(By Godfrey Lehman – 1988)
Italics are mine – Frank Trejo – Yesterday’s News Today
After several “unavoidable” delays, The Ordeal of Edward Bushell has finally been set between covers, both hard and soft, and is being distributed nationally by publisher Lexicon through established book trade channels. It is an important book, not because I wrote it; I wrote it because it is important.
The ordeal suffered by twelve anonyms in London over 300 years ago is recorded obscurely in history under the colorless, non-descriptive title of “Bushell’s Case.” Its 20th century oblivion belies the respect it commanded in the 18th, and conceals its enduring multiple influences upon our Constitutional Republic. Fully understood, it can be appreciated as one of the most influential single events in the entire history of our imperfect species because of its impact upon the writers of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Most significantly it was spontaneous, unlike any other great charter of liberty.
It was accomplished without deliberate, conscious planning; without great public agitation, and did not require the signing of a formal document. It did not involve any highly-placed persons. It arose directly from the people. (Just like today’s Tea Party)
It is the story of the trial of William Penn, who had committed no more serious offense than preach Quakerism in spite of an official “law,” known as the Conventicle Act, (a secret or unauthorized meeting for religious worship) intended to proscribe all religions except the Church of England. The jurors suffered up to nine weeks of torture to stand by the principle that every person has a right to worship according to his own conscience. Because they did not waver, they finally won.
The Conventicle Act fell before these twelve inconsequential “bumbleheads” – these twelve “simple-witted cockneys” without rank nor position in the government. There were no further prosecutions under that act. It was not necessary to importune vote-seeking legislators to pass repealing legislation. The entire government was humbled before them. They gained no material benefits for themselves, and immediately thereafter, they blended back into their pre-trial anonymity.
That they – after being literally seized by chance off the streets and thrust into a service most of us protest, abhor and demean – would stand upon conscience and principle without hope of personal gain and everything to lose, demonstrates above all else the validity of the republican principle of government under control and supervision of the people. It also demonstrates that trial by jury is the chief instrument for exercising that control.
Bushell’s Case marks, first the birth of the modern jury system and is directly responsible for the guarantees to jury trial in the English Bill of Rights (1689) and, through this, to no fewer than three guarantees in the U.S. Constitution. As forthright as appears the wording in the second section of Article 111 requiring that “the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury,” (1787) it nonetheless was too “vague and equivocal” for the likes of Patrick Henry. Our Founding Parents were profoundly impelled, under the influence of Bushell’s Case, to repeat themselves four years later (1791) in the Sixth Amendment (“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial…”); and the Seventh to guarantee jury trials in civil controversies. Note the repeated use of the word “all!”
James Madison termed these “the most valuable in the whole list” of Bill of Rights amendments. No other Creator-endowed right has been honored with such a multiplicity of references in our basic law. Our Founding Parents, knowing Bushell, and many other jury-tried cases, understood far better than we do today the power of the jury as the protector of the liberties of the people.
The Bushell jury achieved victory by nullifying a law they found objectionable. But if the power is to be effectual, each jury must re-declare its independence anew by refusing to submit to a court that would dominate it. Bushell’s Case is only the most outstanding proof that jury nullification is the most forceful deterrent against arbitrary government; if not invoked, the result will be a police state. Where the government assumes the power of sovereignty, there is tyranny.
The jury’s position was strengthened by the support of the highest court of England, the Court of Common Pleas, which put an end, until our time, of the practice of overturning verdicts (judicial activism) which do not conform to judicial prejudices. Today’s judges ignore the caution expressed by Chief Justice Vaughn: “This court has no power to superimpose its opinion over that of the jury, for this court is as incapable of knowing all the jurors’ evidence as is the court of sessions.”
The Bushell pattern was followed in 1688 by a jury acquitting seven bishops who defied an order of the king that they conform to his religious preferences. It was followed again in 1735 by a jury recognizing the right to freedom of the press, despite official “laws” decreeing only a state-owed press. By nullifying, the jury corrects governmental abuses and usurpations one at a time without violence, within the arena of the courtroom, preventing the formation of a long chain, which unchecked, could lead to revolution, as it did in 1776. The jury should be highly respected and honored.
The tragedy of our time is that instead of being honored, it is being stifled out of existence. Almost universally, judges would extricate from jurors the false oath to “Take the law as I dictate it to you, no matter how you feel about it.” Judges who do this are acting criminally as they are violating their own sacred Constitutional oaths. They would dominate the jury. Principled jurors refusing to take the oath are forcibly removed from the panel (also illegal). (This is how the legal system is compromised by stacking the jury to affect the outcome of the trial)
My position as a juror is to take the oath but, if the law is repugnant, to repudiate it in the jury room. Since to insist upon the oath in duress, and since it demands yielding inherent, Constitutionally-guaranteed rights and powers, it is a lie to begin with. It is not valid. It is a gun to your head and the offer you can’t refuse. Jurors who have ostensibly sworn to the oath have remained on juries to prevent what would have been miscarriages of justice.
As did the court in the Penn trial, judges are prone to suppress the introduction of evidence not to their liking. This is accomplished by upholding objections from one side or the other, or judicial prohibition before trial against introducing evidence litigants desire to place before the jury. (As I absorb what I’m copying I can’t think but how sad it must be for those that have been railroaded by judges through the years. It happens everyday in our country…clearly, government has become criminal)
The judge’s decision is arbitrary, based on his prejudices. Because these prejudices vary from judge to judge, what is suppressed or “permitted” to be introduced also varies from judge to judge, which renders the jury useless. The judge controls the evidence and controls the verdict. Thus the suppressed evidence becomes the most important evidence for the jury to consider, and jurors have a right to demand it be placed before them, or to make inquiries of litigants themselves.
Judges also defy the several references to “all” in the Constitution by determining for themselves whether an issue, criminal or civil, should come before a jury at all. This is another example of judicial usurpation of jury power. It is for the jury, not the judge, to determine what issues and what evidence are proper for its consideration. When a judge denies, he is disregarding the simplest fact that “all” means precisely that: ALL! – no exceptions. The intention of the caveat “all” is strengthened by the enumeration of the single of impeachment.
The passion to reduce the jury size to eight, to six, five, even to four or three is only to render the jury a nullity and leave control to the judges. Argument that reduction in panel size speeds the process and saves money is false. The only purpose is to destroy the jury – to destroy the supervisory power of the people over the courts and the government. Litigants should always insists upon the Constitutional intention of a minimum of 12; and jurors, finding themselves on prostituted panels, should be all the more wary and on guard against judicial dominance.
Attempting to replace unanimity verdicts in criminal trials with majorities is another device to bring juries under judicial control. Had this been allowed in the Penn Trial (an article by Mr. Lehman of the Penn Trial may be found on this web), the two defendants might have submitted to the headman’s axe. Where would we have hung the Liberty Bell? Because majority verdicts were accepted in France, such notables as the son of Victor Hugo and Emile Zola were condemned, as well as Socrates in ancient Greece.
The intense inquisition of jurors before trial is also to destroy jury independence by attempting to stack the jury with only compliant non-questioning jurors. The Constitution does not permit the court to invade the private lives of jurors with these outrageous inquisitions.
That all this is done in defiance of the Constitution is only partial demonstration of the extent we have progressed toward judicial oligarchy (government by a few) – despite those repeated Constitutional guarantees. The most valuable lesson we can learn from the ordeal of the Bushell jurors is that we do not require legislation nor other official act to save this grand bulwark of liberty, and liberty itself. We require only ourselves, knowledgeable and refusing to submit.
And because our liberty depends principally upon the honesty of jurors, we, the people, can overcome the oligarchy by doing nothing else than following, as jurors, the Bushell example of acting on the conscience and principle…end of article
* * * * * * * *
During the past five decades, the true meaning of the Constitution has been lost as our leaders in government, education and the media have gone chasing after modern socialism. The result: American government has become a looming giant, trampling more and more every day on the rights and liberties of the individual. If the current trend continues, individual freedom will soon be a myth of the past.
The only way to stop the destruction of liberty is to fight for freedom – politically, legislatively and ideologically. But it can’t be done without knowledge, the knowledge of how and why the American Republic was founded (tax rebels) Most United States Citizens don’t have that knowledge, and their leaders are too busy pursuing wealth, fame and power to teach them. That means Americans must take the initiative themselves to learn the Constitutional principles that made them free to begin with, and which are necessary to keep them free. (Liberty Action Council – Clinton, AR.)
Wake up class! This is your first lesson:
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 compensation which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office. Article 111 Section 1 U.S. Constitution.
Two things. When judges behave contrary to the way they are suppose to in a court proceeding they are committing perjury in the eyes of the oath they took. How quick we could remove many off the bench for judicial activism if you elected representatives who would obey and enforce the law. Secondly, the Constitution bars the federal government from taxing wages of judges as long as they are on the bench. Judges are cowards to allow the IRS to tax them. It’s no wonder tax rebels through the years have been railroaded into prisons, even though they are correct in their arguments constitutionally. Everybody has to pay we are told. False! There have been many who have beaten the IRS but the controlled press doesn’t report the victories.
I’ve read many articles by Mr. Lehman and in doing so I have no faith in the judicial system. Oh, of course, there is still a semblance of fairness by some but overall “they” have lost the respect of many. I was selected once for jury duty but wasn’t accepted. I was totally ignorant like most, and intimidated. Not anymore. I would welcome the opportunity. Since learning the power of one, as a juror, I never fail to inform others, do the same with friends and relatives.
The reason we have so much chaos, especially the way criminals run OUR government, is because of Constitutional ignorance. Look at what is happening currently in Washington. A lot of the figures being thrown about having to do with health legislation are false. The Congress and White House are relentless in spreading misinformation and the leftist media and organizations like the AARP sing the same tune. Much is being legislated that is unconstitutional, but citizens can’t tell the difference. How can they if for decades the socialists and communists have dominated most all our institutions – especially education. Small wonder, then, many in the world think we are stupid people. They understand but we don’t. We’ve been bullshitted to make us believe we’re the most educated and smartest people in the world. The debt, somewhere between 60 and 80 trillion dollars – and growing – says it all…. I still love you America.
“I AM SORRY I HAVE ONLY ONE BAT TO SWING FOR MY COUNTRY.”
So Much Stuff and Nonsense
(By Godfrey Lehman – 1988)
Italics are mine – Frank Trejo – Yesterday’s News Today
Red Beckman advises at almost every appearance that each of us have three votes that influence the course of government: As members of the grand jury, at the polls on election day, and when we serve as trial jurors. Not very many of us actually get to serve on grand juries, so this power is limited to a very few.
All of us do (or should) enjoy the inherent right of going to the polls, although we often feel that our single vote gets lost in the mass. But totals are formed by single units just as the longest journey is broken into individual steps. We should respect this hard-fought, much envied right, even if a large turnout does not ensure honest government.
