The Most Corrupt Organization in the World
The Most Corrupt Organization in the World is not some clandestine underworld organization. The most corrupt organization in the world is supposed to be the beacon of justice for the United States of America if not the developed world. The United States of America is the largest of the developed democratic countries in the world. The United States of America dominates the world with our “dollar” and our “satellite TV.” With that distinction comes responsibility. The United States of America FAILS in its responsibilities to the rest of the world. The United States of America is not the beacon of liberty, democracy and justice that its propaganda portrays it to be. We do not have liberty, because there is no protection of the law for our rights. We do not live in a democracy every legislative act has to move through the oligarchy of the Senate where 'secret holds' and the filibuster trump our Democracy. We do not have access to Justice because our courts, by their own admission, are ruled by malicious, corrupt and incompetent tyrants with absolute sovereign impunity to rewrite the laws and protect their self-serving positions.
The Most Corrupt Organization in the World is the United States of America’s Justice department.
Every organization of men is unavoidably corrupted by its imperfect humanity. There are no perfect human beings on this planet. Every organization is thus corrupted to some extent. What makes the United States of America’s Judiciary the most corrupt is that it has institutionalized and empowered its corruption by establishing and enforcing absolute immunity for itself and trickle down immunity for others. Absolute immunity proliferates reckless unaccountable impunity. The victims of this malicious, corrupt and incompetent immunity have no remedy short of violence. The Supreme Court has admitted as much themselves, “In such cases, there is no safety for the citizen except in the protection of the judicial tribunals for rights which have been invaded by the officers of the government professing to act in its name. There remains to him but the alternative of resistance, which may amount to crime.” (United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882) , Page 106 U. S. 219)
I concur with Alexander Hamilton, the Federalist Paper #78, when he asserted “The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution,” that is true. The Judiciary needs to be independent of the TWO other branches of the Government. But the Judicial Power, the Executive Power and the Legislative Power all need to be submissive to Constitution as the GOVERNING Rule of Law. To understand fully how the founding fathers, Alexander Hamilton specifically saw the Judiciary it is important to again quote from the Federalist Paper #78:
“There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative (judicial or executive) act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
In the Federalist papers #78 Hamilton says “This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power.[1]” The judiciary was designed as the weakest of the three departments of power, but that is not how it has evolved.
The weakness of the Judiciary was evident in Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 6 Pet. 515 515 (1832). In Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 6 Pet. 515 515 (1832) the United States Supreme Court held that Cherokee Native Americans were entitled to federal protection from the actions of state governments which would infringe on the tribe's sovereignty. But President Andrew Jackson said that "the decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate." Because of the resistance of the Presidency to enforce the Law as declared by the Supreme Court, it was ignored. The Indian Removal Act of 1830 thus gave President Jackson the authority to negotiate removal treaties.
The result was The Trail of Tears, the relocation and movement of Native Americans, including many members of the Cherokee, Creek, Seminole, and Choctaw nations among others in the United States, from their homelands to Indian Territory (present day Oklahoma) in the Western United States. The phrase originated from a description of the removal of the Choctaw Nation in 1831. Many Native Americans suffered from exposure, disease, and starvation while en route to their destinations, and many died, including 4,000 of the 15,000 relocated Cherokee.
Imagine today if a President wanted to relocate, let’s say all the Muslims living on the east coast to federal lands in Oklahoma and did so by a tortuous trek across open country on foot with limited food supplies in all weather conditions. It would be unthinkable. But we have since evolved and are still I hope evolving.
In the rough and tumble world of the Colonial era the Legislative Power to tax and the Executive Power of the Army were seen to be overwhelming. But that is not the way it has evolved. With time we established the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act that prohibits the use of the Army for domestic law enforcement thus the executive has no advantage on the Judiciary. And the ability to Tax has no effect on the Judiciary’s Compensation “which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.[2]” But the Judiciary has the power to declare any Act of the Legislature or Order of the President void under the Constitution.
The Judiciary has now declared themselves above the law with absolute immunity. The Judiciary usurped power outside the tenor of their commission with their assertion of absolute immunity e.g., “This immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly, and it “is not for the protection or benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge, but for the benefit of (the people being robbed and disenfranchised) the public, whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty (to act without regard to the law or the rights of “We the People”) to exercise their functions with independence and without fear of consequences.” ((Scott v. Stansfield, L.R. 3 Ex. 220, 223 (1868), quoted in Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 80 U. S. 335, 80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350.), (Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967)) and (Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991)).
