art. 111. Those attributes are also clearly set forth:
“The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior , and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.” Art. 111, Sec. 1
“The ‘good Behavior’ Clause guarantees that Art. 111 judges shall enjoy life tenure, subject only to removal by impeachment.” Toth v. Quaries, 350 US 11, 16 (1955).
The Compensation Clause guarantees Art. 111 judges a fixed and irreducible compensation for their services. United States v. Will, supra at 218-221.
Both of these provisions were incorporated into the Constitution to ensure the independence of the Judiciary from the control of the Executive (IRS) and Legislative Branches of government. Federalist No. 78 by Alexander Hamilton.
“As we have recently emphasized ‘the Compensation Clause has its roots in the longstanding Anglo-American tradition of an independent Judiciary,’ 449 US at 217, while the principle of life tenure can be traced back at least as far as the Act of Settlement in 1701. To be sure, both principles were eroded during the late colonial period, but that departure did not escape notice and indignant rejection by the Revolutionary generation. Indeed, the guarantees eventually included in Art. 111 were clearly foreshadowed in the Declaration of Independence, ‘which, among the injuries and usurpations recited against the King of Great Britain, declared that he had made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.’ O’Donoghue v. United States, 289 US 516, 531 (1933)
“The Framers thus recognized:
“Next to permanency in office, nothing can contribute more to the independence of the judges than a fixed provision for their support… in the general course of human nature, a power over a man’s subsistence amounts to power over his will’. The Federalist No. 79, p. 491
“Further evidence of the Framer’s concern for assuring the independence of the Judicial Branch may be found in the fact that the Constitutional Convention soundly defeated a proposal to allow to removal of judges by the Executive and Legislative Branches. 2m Farrand, Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, pp. 428-429 (1911). See footnote #11 on p. 60.
“In sum, our Constitution unambiguously enunciates a fundamental principle – that the Judicial Power of the United States must be reposed in an independent Judiciary. It commands that the independence of the Judiciary be jealously guarded, and it provides a clear institutional protections for that independence.” Marathon, supra, pp. 58-60.
The 9th Circuit, in Pacemaker, supra, stated:
“The attributes of Art. 111 judges, permanency in office and the right to an undiminished compensation are as essential to the independence of judiciary now as they were when the Constitution was framed.” See The Federalist Nos. 78-79; Northern Pipeline Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 US 50, 58-60, 221, (1980)
It is apparent that so long as federal judges are subject to salary diminution by an through the Public Salary Tax Act, (unconstitutional) they can, may, and will be coerced to entertain the fiction that private individuals are subject to payment of an income tax upon their wages or salaries, the same as the judiciary is now subjected. Such reasoning and conclusions were demonstrated in Woodley, supra, where the Court stated:
“The framers…sought to make the Federal judges servants not of the executive but only of their conscience.”
The Ninth Circuit heavily relied upon Evans v. Gore, 253 US 245, emphasizing that:
“…judges must be not only independent of outside influence in fact, but must also be above even the suspicion of any influence.”
Sovereign individuals and heirs, in fact, cannot but be suspicious of any coercive influence of the agency connected to any such case question. The people are entitled to an independent federal judiciary to allow proper redress of grievance in the courts without being suspicious that the judiciary is beholden to the very party by which the action is brought.
Now if, in fact, any judge assigned to hear any case pays any income taxes on his guaranteed salary, then his compensation has been diminished in violation of the clear and unambiguous language of Article III, Section 1, and said judge is not an Article !!! judge properly qualified to exercise the judicial power of the United States in maters of constitutional importance.
“Any federal judge who pays income taxes of any type is not afforded Art. III protections and is not properly qualified to exercise the judicial power of the United States.”
It now becomes apparent that the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939, seeks to diminish, through taxation, the compensation that federal judges receive for their services and is, therefore, unconstitutional the same as the above act, cited in Evans, supra, was declared unconstitutional and invalid. The matter is settled. Any federal judge who pays income taxes of any type is not afforded Art. III protections and is not properly qualified to exercise the judicial power of the United States.
Now a question arises; fi any judge who is to hear any action is influenced by the fiction that he (the judge) is required to pay any income tax on this guaranteed salary, then he will mistakenly believe and rule that everyone who receives wages, salaries, or tips is likewise required to pay the income tax.
