Archive for the ‘Lady Justice’ Category

Secure the Blessings of Liberty

March 22, 2018

short url to this post: https://wp.me/pGfx1-D4

By Dahni
©️ 2018, all rights reserved

There can be no Blessings of Liberty without Security!

I find research, compassion, sharing, and being solution driven and calls to action, interesting. The call to take action may also, be thought of as, a “call to arms.” When it comes to the Blessings of Liberty, this is, “our call to ”arms”!!

Few people understand the 2nd Amendment or what is behind it, in having “it”, in the Constitution.

This ignorance is caused by our failure to understand the Constitution and what is behind it. We do not understand it because, we are not taught or we do not choose to take up “arms”, for it. That “it” is, the Declaration of Independence.

To be clear, the 2nd Amendment is, inextricably bound to the Constitution. It cannot be separated from it. The Constitution is, inextricably bound to the Declaration of Independence. It cannot be separated from it.

“Things equal to the same things are, equal to each other.” (1)

Euclid

(1) A Mathematical axiom by Euclid, called the Father of Geometry, who lived around 300 BC, in Alexandria Egypt.

For clarity and simplicity, I will use two documents and 8 words from them:

1. “Life”
2. “Liberty”
3., 4., 5., 6. “The Pursuit of Happiness”
7. “Arms”
8. “Secure”

The Declaration of Independence is, declaratory of many things, but most importantly, of unalienable rights that among these are– “Life,” “Liberty,” and, “The Pursuit of Happiness.”

The Constitution is, the resolve to be readied and active, to protect, defend and preserve (“Secure”), these and all rights, for ourselves and our posterity– to, of and by, the collective, WE the People.

Although unalienable rights which are, endowed by God, would apply to all humankind the world over, the United States of America put it in writing, in our founding documents. Due to the presence of evil or if you prefer, the corruption of our innate imperfection and therefore, a proclivity (tendency), towards corruption, this necessitates “arms”, to protect, defend and preserve (“Secure”), these rights.

The issues are, behavior and responsibility. Neither can be legislated. No law can force anyone to behave responsibly. It can only warn and punish those, which do not act responsibly.

Does anyone have the right to be uncivil towards any other? Think about that the next time you think about “civil rights”, irresponsibly act or behave in any uncivil manner. Courtesy and responsibility are also, “arms” to secure, “The Blessings of Liberty!”

Courtesy and responsibility are also, “arms” to secure, “The Blessings of Liberty!

Every citizen in the USA has the right to bare “arms” and the right to exercise that right, in a responsible and “civil” manner. Because some may not act responsibly and in a civilized manner, this is exactly WHY, we have the right to bare “arms” in the first place. Actually, this second amendment right, follows the first–

First Amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

U.S.A. Constitution, First Amendment

The whole purpose of this entire amendment is inextricably bound to, the Declaration of Independence and to rights that among these are– “Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness.”

Things equal to the same things are, equal to each other.

Following this, let us now read the–

Second Amendment.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

U.S.A. Constitution, Second Amendment

There are four phrases in this sentence. They are each separated by commas. But they are also, joined and form a complete thought, a whole sentence. This whole connected thought is, concluded with a period. A period (.),  as in – that’s it, done, moving on, next and etc.! Each phrase is separate, but–

Things equal to the same things are, equal to each other.

What does “infringed” mean?

Infringed – to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress:

What shall (not will, but absolute or absolutely), NOT, be “infringed?” The right of the people to keep and bare “arms” shall not be infringed! Why? Our right to keep and bear “arms” is necessary because, it is NECESSARY, to the security of a free state! A union of free states is only possible if, each state is free. The state is only free if, its people are free! How is this possible? The “state” can only be “free” by, a “well regulated militia”. Notice the words, “well regulated.” It does not say– unwell, uncontrolled, un-responsible’ or unorganized, undisciplined, unwise, unrestrained un-financed’ or unregulated, but “well regulated.” This is not possible without the necessity, to secure the freedoms of each state. Each state is only free if, its people are free. This freedom is only possible if, the people have the right and responsibly exercise this right, to keep and bare “arms”.  And this is only possible, if they are NOT and shall not be, infringed.

