Archive for the ‘Legal Fiction’ Category

Impeachment (a remedy) Part 1 of 2

January 18, 2020

Short url to this post: https://wp.me/pGfx1-I7

 

Impeachment (a remedy) Part 1 of 2

By Dahni
© 2020, all rights reserved

There have now been four presidents not three (as presently believed), the House of Representatives have supposedly impeached. There have only ever been two trials in the Senate (now the third is about to begin), but thus far, no president has ever been convicted by the 2/3 majority of senators voting to convict, as required by the US Constitution. And it appears that the present will not lead to conviction either. It does make you wonder why impeachment is ever brought up in the first place??? What does the Constitution say about impeachment?

“The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.”

Article I, Section 3.6, The U.S. Constitution

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Article II, Section 4, The U.S. Constitution

“The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”

Article I, Section 2.5, The U.S. Constitution

“Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

Article I, 3.7, The U.S. Constitution

“Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.”

Article I, Section 5.2, The U.S. Constitution

“The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed”

Article III, Section 2.3,The U.S. Constitution

An Impeachment trial is to be tried by the Senate, with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding (not sitting as a judge or to judge for dismissal, conviction or acquittal). The senators are NOT jurors, but Senators that vote for dismissal, conviction or acquittal and must concur with 2/3 of a majority of Senators voting. Senators (2/3 majority), are the collective judge(s), of an impeachment trial and may actually overturn the Chief Justice, provided that a simple majority of sworn or affirmed judges (senators), concur.

On all other matters except for an impeachment trial, if there is a 50/50 vote, the Vice President may cast the deciding vote. But in the case of an impeachment trial, the Vice President of the United States would NOT be a deciding vote or determine a simple majority because, it would be 51 votes to 51 (including the ruling of the presiding Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

An ‘Active Quorum Call’ calls out as present, 100 Senators. Those present shall vow by oath or affirmation, administered by the presiding Chief Justice of the Supreme Court before the whole body and sign the ‘Book of Oath’ confirming their oath or affirmation was administered and they freely are bound to administer impartial justice. Any member not present at a ‘Live Quorum Call’ shall be required to take the same oath or affirmation and sign ‘The Oath Book’ before the actual trial can begin.

The founders of our Constitutional and Representative government and framers of our Constitution perhaps wrestled with the ideas of impeachment more than any other issue.

For more information, seek out, read and research ‘The Federalist Papers #65’. Any public library may have this and it could be checked out for FREE. Someone you know or that they know might have a copy which you could borrow for FREE. There are several online sources, which you can source for FREE.

No. 65: The Powers of the Senate Continued
Written by: Alexander Hamilton
March 7, 1788

But our Founders and Framers recognized the seriousness of impeachment! It would in essence be overturning an election and subject the accused if convicted, to be removed from office, to never again be allowed to serve in any public office and may be subject to other indictments and punishments that arise after the removal from office, even if such charges arose during their time in office. If the person or persons is convicted by a 2/3rd. Majority of the senators voting, they cannot be pardoned by any acting president of the United States. Richard Nixon was pardoned, but he was never convicted, he resigned before the Impeachment trial ever began.

Our founders and framers further realized that by impeachment and conviction, this is primarily a political remedy. With a further view, they recognized that “government is a necessary evil”; subject to the faults, failures, fragility and imperfection of our human race. In so acknowledging these human facts, they provided checks and balances and divided government into three separate and equal branches of government— legislative to write the laws, the executive to execute the laws and the judiciary to determine the constitutionality of the laws.

Fundamental or foundational (that upon which the government rests and is to serve), is WE the People. Fundamental or foundational (that upon which WE the People rest and are to be served by), is the individual’s God given (“endowed by their creator”, not the government), “with certain and unalienable rights (rights which cannot be taken, earned, given, bought sold or forfeited), that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”, according to, the Foundation of our government— The Declaration of Independence and “in order to—

“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

And set forth in the ‘Bill of Rights’, the first 10 amendments to our Constitution.

Therefore, in the case of Impeachment and conviction of an individual or individuals to be impeached and convicted, they must first be given every protection and considered innocent until proven guilty. So serious a thing to deny anyone of their God given rights, our founders and framers wrote and as duly representatives of their individual states, ultimately all agreed and signed their names (an affidavit), that they were who they said they were and were sworn or affirmed that the Constitution would become the ‘Law of the Land’ of our collective states and all individuals of the Constitutional and representative government of, by and for the people, of the United States of America!

And therefore, to remove any president from office, overturn an election, and deny any of their individual rights, any crime or crimes against the Constitution, and the People of the United States, must be so great that it warrants impeachment and conviction!