If the foregoing is true, then said judge has been directly influenced by the I.R.S. (who he is beholden to) in an adverse manner that violates the spirit of the framers’ intent to keep the judiciary free from outside influences. The framers’ intent to keep the judiciary free from outside influences. The framers’ intent to keep the judiciary from outside influences was to ensure fairness in matters where constitutional rights are involved, thereby preserving our national heritage free from tyranny of government through coercion and corruption of the judiciary.
Any judge whose salary is diminished is subject to being influenced and is, therefore, unqualified to and incapable of properly exercising the judicial power of the United States, or of holding the scales of justice evenly in actions that concern acts of misconduct by I.R.S. agents or other agents of the government.
Pursuant to Justice White’s dissenting opinion in Marathon, supra, there seems to be an “obvious lack of Art. III judges-…” However …
“…Our precedents make it clear that the constitutional requirements for the exercise of the judicial power must be met at all stages of adjudication,…” As contained in footnote #39 in Marathon, supra.
In conclusion then, only those judges who are properly qualified and enjoy the protections of Article III, i.e. life tenure and a compensation that shall not be diminished (even though taxation), may exercise the judicial power of the United States. A judge must not pay any income taxes on his compensation, as that would act to influence his judgment.
And when a natural person’s constitutional rights are involved, only courts established under the provisions of Article III are empowered by the Constitution to adjudicate matters of constitutional merit and importance….end of article.
WHEW! Doesn’t that say it all. First, think of the time and dedication of research to put all this together. In an earlier article a Congressman said that because of the depression that left our country broke, our Constitution was suspended and we were slipped into a socialist system bankers wanted. If that is true, of which I think it is, than that explains why FDR started socializing our country and we didn’t have a Constitution to protect us any longer. The reason for socializing our country is because government becomes bigger and bigger. It takes a lot of money to run and where does the money come from? – the banks.
Even though the Court had ruled in many instances that Art 111 is viable – what is it with judges that don’t raise the issue? Have they been forewarned not to abide by the Constitution? Is this what they are taught in law school? Does this explain why the Courts deny us “due process”? Is this why Presidents send our young all over the world to protect the interests of the Corporate world? Without the Court ruling that only Congress can declare war? Is this why all three branches are subverted? Is this why Congress and the White House do whatever they want? Is this why government is bailing out the financial industry and sending billions of OUR tax monies to bailout foreign banks? and the Court is mum? I’m afraid it is true.
We have a criminal government on our hands. If only more people accepted this fact perhaps we would stand a chance in recovering what rightfully belongs to us, and not the two-party system full of traitors to our country that is controlled by those that rule the world.
How much longer are we to allow government to send our young to “greedy wars. ”How many more trillions in corporate welfare and subsidies to the world while our people lose homes? I think it’s all over, folks. The socialists and communists have won. They have dominated our institutions for so long that our people have gotten used to big government. How else do you explain the popularity of the most radical person to hold the office of the presidency? How else do you explain the ruthlessness that people, who mean well, are subjected to by the media, academia, Hollywood? I stand at intersections with signs demonstrating against this tyranny and many flip fingers and yell the F-word like crazy people – probably democrats. I don’t think true Americans react that way.
Nevertheless, if you think this information is worth sharing with others, do it. Send it to judges. Send it to politicians. Send it to lawyers. Send it to Veterans and American Legion organizations. Send it to your representatives. Maybe there are some Patrick Henrys out there – “Give me Liberty or give me death.”
Even though I think “it’s over” I want to close with my favorite saying:
“I AM SORRY I HAVE ONLY ONE BAT TO SWING FOR MY COUNTRY.”
Article from the Justice Times – 1987
Italics are mine – Frank Trejo – Yesterday’s News Today.
The following article, addressing a “Bill of Rights” legislation for people, came about because of all the tyrannical methods of the IRS.
Washington – The IRS claims it is trying to curtail abuses of power by overzealous agents, making the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights Act unnecessary, IRS Commissioner Lawrence Gibbs told a Senate subcommittee in late April. Gibbs said the IRS is trying to treat taxpayers as customers and said any changes to assure better treatment of taxpayers can be made by changing present internal policies rather than enacting legislation.
The purpose of the late April hearing was to allow IRS officials to respond to testimony at an April 10 hearing when one taxpayer complained of being destroyed by the IRS and a former IRS administrator said employees were promoted based on the amount of taxes they collected and assets seized. Another tax expert said there are no appeals or checks and balances in the collection process.
Senator David Pryor (Dem., Ark), head of the Finance Committee’s Subcommittee on Private Retirement Plans and Oversight of IRS, is a co-sponsor of the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights. The bill, among other things, would require the IRS to prepare a comprehensive statement of taxpayer rights and obligations, create an inspector general’s office to investigate and audit the IRS and empower the IRS ombudsman to issue orders to halt IRS actions.