Things equal to the same things are, equal to each other.

The importance of the second amendment is central to all our rights as individuals and as a people. Without the second amendment, no other right is possible to be exercised, realized and secured. Why, because of evil, infallibility and corruption inherent in all people, security is necessary. Servants of government are, after all also, just people, imperfect people.

In reading the Declaration of Independence of 1776, there are twenty-seven (27), separate acts of infringement of, unalienable rights, by the government (King George). He violated the separation of powers (legislative, executive and judicial). This compelled the colonies, in legal terms, to separate and to self-govern because, government (King George), had broken the laws of “Nature and Natures God”, universal law. To secure those rights, the colonists were prepared to and did, take up “arms”!

As security is the primary function of government, government being a necessary evil, its secondary function is, to be restricted and limited, so as to not infringe on the rights of its boss, its master, its people, WE the People.

Things equal to the same things are, equal to each other.

Again, our rights do not come from government. The Declaration and the Constitution merely declare or list, what some (not all), of our rights are. And it declares– certain restrictions and limits its government or anyone; any thing, from power and authority, not granted by, WE the People.

“…in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:”

Excerpt from: the Bill of Rights or the First Ten Amendments to the Constitution, March 4th, 1789

Note the words, “declaratory and restrictive clauses”. Any rights mentioned in these ten amendments are NOT given by our government, they are “declared” because, they have always existed, for and to all people, all over the world and for all time. What distinguishes our Republic from all other sovereign people is, we have many of our preexisting rights, and separation of powers and certain restrictions, put into writing and this Constitution is, the law of, WE the People. It was written to secure these rights, from even our government, which otherwise, would endeavor to infringe, violate, and transgress them!

It must be clear and clearly understood that neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution gives or affords anyone, any rights whatsoever! The first merely declares some of them and the latter declares others, for the express purpose of, the government of, by, and for the people, to secure those rights. This is the primary responsibility of government, not to give anyone any rights, but to secure them. Rights cannot be exercised without security. Security is the responsibility of, not only our government to secure those rights, but also, everyone of us, WE the People!

Things equal to the same things are, equal to each other.

Then there is the argument as to whether the Constitution of the United States is “organic”, as something unmovable and not subject to change? Or, is the Constitution “living”, as something dynamic and subject to change?

The two polar opposites are– the Constitution being “organic”, cannot be changed by interpreting what strict constitutionalists believe, the original intents that the writers of the Constitution meant. If the Constitution is a “living” document, then it can be interpreted and/or applied to the current times in which people live.

The difference between “Organic” and “Living” are crucial to understand. By “differences” I mean as they are held as separate, but not equal. If it is only “organic”, then it cannot be altered or changed and relates to the past. If it is “living”, it can be altered and changed and relates to the present. This would mean that the past is obsolete and only the present matters. In other words, “organic” law was, for the times in which they were written, but are not relevant today? These words were written in the 18th century and they were fine or OK then. But this is the 21st century and the past is past?

Perhaps the phrase “organic law”, was first suggested by Abraham Lincoln? The following is from his first inaugural address, as president of the United States.

“But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration.”

Excerpts from the first inaugural address, by Abraham Lincoln, Monday March 4th, 1861

I would like to point out that Lincoln never used the words “interpreted” or ”pending judicial review”. He never said it was from the past or obsolete. But he did say and it is written and the word is,  “application.” Some believe that what he meant by “no organic law” was, to imply that the Constitution is a “living” document? In reading the entire address, others suggest that Lincoln interchangeably used “organic law” with the Constitution and that is all he meant, nothing more and nothing less?

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, arguably once the Supreme Court’s most conservative member,  grabbed headlines for his remarks made, while speaking to a group of students at Southern Methodist University, in Dallas, Texas, January, 2013.

Scalia said law schools did not sufficiently emphasize that judicial decisions should reflect the letter of the law. You could replace the words, “letter of the law” with “organic law” or the single word, “constitution” as it was originally written. Justice Scalia spoke of schoolchildren coming to visit the Supreme Court and calling the Constitution, a– “living document” –

“It’s not a living document. It’s dead, dead, dead!”

