Archive for the ‘Blind Justice’ Category

Pro Bono Publico

October 1, 2019

short url to this post: https://wp.me/pGfx1-HQ

Quid pro quo?

By Dahni

©️2019, all rights reserved

Well, we are either learning, re-learning, using or abusing Latin again. What does the Latin term, “quid pro quo” mean? Quite simply it is translated in English as: “something for something” or “favor for favor.”

If I were to agree to mow your yard for a month and in exchange for this, you agree to take and care for my Lady dog 🐶 for a week, while I go out of town, that’s quid pro quo. If you agree to pay 💰 a $1.00 to the grocery store and they, in exchange, agree to give you a loaf of bread, this is also, quid pro quo. In legal and political use, the term just descends into hell from there. Then, in the hell of, subject to what you believe and interpret, we hear or learn such things as: coercion, harassment, “shakedown”, force and ideas like some mafia godfather, asking for a favor or an offer, you cannot refuse. Such is the public scenario being used or abused, as grounds to impeach, a sitting US president.

Oh, it does not matter that that a transcript of a conversation between two presidents of two different countries and its release was agreed upon by both, declassified and released to the public. And it does not matter that both presidents, publicly agreed that there was no “pressure” put on anyone, to do anything.

What matters to some politically, who paint this exchange as criminal is, the word “favor” (do “us” the USA “our country”, and not “me” personally), was used in the conversation. And to further this interpretation, just mentioning the name of a person that just happens to be running in 2020, in opposition to president Donald Trump, is grounds for impeachment? Why this just further proves the demand for this favor to impugn the integrity of one, for the sole benefit of another, to win an election? It’s a violation of campaign finance law? It’s opposition research or digging for dirt on your potential challenger? But you can forget about a threat of you either do us this favor or you won’t get money or aide from us because, it does not exist in this transcription! There is no mention or implication that any money is at stake or being withheld, unless this “favor” is done!

This transcript only factually shows two things: congratulations for winning an election and the context of the “favor” involves corruption, to which both presidents have had and are, having to presently deal with. Don’t take my word for this or what the media paints and want you to believe, read it for yourself!

Click above to view the transcript

Now as to “word for word”, one US senator wants to see this conversation “word for word.” This implies that she believes what has been released to the public, is not. Not only does this call into question the honesty of our president, all those involved that heard the actual phone conversation and prepared the transcription, it also, questions the honesty and integrity of, the president of Ukraine.

Is there a word-for-word or actual recording of this call? Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the first US president to record his private calls. This practice ever since continued until president Nixon, whose refusal to turn over tapes, was leading to his potential impeachment, led to his willful destruction of US property and ended with his resignation, as president of the United States.

But, no, this senator and others now question and do not accept this publicly released transcription. Surely there must be one more complete? There must be a recording? The speaker of the house has gone so far as to suggest that taking private and classified documents and placing them on a more secure server with limited access, but still maintained as governmental property, amounts to nothing more than a cover up?  Do you see seeds of mistrust and association with another president that did indeed, try to cover up? Do you see the grounds for impeachment being set down? Do you see that government is not trusted even by itself? Do you recall a former Secretary of State and 2016 nominee running for president, set up her own private server? Moving private and/or classified information to a more secure server in the government, is this to cover up or perhaps to protect the information and limit access to it? Why? I don’t know, maybe because conversations of the president of the US, the president of Mexico and now Australia twice, have been released or leaked to the press?

The more secure server, is it to cover up or protect the information from unauthorized and illegal leaking? I would think an illegal and unauthorized private server would be used because: you don’t trust the government and/or you are trying to limit access, trying to hide it or cover it up?

Now what about the whistle blower? There is a law designed to protect them and procedures to follow, to make their complaint credible and urgent. Prior to August of 2019, just days before the transcription was publicly released, someone(s) in the Intelligence community, uploaded a change in the form to submit such a complaint. Prior to this, the complainant had to have “first hand knowledge.”  The complaint now seen, freely admits that the complainant did not/does not have “first hand knowledge.’ Rightfully so, they were not one of over 12 people that were privy to the call between two presidents. This means that those (someone or someones), that were present, leaked this information to someone that was not authorized to have it! In other words, the information was leaked to someone unauthorized to have it and they were not authorized to leak it or even submit the proper form required, for whistle blowers.

This is called hearsay, second-hand and third-hand information, gossip and etc. Prior to August 2019, hearsay is not allowed as, it is not allowed in any court of law. Why? The accused has the constitutional right to confront their accusers and anything less than first-hand knowledge, is not allowed. But this was changed without date, reason or whom(s), made the change, for submitting the complaint.

This is precisely why people don’t trust lawyers (the legal profession as a whole), the mainstream media and politicians, even far, far less! Law, which exists to protect the rights of the people, is tainted (abused), and question the very people, they are elected by and are supposed to serve. The mindset is, guilty until if and whenever if, proven innocent? Facts do not matter? Guilt or innocence does not matter, only what can be proved? And the only proof required is, what do you believe and what can you get others to believe?

Well, this is what I believe. I’ll add some more Latin words for you to consider. The context of this entire conversation between the president of the United States and the president of Ukraine is, the mutual need for cooperation against corruption, plaguing both countries! In Latin this is, Pro Bono Publico, “for the public good”!!!!

I can think of two other things that are also, Pro Bono Publico “For the public good”!

 

1 of WE,

 

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

March 26, 2019

short url to this post: https://wp.me/pGfx1-Gl

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

By Dahni
© 2019, all rights reserved

The Mueller Report, no matter what it contains or what is released to the public, should be rejected by all, for it is, “Fruit of the poisonous tree.”•

•source link: Cornell Law

“Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” Legal Doctrine

“The exclusionary rule mandates that evidence obtained from an illegal arrest, unreasonable search, or coercive interrogation must be excluded from trial. Under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, the evidence is also excluded from trial if it was gained through evidence uncovered in an illegal arrest, unreasonable search, or coercive interrogation.”

source: legal-dictionary thefreedictionary.com

Perhaps another legal doctrine may be familiar and similar to you, your Miranda Rights.

“Miranda Rights are named after the landmark US Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona. Ernesto Miranda was arrested for stealing $8.00 from an Arizona bank worker. After two hours of questioning, Miranda confessed not only to the robbery, but also to kidnapping and rape. When he was brought in for questioning, he was never told that he did not have to speak to police, or that he could consult with a lawyer; he simply confessed to the crimes. He was found guilty.”

“Miranda’s conviction was appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The Justices ruled that the statements Miranda made to the police could not be used as evidence against him because, he had not been advised of his Constitutional rights. Since this decision, police are required to recite the Miranda warning to suspects before, any questioning is conducted.”