The IRS would issue taxpayers a Miranda type warning before interviewing them. Gibbs said that Congress, not the IRS, is responsible for confusion and fear of the agency among taxpayers during the past two decades. Gibbs said the American tax system is still “the envy of the world.” (Who wouldn’t be afraid of a government agency that resorts to tactics like the KGB of Russia)
Gibbs, however, said much of the blame should be put on Congress, which he claimed “has constantly been changing tax laws since 1969. Such changes create confusion, and confusion creates distrust.” (This guy was and probably still is in retirement a liar. Congress didn’t go around confiscating assets, stealing homes from people, getting people fired, and many wallowing in prison because they dared raise constitutional questions. Don’t believe anything of this criminal agency)
Gibbs said that due to the numerous changes in the country’s tax code, “we have seen a rise in the number of tax protesters, and we have seen an increase in tax gimmicks. We need the support and cooperation of taxpayers for our system to work.” (The “gimmicks” he talks about is information discovered by patriotic citizens of the unconstitutional taxes on wages and illegal activities by the IRS. And he calls them “gimmicks.”)
“The taxpayer must believe our tax law is fair. They must also believe that if they are trying to pay their fair share, then the IRS will help.” Gibbs said. The IRS commissioner said the agency already has publications informing taxpayers of their rights and has a policy prohibiting the use of quotas for promoting employees.
Senator Pryor noted, however, that there is “an unofficial seizure quota system” within some regional offices that has created “a bounty hunter mentality” for collection agents. Gibbs admitted, “I think we do have some instances from time to time when this policy is not followed.
Senator Pryor said he had received hundreds of telephone calls about the legislation. He said the bill has touched “a raw nerve in our population.” “People are afraid of the IRS,” Pryor told Gibbs. Gibbs said the agency was “not looking for fear. We’re not looking for love. We’re looking for respect and confidence.”
Pryor said he wanted the problems addressed by the Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights to be corrected “not in manuals, not in regulations but in the law. He told Gibbs, “I really, truly believe, its going to take intervention by Congress (more liars) to give you the support I know you want.”
One Senator told Gibbs: “Think of this bill as not a way to bash the IRS, rather think of it as a way to correct the actions of a small percentage of IRS agents who give the entire service a bad reputation.” The senator said the IRS has “an image problem” that is mostly self-inflicted
An example, he said, a taxpayer who wants to talk to an agent can do so only through an intercom system…end of article
A brother of mine was vacationing in California. When they got home there was a lien on the house. They didn’t recall any warning. They shook like a leaf, like most citizens do, and had to pay $30,000 to keep their home. Just think how many thousands in our country have experienced similar atrocities – especially farmers, our breadbaskets.
For many years the IRS would commit some kind of injustice, to some right before April the 15th, and supported by the mainstream media to instill more fear in citizens.
The following article is about former Congressman Hansen. He was after the IRS while still in office because of all the complaints by his constituents. And he was destroyed. This was happening during the time this article on Commissioner Gibbs.
What happened to that legislation I didn’t bother to research. The only researching I do is looking for my six-pack of Schiltz at Fry’s.
“I AM SORRY I HAVE ONLY ONE BAT TO SWING FOR MY COUNTRY.”
By Roy Oak to the Justice Times – 1988
Italics are mine – Frank Trtejo – Yesterday’s News Today
Washington – Former Utah Congressman George Hansen told government officials last month that he is one “indignant husband” when he found out that federal prosecutors “have nothing better to do than heavy-handedly harass a woman on a two year old issue of little or no consequence.
Hansen accused the Justice Department officials of starting civil proceeding against Connie Hansen with the intent of converting the allegations into criminal charges and later demanding that she, like Hansen, be jailed on the charges. (How do you think other elected officials feel when they witness what this former colleague is going through)
Hansen was responding to the government’s latest efforts to intimidate him in his efforts to stand up for Americans who are being harassed and abused by government officials. (I constantly remind you the similarities between the 10 planks of the communist manifesto. The 4th plank is going after citizens that raise hell in a communist country.)
Justice Department officials, Hansen said, are “hell-bent to railroad me out of public life and to ruin my reputation and to bury me financially. Having failed at this, they are now targeting my wife and family. There is a ton of proof for this statement,” he said.