The manner or process by which this is to be done is simply as follows and is careful to include all branches of government— the Legislative, the Executive and the Judiciary.

The House of Representatives must, by a simple majority, vote to impeach and then present their charges (Articles of Impeachment), to the Senate for the purpose of trial to dismiss, convict or acquit.

The Senate must call for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to preside over the trial and administer an oath to the Chief Justice that they (he or she), swears or affirms to administer justice impartially.

The Senate shall call all senators and the Chief Justice will administer the same oath to all senators.

All senators will take the oath freely and sign their names freely in ‘The Oath Book’, acknowledging their sworn or affirmed oaths to administer justice impartially.

By a 2/3 majority of senators, senators may dismiss, convict or acquit, the person or persons impeached.

Contrary to what you may believe or have recently heard, once impeached always impeached. Or as stated by the recent Speaker of the House (House of Representatives), who signed the Articles of Impeachment and sent this to the Senate, “He (the current 2020 president), “is forever impeached!” Emphasis intended by exclamation point.

“Forever impeached?” This is NOT true! It is a lie! Impeachment is but one part. The Second part is a trial, which could end by a 2/3 majority of senators to dismiss, convict or acquit. Only IF the person or persons is convicted are they impeached. If the trial is dismissed, they are not impeached. If they are acquitted, they are not impeached!

Our system of justice requires that all are presumed to be innocent, unless proven guilty. Articles of Impeachment by The House of Representatives are no different than any charges against the accused. They are charges. But the one or ones accused are still presumed innocent, until proven guilty. If the case is dismissed, they are still to be presumed innocent, even if they were guilty. If the accused is acquitted, they are still to be presumed innocent! This is, our system of justice! If this were not so, an innocent person or persons could be found guilty as charged.

Impeachment Dismissal and Conviction is so serious a matter, our founders and framers knew it could begin and end in a wholly political and partisan conclusion. They tried to make the process both as simple and as difficult as possible! The work of their simple vision is clouded by imperfect beings who interpret to their own leanings, what our laws say as well as, inserting what they do not say. But along with their simple vision to always strive for perfection, they also desired that the removal of office, be as difficult as possible.

Impeachment, Dismissal and Conviction is not intended to take place because of mere dislike or disagreement or like and agreement.

Our Founders and Framers rejected the idea of the smaller number of Supreme Court Justices and the Chief Justice, deciding the fate of those accused. The Supreme Court is often not familiar with the accused personally and may be thought of as being more independent and impartial, but their smaller number with the potential of the Chief Justice deciding the fate of the accused, was considered not enough protection to the accused.

The Founders and Framers rejected the idea of The House of Representatives, being both accusers and judges.

They rejected the idea of the Senate being both accusers and judges.

The House of Representatives are not supposed to vote on and submit to the Senate, Articles of Impeachment, for unproven charges or because, they may not like or agree with the accused.

The Senate is not supposed to dismiss, convict or acquit because, they may like or may not like, or they may agree or not agree with the accused.

Impeachment is a remedy solely for treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors. Though there may appear to be a lot of wiggle room or broad latitude for the word “misdemeanors”, this is NOT its purpose or intention. Therefore, any representative of the House of Representatives that seeks to make valid what is invalid or valid what is invalid, they are guilty of perjury and have violated their sworn or affirmed oath to the United States Constitution.

Any Senator that does the same is also, guilty of perjury.

Any Chief Justice presiding over an Impeachment trial that accepts as valid what is not or accepts what is invalid as valid, is also guilty of perjury. The Chief Justice presiding over an Impeachment trial, although not a judge, he or she as the Chief Justice represents the collective and entire body of justices and the Judiciary Branch of government of the United States. Although not a judge of the Impeachment trial, he or she is not harmless if they do NOT uphold the highest standards of good faith, credibility, impartial justice,
Jurisprudence, and the Constitution of the United States of America.

Any president, executive or any other public servant as the Constitution prescribes, who is under subpoena and refuses to comply claiming— Presidential or Executive Privilege, for the purpose of evasion to conceal confidential information, under the pretense of national security or protection of the public, violates their sworn or affirmed oath to the Constitution and is guilty of perjury. The remedy is to petition the court and if evidence is found that the person has falsely claimed Presidential or Executive Privilege, to evade or conceal pertinent facts to a crime or crimes committed, may order the President or Executive to produce the required information. Failure to do so will result in the additional charge of Obstruction of Justice.

Our Founders and Framers fervently desired the Impeachment process to be as simple as possible and as difficult as possible, affording the greatest possible protection to the accused that are considered innocent, until proven guilty. And if not found to be guilty, or the case is dismissed, they remain as if UN-impeached and innocent of any and all charges.