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

With all due respect to Justice Scalia, “organic law” is NOT dead and it is also, a “living document” because, it is also, “living law”! Yes, I believe the Constitution is both “organic” and “living” law, but not as you or others might think. Think of “organic” as something we need to sustain our lives. “Organic” is for, the “living.” What is “living” cannot long survive on inorganic matter. But the “living” thing changes throughout its life, like: seed —sprout, seedling, vegetative, budding, flowering and ripening (maturing or harvesting).

SEED —SPROUT, SEEDLING, VEGETATIVE, BUDDING, FLOWERING and RIPENING.

The seed (The Declaration & the Constitution), is “organic” law. There can be none without the other. They are one. It says what it means and means what it says.

The various stages of growth (the application), is “Living” law (dynamic and changing law).

As far as the Declaration and the Constitution are concerned, they are “organic” – unchanging and unmovable law, but it is also “living” – dynamic and changing law.

Things equal to the same things are, equal to each other.

How can the law be both “organic” and “living”? The principles and precepts, our rights are, “organic” – unmovable and unchanging law. It is “living” – dynamic and movable law, as to its current or present application. 

The key to understanding this is, a single word. This word is NOT interpretation, but the word is, “application.” This is most clear when we look at the second amendment and the word, “arms”.

The word “arms” may be defined and understood, according to the means and methods and manners of the day in which they were first written, in our founding documents. The same would be equally true today or at anytime, by its “application”. Application proceeds from its “organic” nature and thus, it is “living.” In other words, its application, its “living” nature may and can be applied because of, its “organic” nature.” Our rights do not change nor do the restrictions or limitations of government, to not infringe those rights. This is “organic” law. So the only thing left is the “application” which is, the “living” law. Our law is, both “organic” and “living”–

Things equal to the same things are, equal to each other.

First Amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

U.S.A. Constitution, First Amendment

The context of the above text is, “organic” law. It, like the Declaration of Independence, declares that the former government (King George) had infringed universal, God-given, unalienable rights which are, from the laws of Nature or Natures God. The individual is endowed by their creator (not a person or persons), with certain unalienable rights that among these ARE, “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. The King tried to establish a religion (the Church of England of which he was also, the head). He prohibited the free exercise of any other religion. He abridged free speech and the press. He refused the peaceable assembly and the petitions to government (himself), for a redress of grievances.

The context of the above text is, “living” law. In order to form a more perfect union, the application of the organic law was to appoint and elect by the people, representatives of the people (Representatives and Senators). These representatives ONLY, are empowered to make law instead of one or a few. But they were not then nor are they now, able to make any law which infringe the right to secure any right, universal or God-given, from the Laws of Nature, Nature’s God, the creator whom, has endowed each individual with certain rights that among these are, “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness!”

The whole purpose of this entire amendment is inextricably bound to, the Declaration of Independence and to rights that among these are– “Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness.”

Things equal to the same things are, equal to each other.

Following this, let us now read the–

Second Amendment.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

U.S.A. Constitution, Second Amendment

Some say and believe the words of the second amendment are opaque or unclear, too loose, faulty; imperfect and subject to interpretation, as the powers that be, see fit? Interpretation of law is, infringement! To understand the context of law is, how the law was applied!

Interpretation of law is, infringement! To understand the context of law is, how the law was applied!

Not you, not I and not anyone, has the right to interpret the law! It does not matter what anyone might think or believe that the writers of our founding documents originally meant and intended! That is interpretation and infringement. Their words were and are, specific and clear, crystal clear! The only thing different today should be, how these words apply.

There is much more to “arms” than bullets and guns

In the day in which this right was written, “arms” may have not been much more than a knife, an ax, a pitchfork or a single shot musket, as to physical “arms”. But in the past, today, and always, “arms” are more, much more than physical means to disarm an opponent, an enemy! Anything or anyone that would separate anyone, from their God-given unalienable rights is, an enemy.

To disarm would include— the physical means, mental, psychological, civil, responsible, courteous, emotional, spiritual or any other means necessary, to disarm an opponent or an enemy.