Hansen only recently was released from federal prison after serving a year on allegations that he violated a Congressional ethics law by not reporting some of his wife Connie’s income. (The ethics committee in Congress is a farce. Look at all the crimes being committed nowadays and we hardly ever see any results. Democrats get a slap on the hand for not paying taxes but let it be a Republican and all hell breaks loose!
In the government’s latest assault on Hansen, Mrs. Hansen was notified recently that prosecutors are proceeding civilly against her on similar charges – although Hansen was the only person ever charged criminally under the 1978 Ethics in Government Act.
“I can tell you that I’m one indignant husband,” Hansen wrote to one senator after hearing about the plans. “I can’t believe that the Department of Justice has nothing better to do than heavy-handedly harass a woman on a two year old issue of little or no consequence, and especially where their facts are so obviously in error,” Hansen wrote.
The government’s letter to Mrs. Hansen claimed it was a civil matter, but in closing asked her attorney to contact a trial lawyer already assigned to the case in the event the matter was not resolved to the department’s satisfaction.
“I’m not going to sit quietly while these headhunters (I say criminals) frame their threats in such a way as to make it clear that they are not just going for a $5000 civil fine on each of the three instances cited, but that they’ll be pressing for unnecessary and impossible compliance in such a way as to demand jailing for contempt.” (“We’re looking for respect and confidence.” – Gibbs)
“The Department,” Hansen continued, “has already had a big pound of flesh from the Hansen’s over contrived charges, and enough is enough. I’ve spent a year in federal confinement and more years on probation and parole for making an effort at full disclosure and having it twisted on me – and that is indeed the truth.”
Hansen said the goverrnment’s motivation against him was political because there was obviously no reason for the justice department, after almost two years, “to go after a former federal employee who held office only a few months and who handled no funds and made no monetary decisions.”
Referring to a December 3, 1987 letter to Mrs. Hansen from the Justice Department that was hand-delivered the same day, Hansen said, “ the tone of the letter and the way it was handled makes it very obvious that the Justice Department comes after Connie with unusual hostility.”
“I served a year in prison…because of selective prosecution and an obvious vendetta in the Justice Department because of my fight against government prosecution of citizens. Connie and I forced to sell our home, car and possessions to satisfy the $40,000 fine. (Don’t think this can’t happen to you. Either you live as a free American or live like an economic slave under the iron fist of a criminal government.)
“Then,” Hansen continued, “ I was arrested without a warrant, transported in the dead of the night by a Lear jet to Washington, and held under an alias to hide me from the news media as well as my family and lawyer.” (4th plank communist manifesto and total disregard of Hansen’s “Bill of Rights.”
“The Justice Department has pushed and bullied me through the court and parole systems to invade and monitor my activities and finances in my fight to protect citizens from abusive government practices.”
“ In fact, a department spokesman has openly admitted that, and now they are obviously expanding their effort to try to stifle my activities through legal and financial pressure on my wife.”
“I am the only congressman, of hundreds who had complications in spouse disclosure on ethics forms, who went to the committee and openly and legally worked out an agreeable program of disclosure and followed it with advice of counsel – and yet, I am the only one to end up in prison.”
“I am firmly convinced that this attack on Connie is a clear retaliation for my lawsuit against Justice Department officials for their April 15th kidnapping operation,” Hansen wrote. (Finally, showing some balls by using the proper words)
Hansen was referring to an incident in Louisville, Nebraska where he was abducted on a parole violation while he was on a speaking assignment. Hansen had served six months on the one year prison term, and placed on parole, although he and parole officials discussed but failed to reach and agreement on parole terms.
Government officials apparently wanted to gag Hansen, while he wanted to continue his speaking engagements. While the conditions were still being negotiated, Hansen kept officials appraised of his schedule.
Rather than advising him of their plans to revoke probation while he was at his Virginia home, officials waited until he flew to Nebraska, and sent marshals out to arrest him on April 15 ( April the 15th? What a coincidence.) and secretly flew him back to Washington and kept him in jail under an alias….end of article
I don’t believe Congress is aware of half of the crimes committed by the IRS. They are too busy creating crimes themselves. How in the hell do you indict the Congress and the Executive Branch? You go to the Courts and are told it’s a political thing. You go to your representatives and they laugh behind your back. You write, write, write, to the media and nothing ever happens. Another ”Tea Party” is scheduled for the 15th of April and you mark my words – nothing will happen.