“The Miranda case did not establish new rights, but rather instituted further protection of Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.”

source: Legalzoom.com

WOW, from a known criminal and for an initial charge of just $8.00 theft, but who also confessed to kidnapping and rape, we have this namesake legal doctrine of Miranda Rights! What happened to him?

“Ernesto Miranda did, indeed, get a new trial based on the Supreme Court ruling, and his original confession was thrown out. However, based on the evidence, Miranda was again convicted of kidnapping and rape, and served 11 years in prison before being paroled in 1972. In 1976 at the age of 34, Miranda was stabbed to death in a barroom brawl. Police arrested a suspect in the killing who, after choosing to exercise his Miranda Right to remain silent, was released without being charged for the crime.”

source: Legalzoom.com

Now don’t you wonder how the prosecution ever knew about “evidence” to look for in this second case? I do. Technically, Miranda should have only been charged and convicted, for the initial crime and charge of $8.00 in theft!

Exceptions (loopholes) to the Miranda Rights? But of course (sarcasm). Each state must follow the four points, but each state writes their own rules, for applying them. One exception is…

“We have no way of giving you a lawyer, but one will be appointed for you, if you wish, if and when you go to court.”

used by:  Some police departments in Indiana, New Jersey, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Alaska

In other words, we are not going to pay for your attorney, you the interrogated or charged are. We will appoint one (our choice as to which one), IF you wish and IF you go to court. This exception gets the taxpayer off the hook and it’s good for lawyers that are are all generally paid, win or lose. And it could be good for the prosecution too.

Unfortunately, for certain people, these two legal doctrines (Miranda Rights and Fruit of the Poisonous Tree), though designed to protect individual rights, have exceptions (loopholes). Law, which is supposed to protect the law-abiding and punish the lawless, is so constructed that often the lines between guilt and innocence are blurred. Exceptions (interpretation of law), are often just a tool of government, to circumvent constitutional rights or to shield and/or justify its own actions. In other words, if it is in the government’s best interest with exceptions, it can interpret the law and seize constitutional rights, as if it is their property or not prosecute at all, if it is one of their own or not in their interest. Does a counterintelligence, an FBI investigation or did Mueller’s investigation, support or seize the individual’s rights? There can be no silence or opposing counsel to help those being questioned, by the government and this should be illegal! Neither is it legal to require sworn testimony of some, but not of others. These exceptions to the law, makes law, useless in our Republic!

The special counsel (Mueller Investigation), was begun without legal precedent. It only had the appearance of being legal. It never met the legal requirements, for a special counsel to operate. It only had the appearance of a legal operation. The named individuals on the counsel were openly and blatantly chosen, despite bias, partisan politics and many of its lawyers conflicted or known to have corrupt practices of their own. There is simply no way this counsel could muster public trust and is but “fruit from the poisonous tree.” It was hidden from the public, it was empowered to serve. The scope of its power, its tactics, its randomly veering off its mandate (at its own discretion), its refusal to release certain information and it leaked information as it suited them while ruining lives. And it prevented even Congress charged with judicial oversight and other investigators from interviewing potential witnesses and documents non-redacted, keeping it to themselves and secret, all in the name of national security or not compromising an on-going investigation. Charged to look into one thing, they looked into many other things. This is just, “fruit from the poisonous tree.”

Some of the “fruit of the Poisonous Tree”

However, after nearly two years, countless hours of investigating companies, countries, private individuals and public officials; after the near constant media and public distraction, all who waited in mistrust and fear or waiting with bated breath, for the release of what many already believed was true, before it even began, it has been released to the Attorney General (AG). After untold millions of dollars paid for by the United States Taxpayer, The Confidential Mueller was ended.

By law, it has been delivered to the deputy attorney general, who authorized the investigation. The investigation was to determine whether or not, the Russian government, working with certain US citizens colluded with and conspired with, to influence the 2016 presidential election. By law, the deputy attorney general immediately delivered this report to the US Attorney General. By law, the AG immediately delivered a letter to the Chairman and ranking member of the House of Representatives, Judicial Committee, and the Chairman and ranking member of the Senate Judicial Committee. And the same he released to the public. By law, all were notified that the AG was in receipt of the Confidential Mueller Report and that:

1. The investigation had ended and no new indictments would be coming or are left hidden.
2. More information to these individuals of the two judicial committees was promised to be forthcoming and perhaps as early as, the following weekend.

The above, by law, and as promised, more information was delivered by the AG (signed by both the AG and the deputy AG), to the specific four members of Congress and simultaneously to the public.

This summation stated:

1. No collusion or conspiracy was found
2. The AG and deputy AG concurred, there is no sufficient evidence to pursue obstruction of justice

But this summation by law, is not good enough for many and they clamor loudly, daily and incessantly, for the release of the full report and all documents, which were used to make up the Mueller Report. Without the patience, for the release of as much as possible and as promised, foolishly and ignorantly they are distrusting the integrity of the AG, and in essence, are inciting him to break the law and to commit perhaps multiple felonies, in releasing information which may contain:

  1. sealed Grand Jury information
  2. classified information
  3. presidential privileged information

The damage already done to our Republic is so great, as it is now, it will take a long time to repair it!

Though the length of this investigation is not the longest one on record, but because of its almost endless and daily coverage by most of all media, blinding our eyes with it and blaring it in our ears daily, it certainly seemed like it was! For no other reason, I am relived, it is now over!

I am relieved…

…not to rejoice in the vindication of the president and anyone associated with him.

I am relived…

…not to criticize, condemn or complain about anyone whose expectation was that collusion, conspiracy and/or obstruction of justice, justified this investigation.

I am relived…

…I am just relived that no foreign power colluded, conspired and obstructed justice, to interfere with, the 2016 presidential election of, WE the People!

It would be apropos if WE the People could now focus our efforts upon matters of great importance to the Republic of, The United States of America, But this report, no matter what it concludes and whatever is released to the public is, but “fruit from the poisonous tree.” It should be rejected by every individual in our Republic. One cannot obstruct justice from collusion/conspiracy, which does not exist. Sadly, I suppose, this is just the end of the beginning?

But just because someone (anyone), appears to be guilty or is made out to be guilty, charged as if they are guilty, and convicted in the court of public opinion, does not make it so. To usurp an individual’s (any individual citizen of the United States), constitutional rights is, “fruit of the poisonous tree!” Any results (consequences meted out), by anyone; from any such manner or method is, “fruit of the poisonous tree!” Perjury traps violate constitutional rights. Gather the evidence legally. Indict or charge. Convict or dismiss. Acquit, set free and make whole. There should never be an exception to anyone, for any reason or under any circumstance, for the use of, “fruit of the poisonous tree!” 

Anyone (any citizen), charged and found guilty, by way of “fruit from the poisonous tree,” should have all charges dismissed, their rights restored and restitution made to them, for any loss. Anyone that relies on or uses “fruit of the poisonous tree,” should suffer the consequences and/or be made to pay, for using “fruit of the poisonous tree.”

