Archive for the ‘Equal Justice’ Category

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!”

November 8th, 2018

November 8, 2018

Short url to this post: https://wp.me/pGfx1-EX

By Dahni
© 2018, all rights reserved

Eight denotes the number of a new beginning. In music there are a series of notes, one through seven. Then it starts anew with the eighth note (an octave). All the music ever, is written with a total of 88 keys as on a piano. What looks like an 8 on its side is the symbol of infinity, it just continues. Everything in life has a beginning. Let this be Ours today, on this eighth day of November, 2018!

All great literature is like this too, it just continues, even though it may be fiction. The great thing about fiction, besides its passion is, it can invoke in us a great sense of adventure. It ignites our imagination to lead us to find new discoveries. Fiction can give us rest or pause or enjoyment, in the midst of our everyday toils. And fiction is, often based on facts or at least plausible possibilities. Fiction can cause us to believe so deeply and completely that we accept it being either real or attainable.

Such are the works of French author, Alexandre Dumas. Among his many works, perhaps the most famous, most known and most often read are: ‘The Count of Monte Christo‘, ‘The Nutcracker‘ (yes he revised an original story which became the ‘Nutcracker Suite’, with music composed by Tchaikovsky). And Dumas penned ‘Prince of Thieves’ (about Robin Hood). Then, this famous French author wrote, ‘The d’Artagnan Romances’ (series) which include, ‘The Three Musketeers’ and ‘The Man in The Iron Mask’, among others.

In the 1998 movie adaptation of Dumas’ work, ‘The Man in The Iron Mask’, we see the characters of the four Musketeers. One was d’Artagnan, as captain of The Musketeers. His character was based on an actual man with that name. And that man was also, really, The Captain of The Musketeers.

The man in the iron mask is portrayed as the identical twin brother of King Louis XIV. But did you know that there is evidence to support that there really was a prisoner that some say wore an iron mask, while others say his identity was hidden for years, behind a black velvet mask. His identity has long been argued and disputed. But the point to all of this here is— there was, a man behind a mask, d’Artagnan was, a Captain of the Guard, Musketeers existed and their famous motto has been around, for many years, before Dumas wrote it in his ‘Three Musketeers‘! So, we see how just enough factual information, can capture our attention and the characters are turned into heroes and heroines, the stuff of legends! And we so often want to be them or at least, be like them.

In this story, the ruling King Louis the XIV was, a corrupt and cruel dictator. To protect his perceived right of rule, Louis kept his identical twin brother Phillipe, in prison for years and his true identity hidden, behind an iron mask.

The Four Musketeers conspired together, to replace Louis with Phillipe. Out from behind his iron mask and with the Four Musketeers together, they now five, do one thing as one and say all together their famous line.

What was that famous motto? “One for all, all for one”. The phrase is from Latin “unus pro onnibus, omnes pro uno”. Symbolically raising or lowering and crossing swords while saying this, marked it.

All for one, one for all”!

The phrase was likely, first used in 1618, in a meeting between leaders of the Bohemian, Catholic and Protestant communities, resulting in a letter in, ‘Defenestrations of Prague’.

Next it was used by Dumas in, ‘The Tree Musketeers’ – 1844.

In 1874, it became the official motto of Switzerland.

Dumas draws us in to his works, by building his characters and making them come alive. In, ‘The Man in the Iron Mask‘, Dumas not only etches the reader’s mind with the specific characteristics of the Four Musketeers, but gives enhanced meaning, to their crossing swords with their spoken motto—

One for all, all for one”!

The virtues of the Musketeers, are virtues we should all strive for:

• Aramis— for his faith (believing), in a cause
• Porthos— for his Passion, for Life
• Athos— for Love, his love of his son and the love he bestowed upon Phillipe, all without reservation or hesitation
• D’Artagnan— for Devotion to something greater, than his own life
• Phillipe— for the potential of us all, to be Great and Kind, Merciful and Forgiving.

There’s nothing so kingly as kindness, and nothing so royal as truth!”

Alice Carey, (April 26, 1820 – February 12, 1871), American poet, educator, librarian, and civil rights activist-

How powerfully these all combined, to make something even greater in, “All for one, one for all”!

Does all the above, remind you of something equally, as powerful?

In signing the Declaration of Independence in 1776, unanimously, they all together, for each and all pledged themselves, to what George Washington often referred to as, ‘The Cause’! They pledged— their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. Benjamin Franklin said that if they did not all “hang together” (unite), they each, “would hang separately” (by the neck literally).