Elections are too often manipulated. (ACORN – a radical organization supported by billions of your taxes that subverts the polling places to favor democrats. This is a radical organization President Pinocchio has been affiliated with in the past and possibly still. ) Nonetheless, we must work within the framework as today’s minority may be tomorrow’s majority. If we don’t like the candidates, we have ballot propositions, initiatives or other issues of public policy.
Getting on the grand jury depends less frequently upon merit, more often upon being a pal of a judge or other civic officials who make personal recommendations. But if we are lucky enough to be one of the chosen few we have a stronger voice than at the polls, and to be eligible at all, we have to be registered voters.
The third vote, as trial jurors, is by far the most important because the impact is direct and immediate; with our vote we either endorse whatever governmental action is before us for review, or censure it and restrain the government. (I will reserve for another column comment on the increasing frequency of outlaw judges to fly in the face of the Constitution by “overruling” jury verdicts they do not like.)
When we are jurors, our votes carry the weight of one-twelfth of the total, but can be all-powerful. A single conscientious juror can effectually block an injustice that the eleven others fail to see. The trial jury properly is selected at random from the entire population; this is not entirely true in practice, but at the very least involves many millions of people each year. Many of us actually do get to serve. (Again, I reserve the subject of prejudicial jury selection for other columns)
It is our highest duty, if our Constitutional Republic is to survive, (it’s gone) to exercise these powers at every opportunity with thought and conscience. To shirk any of them means to yield power to government that would dominate us; instead of fighting back, we are defeatists. As defeatists we are no more whiners – ineffectual non-entities. Is it not better to light a single, flickering candle than to curse the darkness?
But to enjoy each and all of these three requires one conscious act: We must come forward and declare our existence. Official procedure for doing this has long been established as registering to vote. This involves giving our name to county clerks or corresponding with officials and getting on lists.
It means giving the following facts: That you are a citizen of the United States and of the state in which you have resided for a minimum period (six weeks to a specified number of months); a resident of a particular voting precinct for perhaps 29 days; that you are over 18; and are not presently under sentence of a felony. That is all.
The fact that you may be asked other questions – such as your occupation, your exact age, your marital status – does not mean you must answer (and shouldn’t). Not answering cannot affect your eligibility to vote. To the dedicated liberty-loving patriot, having this much on a government list may appear tantamount to reducing himself to a “subject.”
That that may be so is preached by distinguished notables such as George Gordon (giant in the then freedom movement) as well as many others. Nonetheless, there is an area between big brother and paranoia; between officious prying and retreat into hermit isolation. A successful life involves balancing between too much and too little of whatever might be.
The reality is that if you want to be heard, you have to come forward. To vote, you have to let officials know where you are, else there would be no way to control multiple voting in precinct after precinct, or taking names from tombstones (radicals in the democratic party) as in Tammy Hall days, rendering election farcical.
Reality also says that to be summoned for jury duty, the jury selectors must also be aware of your existence and how you can be contacted. They must also have a couple of other facts: That you understand English (how can you participate otherwise in intra-jury room discussions, let alone catch all the nuances of trial testimony?) and are not “descrepit.”
Although it may not be right, the third fact is that the list upon which these selectors primarily depend is the list of regular voters. This is often properly supplemented with such lists as holders of drivers’ license, property owners, telephone books and many et ceteras, but the registered voters list is just about universal and sometimes the only list used. If you’re not on it, you give up, or at least seriously reduce your chance to strike directly at the government.
When I first became active in the Constitutional movement, I presumed as a matter of course that our members above all others would be alert to and conscious of our responsibilities and, more than anyone else, would be as available as possible to exercise these votes.
I have since been appalled to learn otherwise. I attended several meetings within recent weeks to circulate the California initiative to control judicial autocracy. (unlimited authority – judicial activism) To get it on the ballot requires at least 600,000 valid signatures of registered voters. The most eager signers and co-circulators would be, I was sure, us dedicated Constitutionalists. It would mean exactly the kind of control over judges that we would like to exercise. I did not receive the universal support I expected because many “patriots” were not registered and refused to register, some even telling me that the principal reason for not registering was to avoid jury duty – to give up their chief power to control the government, to hide in a box and whimper ineffectually.
The result was that I did not pick up perhaps 60 or 70 signatures, and worse yet, these 60 or 70 had made themselves ineligible to collect upwards of 100 to 1000 signatures apiece, or a total of 6000 to perhaps 30,000 signatures – five percent of the total needed. Even worse, since each of these 60 or 70 might have enlisted other circulators, they have denied us how many more thousands of supporters?
Thus, if the initiative fails, these and other non-registering “patriots” must take the responsibility; they are not candle lighting complainers of the darkness. They have submitted themselves to the increasing autocracy of the courts and the government. They have forsaken our illustrious Founding Parents’ desires that every person has the right and power to express themselves.
They are guilty of another moral crime: If any of these non-registrants reside in a judicial jurisdiction where one of our members has come before a jury on a patriotic issue and has been convicted, that non-patriot “patriot” must take the blame for the conviction. If he had been registered to vote, he could have been summoned to that jury, and being a member could have at least blocked the conviction by an 11-1 vote, if he could not have exploited his supposed Constitutional literacy by instructing other jurors to win a complete acquittal.
There is no value in condemning convicting jurors; there is no value in deprecating the jury system, or contrary, giving it lip service when we refuse to participate. We declare ourselves outsiders. A sultan boasting 26 wives (where do I sign-up) and 72 children (I want out) is less capable of describing the agony of labor (child support) than his youngest bride nursing her first three-day-old baby. Every person removing himself from the jury rolls and then condemning a jury verdict is a hypocrite, the worst and most unforgivable of crimes; or his adulation of the jury is so much stuff and nonsense.
As a non/juror voter, he makes himself a non-entity to the government; a non-person without power, without voice, no matter how loudly he shouts. He can be totally ignored. A few of us, if we are George Gordon, can go into court and often win, thus to disprove my position that the non-registrant yields all power.
So much the better if we do win, which does not mitigate, however, the sting of so many losses. But how many of us can make a virtual profession out of fighting our own battles in court? And how many times has even a George Gordon not been a juror to prevent an unjust conviction?…end of article
Isn’t it sad that not only is the educational system graduating many illiterates in high schools and colleges, but to spend billions upon billions and not teach pupils such an important Constitutional principle as the jury system? This rotten alien philosophy (socialism/communism) that’s been shoved down our throats has dominated our institutions too long. The result is the breakdown of the family. The deterioration of cities. A lawless nation. The destruction of pride and incentive in our people. The stripping of individualism. A runaway three branches of government with no accountability. Political correctness (thought control – communism) Open borders (intentional)…and much more…we’ve been socialized for many years…but I question when does socialism end and communism begins—are we close?
No matter how bad things are, and getting worse, I, like Mr. Lehman, will not give up. I expect a visit by some governmental bureaucrat attempting to quiet me. But you know – I want to go down swinging…that’s why I always sign off with my saying:
“I AM SORRY I ONLY HAVE ONE BAT TO SWING FOR MY COUNTRY.”
Please visit my other web www.barrio-usa.com I have posted my bio – a little silly but full of life experiences of a kid that grew up in the barrio and went on to be inducted into two Hall of Fame awards.
By Leo C. Donofrio, J.D. – 1-22-09
Italics are mine – Frank Trejo – Yesterday’s News Today
All of us may one day serve as grand jurors in federal court, and I hope this article will educate the reader to his/her true power as granted by the Constitution. For that power, despite having been hidden for many years behind the veil pf a legislation fraud, still exists in all of its glory in the 5th Amendment to the Constitution. The US Supreme Court has confirmed and reinforced that power. Copy this report. It is truth that we need now, more than ever.
The Constitutional power of “we the people” sitting as grand jurors has been subverted by a deceptive play on words (just like the 16th Amendment) since 1946 when the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were enacted. Regardless, the power I am going to explain to you still exists in the Constitution, and has been upheld by the US Supreme Ct. despite the intention of the legislature and other legal scholars to make our power disappear with a cheap magic trick.
Repeat a lie with force and repetition and the lie becomes known as the truth. (the communists/socialists in the Demo party are masters at this) In the case of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution, the power of the grand jury, to return “presentments” on its own proactive initiation, without reliance upon a US Attorney to concur in such criminal charges, has been usurped by an insidious play on words…(like the lies by President Pinocchio bullshitting the American people as to the content of legislation pending on energy and health. This guy is shameless.)
Most of this article is going to quote other scholars, judges and legislators as I piece together a brief but thorough history of the federal grand jury for your review. But the punch line is my personal contribution to the cause:
UNITED STATES CITIZENS SITTING AS FEDERAL GRAND JURORS ARE THE FOURTH BRANCH OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.
My input into this vital fight is no more than the analysis of a few carefully used words. It only took a small sleight of pen back in 1946 to hide our power, and it won’t take more than a few words to take that power back. But a proper overview is necessary for most of you who are unfamiliar with the issue at hand. So let me provide you with some history and then we’ll see what went wrong and how to correct it.
HISTORY OF FEDERAL GRAND JURY POWER
I want to draw your attention to a law review article, CREIGHTON LAW REVIEW, Vol. 33, No. 4 1999-2000, 821, IF IT’S NOT A RUNAWAY, IT’S NOT A REAL GRAND JURY by Roger Roots, J.D.
“In addition to its traditional role of screening criminal cases for prosecution, common law grand juries had the power to exclude prosecutors from their presence at any time and to investigate public officials without governmental influence. These fundamental powers allowed grand juries to serve a vital function of oversight upon the government. The function of a grand jury to ferret out government corruption was the primary purpose of the grand jury system in ages past.”
The 5th Amendment:
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.”
An article appearing in American Juror, the newsletter of the American Jury Institute and the Fully Informed Jury Association, citing the famed American jurist, Joseph Story, explained:
“An indictment is a written accusation of an offence preferred to, and presented, upon oath, as true, by a grand jury, at the suit of the government. An indictment is framed by the officers of the government, and laid before the grand jury. Presentments, on the other hand, are the result of a jury’s independent action:
‘A presentment, properly speaking, is an accusation, made by a grand jury of its own mere motion, of an offence upon its own observation and knowledge, or upon evidence before it, and without any bill of indictment laid before it at the suit of the government. Upon a presentment, the proper officer of the court must frame an indictment, before the party accused can be put to answer it.”
Back to the Creighton Law Review:
“A ‘runaway’ grand jury, loosely defined as a grand jury which resists the accusatory choices of a government prosecutor, has been virtually eliminated by modern criminal procedure. (Like many of our rights) Today’s “runaway” grand jury is in fact the common law grand jury of the past. Prior to the emergence of governmental prosecution as the standard model of American criminal justice, all grand juries were in fact “runaways,” according to the definition of modern times; they operated as completely independent, self-directing bodies of inquisitors, with power to pursue unlawful conduct to its very source, including the government itself.”