People ask, Frank, why do you place yourself in jeopardy? I want people to learn things we should have learned a long time ago. The whole system is illegal. I don’t care how long it has been such. All I have to know is that we have a Constitution and government is not adhering to it. How in the hell are we allowing one man to put us on the road to communism? Show me the authority given to him by YOUR CONSTITUTION! This is what happens when you have one party controlling the House, Senate, and White House. When the Republicans, the lesser of two evils, controlled all three you never experienced this type of tyranny.
The Republicans are to blame for the mess we’re in. If the GOP had stopped that phony Republican Bush from behaving like a liberal, and stopped all that spending, perhaps they could have retained power. But no, it wasn’t meant to be. The powers at be have been waiting for someone like Obama for many years. The powers directed the main stream media to denigrate the word “Conservative” and the sheep ate it all up. Now Obama is carrying out their life long dream – the destruction of the middle class and converting us into a third-world class country. He’s made a hero all over the world because “the world” is either communist or socialist.
I will never accept that Congress, White House, and the Federal Reserve didn’t know of the pending crash. It is impossible not to have known. These things don’t happen by accident. They are carrying out the wishes of the power at be.
And finally, I’m doing this for all your kids and grandkids of the future. They will be faced with a horrendous tax bill. Not too long ago I read a government figure that said in the future Americans will be paying around 80% in taxes. The radical in the White House, with the approval of Democrats in the Congress, will be spending $1,000,000,000,000 per year for the next few. No President can spend without the approval of Congress. You must throw out some Democrats next year. Tell third party people to vote for the GOP next year, just once, otherwise whatever votes they get will surely guarantee less votes for Republicans.
And don’t let the media and Democrats bull-shit you about how great Roosevelt was. He was a disaster! Six years into his administration the country still had an unemployment rate between 15 and 20 percent. His Secretary of the Treasury made the statement – it’s on record – that all that spending didn’t do any good. He stifled economic recovery. FDR’s “stimulus package” went to those in our country, those who he, with the international bankers, were starving – the poor who made up his voter base. Now, the food stamp program is going up 13.6 percent. To produce what ? Nothing! But maintains that voter base just like FDR.
The market didn’t really recover until the early ‘50s. And it took taking us to war to do it. And he’ s considered number three after Washington and Lincoln – thanks media and academia – revisionists, most of them.
FOR MORE ARTICLES PLEASE CLICK “FRANK TREJO” ON THE RIGHT SIDE BAR.
I AM SORRY I HAVE ONLY ONE BAT TO SWING FOR MY COUNTRY.
Letter to editor of the Justice Times – 1983
Italics are mine – Frank Trejo – Yesterday’s News Today
The following letter recalls a movement back then concerning the monetary system in our country. Today there is a grass root movement addressing the same issue. History repeats and things remain the same. We are economic slaves. Why? Because we have criminals in government operating outside the Constitution.
You are invited to another BOSTON TEA PARTY. This time we will not throw cartons of tea into the ocean. We will throw some Congressmen out of office for refusing to repeal the Federal Reserve Act.
The Federal Reserve (Master’s of deceit) is a banking private firm that is owned by a bunch of local and foreign loan sharks. (International Bankers) They created the present recession with interest rates as high as 22 per cent (President Carter), throwing millions out of work, causing them to lose their homes, cars and furniture. These high interest rates have caused thousands of small businesses to go bankrupt.
The Federal Reserve also took 100 billion dollars of our tax money last year in the form of interest on our national debt. The Federal Reserve bought this money from our Treasury Department for $20 a thousand and loaned it back to our government for 100 billion dollars a year. You don’t believe it? Just ask your friendly, neighborhood banker.
With just 3% of that 100 billion the FRB could buy every member of Congress and probably still have the FRB. Congress even furnishes the collection agency (IRS) to collect the taxes so the FRB would get their blood money. Any Congressman that does not know what he or she has done is not fit to represent anyone. If they do know they should be committed to a mental institution or a federal prison.
Date of Tea Party: November election 1984.
Location of Party: Your nearest voting booth……end of letter
The present Tea Party movement is gaining much publicity. Their target date is April 15.
This latest get together of G20, of which the President attended, is for the purpose of placing the whole world under socialism. The world is becoming a socialist welfare state. President Obama after the meeting used a communist word that spells “collectivism.” Folks, here at home we are being communized. What else does it mean when government is beginning to take over all our institutions? What else does it mean when government allows one person (the President) to alter our way of life without debate? Do we have a dictatorship in the making? We must throw out the communists and radicals out of Congress next year before they accomplish the agenda of communizing us forever.
“I AM SORRY I HAVE ONLY ONE BAT TO SWING FOR MY COUNTRY.”