Without exception (without interpretation), I do not want the guilty to go free, but neither do I want the innocent to be bound due to, “fruit of the poisonous tree!”

The damage done to our Republic and to individuals these past several years is innumerable and not because of the doctrines to protect the individual’s (all individual citizens) rights. It is the exceptions (interpretations), in using, “fruit of the poisonous tree!”

Class Action Lawsuit

July 8, 2016
short url to this post: http://wp.me/pGfx1-yk

By Dahni
© 2016, all rights reserved

ClassAction2

If pure law was made to protect the law-abiding (and it was) and not the lawless (and it wasn’t), why does it seem that the law-abiding are punished (and they often are) and the lawless get off FREE, (and they often do)? What is the problem? Is it the law or is it the lawyers? You can answer that for yourself.

But whether you intend to break the law (have criminal intent) or just break it because you are ignorant, unknowing or just incompetent, does this mean there should be little or no consequence? And please do not use the Bill Clinton (lawyer) response, “That it depends on what is, is.”

Dotting all the i’s and crossing all the t’s might be useful (but not necessarily, necessary to understand, in writing sentences and reading them, but it appears to be absolutely necessary; a requirement in legal terms, as is punctuation, capital letters or not, certain words, keywords, and all kinds of extraneous and a superfluity of bullshite loopholes. Lawyers make these legal terms or direct them.

I can certainly understand that punishment for ‘intent’ would be greater than the punishment, for just breaking the law, but because ‘intent’ has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, does not or should not mean that no charges are filed, there should not be a jury, or a grand jury, or judge only, should NOT hear the case, try the case and judge that consequences of breaking the law applies, convict if proven guilty and mete out a just punishment, swiftly!!!!

“Justice delayed is justice denied”

The quote above is a legal maxim— an established principle or proposition. Just like lawyers, and congress and government in general can’t agree on much of anything, no one seems to agree on where this quote came from either.

‘Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations, attributes it to William Ewart Gladstone, but it CANNOT be verified.

Some believe it was first used by William Penn in the form of, “to delay Justice is Injustice,” according to:

‘Penn, William (1693), ‘Some Fruits of Solitude, Headley, 1905, p. 86.

Mentions of ‘justice delayed and denied’ are found in the Pirkei Avot 5:7, a section of the Mishnah (1st century BCE – 2nd century CE): “Our Rabbis taught: …

“The sword comes into the world, because of justice delayed and justice denied…,”

10 Minutes of Torah. Ethical Teachings Selections’ from Pirkei Avot.
http://tmt.urj.net/archives/4jewishethics/052605.htm

The Magna Carta of 1215, clause 40 reads, “To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice.”

Martin Luther King, Jr., used the phrase in the form, “Justice too long delayed is justice denied,” in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail”, smuggled out of jail in 1963, ascribing it to a “distinguished jurist of yesteryear”.

Chief Justice of the United States, Warren E. Burger noted in an address to the American Bar Association in 1970:

“A sense of confidence in the courts is essential to maintain the fabric of ordered liberty for a free people and three things could destroy that confidence and do incalculable damage to society: that people come to believe that inefficiency and delay will drain even a just judgment of its value; that people who have long been exploited in the smaller transactions of daily life come to believe that courts cannot vindicate their legal rights from fraud and over-reaching; that people come to believe the law – in the larger sense – cannot fulfill its primary function to protect them and their families in their homes, at their work, and on the public streets.

Burger, “What’s Wrong With the Courts: The Chief Justice Speaks Out”, U.S. News & World Report (vol. 69, No. 8, Aug. 24, 1970) 68, 71 (address to ABA meeting, Aug. 10, 1970).

The courts are made up of judges and judges are first, lawyers. Lawyers graduate from law schools. Law schools are supposed to teach law and many of the professors may be lawyers or former lawyers that also, graduated from some law school. Sometimes, presidents are lawyers or have a law background. Congress has many former lawyers. The supreme court judges are all, first and foremost, lawyers. The entire government is riddled with lawyers.

Our biggest problem is not with the law per se, it is with the lawyers or the executives, legislators and the judiciary that make the laws, enforce or not enforce them and are more prone to NOT seek justice, but to win their cases, make their arguments, profit from them, protect themselves and their profession; their intuitions of law, and rather than protecting the innocent, they protect the lawless. Loopholes and interpretations, legislating from the bench and not whether one is guilty or not, but what can be proved is, their training and their focus.

No matter what side you may be on with the latest FBI conclusion that no criminal charges against the former Secretary of State and presumptive Democrat nominee for president of the United States, Hilary Clinton, with her mishandling of classified material and the Justice Department accepting that recommendation and no criminal charges will be filed, it’s not the law which is troubling, but the lawyers that wrote, write, interpret, defend or prosecute them, apparently at their discretion and their benefit.

If this is purely political theater (as was said by those who seek to keep this matter going), the Republican Party response seems to go to yet another law and associate it with what the FBI and the Justice Department views as, a closed case. And what law is that? Did the former secretary lie to congress, but not the FBI? But the FBI did not include that testimony in their “comprehensive” investigation. When asked why not, the Director of the FBI said that Congress had not sent them a formal request. To this the person asking said, “You will have one shortly!” So, if this continues, it could only end in a charge or charges of perjury. But perjury will be difficult to prove. The entire matter is laden with corruption and perversion. If the “careless” mishandling of classified material were not concerning on its own, as it is, the lawyers or lawyer-directed legalese that have corrupted and perverted the intent of the law, the law of the land— which is, to protect US, WE the People, from the lawless and punish  the lawless, to me is even more egregious an a threat to national security!

I will give you an example of this corruption and perversion from my own state of New York and my own personal experience.

About a year ago, I was pulled over on the ramp of an entrance to a highway. It was an obvious traffic stop, looking for drunk drivers or to see if people were wearing their seat-belts, I supposed. This was, seat-belt related. After I stopped, an officer approached me and gave me a ticket, as he was told to do, by his supervisor. His supervisor said, that he saw me NOT wearing a seatbelt and to ticket me. Now of course, I would, as most people charged with anything would say, “I’m innocent.” And it does not matter if I really was or not, as you will shortly understand. But I had two choices. I could pay whatever fine was required by my state and county and etc. or try to fight it in court. I decided to go to court.

On my court date, I was given two more choices. I was to either plead guilty and pay whatever the judge said or I could have a trial. Ooops, and I thought I was at trial and the officer would be there? Nope.

OK, I wasn’t there because I was guilty, but before I said I wasn’t, I asked the judge a question, which he allowed. “If I come to trial and plead innocent and win, will they drop all charges and any costs to me, except for my time wasted in coming to court twice? Well the judge informed me that there are no court costs, but there is an administrative fee, which I would have to pay, one way or another. Sure, label that jar of peas, peanut butter, but it’s still peas! Costs or fees, it’s still monies. That’s legalese and PC (political correctness) all rolled into one lump court cost that’s not?