The fourth amendment states our right to be “secure” in our “persons, houses, papers and effects”, and that no one, no thing, not government and nothing, shall violate (infringe), that right. No one, not you nor I can can surrender, forfeit, transfer, trade give away or sell our rights because, they are unalienable, we are endowed with them! Our creator endows our rights! They are a gift! No one can take away our rights! It is so written in our founding documents. It is both “Organic” law and “Living” law when applied to their current or present time.

Not the NSA, not Google; not Facebook or any other person or thing, has the right to take and store our data, their agreements all be damned! And neither do we have the right to agree with those agreements! Why, because they infringe on our right, to secure our right, to secure our rights!

An application of our current times to our law (Organic & Living law), is to “arm” ourselves with data protection, virus protection, malware protection, ad-blockers, secure WIFI, virtual private networks (VPN’s), anti-spam, anti-phishing software and etc. or we should get off the Internet, away from social media, cellphones, anything digital or that which contains global positioning satellite (GPS), technology. All of these things are or can be also, “arms.” Competition is or can be “arms”! Build a better mousetrap, social media and etc. All of these “arms” are, a lot more than just knives, bullets and guns, are they not?!

Today, “arms” could include an AR-15 or some other high-tech number of “arms.” It does not matter what the physical means to disarm are, as they are inanimate objects, which have no ability to disarm! Only the individual can arm themselves and disarm an opponent, an enemy. Only responsible individuals so armed, form the security of a free state. Only responsible individuals are free. Only responsible individuals are well-regulated. Only responsible individuals, shall not be infringed.

Things equal to the same things are, equal to each other.

Does anyone have the right to be uncivil towards any other? Think about that the next time you think about “civil rights”, irresponsibly act or behave in any uncivil manner. Courtesy and responsibility are also, “arms” to secure, “The Blessings of Liberty!”

Things equal to the same things are, equal to each other.

Think of responsibility as, the ability to respond and to respond, responsibly. One could take a knife, kind words and courtesy to a gunfight and disarm their opponent if, they are first to respond and the first to disarm. A car, truck, home-made explosive, incendiary device, a drone and other such inanimate objects can be “arms”, but all of them, require the programming and control by people. It is responsible people that are to keep and bear “arms”, who shall not be infringed!

Just as the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of the United States and its amendments do not define “arms” in the past (organic law), or its application (living law), in the present. Neither do these specify how many “arms” anyone may have or how much ammunition one may “keep and bear”. Consider this– why should our government be allowed to “keep and bear…” any “arms” that its people cannot? That would be or is, irresponsible and infringement of our right, to secure our right, to secure our rights! Now I am not suggesting that we all go out an acquire a nuclear device, but I do sometime wonder about microwaves and our cellphones, pretty much doing the same thing only more slowly? But remember the words of Franklin—

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”

Benjamin Franklin

The second amendment does not define the purposes of bearing “arms” only its reason, for security. They could have been used; they could be used, to acquire food, for sport, for collections, for investments, for history, and for protection of property and persons, papers, effects, and for etc., and even our data, our intellectual property. No, this right does not specify the type of “arms”or how many one could have and how much ammunition one may “keep”. The second amendment is, just a simple and complete sentence (organic law), which ends with a period. Its parts, separated by commas are–

Things equal to the same things are, equal to each other.

Behind this right (the context, for which it applied), were the British that tried to confiscate “arms” and disarm the colonies. Today, this same thing follows armed conflict and even under the banner of a well-intended protest, in the name of, ‘gun control’. Why not call it, “arms” control, to be accurate? Why would or why should any responsible parent, guardian or caretaker allow, their children to protest against the right to secure the right, to secure our rights? Ignorantly or intentional, these are not acts of responsibility! Why would or should any responsible teacher, administrator or other adult, paid and entrusted by the public to educate our children, allow our children to protest, against the right to secure the right, to secure our rights? Through ignorance or if intentional, these are not the actions of responsible adults! Well, neither “arms” nor type and number of “arms” and amount of ammunition, are the issues!

Rights and responsibility are inextricably bound to each other. One cannot be separated from the other. One could be on the right track, but get run over, if they were to just stand there. No, that would NOT be a responsible thing to do!