So, it’s clear that the Constitution intended to give the grand jury power to instigate criminal charges, and this was especially true when it came to government oversight. But something strange happened on the way to the present. That power was eroded by a lie enacted by the legislative branch. The 5th Amendment to the Constitution still contains the same words quoted above, but you sit on a grand jury and return a “presentment” today, the prosecutor must sign it or it probably won’t be allowed to stand by the judge and the criminal charges you have brought to the court’s attention will be swept away. And the reason for this can be found in a legislative lie of epic proportions. (This opens up opportunities for corruption between judges and lawyers)
Mr. Roots weighs in again…But it’s time for my six-pack…excuse me….I’ll be right back.
“In 1946, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedures (FRCP) were adopted, codifying what had previously been a vastly divergent set of common law procedural rules and regional customs. [86] In general, an effort was made to conform the rules to the contemporary state of federal criminal practice. [87] In the area of federal grand jury practice, however, a remarkable exception was allowed. The drafters of Rules 6 and 7, which loosely govern federal grand juries, denied future generations of what had been the well-recognized powers of common law grand juries: powers of unrestrained investigation and of independent declaration of findings. The committee that drafted the FRCP provided no outlet for any document other than a prosecutor-signed indictment. In so doing, the drafters at least tacitly, if not affirmatively, opted to ignore explicit constitutional language” [88].
Rule 7 of the FRCP
“An offense which may be punished by death shall be prosecuted by indictment. An offense which may be punished by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year or at hard labor shall be prosecuted by indictment.”
No mention of “presentments” can be found in Rule 7. But they are mentioned in Note 4 of the Advisory Committee Notes on the Rules:
“4. Presentment is not included as an additional type of formal accusation, since presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at least as concerns the Federal courts.”
The American Juror published the following commentary with regards to Note 4:
“[W]hile the writers of the federal rules made provisions for indictments, they made none for presentments. This was no oversight. According to Professor Lester B. Orfield, a member of the Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure, the drafters of FRCP Rule 6 decided the term presentment should not be used, even though it appears in the Constitution. Orfield states [22 F.R.D. 343, 346]:
‘There was an annotation by the Reporter on the term presentment as used in the Fifth Amendment. It was his conclusion that the term should not be used in the new rules of criminal procedure. Retention might encourage the use of the run-away grand jury as the grand jury could act from their own knowledge or observation and not only from charges made by the US Attorney. It has become the practice for the US Attorney to attend grand jury hearings, hence the use of presentments have been abandoned.”
That’s a fascinating statement: “Retention might encourage the grand jury [to] act from their own knowledge or observation.” God forbid, right America? The nerve of these people. They have the nerve to put on the record that they intended to usurp our Constitutional power, power that was intended by the founding fathers, in their incredible wisdom, to provide us with oversight over tyrannical government.
And so they needed a spin term to cast aspersions on that power. The term they chose was, “runaway grand jury,” aware of their power, and legally exercising that power to hold the federal beast in check. As in “checks and balances.”
The lie couldn’t be inserted into the Constitution, so they put it in a statute and then repeated it. And scholars went on to repeat it, and today, as it stands, the grand jury has effectively been lied into the role of submissive puppet of the US Attorney.
All throughout the articles that I post I will remind people that no one may change the Constitution – no acts – no statutes – nothing! But “they” have, because they keep our people ignorant of the laws, especially the Constitution as a whole. The same applies with the sixteenth amendment, the basis for taxation in our country. The way it’s worded is deceptive. There are various Supreme Court decisions addressing this. They have ruled that the sixteenth amendment is an indirect tax (excise) and has nothing to do with your wages. Why do you think it’s referred to as a “voluntary income tax?” Because that’s what it is! Once you sign papers sent to you by the IRS you voluntarily submit to their jurisdiction. Cruise through the articles in this web and you’ll run into numerous articles addressing this. WE HAVE A CRIMINAL GOVERNMENT!
The American Juror publication included a very relevant commentary:
“Of course, no statute or rule can alter the provisions of the Constitution, since it is the supreme law of the land.
But that didn’t prevent the federal courts from publishing a body of case law affirming the fallacy that presentments were abolished. A particularly egregious example:
‘A rule that would permit anyone to communicate with a grand jury without the supervision or screening of the prosecutor or the court would compromise, if not utterly subvert, both of the historic functions of the grand jury, for it would facilitate the pursuit of vendettas and the gratification of private malice. A rule that would open the grand jury to the public without judicial or prosecutorial intervention is an invitation to anyone interested in trying to persuade a majority of the grand jury, by hook or by crook, to conduct investigations that a prosecutor has determined to be inappropriate or unavailing.” [7]
What is the result? Investigating seditious acts of government officials can be deemed inappropriate or unavailing by the prosecutor, or the judge can dismiss the grand jurors pursuing such investigations. Consequently, corrupt government officials have few natural enemies and go about their seditious business unimpeded. By the way, they made a rule to take care of runaways too, in 1946: Rule 6(g):
“At any time for cause shown the court may excuse a juror either temporarily or permanently, and in the latter event the court may impanel another person in place of the juror excused.” Now judges can throw anyone off a grand jury, or even dis-impanel a grand jury entirely, merely for exercising its discretion.”
And to think that just because these criminals take an oath of office we are supposed to trust them. What fools we are! Have we become that lawless? Small wonder then, why elected representatives don’t care – there is no accountability. I would like to see a National Grand Jury established by all the States. Each State would appoint one person for a total of 50. They would meet once a year with evidence of illegal activities by members of the three branches of government. The National Grand Jury would have subpoena and impeachment power. No Congress, no White House, and NO SUPREME COURT could interfere. Watch how quick they toe the line and the thieves quit and go into another field to hustle. To make it worth our while no one kicked out of government could never qualify for any kind of government contractual work. Why not? It’s our government. They don’t deserve respect for what they’ve done to our country.
Article continues…Now let me add my two cents to this argument:
Most of the discussion about Note 4 to Rule 7 of the FRCP takes for granted that the common law use of “presentments” (as codified in the 5th Amendment) was made “illegal” in 1946 by this act. Nothing could be more false. Note 4 does not contain language that makes the use of presentments “illegal,” although it had chosen its words carefully to make it appear as if that is what the legislative branch intended. But let’s look a Note 4 again:
‘4. Presentment is not included as an additional type of formal accusation, since presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at least as concerns the Federal courts.”
The key word is, “obsolete.” Obsolete means “outmoded,” or “not in use anymore”, but it does not mean “abolished” or “illegal.” And therein lies the big lie. (crime) The legislature knew it could not directly overrule the Constitution, especially with something so clearly worded as the 5th Amendment, which grants power to the people which has a long and noble purpose in criminal jurisprudence. But the federal beast legislative branch sought more power to protect themselves from the oversight of “we the people,” and in its vampire like thirst for more governmental control, it inserted this insidious Note 4 in the hope that scholars and judges would play along with their ruse, or in the alternative, their ruse would appear to be legally viable.
All citizens who have been imprisoned because of income taxes should be released. Anyone that has ever been incarcerated by government and its Gestapo – the IRS – should be compensated for wages lost. If they are dead, survivors should be compensated – especially wives – for all the suffering they were put through. These prisoners are called political prisoners elsewhere in the world and unfortunately, we have them in “the land of the free and home of the brave.”
Let’s look at some authoritative legal resources which discuss Note 4:
Susan Brenner, THE VOICE OF THE COMMUNITY: A CASE FOR GRAND JURY INDEPENDENCE.
“Finally, federal grand juries’ subservience to prosecutors was exacerbated when the federal system eliminated the use of presentments, which allowed a grand jury to bring charges on its own initiative. (N35) Now, federal grand jurors cannot return charges in the form of an indictment without a prosecutor’s consent. (36) Elimination of the presentment demonstrates the historical trend towards elimination of proactive features in the grand jury system.” (This is typical of how they weaken ALL OTHER RIGHTS.)…I bought two six-packs so I won’t have to leave again.
Did Brenner fall for the lie or did she cleverly further it when she said, “[T]he federal system eliminated the use of presentments?” The federal system did no such thing. Note 4 said the use of presentments was “obsolete.” First of all, Note 4 is not the law in itself. It is a Note to a law, and the law as written, does not have anything to say about presentments. You see the leap Brenner has made? The Constitution provides for “presentments”, then the FRCP are enacted and the Rules therein do not mention presentments, nor do they ban presentments, and if they did, such a ban would be unconstitutional, since an administrative enactment regarding procedure can not overrule the Constitution.
Regardless, it’s irrelevant, since the FRCP does not mention “presentments.” Note 4 simply states that “presentments” allowed for in the 5th Amendment of the Constitution have become “obsolete”, or outmoded, which is not to say that they were “eliminated.” Shame on you Susan Brenner. You know darn well that the Constitution can only be changed by an official Amendment to it. Nothing can be “eliminated” from the Constitution by an administrative note.
I first learned this when Judge Bork was being considered for a position in the Supreme Court. In an answer to a question asked by Bill Moyers on TV – Bork responded that no Act or Statute could change the Constitution unless it was in harmony with what the Constitution says. Judge Bork was destroyed by the Senate Democrats at the hearings. They tried the same thing against Clarence Thomas but he referred to them as trying to “lynch” him. My biggest disappointment in the GOP is that they hardly ever fight back. The Democrats are vicious liars and will do anything to win or destroy. Notice how the Republicans are being 86th out of the legislation being considered right now. And yet, some of them will vote along with Democrats. These are Republicans that should not be supported by the RNC.
The use of presentments had become obsolete because the grand jurors were not aware of their power. So the use of “presentments” became more and more rare, and then in 1946 the legislative branch seized upon the moment to make this power disappear by waving its magic wand over the Constitution. (Now you understand why Shakespeare wanted all lawyers killed)
Mr. Root got it wrong in the Creighton Law Review as well:
“Before the FRCP, which made independently-acting grand juries illegal for all practical purposes, grand juries were understood to have broad powers to operate at direct odds with both judges and prosecutors.”
The FRCP did not make it “illegal” for all practical purposes.” That’s patently false. I don’t know if Mr. Root, and/or Susan Brenner, were acting as the magician’s assistant, but I can’t imagine how these educated scholars could be so incredibly ignorant of basic Constitutional law (10th plank communist manifesto – government controlled schools) Give me a break. But if enough people repeat the lie, the lie appears to be the truth. But we have it on good authority, the Supreme Court, that the lie has no legal effect.
Justice Powell, in United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974), stated:
“The institution of the grand jury is deeply rooted in Anglo-American history. [n3] In England, the grand jury [p343] served for centuries both as a body of accusers sworn to discover and present for trial persons suspected of criminal wrongdoing and as a protector of citizens against arbitrary and oppressive governmental action. In this country, the Founders thought the grand jury so essential to basic liberties that they provided in the Fifth Amendment that federal prosecution for serious crimes can only be instituted by ‘a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.’ Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 361-362 (1956). The grand jury historic functions survive to this day. Its responsibilities continue to include both the determination whether there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and the protection of citizens against unfounded criminal prosecutions. Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 686-687 (1972).”