So, let me see if I have this straight? Plead guilty to something I did not do. Pay whatever fine the judge decides. Points are deducted from my license. Enter a plea of guilty that become public record. My insurance most likely will go up. AND I still have to pay the (about) $100, the administrative fee? Yes. And if I go to trial and lose, I may have to pay a larger fine and the $100 administrative fee? Yes. Oh, and one more thing. The police can give me a ticket, even if they know I’ve done nothing wrong because, one way or another, I’m going to have to pay that $100! Is this messed up or what? Does this sound like extortion, racketeering and collusion to you? Is it the law or the lawyers that wrote it or directed it? Well, my prosecution rests! 🙂

WE the People, should ALL file a class action suit against the law profession?! WE the People should just sue the legal profession, sue the hell out of them! But who would do it for US? Who could WE get to represent US?????

ClassAction

click image to enlarge

Another maxim—

“He who represents himself has a fool for a client.”

A supposed quote by Abraham Lincoln?

This proverb is based on the opinion, probably first expressed by a lawyer, that self-representation in court is likely to end badly. As with many proverbs, it is difficult to determine a precise origin, but this expression first began appearing in print in the early 19th century. An early example comes in ‘The flowers of Wit’, or a choice collection of bon mots, by Henry Kett, 1814:

…observed the eminent lawyer, “I hesitate not to pronounce, that every man who is his own lawyer, has a fool for a client.

In the play, King Lear, by William Shakespeare, In Act I, Sc. 4, the king’s fool makes a lengthy rhyming speech, containing a great many trite, but useful moral maxims, such as:

Have more than thou showest,
Speak less than thou knowest, &c.,

The king found that testy and flat and tiresome.

Lear. This is nothing, fool.
Fool. Then, ‘tis like the breath of an unfeed lawyer: you gave me nothing for it.

Representing oneself in Latin is, acting pro se, which means, for oneself.

If WE could find among US, a lawyer(s) that could and would represent US, would they be a fool, in representing themselves as well? And their profession might think them a fool, if they dare go against them? Are WE then just shite (old English term, you figure out its current meaning) out of luck? Are WE, without representation? Are WE, without a prayer? Are WE, up a creek without a paddle? NO!

WE the People have two, to represent us— The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America. One these two documents, all the law and all the laws of the United States are supposed to be based on. The legal profession does NOT view them like that!

Regardless of what the courts might rule, the Declaration of Independence is not some past historical writing of its time and just some relic to be archived in a museum. I was then and remains a legal document, an affidavit  of fact and conclusions. In logic, it presents its factual premises (whereas) and its conclusions (therefore). It is the the foundation of Our Republic. It is Our raison d’être (reason to be). It is (WE are), The Apple of Gold in a picture of silver. It is Our Constitution which is the picture of silver, made of , by, and for WE the People, to protect, defend and preserve for ourselves and our  posterity, Our unalienable rights! The picture was made to serve US, WE the Apple of Gold, and NOT US, for the picture of silver!

Regardless of what any court might rule, the preamble to Our Constitution and the entirety of Our Constitution is relevant, essential and inseparable to the Declaration of Independence and to US, WE the People, the Apple of Gold! WE the people do have standing, and state, and original jurisdiction, to bring this case before them! Consider the following excerpts.

                                                                                                              

“The word “Unalienable” appears in one of the greatest phrases of The United States of America’s history.”

“We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men [all-inclusive noun] are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Excerpt from the Declaration of Independence 1776

“The Kansas City Court of Appeals for the State of Missouri quoted verbatim the above language of 1776 with approval in Morrison v. State, 252 S.W.2d 97 (Mo. Ct. App 1952), and then went on to say (also quoting):”

Inalienable is defined as incapable of being surrendered or transferred, at least without one’s consent.”

Webster New International Dictionary, Second Ed. Vol. 2,
Page 1254. 252 S.W.2d at 101.

Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred.”

Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

“You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances, be surrendered or taken. All individuals have unalienable rights.”

Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, 252 S.W.2d 97 (Mo. Ct. App. 1952).”

“You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons (not individuals) have inalienable rights.”

“Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights. Here we have the so-called same defined words of unalienable and
inalienable being separated, not as the same thing, but differently and by an appellate court judge.”

“You and I may think inalienable and unalienable mean the same thing, but apparently, courts and states do not. Therefore, what is unalienable cannot be taken or transferred and relates itself to rights, and what is inalienable, could be surrendered or transferred if by consent and relates itself to privileges. Words have meaning and carry rights and results or privileges and consequences.”

“In U.S. vs. JOHNSON (76 Fed, Supp. 538), Federal District Court Judge James Alger Fee ruled that,”

“The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, not to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one who is indifferent thereto. It is a fighting clause. Its benefits can be retained only by sustained combat. It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a belligerent claimant in person.”

McAlister vs. Henkle, 201 U. S. 90, 26 S.Ct. 385, 50 L. Ed. 671; Commonwealth vs. Shaw, 4 Cush. 594, 50 Am. Dec. 813; Orum vs. State, 38 Ohio App. 171, 175 N.E. 876.

Here again we find a federal court judge using both the words “privilege” and “rights.” From the context, this is referring to the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Did you ever think that a judge would make such a ruling?”

“OUR privileges and inalienable rights could be taken or transferred, but if you or I want OUR unalienable rights protected, WE have to fight for them and become “belligerent.” WE out of necessity, to protect OUR rights, must stand in contempt of court. Words have meaning and they carry results or consequences.”

Here in the ruling is, but one example of division, or separation and in essence, an adversarial relationship.”

“If WE the People do not know OUR rights and fight for them, who will?”

Excerpts from: ‘RESET’ (An Un-alien’s Guide to Resetting Our Republic)
Copyright © 2012 by Dahni & I-Magine – All rights reserved.

                                                                                                      

Just imagine, just suppose we were able to actually get a court to hear this case. What do you think their decision would be? Yes, for themselves, the defendants! OK, so what if we get it appealed, all the way to the United States Supreme Court? What would be their decision? Would they allow US, WE the People, to RESET our Republic or rule in their favor, to keep their jobs appointed for life? Most likely to keep their job, but for US? Probably— NOT!!!!

Let’s sue the Legal Profession? Let’s bring a class action suit against the legal profession? Let US, WE the People, sue the legal profession, sue the hell out of them? Probably NOT!

Do you know why Lady Justice is blindfolded? Well, I used to believe she could see, but she blindfolded herself on purpose or purposefully, for equality; for equal justice. Now, I’m really starting to think the legal profession poked her eyes out so, she would not know the scales were being tipped (imbalanced) and the whole legal profession rigged the system, for their exclusive benefit!