Education is another way to arm and disarm.

“Educate and inform the whole mass of the people…They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.”

Thomas Jefferson

Self-government or self-governing, (Liberty) is, another way to arm and disarm (Secure).

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”

Benjamin Franklin

Franklin’s words above are often quoted, but rarely ever explained in the context (how it was applied), in which they were given. Without its context, these words are believed to suggest that we may agree to give up some or all of our liberty, in exchange for “a little safety” (security)? But this is not, absolutely not, what Franklin said! The Penn family ruled Pennsylvania from afar and appointed their own governor. The governor repeatedly blocked the legislature from raising money (taxing its people), for their security. The Penn family were willing to “pay” for the security of the state, in exchange for the legislature NOT, taxing their lands. This was an attempt by the Penn family, to violate “separation of powers”. They were trying to give this authority to the executive branch instead of the legislative branch. These were attempts to prevent the legislative branch, from doing its job under its sole constitutional authority, to make law and to “provide for the common defense.” This was an infringement of the right to self-govern. But Franklin’s quote shows, “Liberty” and “Safety” are, aligned. We cannot have one without the other–

Things equal to the same things are, equal to each other.

The application of Liberty and Security is, another way to arm and disarm.

“On every occasion [of Constitutional application] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” 

Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

Training and preparation is, another way to arm and disarm.

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”

James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

The history of application, and education with preparation and training is, another way to arm and disarm.

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”

William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

Our government could be considered as notorious, infamous, or having a proclivity (tendency), to use some crisis, some national state of emergency (real or imagined), to infringe our right, to secure our rights. A nervous populous may consider giving up some or all of our rights, in exchange for “safety” or some good-will cause. In its basic form, this is infringement and brought to bear by fear. WE need to see this, understand it and overcome fear, by the history of application, and education with preparation and training with “arms”. To arm responsibly is, the ONLY responsible way, to arm and disarm. It is the first law of nature (Laws of Nature or Nature’s God).

“This may be considered as the true palladium(2) of liberty…. The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”

St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

(2) Palladium is both an interesting and an excellent word choice by Tucker. Lets first look to its origin.  It is from the Greek word Palládion, noun use of neuter of Palládios of Pallas, equivalent to Pallad- (stem of Pallás) Pallas + -ios adj. Suffix. It is named after the epithet of the Greek goddess Athena, acquired by her when she slew Pallas. It was also, a statue of Athena, especially one on the citadel of Troy on which the safety (secure, security), of the city was supposed to depend. Palladium is also, a chemical element with symbol Pd and atomic number 46. It is a rare and lustrous silvery-white metal, discovered in 1803 by William Hyde Wollaston. He named it after the asteroid Pallas, which was itself named after the epithet of the Greek goddess Athena. On the MOH scale (measures weight from 1-7), platinum is rated at a 4 and palladium, a 5. When alloyed (armed), platinum goes up to a 4.5 and palladium to a 5.75. Just to give you some context as to what these numbers mean, the bottom of the scale is talc and at the top is diamond. Your finger nail would rate at 2.5, the same hardness as pure gold or pure silver. Stainless steel is a 6 and a diamond is 7. Perhaps Tucker knew of this discovery in 1803 when he wrote the text above? Perhaps he did not? To which ever application (“living” law) he was referring to, secure, security is, “organic” law!

Returning now, this last time here, to the second amendment, know this– our individual right to secure our rights, existed long before our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution and our Bill of Rights, (the first ten amendments), were ever written. In truth, this right has always existed, for as long as people, have populated this planet. They were written (“organic” law), so that we could apply (“living” law), to secure the Blessings of Liberty.

“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 Constitution

Note the words, “SECURE the Blessings of Liberty”!

There can be no Blessings of Liberty without Security!

Any sovereign state, sovereign nation, sovereign country (because its people are sovereign ), have the right to secure our right, to secure our rights, for only our citizens!!!! This is stated in the Preamble to our Constitution, “WE the People of the United States!”

