Archive for the ‘Justice’ Category

Ambling the Preamble

May 31, 2017

short url to this post: http://wp.me/pGfx1-AH

By Dahni
© 2017, all rights reserved

 

Preamble — an introductory statement; preface; introduction.
Ambling — to go at a slow, easy pace; stroll; saunter:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Preamble to the U.S. Constitution

This is what I am proposing to do with these next few posts. Before WE can amble, this here is the preamble. 🙂

Out of many WE the People are!

 

1 of WE,

 

 

 

 

 

Please note, it is my purpose and intent to repeat the entire Preamble word for word throughout this series. Perhaps WE all will have it memorized at its conclusion and keep it!

Next time: ‘We the People’

Advertisements

Order of Court

February 9, 2017
Short url to this post: http://wp.me/pGfx1-zA

 

By Dahni

© 2017, all rights reserved

orderofthecourt

 

What the immigration stay really means

(Or what it should mean to the country and to you and I)

 

To begin, let me make it perfectly clear that the words I write are mine and what I truly believe. Call it my opinion if you like, unless I am to be accused of purposefully and intentionally reporting fake news. Although I have been previously a member of the press and may still be technically and to be specific, an investigative reporter, it is not with this title or in this capacity that I write these words. Keeping this firmly in your mind, look up the information I present to follow, on your own as to whether or not it is true.

Before the current status of the temporary immigration and refugee pause and its present stay, it is awaiting the decision from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals as to whether it will remain a stay or overturned and allowed to continue as was originally written, for limited days. Yesterday, 2/9/17, The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals  unanimously (panel of three judges) decided in favor of the Washington state judge’s ruling. The ‘stay’ is stayed.  But either way, it will likely go forward, to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Over the last eight years, the seven countries temporarily denied from coming to the United States, have been considered to be potential threats to the US, and have insufficient vetting policies. Six of these seven countries have been bombed over the last eight years with over 100,000 bombs. Our country has a long-standing history of not allowing immigrants or refugees from countries, we are at war with. Since FDR, there have been many more pauses of immigrants and refugees by Democrat presidents, than Republican presidents. But also this power to protect the citizens of the United States by the president as Commander and Chief, is both granted by The Constitution and given him or her by Legislative authority of the Congress, regardless of which party has been in the majority. The years 1952, a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1953 and another law passed by Congress in 1965 have been the precedents. Search this information for yourselves.

“Our country has a long-standing history of not allowing immigrants or refugees from countries, we are at war with.”

As a writer, I am employing and providing, any reader here, with back-story. If necessary, you may look that term up. To often see where we are or where we are going, it is important to see where we have been.

Search the recent private donor party of the founder of Media Matters and a recent disclosure of a confidential memorandum of how it and it’s entities seek to delegitimize the current administration with ways to impeach, impede or prevent its agenda from moving forward by way of the courts and reassert the present gurgling and on life support, Democrat Party, by 2020.

Enter, the George W. Bush appointee, a federal court judge in the state of Washington. His appointment, by a Republican president, neither make his rulings Republican or conservative, but should not control the outcome of the other 49 states and our territories. But this is how it has shaken out. One state judge has affected the rest of the nation. Research it for yourselves.

So the Justice Department acted to overturn this stay and its present status sits with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Although I cannot prove this, I really do believe that Media Matters searched out this judge on purpose, knowing full well that it would lead to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is known to be a progressive and liberal court, whose decisions are often struck down by the US Supreme Court. Search these things, for yourselves.

Meanwhile, in Washington DC, the Democrat Party continues to block, obstruct, resist, or call it what you will, slow the confirmation of the United States Attorney General. The US attorney was confirmed and sworn in yesterday, 2/9/17.  Had he already been confirmed, he would have most likely presented a more excellent argument at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, but I am doubtful that the decision this court will rule on (as it now has), would have been any different. That should’ve been, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals should’ve never even heard the case and the judge in Washington, should’ve never challenged it in the first place and especially with words such as causing, “irreparable harm.” Those are the Washington state judge’s words that this so-called ban has produced, “irreparable harm.” One of the current countries is Syria and recently,  after this order was signed by the president, a Syrian was allowed into this country, for emergency medical treatment, which could certainly be argued that had they not received it, it could have caused irreparable harm. Inconvenience to businesses, workers and families are not the same as irreparable harm. And whether or not that this order was rolled out properly, is not as important as national security, national sovereignty, and the protection of its citizens. Search for this, the research has already been done. Make it your own.

The likelihood of the presidential nominee to the Supreme Court, will be slowed and prevented from being confirmed, for as long as possible is, very likely. I suspect it is not only for the prevention of nine judges being seated on the Supreme Court or overturning what the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will likely decide shortly. If there are not nine justices seated, the case goes back to its last court, which in this case would be, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The research about this exists. Search for it.

The Supreme Court is supposed to be apolitical and that sounds great on paper, but many would argue that it is equally divided with four conservatives and four more, liberal judges. The presidential nominee if confirmed is, considered to be a conservative judge and his decisions aligned with four others, would overturn the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals if so they decide and the order would be left in effect and the stay lifted. You search and research these things.