ClassAction3

There must be a better way? There is! It involves bypassing the legal profession entirely, but it is legal and the legal profession must YIELD, to the authority and power of, WE the People! Another Blog post on another day. Look for, The Thirteen Coming Soon!
1 of WE,

Dahni

As Eye See It

February 29, 2016
short url to this post: http://wp.me/pGfx1-tb

Tuesday, March 1st, 2016

(I dare you to read)

By Dahni
© 2016, all rights reserved

AsEyeSeeIt

Dear reader, I write this NOT to convince anyone or persuade anyone of anything. I write it ONLY because, I care. I care about you! As Eye See it, the United States of America is at a crossroads of unknown challenges or consequences, IF we fail to get this one shot right! If WE the People fail to act, this may be our last opportunity? The time for uniting is far past. We are divided. We are upon a precipice. The past is rapidly disappearing behind US. The time for going back is no more. We must leap to something unknown. I dare you to continue below!

There are those that do not care; have never cared; will never care, but rather take pleasure in gutting this whole republic and seeing it burn down in flames! And those enemies are not only from without, they are among US, not a people supplanted or brought here, but our own. I dare you to continue below!

For many, with anger and fear, they find themselves upon unfamiliar ground to have to leap, to believe and trust in something they cannot see, hear, smell, taste or touch. But leap WE all must! I dare you to continue below!

But this is not yet, the time of despair, for as long as life beats within our chest and breath still fills our lungs, we are alive. As long as WE still have our Constitution, we have hope. HOPE, slim as it might be, but there is still hope. There is always hope, for some of us, if not all of us. I would like it to be, all of us! What is reflected in OUR eyes; in your eyes? What is in the apple of your eye and mine? What is the core or in the depth of your being and mine? I dare you to continue below!

Dear reader, I appeal to you to read this from start to finish. I dare you to share this with your every beloved and every friend you have un-friended or that has un-friended you; every enemy— to mail it, email it, post it, repost it, shout it and tweet it from sea to shining sea! I will submit this for your consideration and I will use whatever means I can, to communicate this, even to quote from little known and the most unlikely of sources. I dare you to continue below!

“The brutality of censorship.”
“The Consequences of free expression.”

“Beloved reader, I leave you now, a man who found freedom in the most unlikeliest places, in the bottom of an inkwell on the tip of a quill. Come I dare you, turn the page!”

All the above quotes are from, the Marquis de Sade. I dare you to search, the Marquis de Sade! Unlike the Marquis de Sade, the format in which you are reading this is not written with ink and quill and you may not be viewing it as a page in a book. Still, Dear Reader, still continue to the next line, I dare you!

Dear reader, have you not read; have you not heard, that truth, even on the lips of the devil is, still truth? Have you not read; have you not heard that truth can hurt? Do we not understand that even if we may be upon the right track, we can be run over, if we just stand there? Do we not understand that truth, the precious healing power of truth, can hurt if unheeded? Remember our quote of childhood, “sticks and stones can break our bones, but words can never hurt us?” Do we still teach this lie to our children? Have we ever recovered from broken bones? Can we EVER recover from the toxic words that can disintegrate our bones, break our hearts and cast us into the abyss of, as if we were, never known; have never lived, and will be remembered no more? Words can do that. “A remark generally hurts in proportion to its truth.”—Will Rogers, 20th century writer/speaker/humorist. Dear reader, I dare you to continue reading below.

Our times are nothing new, but where we go from here, will be, to us and future generations, determined by, what we now do. But our times remind me of something I’ve read, long ago that was written far, far longer ago— “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair…” These are the opening words of chapter 1, ‘A Tale of Two Cities,’ by Charles Dickens in 1859. Dear reader, I dare you, to continue reading below.

This book was written about two cities, two main characters and two contrasts (possible outcomes or destinies) during the times of, the French Revolution. This is not unlike our times. Today, our choices reside in two dominant political parties, two ideas, two main characters and two possible outcomes. We are divided and this division between us is predominantly, fear and anger. Dear reader, I dare you to continue reading below.

The Democratic-Republican Party was the American political party in the 1790’s of, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, formed in opposition to the centralizing policies of the Federalist party. It came to power in 1800, and dominated national and state affairs until the 1820’s, when it faded away. This party split and resurfaced as the separate parties we know today as, the Democrat and Republican parties. Each claim Jefferson as their founder, then later one was the party of Lincoln and the other of FDR or Franklin Delano Roosevelt. These two divided parties are still divided, but now more than ever, many of us have come to realize that they are the ones that divide us, to gain or maintain their political power and influence over us, for whom they treat US as their servants. They are angry and they are afraid and they pass this on to us, WE the People that they are, supposed to serve. Dear reader, I dare you to continue reading below.

In short, these two parties target us by promising more from the government and the other promises us less government or limited government. And both promise democracy, but the power they hold is not by the majority of the people that give it, but by the money, delegates and the electoral college (the few) that decide the elections. We are angry and we are afraid and even more, we have never known or have forgotten, who and what we are. Dear reader, I dare you to continue reading below.

At the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, he was asked a question by a woman (emphasis implied). It was NOT, “Well Doctor, what have we got, a [democracy] or a [oligarchy]?” It was a, “republic or a monarchy?” And his answer was not a democracy, but— “A republic if you can keep it.”— Benjamin Franklin. Dear reader, I dare you to continue reading below.

In most of our lifetimes, this has been what we’ve been taught and what we still believe that we are a democracy. But this is NOT what the signers of our Constitution thought, taught or signed. For simplicity sake, let us be clear. A democracy is the rule by the majority. A Republic is the rule by law, NOT to limit US, but the government! Use the word “power” if you do not like the word “rule” for both. Laws are replaced with regulations by Congress, presidential proclamations or executive orders, and overthrown, upheld and even changed by the Supreme Court. Into the hands of our government, WE have surrendered more and more of our liberty under the fear of threat to national security, national crisis, state of emergency or the promises made, un-kept. “Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”— Benjamin Franklin. Dear reader, I dare you to continue reading below.

Amidst the troubles of our times, our practical and all but declared bankruptcy, our loss of jobs and the fears for our futures and that of our children, we turn towards the government to help us or we turn from it. We are angry and we are afraid. Dear reader, I dare you to continue reading below.

In the midst of this turmoil and in this presidential election year, it began quite simply with two presumed choices for president. One is named Clinton and the other is named Bush. But the people spoke and there has been an uproar and an uprising. Bush is out or has at least suspended his campaign, for perhaps the hope for something to happen or a brokered convention? But for now, he is out and Clinton is NOT the all-but-done deal. Over 60% of people asked, don’t trust her and yet, she has still been winning about 50% and more of the vote and a whole lot more of the delegates than she has earned. The math simply does not add up. Why, if she is not trusted, would so many vote for her? Is it experience? Is it fear of losing what they believe the last seven years has brought them? Is she their hope of continuing the legacy of the present administration? Is she just a vote against the anger and fear of the other party taking over? But there is fear and anger that what this administration means to many and what she stands for, does NOT do enough; go far enough! Enter another candidate that speaks to this anger and to this fear that even this administration has not done enough; gone far enough. Enter a democratic socialist. Dear reader, I dare you to continue reading below.