The Note 4 lie is smashed on the altar of the U.S. Supreme Court, “The grand jury’s historic functions survive to this day.” Take that Note 4!
Antonin Scalia (Supreme Court Justice) effectively codified the unique independent power of the Fourth Branch into the hands of all citizens sitting as federal jurors. In discussing that power and unique independence granted to the grand jury, the U.S. Supreme Court, in United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992), Justice Scalia, delivering the opinion of the court, laid down the law of the land:
“[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history, Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 490 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result), the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It “is a constitutional fixture in its own right.” United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312 (CA9 1977) (quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U.S. App. D.C. 58, 70, n. 54, 487 F.2d 700, 712, n. 54 (1973), (cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 (1977).”
I submit to you that this passage sets the stage for a revolutionary new context necessary and Constitutionally mandated to “we the people,” THE FOURTH BRANCH of the Government of the United States. Besides, the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches, I submit that there is a fourth branch, THE GRAND JURY, and “we the people? When sitting as grand jurors, are, as Scalia quoted US v. Williams, “a constitutional fixture in its own right.” Yes, darn it. That is exactly what the grand jury is, and what it was always intended to be.
Scalia also stated, that “the grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside.” And finally, to seal the deal, Scalia hammered the point home:
“In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people. See Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218 (1960); Hale v. Henkel U.S. 43, 61 (1906); G. Edwards, The Grand Jury 28-32 (1906). Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the Judicial Branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm?s length. Judges’ direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. See United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974); Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 6(a). [504 U.s. 36, 48]”
I wish Mr. Donofrio would’ve addressed the collusion between judges, lawyers, and whomever is in charge of the selection of potential grand jurors. There are many reports of a selective method to choose jurors that benefit either side – especially in cases involving the IRS (KGB)
The miraculous quote above by Scalia says it all, “the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people.” The Constitution of the United States, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, gives rise to a FOURTH BRANCH of Government, THE GRAND JURY. We the people have been charged with oversight of the government in our roles as grand jurors.
And at this critical time in American history, we must, for the protection of our constitutional republic, (and not a democracy) take back our power and start acting as powerful as the other branches of government.
The law is on our side. So please spread this knowledge as far and wide as you can. We the people have the right and power under the 5th Amendment of the Constitution to charge this government with crimes by returning presentments regardless of whether the US Attorneys or the federal judges agree with us. As the Supreme Court has so brilliantly stated, we are the “buffer between the Government and the people.”
Take the reins America. Pass it on. The Fourth Branch is alive and kicking…end of article
About the author:
Mr. Leo Donofrio is a semi-retired New Jersey attorney. In addition to being a prominent legal scholar and essayist, Mr. Donofrio is also a nationally known chess champion, poker champion and musician. His web site is: http://AmericanGrandJury.org
I guarantee that no law student is ever taught this in law school. As a matter of fact, most are ignorant of the Constitution. Because our people are educated under government controlled curriculum (10th plank communist manifesto) we are ignorant of the workings of government. All our problems are as a result of this ignorance. Today the Congress and White House are legislating laws that are detrimental to our way of life, and a lot of it unconstitutional with no accountability. The GOP has been reduced to a non-entity by the Demos and the leftist press that dominates the airwaves. The radicals have taken over OUR White House and crimes against our country are taking place and the U.S. Attorney General refuses to investigate. Meanwhile President Pinocchio’s nose keeps growing and growing. It is amazing how much he is lying, and still, the unwashed in our society believe in him.
Happiest Liar in U.S.A.
What you need to do first is tell those around you about the power of the Grand Jury. Secondly, take a minute or two, call the offices of your representatives and put them on notice that from here on out you WILL NOT allow anymore unconstitutional behavior on their part. Any legislation voted by him/her contrary to what the Constitution reads you will personally make tens, if not hundreds of phone calls to friends and relatives against the usurper of the U.S. Constitution…you must!…your Constitution is almost gone…I love you, America.
“I AM SORRY I HAVE ONLY ONE BAT TO SWING FOR MY COUNTRY!”
Socialism is not new in our country. We have been socialized for a long time. The question to be asked is how close are we to communism? Some say that socialism is the first step before communism – I say the first step was taken many years ago.
The International Bankers invented communism. The purpose was to control people and to make money. The Communist Manifesto (search the internet) was invented in 1848. It consists of ten planks. Whereas, our Bill of Rights is about liberties and freedom, the ten planks are the opposite – slavery.
In 1913 bankers were illegally given control of our monetary system by traitors in all three branches of government. There is much information in the internet regarding how all this came about. All you have to do is type in the words Federal Reserve and the Communist Manifesto.
Our country’s monetary system has been and is being administered under the 2nd, 4th, and 5th planks of the communist manifesto. The IRS was created (4th plank) to collect interest the bankers charge for money they lend to government. The second purpose is to keep people in fear. IRS, by some, is regarded the life-blood of socialism.
The bankers’ agenda is to corrupt governments into becoming socialistic because the bigger it becomes, the more it spends. Bankers collect billions in interest every year. Everything government does is wasteful and bankers love it.
This past election was a done deal. Bankers had been waiting for a radical like President Pinocchio for many years. McCain was a patsy selected by the New York Times (the leftist organization representing the bankers) knowing that he would be easy to beat. McCain was dead last in the standings of the GOP of those seeking the nomination during the campaign. The NY Times endorsed McCain, and overnight he became number one and won – then turned against him. Now it was between Obama and Hillary. The NY Times destroyed Hillary and had the man they had been waiting for. He is the one that is carrying out the bankers agenda to destroy our middle class and to administer the coup ‘d grace – introducing more SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM! President Pinocchio’s nose keeps getting bigger and bigger.
OUR MONETARY SYSTEM UNDER THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO
2nd Plank – A heavy progressive income tax…the more you make the more they take. President Pinocchio has said, “spread the wealth.” To be fair, ALL elected officials are guilty since 1913. But Pinocchio is taking it a step further.
4th Plank – Confiscate all property of emigrants and rebels. If you don’t pay taxes, you lose. Complain or write condemning government, sometimes they’ll come after you. Again you lose. Tax rebels were destroyed because they uncovered many violations committed by the IRS AND JUDGES…and lost. People have been held in contempt of court for attempting to use the Constitution as evidence.
5th Plank – Centralization of Credit in the hands of the state. This was done in 1913 with the Federal Reserve Act. At first, it was simply the International Bankers who controlled the Federal Reserve, but by 1933, the U.S. was bankrupt and these bankers foreclosed on America. They created a new form of government called Socialism that has replaced our once Constitutional Republic. It was the bankers’ who created the depression to reach this goal. It was the FDR administration that carried out the socialization of our country by implementing policies to achieve the bankers’ goal. And what is happening today? The same thing. President Pinocchio is doing things even FDR would not have dared.
The remaining seven planks have also been incorporated into our system. The 10th Plank is government controlled schooling. This is responsible for ignorance in our society. 90% of our people have never seen the Constitution. It’s been reported that 25% of our people are illiterate. This is why politicians in Congress get away with the crimes they commit – they know people are too ignorant to understand. People are not stupid; they are not taught in schools to understand the function of government. Billions upon billions is our cost to allow government to brainwash our young when in reality the Constitution doesn’t give the government the right to administer our education. It is a State right.
The answer to our problems is your U.S. Constitution. The laws to correct our economic mess are as follows:
The Congress shall have the power to “… coin Money, and regulate the Value thereof…” Article 1 Sec. 8 cl 5
Just to be sure government was kept in check our Founding Fathers also added the following law:
No State shall…”…make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts…” Article 1 Sec. 10…this is a State right…but where is a governor to demand action from the Congress – he’ll be shot just like Lincoln and JFK. And we play by criminal Congresses’ rules? We have been stripped of our traditional manly qualities – we are a nation of “wimps.” The man stays home and the woman goes to work.
Any Act or Statute passed has to be in harmony with what your Constitution mandates, if not, then they are unconstitutional. The above laws have never been repealed. The Federal Reserve Act was, and still is unconstitutional. Where was the Supreme Court when this happened? There is a court ruling stating that the Federal Reserve is a private organization. ( type in the internet “Supreme Ct. rules Federal Reserve private corporation”) But the Congress ignored this – money talks bullshit walks. No one or anything can change your Constitution without the amendment process – the 5th article. This is why the above laws are still there – they can’t be stricken unless you say so.
People must understand how close we are to being enslaved forever. The three branches of government are criminal…and the only weapon we have to stop it is the document envied throughout the enslaved world – your U.S. Constitution. I love you America – spelled with a “c”.
(Click for bigger picture.)
“I AM SORRY I HAVE ONLY ONE BAT TO SWING FOR MY COUNTRY.”
Italics are by me – Frank Trejo – Yesterday’s News Today.
The following article is from Judicial Watch, a watchdog organization that exposes illegal activity by despicable servants of the people, operating illegally outside the mandates of your U.S. Constitution. There is no accountability. Nevertheless, organizations such as Judicial Watch are working hard in bringing to you truthful analysis of issues omitted by the controlled main stream media and misinformation by those in control of Congress.
NATIONAL CAMPAIGN TO INVESTIGATE FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC AND HOLD THEIR FRIENDS IN CONGRESS AND THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION ACCOUNTABLE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
Dear Fellow American;
I’m downright mad and I’m not going to take it anymore! That’s how I feel about the failed Washington oversight, political corruption and personal greed at “Fannie Mae,” “Freddie Mac” and in Congress that helped cause the financial crisis that is creating so much pain and distress for American families today.
Liberal leaders in Congress – led by Congressman Barney Frank – have made it clear that their top priority is to hide the truth of what happened and their role in the politically-driven management and corrupt oversight of these giant mortgage lenders, the Federal National mortgage Corp. (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Mortgage Corp. (Freddie Mac)
If we leave it to Congress, there will be no accountability for their corruption that has already cost American taxpayers like you and me trillions of dollars. That’s because key players in Congress, the Obama administration and both political parties are up to their necks in Fannie and Freddie’s money and they don’t want us to know the truth about their corruption.
This is an immediate call to action:
I’m urging you to join with Judicial Watch, America’s premier government watchdog group, because we aim to get the facts about Fannie and Freddie and even the score beginning right now!
Since 1994, Judicial Watch has blazed historic new trails in exposing and prosecuting public corruption, and forcing release of government documents into the public domain. No other group has Judicial Watch’s winning track record of using the courts to hold corrupt politicians accountable to the law! Here is what we already know what happened:
Until their collapse, Fannie and Freddie were “government-sponsored entities” —theoretically regulated by Congress. They were backed by the taxpayers for all their losses, but kept all their profits.