Anyone which would propose, protest, legislate, adjudicate, execute, regulate, limit, prevent, impede, alter, change and vote against our right, to secure our rights, infringe our rights! Any such, though friend or family; immigrant (not yet a citizen), illegal alien, or anyone illegally harboring and giving sanctuary to and giving notice of pending arrests, should all be considered as, enemies of, “the Blessings of Liberty!!!

If anyone asks why anyone would want or need an AR-15, for example, an honest answer would be, it is none of their business! But the best answer is, it is your right, to secure your rights, against any enemy and even our own government.

If you or I fear the use of “arms”, remember the following words in 1933.

“So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is …fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.”

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, first inaugural address, Saturday, March 4th, 1933

Let us not be like deer in headlights. Let us not freeze when the lion roars. Preparation is, a necessity, before and if, necessity finds us ill-prepared and unarmed! If our response to disarm cannot be with equal or greater force, let us be PREPARED to be, the first to respond, to disarm and secure our right, to secure our rights!

If our response to disarm cannot be with equal or greater force, let us be PREPARED to be, the first to respond, to disarm and secure our right, to secure our rights!

Overcome fear by becoming “armed.” WE must “arm” ourselves with whatever is necessary, to secure our right, to secure our rights!

WE must “arm” ourselves with whatever is necessary, to secure our right, to secure our rights!

WE should check with our doctors to ensure that we have sufficient physical ability and the mental capacity to arm ourselves. We should take safety courses. Join safe clubs. Purchase “arms” from reputable dealers. “Arm” ourselves legally and responsibly. Join the NRA. Practice often. Teach others. Teach and show our children. Start family and neighborhood clubs and watches. Watch over others. There is strength in numbers. There is peace through strength. Be a deterrent. Stop inviting criminals and the mentally unstable in, to– our homes, businesses, places of worship, schools and etc., with foolish signs like, ‘We are, un-armed here’!

Secure your right, to secure your rights!

We must become like the signers of the Declaration of Independence and pledge to each other, “our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor”, for our individual right, to secure our rights, for ourselves and the futures of our children and the future of our republic!

Above all else remember, law (Organic and Living), is made, to inform and warn of what is lawless and to punish the lawless. It is not to punish or infringe the rights of the responsible, the law-abiding! The lawless and the mentally immature and unstable are NOT responsible. The law-abiding are responsible, they should be or WE should become, responsible! If actual or if it is a threat to infringe and if it is by evil intent, by a criminal, by our government, a mentally unstable person, an immature person, a family member, friend, associate or stranger, it is still, an infringement! They each and all are, enemies of and to, the Security of the Blessings of Liberty!

Secure your right, to secure your rights!

WE must each be or soon become, personally responsible, for ourselves and, for each other. These are the most civil, courteous, courageous, most responsible and most loving and compassionate things we can do to–

Secure your right, to secure your rights!

Things equal to the same things are, equal to each other.

We are all and each, created equal and endowed by our Creator; not by people, not by the government, not by the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America or its first ten amendments! We all and each are, “endowed with certain unalienable rights that among these are– “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” These rights come from God. If you do not believe in God, then the laws of Nature or Nature’s God. Or they are just, universal!

Things equal to the same things are, equal to each other.

Secure your right, to secure these rights, to–

”Secure the Blessings of Liberty!”

1 of WE,

Dahni

Dahni, ‘The Patriot’

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

Damn the Appearance of Evil

June 11, 2016
short url to this post: http://wp.me/pGfx1-wH

By Dahni
© 2016, all rights reserved

4Monkeys

The four wise monkeys— speak no evil, hear no evil, see no evil and do no evil

Damn the appearance of evil!

Now maybe this will anger you or maybe not, but this is from me. It is from my blog, this blog. These are my words and my thoughts and the last time I looked, this is still the home of the brave and the land of the FREE! When last I knew, I am still entitled to my opinion. I think there are sufficient facts to bear out the reasons for my conclusions.

My opinions were formed long ago, when both the Clinton’s and I were living in the state of Arkansas. So it’s clear, we three were not living together. 🙂 We were just in the same state. I’ve never met either of them. Setting one aside, suffice it to say, I have never liked, respected or trusted, Hillary Clinton. Let there be no mistake about this, she is presently under CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). That is a fact.