Bernie Sanders has been made by not only the Democrat party, but the Republican party, the media and a divided people as well. He speaks to many with his voice, their silent voices of anger and fear. He is well liked. He is trusted. He is an insurgent who speaks of the wanton waste, abuse and corruption in government and capitalism, particularly of those of great wealth at the expense of all others and often even their bailout, by the people. But it is not so much his person that is met with anger and fear, it is what he represents. Few care or know that his first paycheck in life was at age forty and it was then and has been ever since, been provided by the government, “of, by and for the people…,” he so often quotes, Abraham Lincoln, a republican. But he himself, he is not a republican, he is a socialist, a democratic socialist. Some argue against any form of socialism and some argue that we already are, a socialist country, just as we are already, a democracy. But socialism is not new to this country. It has been here as a party in some form, since the 19th century. Many think of the ‘Hippies’ of the 1960’s as Utopian socialists. Socialists were here in the 70’s, 80’s, 90’s and are still here in the 21st century with several of their members serving, in our present government. But after losing many national elections, a leader of their party suggested they stop using the word socialist and use progressive instead and move it all, into the democrat party, and the people will vote for them! Most of us have no idea what socialism is. Democracy, progressiveness, and socialism are all, one and the same. They all share the idea that government must provide for all, all we need. But I will only be brief in a description of socialism. As Eye See It, democracy is, the goal of socialism. “The goal of socialism is communism.”— Vladimir Lenin. Dear reader, I dare you to search Lenin and then continue reading below.

In keeping with Charles Dickens and his Tale of Two Cities, Bernie Sanders represents the “best of times” because, he clearly shows the pulse of the divided country and brings to light clearly, what is on people’s minds. He rallies against waste, abuse and corruption. He defines our present government as an oligarchy. He has raised more individual contributions (about 4 million) than any candidate in history, with the average contribution of around $27. His support is broad-based among the many differences of many men and women. He is beholden to no major donors or super PACS (political action committees). Bernie Sanders is, “the best of times.” But, Dear reader, I dare you to continue reading below.

Bernie Sanders represents, the “worst of times” because, he shows the pulse of the divided country and brings to light clearly, one possible outcome of our fragile republic. His support clearly shows how far people are willing to go to revolt and transform this country even further than, it already has been. Most don’t believe we now are under or understand what an oligarchy is until— they realize it basically means, power in the hands of a few. And if Sanders’ is successful in his call for revolution, he will become one of the few, a different kind of a few perhaps, but still one of the few. But his non-lead shows that either the majority of his party are not willing to go as far as his vision promotes or he is just not considered electable. Dear reader, I dare you to continue reading below.

On the republican side, enter one outsider, made by both the Democrat and the Republican parties, the media and the divided country. His name is, Donald Trump. He is a wealthy billionaire businessman, celebrity and author. He has been made or brought to presidential candidate status by the perceived failures of the Democrat party. He has been made or brought to the forefront of the 2016 political process by, the very party he represents (the Republican party), and the media and a divided people, angry and afraid. He is greatly disliked and feared by the democrats, his own party, independents and the media. And despite all of this, he is outperforming ALL expectations. Pundits cannot figure him out. He is self-funding and beholden to no one, though many argue he is, only to himself and his own self-interests and his perceived, braggadocios and all encompassing ego. But he cannot seem to be caused to cave or pushed aside. His support is broad based and his supporters appear to be unmovable. He is the break against and the champion against, political correctness. In keeping with Charles Dickens and his Tale of Two Cities, Donald Trump represents the “best of times” because, he clearly shows the pulse of the divided country and brings to light clearly, what is on people’s minds. He rallies against waste, abuse and corruption and especially ineptitude and incompetence. His support is broad-based, for he appears to represent the former silent majority. Dear reader, I dare you to continue reading below.

With Donald Trump, we have only to look at his history of business. Will like his business history, will he make a better deal in ‘making America great again’? Trump represents the “best of times” because, a better deal is, what many are seeking, not a politician, someone well-spoken, polite or even a deeply religious leader, but a better deal-maker. His own running clearly shows that our government has been poorly run as if, it were a business. Surely a businessman, could make a better deal? But these are also, the worst of times. Dear reader, I dare you to continue reading below.

Donald Trump represents, the “worst of times” because, with his vision and the agenda he has set for America, he has brought out the opposite of a quote from the first inaugural address of Abraham Lincoln— “We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory will swell when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.” Dear reader, I dare you to continue reading below.

Donald Trump represents, the “worst of times” because, we are not friends, but enemies; our passions have been strained perhaps, beyond measure  and our once united and bonds of affection are broken. And we are now so close to forgetting that there ever was a time we were united. The lie is now called the truth and the darkness is called the light. Those that believe he is nothing, but a con-man, are themselves conned. For WE all have been conned by the two parties of con! Donald Trump represents the “worst of times” because, those that oppose him clearly show that WE the People are divided. Many have promised or threatened to vote for the other party, not vote at all, leave the party or the country if, he becomes the republican nominee or is somehow elected president. These threats or promises (depending on your perspective) are not just from the democrats, but the republicans and independents too! In Donald Trump, we clearly see and vent the worst devils of our nature. These are, “the worst of times.” Dear reader, I dare you to continue reading below.

Political unrest! Economic uncertainty! A future paused, interrupted or a republic lost! We are divided! We can no longer even agree to disagree. We are heading towards the unknown, fueled with a great and seemingly, bottomless reservoir of explosive anger and fear is a lit match. The time for uniting is, no more. We will either push off and on towards a revolution or a movement. Nothing stays the same; all will be changed. Whether we end up with more government or less of a government or even a functioning one, is only part of what lies ahead to be seen, if the smoke ever clears or any is left alive or still have eyes to see? The Supreme Court now has only the possibility of a 4-to-4 split. A new judge must be appointed to maintain the balance or totally transform it, depending on the results of the presidential election. There may soon be more judges, for the new president to appoint? The court will side towards either more or less government. The pendulum has already swung far left. Will it cease from swinging, swing further left and stop or swing far, far right? Either way, a pendulum swinging must return to its center; its balance. And for the moment of this writing, our only political hope for balance is, the Constitution of the United States of America. Whether it is allowed to remain as is; as was written; as was intended, a document written with a pen of iron, upon a rock, a bedrock, for all generations or as others believe, a ‘living thing’ changed at will, it is, still here! It is our contract with the government to limit the government or our right to abolish and form something new. If we head over the cliff in this revolution, it does not ever need to be replaced, as it remains now changed and thus, permanently altered? But if we head over the cliff of this movement, will we ever regain what it was? Will it then be replaced with or without our will, with something new? But it is, for now, still here! WE are divided. WE will either push US off this cliff to one possible outcome or the other. WE all will leap or we will be pushed. Dear reader, I dare you to continue reading below.