Beginning in the late 1990’s, the Clinton administration pressured lenders to loosen home loan requirements in order to increase home ownership for those unable to afford homes and to curry political favor with left-wing activists, like the “ACORN” crowd! (It’s been disclosed that ACORN is responsible for voter-fraud in many States and is now being investigated. Also, the administration is subsidizing it with billions of your tax money.)
As far back as Sept. 30, 1999, the New York Times reported that:
“Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from its stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.” The article went on to predict this strategy could run Freddie Mae into serious financial difficulty during an economic downturn.
We were forewarned! Nevertheless, Clintonite hacks at Fannie and Freddie like Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick and Jim Johnson (later a key advisor to Obama) took Clinton’s risky gamble and then doubled down. (Raines and Johnson, along with Obama who got his preferential rate from Northern Trust, also obtained preferential mortgage loan rates from Countrywide, the mortgage giant that is a major co-conspirator in this financial mess)
Encouraged by Fannie and Freddie, banks began making tens of thousands of “sub-prime” loans to individuals who under prudent lending rules never would have qualified for them. This ruinous game was played for ten years under both the Clinton and Bush administrations.
As the Washington Post noted in a December 9, 2008, story:
“These new products included home loans made to people with blemished credit histories, called sub-prime loans, and mortgages made without verification of income, assets or employment…The loans required borrowers to state their incomes and assets, but not prove them.”
The decision to violate sound lending principles to advance the Clinton administration’s political agenda was bad enough. But that’s not all. Executives at Fannie and Freddie received huge bonuses if “loan targets,” including targets for sub-prime loans, were met. Franklin Raines earned $100 million and Jamie Gorelick earned $75 million in bonuses from Fannie Mae. In other words, these “government-sponsored entities” not only thrashed well-established lending standards – they also encouraged their executives to hustle as many bad loans as possible.
In fact, we now know that at Fannie Mae in 1998, its then head Franklin Raines cooked the books by deferring $200 million in expenses in order to fraudulently inflate profits so he and other senior Fannie executives could receive massive bonuses that year.
What a racket! Despite their accounting problems and warnings of a crisis, Fannie and Freddie – with the full support of liberals in Congress and their special-interest community organizing friends like ACORN – pushed for more sub-prime lending. And calculating financial institutions (too many of which had corrupted relationships with these same politicians) were happy to play along.
And when the GOP took over (1994) the White House and Congress, the folks at Fannie and Freddie moved fast to protect their cash cows by putting key Republicans on their boards and payrolls, including former Bush trade representative Robert Zoellick who served a tour as Fannie’s executive vice president, and former Cheney aide David Gribbin who sat on Freddie’s board.
The main objective of the crooks running Fannie and Freddie was to make sure that no one in Washington would hold them to account and they succeeded!
Overall, Freddie and Fannie spent more than $180 million over the last ten years to lobby Congress and make sure that no one rocked their highly profitable boats. Over the same ten year period, Fannie and Freddie contributed lavishly to the politicians who chaired or had senior positions on the committees that had oversight responsibility for their institutions. Fannie Mae alone contributed to the campaigns of 354 congressmen and senators, from both parties!
The top 4 recipients of money from Fannie Mae in order of cash magnitude were:
1. Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), Chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee.
2. Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) Member of the Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services and International Security Subcommittee and now our president (Put that in your pipe and smoke it – taxpayers!)
3. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Member of the Senate finance Committee.
4. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) Chairman of the House Financial Serv. Committee.
(Click for larger image)
These “political investment strategies” of Fannie and Freddie paid off – big time. Even after a 2004 government investigation found massive fraudulent bookkeeping at Fannie Mae, Congress held no hearings, no one went to jail, and business as usual, including aggressively marketing more loans to unqualified buyers, continued unabated.
Incredible! Now, our country is facing a financial disaster.
And Sen. Dodd, Sen. Schumer, and Rep. Frank are still today the individuals primarily responsible for “oversight” at Fannie and Freddie, while Sen. Obama is in the White House! Doubly incredible!
Barack Obama’s White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, received contributions from Fannie and Freddie while he was in Congress. He also earned over $300,000 as a director of Freddie Mac in 2000 and 2001, and was part of Freddie’s “asleep at the switch” board that failed to spot any red flags about its lending and many other financial irregularities. (The Bush administration had warned them several times)
Of course, last year the corrupt houses of cards that Fannie and Freddie had become collapsed, leaving you and me and every other American taxpayer holding the bag when Congress and the Bush administration bailed these institutions out. That’s why we want to learn as much as we can about how these corrupt entities were able to “pay off” members of Congress (including Barack Obama)
Judicial Watch has already received its first batch of documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act. They prove conclusively that senior Bush administration officials repeatedly warned Congress about the shenanigans at Fannie and Freddie – and the record proves that time and again Congress refused to take action. (Democrats controlled the Congress beginning January of 2006)
And we want to find out why the government did such a miserable job exercising its oversight responsibilities over Fannie and Freddie. Many internal warning bells were sounded – why did no one in Congress take action? If Fannie and Freddie officials corruptly manipulated the oversight process and paid off politicians to look the other way, we aim to find out and we will seek accountability!
And while we have received some documents, rest assured that officials at Fannie, Freddie and the Obama administration will drag their feet on many of our FOIA requests. Remember: They don’t want you to know the facts.
Judicial Watch is America’s top government watchdog group. We have in-house investigators who are experts in using open records laws and in digging through pages and pages of government documents to get to the truth. Go to www.JudicialWatch.org and check us out.
Second, we have a top in-house legal team. We have used our investigative-legal strategy with tremendous success over the past 15 years, from uncovering and prosecuting Clinton administration corruption to exposing and challenging the Bush’s administration’s failures to secure our borders against illegal immigration.
We believe that the American people, having bailed out Fannie and Freddie, now have the right to know how these institutions were allowed to behave so irresponsibly (criminally). It’s our money, and that means it’s our right to know the facts!
Your support for Judicial Watch’s national campaign to get at the truth about what happened at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is important for another big reason – because if Judicial Watch doesn’t do it, no one else will!
For 15 years, Americans have been able to trust Judicial Watch as their independent watchdog that will use the courts to fight against public corruption and for the people’s right to know.
Today, we are all suffering through a financial crisis brought about, in large part, by politically-inspired policies, poor oversight (criminal) and massive greed that ran riot at Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Congress (the Bankers’ House)
Judicial Watch is your watchdog in Washington – please support our cause today. Thank You. Thomas Fitton…President….end of article
What our country needs is an out-of-government committee represented by all the States - a citizens Committee with subpoena and impeachment powers. One or two people from every State meeting annually, armed with allegations of corruption by members of the three branches of government. Including federal judges as well as Supreme Court Justices who rule contrary to what the Constitution reads.
Whether this could be done with or without an amendment process I don’t know. I do know that this government belongs to us, not the Bankers who have enslaved us economically. And not a Congress that has become criminal and a judicial system that operates outside the same law they vowed to preserve and protect. THEY ARE NOT THE LAW – YOUR CONSTITUTION IS!
Please consider donating $5 – $10 – $25- $50 -$100.. ??? to keep this wonderful organization that is working hard to bring you the truth. I have sent my first $50.00 and shall contribute more:
JUDICIAL WATCH – 501 School Street SW, Washington D.C. 20024
Tel: 2o2-646-5172 or 1-888-593-8442 Fax: 202-646-5199 e-mail info@judicialwatch.org
“I AM SORRY I HAVE ONLY ONE BAT TO SWING FOR MY COUNTRY.”
Please visit my other web site. It has my bio full of humor. www.barrio-usa.com
By Dick Armey – U.S. House of Representatives – 1988
Italics are mine – Frank Trejo – Yesterday’s News Today
Although I currently serve in the Congress, I regard myself as a free market economist – a price theorist and a micro-economist, to be precise. Yet, I was not introduced to the work of great free market theorists like Ludwig von Mises or Friedrich von Hayek as an under graduate or even as a doctoral student. Indeed, it is safe to say that Human Action and The Road to Serfdom are rarely read in American universities, while books like John Kenneth Galbraith’s The Affluent Society is widely read and discussed as if the Great Society programs it rationalized were not in total disarray.
Why do some economic theories remain popular even when the policies and results they have wrought are under serious question? I have been acutely aware of the answer to this inquiry ever since I discovered as an academic professor that macro-economics is typically more popular than micro-economics: Easy ideas are always more quickly accepted than hard ideas. Galbraith’s ideas, which were always more like scenarios than science, made their way into our government, our schools, and our entire way of thinking because they were so easy to grasp and to explain to others. As much as any other reason, this is why I ran for political office: to help in some small way to undo the damage Galbraith has done.
Recognizing Constraints: Galbraith set forth the notion that the American economy required a “social balance,” which would mean the transfer of the control of our resources from the private to the public sector. (Automobile Industry – Banks…etc…history repeating) He, as much as LBJ, was the architect of the Great Society. He ignored the reality that things only happen when someone makes the decision to do something that the world revolves around choices.
Every choice is between what Paul Samuelson (Economist) called the “minima” and the “maxima,” but even extreme positions must be chosen within a limiting set of constraints. The trouble with Galbraith’s theory and, ultimately, the greatest evil of The Affluent Society, is his refusal, replicated by LBJ in his ill-famed guns-and-butter speech of 1965, to acknowledge this basic truth. There are no limits, no constraints, they claimed instead, so we don’t have to be careful about husbanding and allocating our resources among competing ends.
Today you can witness many government policy makers in action who don’t recognize even the most ordinary constraints in the way you or I would. We are all intimately involved, for example, with the principle of budgets constraints, sometimes called “fiscal responsibility.” If we spend more money than we earn, the check at the grocery store bounces, and then our car may be repossessed or our house.
We face direct and unpleasant consequences for our profligacy. Does anyone really suggest that the government fears the same? Each and every day of our lives tells us that there are no constraints on time. This is, perhaps, the most fundamental and universal fact known to man: life is temporary, limited. Yet our government’s lifespan is hardly measured in the same terms.
Another vital and undeniable constraint is scarcity. What makes gold precious is that there is so little of it to be had, and the same goes for any other resource, whether it is water, energy, or a concert pianist, or life itself. We are limited in all that we do and all that we seek. Yet Galbraith and many of our government representatives would have us believe otherwise. They play upon our resentment of those richer or more successful than ourselves, a resentment articulated many years ago by Thomas Veblen in his highly influential book, The Theory of the Leisure Class, which painted the upper stratus or our society as indolent, self-indulgent and hoarding. (A favorite propaganda tool by the communists in our society – class warfare)
The modern redistributionists don’t carry their dog-eared copies of Veblen or Galbraith in their back pockets, but they don’t need to; they’ve already been given the intellectual framework from which they can operate. Their first task is to convince us that we’re not running our economy or our lives well enough on our own. We need their help, they argue.