Even while the words were being signed in 1776, work had already begun on a motto and designs for a seal. Should their seemingly impossible and far-fetched vision be realized, they would need to rely upon divine intervention, “Divine Providence” (favor)! In hope, they prepared and they planned a Great Seal, for official documents. Does this not also, sound like a great work of fiction?

This design, for a great seal, was based on another Latin phrase:- E pluribus unumOut of many, one

It is interesting to note that in 1776, there were 13 colonies and there are 13 letters in this Latin phrase!

By an act of Congress in 1792, the Great Seal and E pluribus unum was, the de facto motto of, The United States of America. This stood, for over 100 years. Then, in 1956, it became and now is, “In God WE Trust.”

Note again: Even in our present motto, unity is still implied by the word, “WE”!

The opening of Our Constitution begins with this unity by one word, “WE” Next, it defines who, “WE” are, not a few nobles or the elite, but “..the People”. Finally, Our Constitution defines under whose authority this government may serve and operate, but also, for whom, for “The People of the United States of America”.

The unity of WE is, applied and connected to Our Constitution, our Great Seal, Our Motto, and inextricably bound to the “WE” of, The Declaration of Independence, in 1776.

These are not mere ideas and ideals of past real people or fictional characters. These are virtues, proven time and time again, to exist. And in reality, where they thrive— Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, all flourish and nourish the entire world!

The words and writings of our founders were not mere words, but histories of these virtues— applied and realized.

Life is a series of challenges, victories and defeat. It is full of sorrow and grief. WE have WEPT individually and together. It is full of laughter and joy. WE have WEPT, one by one, and all together.

Each of US is, wholly and totally unique! There never has been; there is no one anywhere on earth and there never will come anyone, exactly like You!
Each of US are equal! Each of US is, independent! Each of US is, independently responsible! You are strength, without measure! But WE are, even stronger, TOGETHER!!!

So, my Brothers and Sisters, let us take off the masks of our individuality, which keep us hidden and separate, from one another. Let US rely upon Providence (Divine Favor). Then, let us each individually, use the full measure of our individual greatness and let US draw swords of our individual hearts and cross them and together, stand unified, Out of many, one, as WE the People, all for one, one for all!

All these things considered and on today, November 8th, 2018, I do hereby proclaim this, the first annual, National Musketeer Day, or WEPT (WE People Together) Day, or WE Day or, WE The People Day!!! Happy New Beginning!  🙂

By the Authority Vested in Me—

Dahni

1 of WE

Wear Your Button Proudly!

#Musketeer Day
#WEPeopleTogether Day
#WEPT Day
#WEThePeopleDay
#WeDay

WE the People are, The  Apple of Gold in a picture of Silver. The Silver (government), WE made to serve US (The Apple), and not to serve the picture of silver (the government)!

Behold, WE, WEPT (WE. People Today), with tears of Grief and Joy! What is, reflected in the Apple of Your Eye; for what virtues do you cry?

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

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

The Minorities

August 6, 2014

I’m just one person, what can I do?

 

In fact, we all are just one person. This makes each of us a minority. If you really think this through, it is minorities that usually run and ruin everything!

 

mi·nor·i·ty   məˈnôrətē/

noun

1. the smaller number or part, especially a number that is less than half the whole number.

 

Against monarchs, despots, tyrants and tyranny, minorities REbel. Minorities REvolt. Minorities REclaim what is lost, forgotten, taken and forfeited. Minorities REgain and REestablish universal rights. Minorities REwrite history and change the course of politics, beliefs, art, science and culture. Minorities REwork the laws of lords and made it the law of the land. Minorities REkindle the hopes and dreams of all. Minorities RElinquish their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor, for something greater than themselves and that is, for the rest of us! Minorities REach for equal rights and equal protection under the law. Minorities REinvent the public democracy. Minorities REpublic, with a written constitution, protecting the public from the government sworn to protect all those it is intended to serve. Minorities RElax when challenges are not present. Minorities REtreat when they are afraid or when they do not believe they matter. Minorities end up Running government, business, finances, education, labor, religion, art, science, and culture and the world. Minorities Ruin everything, for the rest of us. Minorities REbel.

 

All we need is a minority to REset and REstore our REpublic, for the REst of us and that would bring REst, to the REst of the world!

Note: It was only a minority (about 13% of  the population in 1776), which brought us from a monarchy to a REpublic!

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