As Eye See it, what is in your eye? What do you behold? What WE all see is anger and fear of both parties, the media, business and greed! And I submit to you Dear reader that WE have allowed this. We have brought US to this day and time. I, in my own weakness and failure to stand for you and for what is right have diminished you! I, in my own ignorance have misled you, ill-fed you with unintended consequences and I, have in anger and fear aided and abetted the enemy as if, I had willingly conspired. No Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Sanders, Trump, or any other can unite us, there are no more those that can unite, nor are WE even looking for them. WE are, divided. ONLY WE the People can save us by what has been given to US and the truths and the principles upon which others lived; pledged their lives; their fortunes; their sacred honor; their“last ounce of devotion…,” — [Abraham Lincoln] and  died to defend! Now is not a time to unite, but to take a stand! And if over this cliff i or WE must, it is far, far better to stand upon our feet and leap, than to kneel and be pushed by the anger and fear of slavery, unless we kneel before the throne of mercy and find grace! What WE now hold in our hands will be left or lost to the next generations. But I give to you another option; another hope? I dare you to read my book, ‘RESET “An Un-alien’s Guide to Resetting Our Republic.”ResetBut_sm

Reset

And if time remains or God allows it to be so, another gift, another hope, the work I am trying to complete to give to you for FREE; on or before Tuesday, November 8th, 2016— ‘Apple of Gold in a Picture of Silver.’Apple of Gold in a Picture of Silver

Apple of Gold

But more than this, there remains hope. There is always hope! If not, for all of us, some of us. I would like it to be, for all of US! For myself, I will cling to my God and Father, His Word, my family and friends; guns if necessary, The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of the United States of America, and the precious hope of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness! God Bless You and May God continue to Bless, the United States of America! All that I could have done and should have done and may want to do, may be too late, for tomorrow, I may be, out of time! Today, this moment is, all that any of US have! I cannot and will not tell you who to vote for, I just implore you to— VOTE! Dear reader, I leave you now with a few lines from the poem ‘Ulysses,’ by Alfred lord Tennyson, written in 1833 and published in, 1842. I dare you to read below, then turn the page to the future!

“We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.”

just 1 of WE,

Dahni

MySignature_clr

In the Supreme Court We Trust?

July 1, 2015

short url to this post: https://goo.gl/32ZgER

by Dahni
© 2015, all rights reserved

 

To SCOTUS (Supreme Court of The United States)

I'm sorry, but I have never read this anywhere!

I’m sorry, but I have never read this anywhere!

Under ordinary occasions an image and a post such as this, would not have been necessary! But WE the people do NOT live under ordinary occasions, but under “EXTRAORDINARY ocassions! Your recent decisions involves much more than whether I disagree with them or not. It does not even matter if you rendered the correct judgment of each and every case. The two principle questions that anyone should ask are:

1. Do you have the authority to ‘interpret’ existing laws, rendering your verdicts as you deem appropriate?

2. Are these even Federal cases to begin with and should they ever have been brought before you?

But every one of you that has come to this court and has ever interpreted the law or has at least, never challenged the interpretation of your ‘lifelong’ appointments to this court, should ALL be removed from this court! The Constitution, a self-limiting document, neither gives you any authority to interpret any law nor gives you the right to hold your appointment for life! Words, directives and laws of the Constitution and the United States which are NOT in the language and wording of the document, does NOT mean that you can interpret them as you see fit, adding to the wording, directives and laws that are not contained therein. That responsibility lies with Congress and the people of the states. The processes of amending the Constitution are clearly stated with the Constitution!

You each swore an oath or affirmed upon your entering this sacred trust of the Peoples of the United States, as its servants, the following:

 

“I, _________, do solemnly swear (or 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 _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States.  So help me God.” 

The revised Judicial Oath, found at 28 U. S. C. § 453

or

Upon occasion, appointees to the Supreme Court have taken a combined version of the two oaths, which reads:

 

“I, _________, do solemnly swear (or 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 _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States; and that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.  So help me God.”

 Combined Oath

 

You each are in violation of your oaths or affirmations and should be removed from the bench, according to The Constitution that you each have sworn or affirmed to uphold. You do not serve under, “good behavior!” You should all, every justice of the Supreme Court and ALL courts, be removed or impeached and then removed and replaced with those that will, uphold the Constitution of these United States of America!

 

“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 Behaviour…”

The Constitution, Article III, Section. 1.

Excuse me, were there any limits or a ‘lifetime job’ implied in the words—“good behaviour?” No, there were not! And to be fair, were there any words that suggest you could not keep your jobs, for life as long as you behaved good? No. But along these same lines, is there anything to suggest that a president could serve more than 1— four year term? No. But every president until Franklin Delano Roosevelt, served only 1-2 terms. The Constitution was amended after FDR served 12 years and 83 days and died while still in office. Had he lived, would he have completed 4 terms (of 4 years each or 16 years) or more?

Apparently, until 1933, every president understood as did the founders of our Constitution that as all branches of government were intended to be limited, so too were the terms of ‘service’ of those that served. Note the word “service,” it was never intended to be a career or a lifelong job. Apparently, the view of every founder and every president, for over 100 years before FDR and the Constitution was first ratified, just figured that a government of limits would include term limits!

It is interesting to note that in 1789, life expectancy was around 40 years of age. Today, the average is around 77. But in 1789, justices on average only served around 8 years. Today, the average is 20+ years with their appointments beginning around age 51. Congress too, should be limited in how long they are allowed to hold their positions.

True, there were no such term requirements for Supreme Court justices in the Constitution. There also, was no requirements to be a justice (law degree etc.), just an appointment by the president and a confirmation by the Senate. The founders having limited government to three branches as “checks and balances,” loosely wrote the Constitution for changes to be made in the future, for future needs. But the framework of limits and limitations is firmly established in the Constitution. I don’t know, maybe they believed people would just understand this and apply ‘common sense?’

What follows is what several of the founders had to say about limits and limitations.

“The powers properly belonging to one of the departments ought not to be directly and completely administered by either of the other departments. It is equally evident, that none of them ought to possess, directly or indirectly, an overruling influence over the others, in the administration of their respective powers. It will not be denied, that power is of an encroaching nature, and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it. The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

James Madison

 

“A question arises whether all the powers of government, legislative, executive, and judicial, shall be left in this body? I think a people cannot be long free, nor ever happy, whose government is in one Assembly.”