“Look at the terrible shape America’s in. The problems are too big for individuals to solve. Let us help.” And they offer us, simply, more government – more government along Keynesian lines with many instruments of what I refer to as “government by deception,” not the least of which is deficit spending, in which the true costs are hidden from the people who, of course, pay the bills, or through another instrument, corporate taxation, which is sold to the voters as if it had nothing to do with their own incomes.
Privatization: Privatization has become the great safety valve, especially for conservative politicians, Republican, Democrat or otherwise. Transferring a very small number of services back to private hands one at a time is far less traumatic and far more feasible than trying to reduce the size of government in a frontal assault on whole agencies or departments.
In Congress, a privatization task force of which I am a member has been gaining influence, and public concern about the deficit has been a key advantage. The task force outlines three basic methods of privatization. One is contracting out certain services (post office). Private companies, for example, may bid on running commissaries on our defense bases (too much corruption) or computer work or printing jobs that may be handled more inexpensively and efficiently by outside firms.
The second alternative is asset sales. This, along with the third method, selling loan portfolios, can be much harder to follow because of the high visibility each entails. When it comes to privatizing railroads, public utilities, federally-owned buildings and the like, critics are ready to call it a “fire sale.” With unbelievable audacity, some say, “You want to sell the government’s property to the people of this country?” (And that is the talk that sells in Washington)
Transferring the ownership of property or services to private control on the basis of rational market decisions and clearly defined objectives is often misrepresented as robbing the government or even “the taxpayers,” but nothing could be further from the truth. Armey’s axiom number one: The market is rational; the government is dumb.
That is not merely a cliché; I used to teach an entire graduate course in order to reinforce such a premise. Individuals face sobering constraints every day – money, time, resources – and they do not, on the whole, make heedless decisions.
We taxpayers (and I do mean we individuals) pay $650 to $700 million a year to subsidize passengers riding Amtrak. Is this rational? Of course not, and when the case is this extreme, as with the deficit, people do understand and respond.
The Great Society changed the nature of government spending and taxation – in short, the whole landscape of our economy. But we have lost more than money in the process (between 5 to 7 trillion dollars) We, are no longer able to distinguish between the legitimate roles of the private and public sectors, and, more often than not, it is the former which is wrongly characterized as irrational and inefficient.
How to think about the deficit: Right now we have a lightning rod in “deficit mania.” So, since people rarely understand the real problem (dummied-down America), we might as well educate them about the symptoms. The deficit, let me stress, falls into the symptom category; but it may be the best “two-by-four” with which to hit people over the head when it comes to making them understand our larger dilemma.
Democrats who have never been, even by their own admission, fervent budget cutters, are making fiscal responsibility a headline issue today. But our true task does not lie in eliminating the deficit. (Considering how Congress usually spends money, the interest paid on the deficit may be its all time best investment.) We have to cut the size of government. Bring it back to its proper size. Put it in its place. This isn’t an economy measure – it is necessary, if we are to continue to thrive as a constitutional democracy. (No longer a constitutional republic – strictly a democracy – the worst form of government – mob rule) But in a highly practical way, the deficit can be the tool we use to convince others who don’t understand.
Restoring limitations on federal power is not easy. When Congress or the administration tries to cut spending, critics call them heartless and claim that the critically needy will suffer. The wise allocation of resources will lose out every time when the choice is presented as between government services and no services at all (as if the private sector didn’t exist).
The Keynesian presumption is that if government doesn’t do it, it won’t get done, and if the government doesn’t spend money on worthwhile programs, the money won’t be spent and the programs will collapse. That is how far we have come in two hundred years. Armey’s axiom number two: You don’t have to be a conservative to want to get the government off your back.
Two black leaders with whom I met recently, both women who have been lifelong Democrats and public housing tenants, agree. If we privatize public housing, will people be homeless? No, they say; give the poor vouchers and they will find their own cheaper residences. One of these women has remarked time and time again, “I don’t want the government rebuilding the plantations.”
She understands that she does not want the federal bureaucracy as the slum landlord of the 1990s, and she does not want to be its victim. The lesson is obvious. What this woman desires is the protection of her right to make her own decision s; hers is not an ideological passion. In the last few years, the Congressional Task Force on Privatization created several bell-weather proposals, of which loan portfolios sales were our flagship. We felt we could build a constituency behind them very quickly and with minimal political resistance. Of all the proposals, “urban homesteading” is, perhaps, the most appealing. People who now live in what we call “the projects” – government housing that’s been mismanaged, and which is falling down around their ears – have been reduced to wards of the state.
We must give these people the opportunity first to organize and manage their own buildings and then to buy their own homes. Home ownership carries with it a strong sense of responsibility and there is no doubt that it helps families stay together. When fathers own their own homes, where are they? Out carousing? No – they’re home with their heads under the kitchen sink, or painting the walls, or fixing the shingles, or doing the yard work. Teen pregnancy rates drop dramatically too, and often homeowners band together to drive out drug dealers in neighborhoods where urban homesteading initiatives have been implemented. (If would be interesting what Mr. Armey would write about the same subject matter today)
A recent article in the Washington Post comments on these privatization initiatives by noting that fathers who return to participate, exhibit a surprising number of skills the welfare and housing experts never knew they had. Plumbers, carpenters and electricians abound. As tenants of public housing, these men were forbidden to make improvements by statutes requiring all repairs to be made by union workers at prevailing wages.
Naturally, few tenants were willing to pay for the repairs of take an interest in the condition of housing which did not belong to them. As a freshman congressman, I experienced far less success with the idea of postal privatization. Persuaded that I could have an influence on my peers in Washington, I hired a private postal carrier to send a “Dear Colleague” letter to all members of the House. It began, “This letter is being sent to you illegally. But I could deliver it to you for five cents a copy.”
The USPS Workers Union was outraged, and I couldn’t convince Congress to go along with postal privatization then; however, every year privatization of all sorts of “sacred cows” like the postal service, Amtrak, health care and so on, is becoming more attractive to an increasing number of Americans. (Congress will not listen as long as lobbyists for those entities are able to corrupt politicians with kickbacks, better known as “campaign contributions” and being intimidated and threatened by Unions.)
The biggest roadblock is the Democratic Party, even though its individual members are often in favor of privatization. Why? Because in 1965, federal spending, previously only for capital goods, was expanded to include consumption goods with the intent to redistribute wealth along the lines drawn by Galbraith, LBJ, and the Great Society. This kind of spending has bought whole constituencies and has created, ultimately, the Dependent Society.
Less government is more. We must not simply attempt to cut federal aid. Democrats and Republicans alike will fight for their constituents who crave and demand aid. What we must do is to offer these constituents something better than a “free lunch”; we have to convince them that privatization will bring direct benefits and mean more opportunities to share the American dream. (This has become the American Nightmare.)
Politically, what ought to arise out of the privatization movement is not a realignment of power but a return to an older way of thinking – that less government is more; more economic prosperity to go around; more creative energies unleashed; and more responsible, self-reliant and independent people.
This democratic republic was founded in order to guarantee equality of opportunity and the freedom and dignity that come from being one’s own person. For a government to try to do more is to jeopardize the very rights it aims to protect. I want to reiterate that privatization is not just a passing economic fancy or a way to trim the deficit; it calls for a restoration of ideals badly needed if we are to prosper as individuals and as a nation… End of article.
Dick Armey, U.S. Congressman for the 26th District of Texas, delivered this address at Hillsdale College’s Ludwig Von Mises Lecture Series in the 80s. Mr. Armey retired from Congress.
PRESIDENT PINOCCHIO
“WE NEED EARMARK REFORM, AND WHEN I’M PRESIDENT, I WILL GO LINE-BY-LINE TO MAKE SURE WE ARE NOT SPENDING MONEY UNWISELY.” RESULT: 9,000 EARMARKS, BILLIONS BY BOTH PARTIES.
“I AM SORRY I HAVE ONLY ONE BAT TO SWING FOR MY COUNTRY.”
This article by Bill Barnstead (GOP activist – 57 years) –
The Washington Times, June 1, 2009.
Italics by me – Frank Trejo Yesterday’s News Today
In a 2001 interview with a radio talk show host on WBEZ-FM in Chicago, Illinois State Senator Barack Hussein Obama expounded his view on how he would select Supreme Court nominees after being asked by what yardstick he would measure judges he appointed to the federal bench as President. Obama replied: “We need judges who have heart and the empathy to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom…” (I guess that lets out all male applicants for the bench) “The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.”
Note: Seven years before he ran for office, he made a matter-of-fact statement that WHEN he became president (not IF), the primary criteria he would use to decide whom he would put on the federal bench would be “empathy.” Long before the American people blindly voted for the Pied Piper, Obama knew the only way he would be successful in redistributing the wealth of this nation was to erase the Constitution through reinterpretation.(Your Constitution was destroyed many years ago. We have criminals running the three branches of government) The Constitution of the United States precludes the providing of special rights to one class of people at the expense of all other classes within the nation.
In fact, Supreme Court Justices are required to swear this oath when they are placed on the bench. “I______ do solemnly swear and affirm that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as (title) under the Constitution and the laws of the United States. So help me God.”
Puerto Rican Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals is the epitome of a “social justice” judge. She is a jurist whose legal decisions as a US District Court Judge were overturned 60% of the time.
The liberal media has claimed that Sotomayor should be an easy confirmation because she’s a liberal replacing a liberal. Not true. She is an ultra far left socialist who reads racial preferences and quotas in every clause of the Constitution. (The Constitution doesn’t mean anything to the socialists and communists in our society) She is a socialist activist who is determined to write her own political agenda into the body of the law we know as the Bill of Rights. What makes her different than the liberals currently on the high court is that she has already shown that she will ignore the rule of law and make binding legal decisions based on what she sees as “social fairness.”
She personifies Obama’s desire for a justice who will look past the law at how those laws affect the daily realities of a diverse people’s lives. It is important that the American people understand that what is happening with this nomination is that Obama is literally sticking his finger in the eye of America as he continues to erode the fundamental value system and tenets of America. According to Francis Rice, head of the National Black Republicans, Sotomayor is a jurist who, by actual practice, approves discrimination based on the color of a person’s skin. (Visit the NationalBlackRepublican.com it is a conservative organization)
Speaking at the University of California at Berkeley (University of Communism) in 2001, Sotomayor said that the sex and ethnicity of a judge “…will make a difference in [the way] we judge…A wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” This is a poisonous doctrine for any judge, much less a justice of the Supreme Court.