Possible charges of espionage and corruption by the Clinton Foundation and/or the Clinton Global Initiative aside, whether intentional or not, she is at least lacking PERMISSION if not guilty of, having used a private server for email. She did have and did use a private server and that is a fact.

According to many polls, about 60% of those asked, do not trust her handling of this matter and many other matters, not here addressed. That is a present fact. Her favorability is way low and that is a fact.

It is a presidential political year and that is a fact. She recently became the presumptive Democratic Nominee for president, based on the delegate count (including super delegates) and she was recently endorsed by the current president and a U.S. senator from Massachusetts. Those are facts.

After almost two years, Hillary Clinton finally agreed to appear on Fox News. That is a fact. It is no surprise that she as well as many, do not like Fox News. In an election year such as this, it only makes sense to get your message out to as many people as possible, wherever possible, even if it happens to be through Fox News. But she did appear recently and sat down for an interview with Bret Baier, June 8, 2016. That is a fact. Please watch the following video, all the way to the end (about 7 minutes 56 seconds), before you return to this post.

My take and my point in the above video and for this entire post is, the confidence in which she replied, to Bret Baier’s final question.

BAIER

“The Clinton Foundation Investigation, The FBI Investigation, The Email Investigation, what you’re saying is, there is 0 chance, for this to be a problem, for you in this election?”

CLINTON

“Absolutely. That’s what I’m saying. That happens to be the truth.”

I marvel at her confidence!!! Although I question her judgment, ethics and ulterior motives, I have never and do not question this woman’s intelligence! I believe it is in NOT within the realm of possibility, for her to look anyone in the eyes and boldly and with conviction, tell a lie! However, I do not perceive this in her final statement above, to Bret Baier. So, I take her at her word and she said it confidently— without reservation or hesitation. Is it “truth” because she has done nothing wrong or is it “truth” (her word even though it would be a fact) that she will never be held accountable for her actions? Truth is universal and unchanging, but facts can change.

Now, all of the above leads me to my opinion.

I do not believe the Obamas’ or the Clintons’ have ever liked or respected one another. I still don’t! I believe her appointment, as Secretary of State was, nothing more than appeasement and for God knows what, political purposes. I am quite confident that the president would like to see his legacy continue into at least, the next four years. There is no one running, for his office, more suited than Clinton to his purposes, with all due respect to Bernie Sanders.

I believe that Hillary is smarter than the president. I believe she purposefully set up a private email server to control the data between herself and the State Department and even the White House, and to hide the trail of her doings so to speak, and to shield her from Freedom of Information requests (FOIA), even IF it was just a matter of her not trusting our own government, the same government that employed her.

It is a fact that the president has been found to have sent and received at least two emails, over the past however many years, from then Secretary of State Clinton’s, private email server. IF the FBI ever recommends to the Department of Justice, criminal charges, and IF the DOJ proceeds with a grand jury, and IF she would ever be indicted, the president of the United States could be called as a witness, and he would be complicit in corresponding (knowingly or not) over an unsecured email server! And it would not matter if it was sensitive, confidential, classified or even personal!

I do not know what and when the FBI will conclude their investigation. I do not know what their recommendations will be (if any). But based on Clinton’s confidence that there is “O chance,” of any of these things being a problem to her in this election, even IF the FBI recommends charges to the Department of Justice, the DOJ will NOT, absolutely NOT bring charges, convene a gran jury, nor will she ever be indicted or spend a moment in jail or prison for any, if any, wrong doings!!!

It won’t matter how many emails were deleted (at least 30,000), how many that have been redacted, how many were sensitive, confidential, classified, if her email server was hacked once or possibly more (and even possibly by foreign governments), how many lives may have been put into jeopardy or that the security of the United States of America has been compromised, there is “O chance,” she will ever be indicted! And if she were, I am CONFIDENT that the president of the United States has the power to not only pardon her, but himself as well!

Damn my evil surmising imaginings or damn this corruption within the bowels of Our Republic, but damn Hillary Rodham Clinton, for— THE APPEARANCE OF EVIL!

“Abstain from all appearance of evil.”

1 Thessalonians 5:22 The Bible, King James Version (KJV)

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

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