John Adams

 

“Nothing in the Constitution has given [the judiciary] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the executive to decide for them. Both magistracies are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them… the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what are not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature & Executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.”

Thomas Jefferson

 

[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

Alexander Hamilton

 

Ordinary occasions was then, but ever since 1861, the “extraordinary occasions” clause of the U.S. Constitution, having been, for the first time, invoked and never since cancelled, rescinded or overturned, WE the People remain under, “extraordinary occasions.”  The pure law (government – de jure), having been replaced by legal fiction (government – de facto), I suppose the supreme court (judiciary branch), congress (the legislative branch) and the executive branches of government, are pretty much free to do whatever they want, even at the expense of enslaving the very people it purports to serve and is supposed to serve. A majority of nine cannot be allowed the power to make decisions for the entire country! That responsibility lies with the individual states and the people respectively. And this remains equally true, for the executive and legislative branches.

But your power grab, your lifelong appointments, your deciding on what cases just four of you will hear, your ‘judicial reviews,’ your interpretations, your legislation from the bench, and your public policies were NEVER authorized by the Constitution and were no more intended in the Constitution than it would make any sense to, put a fox in charge of guarding the hen house!

If sufficient numbers of WE the People ever become knowledgeable of your intentional or unintended usurpation of Our Constitution, our Republic will be RESET, and you will be on notice to change or vacate your robes immediately or be impeached and forcibly removed from the Halls of Justice, you so unjustly, presently occupy.

Lady Justice is not so for her neutrality in dispense equal justice, but because the Judicial Branch has blinded her so that she cannot clearly see, what is going on

Lady Justice is not blind, for her neutrality in the dispense of equal justice,
but because the Judicial Branch has blinded her so that she cannot clearly see, what is going on

 

1 of We the People,

Dahni

Blind Justice?

July 13, 2013

By Dahni © 2013, all rights reserved

BlindJustice

Our system of justice is a compilation of many civilizations, cultures and even religions. What we recognize today as either ‘Lady Justice’ or ‘Blind Justice’ is simply understood to mean that, “Justice is blind.” But what does this mean? What is the symbolism of the image shown?

The symbolism as shown is primarily three in number and they are: a set of scales or a balance, a sword and a blindfold.

Our system of justice is given in the Declaration of Independence and Our Constitution. These are to protect the rights of each individual and to bind and limit the government that is charged with and sworn, to protect and serve these unalienable rights of every individual.

Justice is shown as having a sword to protect the innocent, we each are –

“Innocent until proven guilty.”

 Justice is shown as having a set of scales to –

Weigh any and all the evidence for or against the individual

 Justice is shown as being blindfolded or blind, as she –

 Cannot see color, opinion, speculation or emotion

These are all each separately and together, wonderful and fitting symbols of what Justice is supposed to be. But look closely at the image.

The sword of Justice is without a point and is dull. The scales are not in balance. Justice has one eye open.

Without giving reference to recent events of this particular year and even of this date in time, Justice seems more tested, challenged and distorted than perhaps at any other time in Our history.

When the ‘Court of  Public Opinion’ has deliberated its decision before a trial has even begun, and threats of violence are made before the accused has been charged, and threats of violence made before the verdict is in, and evidence is based on color, opinion, speculation and emotion, where is the point and sharpness of the sword? Where is the balance to the tilted scales? What is the point of the blindfold, if justice can see?

And how has this come to be in such times of vast and instant information, such technology, progress and advancement in the times in which we live? I submit to you that the media is guilty. Politics and politicians and celebrities and leaders are guilty. We who have concluded before, during and after the verdict is made, are guilty, for it is not Our responsibility to mete out justice. It is Our responsibility to support the sword, the scales and the blind and to abide by Justice’s decisions.

We are fond of our symbols of justice, are we not, but only if we agree? What if Justice carried, once again, a sharp sword to protect the innocent, the scales were balanced and she was blind to all else but the evidence? I submit that those charged with meting out justice, be appropriately attired, as Lady Justice or Blind Justice.

What if the media, politicians, and any and all other people would only report or mention that a crime has been supposedly committed and someone(s) has/have been charged?  What if there were no names, images and details given? What if all that any potential juror knew about the case was no more and no less than what is accurately given from the sentence above? Then the judge would not have to repeatedly tell the jury not to talk about, read about, hear about or learn about the case by any means, because nothing outside of the court is known?

What if no defendant had to be personally present? What if no one could could see how they look or their personality, see the color of their skin, hear their voice or know of their background? Just because my background shows that I drink coffee, have for years, and even had coffee this morning, does not mean that I am drinking coffee right now, unless I am. The question then, am I drinking coffee right now, if that is my charge? Nothing else matters!

No defendant should have their behavior in court and none of their emotions on trial? What if they were really innocent until the evidence proved them otherwise? What if the prosecution could only prosecute, based on the charges filed and not allowed to add more or change the charges, during the trial? What if the prosecution and defense were not allowed to give opinion, speculate, guess or show any emotion? What if no witness was allowed to give any opinion, speculate, guess or show any emotion?

In ancient Greece, whenever there was not sufficient evidence to convict and yet everyone knew the accused was guilty, rather than let them get-away-with the crime(s), they would convict by what is called, rhetoric. This was all based on opinion, speculation, guesswork and emotion. We do not live in ancient Greece, but rhetoric and rhetorical questions – “what if(s) are still among us. But what if…

…what if  all the attorneys, every witness, expert, each juror and the judge were all blindfolded? What if  the accused were innocent and only the evidence presented could and would, prove otherwise? Perhaps then, Lady Justice or Blind Justice would have her sword sharp and pointed, her scales balanced and her eyes blind to nothing but the truth.

What if the jury was on a six-second delay in hearing sworn testimony? What if the judge after ruling on an objection, never had to inform the jury that they are to disregard what they just heard, because they would never hear it and somehow, have to forget about it, if they had?

And yet all of this is still subject to, human faults and failures. What if the guilty went free? That would be terrible! But what if the innocent were found guilty by reason of opinion, speculation, false evidence or insufficient evidence, and emotion? Would that not be at least, equally terrible?

I do not want to see the guilty go free, because their rights weren’t read to them or by some other technicality, but neither would I want the innocent to be found guilty, because Lady Justice or Blind Justice had no pointed or sharp sword, no set of balanced scales and one eye or both her eyes were open to anything, anyone and everything, but not the truth! With all our imperfections, this is the only way!!

If you and I cannot or will not believe in truth and that justice will prevail eventually in this life or the future, then we have no need for truth and justice.  And Justice has  today, a duller looking blade which seems without a point. Her scales appear tilted. Her blindfold looks as if it is falling off and at least one of her eyes is open.

How you and I will think and act right now, will determine whether or not Justice will fail and fall or if there still is –

Equal Justice Under the Law

“…and justice for all.”

excerpt from: The Pledge of Allegiance