In an attempt to hide Sotomayor’s racial radicalism, Obama reminded the media that she was appointed to the bench by the same Republican who appointed David Souter. (“There ain’t a dimes difference between the two parties.” Both parties are responsible for the destruction of our Constitutional Republic) What makes Sotomayor extremely dangerous to the American people is that she is one of only three federal judges to ever issue a court opinion saying that the 2nd Amendment (Gun rights) does not apply to the States. (Attorney General Holder, President Pinocchio, and now Sotomayor, are in favor of restricting your right to bear arms. Just remember – NO ONE CAN CHANGE ANYTHING IN YOUR CONSTITUTION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE PEOPLE AND THE STATES! Our founding fathers gave us the 5th Article in your Constitution to make any changes and not by anyone in government.)
The other judges were on the infamous 9th Circuit. One was appointed by Bill Clinton and one by Jimmy Carter. If we open the door on the high court to social activists, the rule of law will be gone and judges will determine what the law means by what makes them feel good at the moment…end of article…
A LETTER TO THE EDITOR OF A NATIONAL NEWSPAPER:
President Obama stated that those earning under $250,000 would not pay a dime more in taxes. The fact is, he plans to increase taxes on individuals by taxing companies. While individuals wouldn’t see an increase in their income taxes, they’ll see an increase in the prices they pay for goods and services due to the additional taxes levied on the companies that provide them. This is a diabolical plan that allows him to raise taxes without seeming to do so and use class warfare to blame “greedy” companies for gouging Americans. (Typical communist propaganda)
The “global warming” Cap and Trade Bill is just the tip of the iceberg. The American Conservative Union recently reported the tax on energy companies this bill proposes would increase the average American family’s electric bill by up to $3,000 per year. (Some are calling it the biggest tax increase in history)
Despite his high-minded promises, President Obama has no intention of being transparent. Because if the details are known, it wouldn’t be supported. How many people do you know who want to pay more for their electric bill? Look for this deceitful behavior in other areas. We have already seen him sneak billions of dollars into the budget bill for a government health care program for which there are few details. This is the same bill that had to be passed “overnight” and never posted online for 48 hours as Candidate Obama promised.
In 2010 you can stop the spending and socialism by throwing out the president’s Democratic supporters in Congress. (MUST BE DONE!)
This letter was written by Conrad Quagliaroli from Georgia
“She has more federal-court judicial experience than any nominee to the United States Supreme Court in 100 years.” Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. Judiciary Committee chairman.
* * * * * *
No president can do what he wants on his own. The Congress is the one who allocates monies for whatever reason. Our Constitution didn’t allow room for would-be dictators. Remember, President Pinocchio will have the opportunity to appoint two to three more judges to the Supreme Court. These will be of the same ilk as Sotomayor. They are a reflection of President Pinocchio’s collectivism – to put it mildly.
PRESIDENT PINOCCHIO
“YOU CAN FOOL SOME OF THE PEOPLE ALL OF THE TIME, AND ALL OF THE PEOPLE SOME OF THE TIME, BUT YOU CANNOT FOOL ALL OF THE PEOPLE ALL THE TIME.” (Abe)
“I AM SORRY I HAVE ONLY ONE BAT TO SWING FOR MY COUNTRY.”
Art work by – ©Richard Carhuayo – 2009 – r.carhuayo@gmail.com
By James Shelby to The Justice Times – 1988
Italics are mine – Frank Trejo – Yesterday’s News Today
(By clicking on the month of May you’ll find another article dated May 18th.)
Did you hear about the new aged wine that has taken over the market? It’s called Post Office Red, and it’s easy to make. Just mail five pounds of grapes to your sweetheart and mark the package “Fragile.” Or how about the man who received in the mail the 5-year, 50,000-mile warranty for his new car – after the warranty had expired!
These and other jokes like them are the lighter side of public frustration with the USPS. But while the USPS is good for a chuckle now and then, the frustration it generates is no laughing matter. Not only has the USPS increased its rates 67 percent since 1980 (from 15 to 25 cents for first class mail), but it has cut services significantly, not to mention a productivity rate that has lagged far behind the private sector.
As postal costs are rising twice as fast as inflation, first-class mail is now delivered 15 percent slower than in 1969. While such a decline seems negligible, America’s marketplace – from the local grocery store to the large direct mail firm – relies heavily upon mail delivery. Let them hire a private firm, you say, to handle their business mail? That’s just the problem; they can’t. Private business is forbidden by federal laws to deliver first-class mail as well as third-class containing a specific address.
The laws, called “private express statutes,” have made the USPS a monopoly, and not the acceptable kind sometimes found in a free market. “Natural” monopolies are those that come about when a company provides a product or performs a service of such superior quality at such a low price that no other company can compete, so all companies go out of business. The cause of the monopoly, then, is the fact that consumers flock to the superior company with their marketplace votes – dollars.
The natural monopoly survives only as long as it provides such a superior product or service. When the time comes that a competitor can start up a business and take but one single customer away from the monopoly, the monopoly ceases, and it becomes merely another competitor in the marketplace. But the postal service is a “coercive” monopoly, one that maintains its corner on the marketplace only because government has endowed it with a special privilege, a title of nobility of sorts. Because government threatens all potential competitors with penalties enforced by law, no one is able to pull down the monopoly, however inefficient it becomes.
But in a nation that is based on the idea of a free and open market, and which, for the last 75 years, has been vehemently opposed to monopoly of any kind, how is a government-sanctioned monopoly allowed to flourish – if that is the proper word for the function of a clumsy, inefficient, mail-delivery bureaucracy. And even more important, how can it be broken up?
The history of the postal service provides part of the answer; the politics of pandering explains the rest. And both the history and the politics were discussed during and unprecedented, Washington, D.C., conference on Privatization and the Postal Monopoly. The conference, held at the Willard Hotel, was sponsored by the Cato Institute, a libertarian/conservative think tank. Speakers at the conference made a case for badly needed change in the USPS, offered alternative methods of privatizing it, and rallied those in business, academia and even government to the cause of getting rid of the postal monopoly.
Roots of the post office go back to the beginning of American history, near the end of the revolutionary war, according to Thomas Moore, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution appointed to the president’s Council of Economic Advisors and one of the speakers at the conference.
The first statute establishing a postal service was passed in 1782. Five years later, the Founding Fathers included in the Constitution authorization for Congress to “establish post offices and posts roads.” Laws to strengthen the post office’s authority were passed in 1792, 1827, 1836 and 1838. Its popularity as a government entity was based primarily on the wonderful things it could do for politicians. The postal service, polls found, was one of the early government programs through which they could dole out jobs to their constituencies and inject money into their states’ economies.
Like today, the early post office didn’t deliver mail at bargain prices. “In 1843, it cost as much to deliver a letter as it did a barrel of flour.” Moore said. So private enterprise saw an opportunity to get into the business of delivering mail, did so and outperformed government mail carriers. The postal service didn’t take kindly to that, and neither did the politicians, seeing the threat to a valuable re-election tool. So in 1844, the private express statutes were passed by Congress, barring all private competition, and they were strengthened the following year.
The Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 further entrenched the USPS, but in 1983, after the Reagan Revolution swept the Senate into Republican hands, Congress asked the service to examine the need for continuing the private express statutes. There was a possibility, it was thought, that maybe private enterprise could contribute to the quality of the nation’s mail delivery system (an unusually novel idea for Congress to come up with)
It was no surprise that the postal service reported things were fine and that, indeed, allowing the private sector to get involved in mail delivery could prove catastrophic. So USPS continued to yet further entrench itself in its government-created monopoly.
Today’s politicians – especially those in rural states – still rely on the spend-thrift practices of the post office to keep their constituents pacified during election years. Because postal rates are uniform nationwide, urban areas pay for much of the cost of delivering mail to rural areas. Rural voters like this, so the political ploy of rural Congressmen works.
The constituency supporting the postal service is often called the third largest army in the world, second only to the Soviet and Chinese armies. There are more than 800,000 employees of the USPS (150,000 added just during the Reagan administration) distributed all across the country, most with families, in-laws and friends that vote.
In most cases, the post master is viewed as somewhat of a civic leader and, therefore, commands a substantial amount of influence in his community. His workers are also viewed as a part of the national culture and, thus, are regarded as stalwart citizens. Their opinions influence elections.
The network of communication in this army is tight and fast, so any politician getting out of line – like those who would advocate abolishing the postal monopoly – is quickly put in his place. This is not to mention the power of the unions, to which those of this huge army belong.
Even as the Cato monopoly busters were conducting their convention right across the White House on April 7, the American Postal Workers Union conducted a boisterous demonstration outside the hotel. Chanting their slogans to the orchestration of their president (who conducted the demonstration through an electronic bullhorn), they vowed to stop any attempt by the audacious free-marketeers to take their protective monopoly away from them.
When NAFTA was being considered by Congress polls taken showed 75 percent of the people were against it. ALL unions were against it. Yet, the president signed the legislation. Why? Because this is what the powers at be wanted. It proves that there is no one as powerful as the bankers who have enslaved us all. The present legislation being acted upon (Health and the Energy) are also being dictated by the powers at be. WE MUST STOP THESE TWO BILLS! CALL RELATIVES OUT OF STATE AND TELL THEM TO CALL THEIR SENATORS AND SAY NO!
Evidence of the power in the postal workers unions is the pay scales they are able to negotiate from the seldom tenacious bureaucrats managing the USPS. John Crutcher, commissioner on the watchdog agency that regulates the post office, called the postal workers “the highest paid semi-skilled workers in the world.”
He couldn’t be far off the mark; the average postal worker – letter carrier, mail sorter, post office clerk – earns $38,751 per year, more than $10,000 above the median annual income in America. The salaries of workers, amounts to 83% of the USPS budget; this is the kind of power the union demonstrators were able to wield. But to no avail. Back inside the hotel, Cato’s warriors kicked and bashed the incompetence, waste, inefficiency and general bumbling of the nation’s bloated postal agency….to be continued
This is a long article. I am going to break it into two articles. In the meantime, go to the internet and get the latest in the salaries paid to postal employees. The Postmaster General makes around $800,000 per year, with perks added.
Please visit my other web site. It has my bio. www.barrio-usa.com
“I AM SORRY I HAVE ONLY ONE BAT TO SWING FOR MY COUNTRY.”
By James Shelby – 1988
This is the second half of an article posted recently.
Italics are mine – Frank Trejo – Yesterday’s News Today
James Bovard, one of Cato’s more lively policy analysts, told of arrogance and sabotage in the USPS. After Congress cut the $38 billion postal budget last year by a mere one-half of one percent, the service stopped processing mail on Sundays., shortened window hours, moved daily deadlines for mail pickup to 4:00 p.m., and began closing offices in Detroit, Cincinnati, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Los Angeles, New York and many small cities.
Along with this retaliation for an almost non-existent budget reduction, USPS officials also threatened to stop Monday mail deliveries. One conference speaker said “it’s a good thing their budget wasn’t cut four or five percent; they would have shut down the entire postal service.”