Bradley v. Fisher authorized the Judiciary to repeal the writ of habeas corpus, the prohibition of ex post facto laws, and of TITLES OF NOBILITY with the establishment of the Judge Made Law of Absolute Judicial Immunity, I again quote “a judge of a criminal court, invested with general criminal jurisdiction over offenses committed within a certain district, should hold a particular act to be a public offense, which is not by the law made an offense[3], and proceed to the arrest and trial of a party charged with such act, or should sentence a party convicted to a greater punishment than that authorized by the law[4] upon its proper construction, no personal liability[5] to civil action for such acts would attach to the judge” Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 13 Wall. 335 335 (1871) Page 80 U. S. 352
Judges admit, with their hubris unrestrained, some of them are going to be “malicious or corrupt,” we have to endure them for the greater good. The greater good is the denial of the Protection of the Laws, The Essence of Civil Liberty[6]. Judges, by their own self aggrandizing assertion, need to be able to act without regard to very laws “We the People” have established to limit their actions. Judges assert they need to be able to act “with independence and without fear of consequences,” to be able to break the law, deny our RIGHTS at will and that “We the People” can or should do nothing to oppose them. That is INSANITY!!!
The Rule of Law stands above the Judicial Power. I quote from the Constitution for the United States of America Article III Section 2 “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties.” To remove that limitation with absolute immunity and put the Judicial Power above the Rule of the Constitution is unconscionable. To put anyone above the constitution is unconscionable. Alexander Hamilton had it right in his assertion of the Rights of “We the People.”
“It has been several times truly remarked that bills of rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgements of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince… It is evident, therefore, that, according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, (We) the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations. "WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of popular rights, than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our State bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government.”
We the People surrender NOTHING!!!
The Most Corrupt Organization in the World is aided and abetted by one of its oversight authorities, the second most corrupt organization in the world, The United States Legislature. We do not have a Democratic Legislature as we profess to the world and ourselves. The United States Legislature is controlled by the United States Senate and the Senate hides its corruption behind its’ supposed purpose, a democratic institution. The Senate as design and intended in the United States Constitution is supposed to be a representative democratic institution albeit without a true 1-to-1 representative proportionality. But that is not how it has evolved. The evolution of the legislature has been corrupted by an oligarchy’s ability to control the United States Senate with the oligarchy’s self-serving antiquated Senate rules that establish and maintain 'secret holds' and the filibuster.
The United States of America is supposed to be a constitutional government “of the people, by the people, for the people[7].“ As such we are a government based on the Rule of Law as established by “We the People” in our Constitution. The Government of the United States should be a government of laws, and not of men. “We the People” are governed by our Constitution that establishes the Rule of Law; we are not ruled by the will of a King or an oligarchy. Any and all immunity from the Rule of Law is by definition antithetical to the Rule of Law. Constitutional Government is based on the Rule of Law. Immunity from the Rule of Law is contrary to the manifest tenor of a Constitution “of the people, by the people, for the people[8].“
“We the People” need to take back the United States Senate from the oligarchy of special interests and reign in the United States Supreme Court’s absolute sovereign impunity to once again make it a Government “of the people, by the people, for the people[9].“
If there is anything further I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.
Thank you in advance.
Dave@DGJeep.com
David G. Jeep
cc: President Barack Hussein Obama
Justice Sonia Sotomayor
e-mailed to a select group of favorites
file
[1] 1. The celebrated Montesquieu, speaking of them, says: "Of the three powers above mentioned, the judiciary is next to nothing." -- Spirit of Laws. Vol. I, page 186.
[2] United States Constitution Article III Section 1 Last Sentence.
[3] “The creation of crimes after the commission of the fact” A Judge made law the repeal of the Constitutional prohibition of ex post facto laws, US Constitution Section 9 - No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
[4] “the practice of arbitrary imprisonments” A Judge made law the repeal of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, US Constitution Section 9 - The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
[5] “no personal liability” A Judge made law the repeal of the Constitutional prohibition for a Title of Nobility. Immunity is in fact a Title of Nobility in the terminology of Colonial Times and the Constitution of the United States of America
[7] President Abraham Lincoln The Gettysburg Address, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania November 19, 1863
[8] President Abraham Lincoln The Gettysburg Address, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania November 19, 1863
[9] President Abraham Lincoln The Gettysburg Address, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania November 19, 1863
No comments:
Post a Comment