But there is something else to consider or I should say, someone else. Supreme Court judge Kennedy, resides over the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. He is often a swing vote as his record shows, he is highly resistant of anything which prevents or lessons judicial power and especially, judicial review. Judicial review, in my opinion, is unconstitutional and only came about because, judges did not feel they had enough to do in the Supreme Court. Since adoption of the Constitution in 1789, courts have played around with the idea. In 1803, a law was struck down as being “unconstitutional” for the very first time, by the Supreme Court. Ever since that case, the Supreme Court seems to believe that judicial review is their constitutional right. Even judges are human beings, appointed for life with passion, political leanings and etc. but judicial review sets the precedence that it is the judiciary which determines what is or what is not law and has led to the idea of, “legislating from the bench.” Research it yourself.

“ You seem … to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps…. Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”

-Thomas Jefferson 1820-

The US Justice department, now with Attorney General Sessions sworn in, could request an en banc. In law, an en banc session (French for “in bench”) is a session in which a case is heard before all the judges of a court (before the entire bench rather than by a panel of judges selected from them. Supreme Court justice Kennedy has a choice: He can either decide the appeal on his own or refer it to the full court of all 29, 9th Circuit Court judges to hear arguments from both sides. In a case of such national gravitas, he’ll probably chose the latter. Feuer says if Trump’s lawyers do appeal to the Supreme Court, “they’ll probably ask for an emergency stay of the Seattle judge’s nationwide injunction” Research these things and perhaps the unfamiliar terms here, for yourselves.

All three branches of government are supposed to be, equal branches and yet history has shown that each branch has tried to garner more power, for themselves. So, Justice Kennedy could side with the other liberal judges and the opinion could be decided 5 to 3, in favor of overturning the executive order. This of course depends on whether or not the Supreme Court hears this case, before the ninth Supreme Court justice is seated. And even if the ninth judge was seated, Kennedy could still side with the other four liberal judges and the outcome could be, 5 to 4. I would hold Media Matters accountable, for orchestrating this, as there are odds in their favor of success, with either the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals or the United States Supreme Court. Then, there are all the other pending lawsuits, basically about the same thing and basically orchestrated, by Media Matters. Research these things, for yourselves.

How would they or could such as Media Matters be, so calculating, devious, intentional and corrupt. They would argue that their efforts are in resistance to others which are, calculating, devious, intentional and corrupt. Call this the Hegelian Dialectic or order out of chaos, when your efforts pit the very institutions and its own people to accomplish, whatever is their intended end and by whatever means. Research these things and perhaps the unfamiliar terms here, for yourselves.

What could this all mean to you and I??? Does this mean our rights do not come from God, they are not protected by The Constitution, they are not executed by the executive branch and legislated by the legislative branch, but only exist, as what the judicial branch says is law and what is lawful or unlawful and of, to, and by whom????

orderofthecourt2Contrary to what many people believe, we are not a democracy. We are a representative republic. If We the People do not reform our government to be of, for and by the people, having three equal branches, we are not even a democracy, which is, the rule by a majority nor would we be a republic, which is ruled by law, but we would be ruled by an oligarchy, the rule(s) of a few, for all of the rest of us. That is not freedom, it is enslavement!

And the protestors deceived with good intentions, co-mingled with rioters that are often paid, and the media complicit in failure to report, and education failing to inform, are unraveling the very fabric of the Stars and Stripes of our Republic, whose flags they fly and trample beneath their feet.

And did you think this was just a mean-spirited, religious-banning executive order? Was it to protect our rights? Or will it be the end of, the United States of America, by order of the court?

 

1 of WE,

MySignature_clr

 

 

 

 

1 of WE

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

Call Em’ What They Are

February 18, 2015

by Dahni

© 2015, all rights reserved

CallEmWhatTheyAre

“We’re killing a lot of them, and we’re going to keep killing more of them. So are the Egyptians, so are the Jordanians. They’re in this fight with us. But we cannot win this war by killing them. We cannot kill our way out of this war. We need in the medium to longer term to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups, whether it’s a lack of opportunity for jobs, whether …” 

“We can work with countries around the world to help improve their governance.” “We can help them build their economies so they can have job opportunities for these people.”

State Department spokeswoman, Marie Harf

 

“These people?” What people? Following these words back to the nearest antecedent (a thing or event that existed before or logically precedes another. noun) would be “people that join these groups.” What groups? Following these words back to the nearest antecedent (a thing or event that existed before or logically precedes another. noun) would be the “Islamic State.” 

So not only does she recognize the Islamic State (which other Muslim or Islamic countries do NOT, we should help countries find jobs for “these people,” these evil murdering terrorists?

But the justice Department has another idea.

“Whenever you’re getting criticized by both sides, it probably means you’re probably getting it right. We spend more time, more time talking about what you call it, as opposed to what do you do about it, you know? I mean really.” 

“Radical Islam, Islamic extremism; I’m not sure an awful lot is gained by saying that. It doesn’t have any impact on our military posture; it doesn’t have any impact on what we call it, on the policies that we put in place. What we have to do is defined not by the terms that we use, but by the facts on the ground. So I don’t worry an awful lot about what the appropriate terminology ought to be.”

 Attorney General, Eric Holder

 

So basically, these are not evil people, they are just misunderstood. They need jobs and hugs and their own sovereign state (the whole world)?

This is not about religion? Then why are so many other Muslim or Islamic countries attacking them, if not for the evil they do and the corruption brought to their religion?

Name one single war that was ever ended by giving the enemy jobs and hugs. Or did they just surrender when they had enough force brought against them for their own actions?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t those that that signed the Declaration of Independence pledge their lives, their fortunes and sacred honor, for the unalienable rights such as: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? I don’t think they gave up until the King decided he had, had enough!

WE need to, RESET_but!

 

1 of WE the People,

MySignature_clr

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