But the worst effect of the monopoly is the contempt exhibited for its customers, Bovard said. Postal audits and surveys over the past decade have revealed hundreds of thousands of pieces of mail discarded by the service instead of being delivered. “The Postal Service may soon have to file environmental impact statements for all the mail it is dumping in America’s trash boxes and dumpsters,” he said. “For example, a Rhode Island mail carrier was arrested after 94,000 letters were found buried in his backyard.” (It still happens periodically)
A survey by Doubleday and Company in 1987 showed that as much as 14% of bulk business mail was either thrown away or lost. “The November 9, 1987 issue of Business Mailer’s Review quoted an Arlington, Va., postal clerk as saying, We don’t have room for the junk mail, so we’ve been throwing it out.”
According to the March 1, 1988 issue of Direct Mail News, “a Postal Inspection Service audit found mail dumped in the trash at 76% of the post offices it visited,” Bovard said. “Throwing away mail has become so pervasive that postal inspectors have notified employees that it is bad for the Postal Service’s business.”
Further evidence of sabotage of the mail is found in the number of postal workers fired for theft and/or mistreatment of mail: 1,315 in 1987 alone.
As public sentiment for the postal service was in a steady decline, the USPS designed an Origin-Destination Information System (ODIS) with which to monitor mail delivery speed. It was ODIS data that the service used in a massive public relations campaign to improve its image. The boasting including such proclamations of “A new Postal Service. We’re changing. We move mountains of mail for you…Amazingly accurate…Amazingly fast…We’re delivering the mail faster than ever,” according to Bovard.
But ODIS is deceptive; the origins and destinations from which the service measures delivery time are the post offices themselves, not the homes or businesses from which it is mailed or to which it is going. “Some workers have even been fired for refusing to cheat on the service tests,” he said.
Responding to Bovard’s presentation was the political and legislative director for the American Postal Workers Union, Patrick Nialan said the reports of sabotage and inefficiency were simply the doings of a “few bad apples, which are found in every barrel.” Brushing off the entire thesis of the conference, he said, “If something ain’t broke, don’t fix it; the postal service has some problems, but it doesn’t need fixing.”
But Nialan’s assertions melted away as speaker after speaker cited example after example of graft, corruption and waste.
The chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, Dan Oliver, who is known as a free-marketeer, probably did it best. Oliver, the keynote speaker at the conference, said “ we don’t need to prove that the postal service is inefficient; the fact that it is a coerced monopoly is evidence that it is inefficient.”
Efficient businesses need not fear competition. “They don’t need a panoply of congressional legislation to protect them.” While some at the conference suggested the possibility of reforming the service by using regulatory methods to make it more efficient, Oliver said it can’t be done with bureaucracy. “Saying you’re going to make the postal service efficient is like saying you have decided to weigh 40 pounds less tomorrow.”
One of those in the audience listening to Oliver’s blunt remarks was Anthony Frank, the fifth new postmaster general in five years. Directly addressing Frank, Oliver welcomed him to Washington, told him that it was a unique place, unlike the world of business, from which Frank had been recruited.
“You might think you can improve the service by tinkering with it, turning a dial of the bureaucratic machine here or there, but that will not resolve the problem. It is not a business; it is a bureaucracy. If you are not to go down in flames like your predecessors, Mr. Frank, you must stand up and call for an end to the ridiculous postal service monopoly,” Oliver said.
Another bigwig in the executive branch who dared to defy the bureaucracy by supporting privatization was James Miller, Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Miller, the target of union attacks for the miniscule cutback in the postal service budget, spoke at the conference luncheon. “Postal unions are long accustomed to getting their way with Congress,” Miller said. And to make it easier to perpetuate their empire, “they want the agency put ‘off budget’ altogether.”
He said the service enjoys being one of the 81 quasi-governmental, independent agencies of the United States, but when it needs subsidies to make up for its inefficiency, it comes crying to Congress. The USPS now receives nearly a $1 billion a year in subsidies to stay in operation. (It’s been reported that so far this year 2009 – the first six months – the USPS has lost almost $3 billion)
While the USPS productivity rate continues its decline, the private sector enjoys a steady two percent annual increase in its productivity rate. “There is a good reason the post office should enjoy a monopoly over the private sector,” Miller said. “If someone in the private sector were to attempt (such a monopoly), the government would go after them immediately.” The public has everything to gain by doing away with the public postal service. “It’s time to free the mails,” he said.
Proposals of how to do it are numerous. Most people agree that outright repeal of the private express statutes is politically impossible; the special interests have too great a grip (corruption) on members of Congress. Those who are soft on bureaucracy say more regulatory oversight of the USPS would do the trick. Others say contracting out is the answer, that the post office should simply hire subcontractors to do the majority of it’s work; but that could result in more government contracting rip-offs, similar to the thousand-dollar toilet seats purchased by the Defense Department.
The majority of support goes to the recommendations of the president’s Commission on Privatization. While President Reagan has distanced himself from the commission’s recommendations (to avoid potential political damage), Miller and Oliver have voiced publicly their support of it. Upon completion of a study of the post office, the commission reported that the private sector could perform mail delivery far better. The problem is how to get rid of the bureaucracy of almost one million people. It could be done in three steps, the report said.
The first would be to slowly phase out the private express statutes. Second, abolish all restrictions on private delivery of mail to rural areas, and remove laws that prohibit private mail carriers from using mail boxes, which is the property of the mail recipient to begin with. (Speakers at the conference also suggested that the IRS be required to recognize the postmark of private mail services. The tax collector, it seems, has been rejecting private postmarks as proof that tax returns were mailed before April 15th)
The third step in the commission’s report called for sale of the postal service to its employees, which would provide motivation for them to compete with the private sector.
At the onset, each employee would be given a set amount of stock as the USPS was privatized. Then they would all have the opportunity to buy more stock at a discount when it became available to the public. (There we go again, rewarding incompetence and failure)
The plan could work – if the postal service monopolists could adapt to the private sector. According to Oliver, that’s not always easy. But if the post office was given the option to sink or swim in the free marketplace, either outcome, would benefit Americans because the free market naturally produces the best bargain….end of article
“I AM SORRY I ONLY HAVE ONE BAT TO SWING FOR MY COUNTRY.”
Please visit my other web for a read of my bio. It is a book full of silly and humorous stories of growing up in the Barrio Boulevard of Broken Dreams. www.barrio-usa.com
By Frank Turano – guest writer to the Justice Times – 1986
YESTERDAY’S NEWS TODAY
“State sponsored education is a mere contrivance for molding people to be exactly like one another; and as the mold in which it casts them is that which pleases the predominant power in the government, it establishes a despotism over the mind.” (John Stuart Mill on Liberty)
Many states still insist on prosecuting parents who choose to educate their children at home in preference to government sponsored public education. Many state educational bureaucrats feel that education is a state function and that parents must blindly obey the dictates of state compulsory attendance laws.
In 1974, a financial grant from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst was given to Stephen Aarons of the University to research into the validity of compulsory public education as opposed to the rights of parents and child. The results of the research by Aarons and six of his associates was presented before the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association and later published in the Harvard Law Review.
“The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this union repose excludes any general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public school teachers only. The child is not a mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for added obligations.” (Pierce v. Soc. Of Sisters, 268 US 510)
Aarons and his associates discovered overwhelming evidence that the present-day government sponsored public educational system not only encroaches upon religious beliefs including the right to be free of state standardization.
“The Constitution protects the parent’s right to pass their values along to their children. Based on the First Amendment and the Pierce v. The Society of Sisters Supreme Court case, a child’s individual consciousness is preserved from government coercion. This principle indicates that parents have the right of educational choice where the inculcation of values or beliefs is concerned. Because of this principle, the present scheme of compulsory attendance and school financing may well be unconstitutional.” (Stephen Aarons – U.M. At Amherst Study)
“The right to educate one’s child as one chooses is made applicable to the states by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.” Griswold v. Conn. 381 US 479 (1965)
“Without doubt, then, the Massachusetts compulsory attendance statute might well be Constitutionally infirm if it did not exempt students whose parents prefer alternative forms of education. Under our system the parents must be allowed to decide whether public school education, including its socialization aspects, is desirable or undesirable for their children…” (Mass. Superior Court Judge Greany, in Perchlemides v. Frizzle (1979)
Aaron’s 30-page research report, concluded:
“In its fifty years life, Pierce has threaded its way through numerous cases involving the regulation of schooling, the compulsion of beliefs, challenges to compulsory schooling, religious liberties, and the establishment of the rights of privacy. This history and some recent thinking about the First Amendment suggest that present state schemes for financing public education and regulating private education may be invalid.
Because it protects against involuntary government intrusions upon individual consciousness, the First Amendment requires the separation of church and state. In view of this, compulsory education may have to be revised to eliminate its economically discriminatory nature and to preserve freedom of belief for families in search of adequate education.”
If indeed, home education is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution, one may wonder on what basis of law a state claims the authority to deprive a parent of that right.
“The claim and exercise on a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” (Miller v. US. 230 F2nd, 386)
“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”(Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. Constitution)
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” (Miranda v. Arizona)
Can home education of children by parents themselves be converted into a crime by the state? Does the state have the power to force parents to relinquish their children at age 5 for 12 years of government schooling? If these statements are so, then the state owns your children, there is no Constitution, and America is no longer a free country…end of article
* * * * * * * *
Home schooling appears to be a State’s right. Parents have to meet certain rules to ensure kids are getting proper training. But through the years those in charge of administrating school policies have been very disrespectful towards parents complaining about what is being taught to their children. There have been instances where parents are told to shut up and go home.
DON’T YOU EVER ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN TO YOU! YOU ARE THE BOSS. YOU ARE THE ONES THAT PAY THEIR SALARIES. IF EVER YOU ARE DISRESPECTED GO RIGHT TO THE PRINCIPAL AND FILE A COMPLAINT. IF THAT DOESN’T WORK GO TO THE SCHOOL BOARD. IF THAT DOESN’T WORK TAKE IT TO THE COMMUNITY AND IF YOU HAVE TO, RUN FOR A SEAT ON THE SCHOOL BOARD AND CORRECT THINGS. YOU ARE THE BOSS!
“You see, the more we are conditioned by education and just living in a society which teaches us to think along certain lines, the easier we are to fool. The magician encourages us to follow one logical path – the one we are accustomed to follow in a normal situation – while he, unknown to us, takes an entirely different one to accomplish his illusion. Thus, the hardest people to fool are children, who take little for granted. The easiest are scientists.” – Charles Reynolds, Magician’s Consultant, Parade, 8-24-1980
“While young people are gathering flowers and nose gays, let them beware of the snake in the grass.” – Roger Sherman, Almanac, 1750, New York.
“I AM SORRY I HAVE ONLY ONE BAT TO SWING FOR MY COUNTRY.”
Please visit my other web site and read my bio. It is full of humor, at times silly, but also entertaining. www.barrio-usa.com