The Preamble to Our Constitution states in part, “In order to form a more perfect union…” It is NOT to form a perfect union! It replaced the former ‘Articles of Confederation of the Union Perpetual’ and removed the word “perpetual”! Perfection and Perpetuity is not possible by such imperfect beings as our human race, but it is a goal in which WE should always strive for, always! Because of this, our founders and framers would rather that all the guilty be acquitted if their guilt is not proven, than one innocent individual believed to be guilty, but is not! Think about that and the principal of innocent until proven guilty!!!

Armed with the accouterments of the Patriot Warriors of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, next time we will look at the history of impeachment, how imperfection has validated, everything you have just read!!!

Everything you have just read with regards to Impeachment is, not exactly how it has been applied since the first time in 1868. You might ask why, why not or how has this been applied? The single answer is, “Legal fiction.” It is legal because it comes from the Constitution, but it is fiction (does not exist or is made up), because of interpretation. For more information, see: ‘RESET (An UN-alien’s Guide to Resetting Our Republic)’ Chapter 16 ‘Legal Fiction (Fiction of Law) –

https://resetbook.com/

If you are not too depressed or stressed out about Impeachment, enjoy “Impeachment Polka,” written in 1868 by the composer Charles Dupee Blake. It may seem like an odd thing for the present, but in 1868, everybody was talking about impeachment. It had never been before in the history of the United States. The Civil War was pretty much over. The wounds of president Lincoln’s assassination had been begun to subside and people were looking for entertainment and something new. Not unlike today in 2020, in 1868, a lot of people were happy about impeaching a president. What should be a solemn occasion with the potential effects of overturning an election and the negative impact to the accused, a lot of people were looking for some excitement. On January 16, 2020, the Speaker of the House had used many pens to sign the Articles of Impeachment and passed them out like candy. But then, the House Managers marched this over to the Senate like a funeral procession, as if this were a solemn thing. It was a “solemn thing,” but many people were excited about it! It was the same thing in 1868. And then and now, there is always those that seek to make a buck off of, just about anything.

“Tickets to the impeachment trial in the Senate for Johnson in 1868 were the hottest items in town,” said Brenda Wineapple, author of ‘The Impeacher: The Trial of Andrew Johnson and the Dream of a Just Nation.’ Tickets were hard to get. “People were lined up outside the building early in the morning to try to get in,” Brenda Wineapple. And again, Charles Dupee Blake, sought to earn some money with his ‘Impeachment Polka. ‘

Michael Adcock performs “Impeachment Polka.” (Michael Adcock performs “Impeachment Polka.” Zach Purser Brown/The Washington Post)

Now listen to Michael Adcock perform, ‘Impeachment Polka.’

Next time: ‘Impeachment’ (History of Imperfection) Part 2 of 2

 

 

 

1 of We

Unalienable or Inalienable

April 19, 2017

short url to this post: http://wp.me/pGfx1-A4

by Dahni

© 2017, all rights reserved

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men 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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” 

The Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1776, 2nd paragraph

 

Does it matter if your rights are unalienable, inalienable or alienable? Many have no idea what these words truly mean in context of what was written in the Declaration of Independence. Look at the article from the following link.

https://fee.org/articles/why-it-matters-that-some-rights-are-inalienable/

Although the link above is an interesting read (and I did read it word for word), it fails to use the word as written, in the familiar clause of the Declaration of Independence. That word is, “unalienable” and not “inalienable” as used in the title of the afore mentioned and linked article. It fails to define the word “unalienable” and like our rights, it cannot be separated from the source from which they are derived which is, “their [our] creator,’ God. And finally, the article fails in that it does not show original intent of our founders that authored it (WE the People are the authors), and written by, Thomas Jefferson, one among us, WE the People.

Our founders, many of which were from England and influenced by the work of John Locke, English jurisprudence (English Law) and were familiar with the words “inalienable” and “alienable” as they relate to property rights, to rights of property. But this was not, absolutely not, what their intentions were, in the Declaration of Independence or how the words were used, in the context of this document. “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness,” are certainly not referring to mere property rights.

Very, very simply, the words “unalienable” or “inalienable,” which as defined in most any dictionary are, exactly the same. Both can be understood by the root word, “alien.” Basically, something or someone that is “alien” or is, an “alien” is, foreign or just not from here. What separates us from any other foreigner or alien? These “truths” were written down, put into and left, in our founding documents. It is a record. It was recorded. It is a recording and like a sound recording, is considered more permanent than having to rely on the fragility of memory which is prone to leave out, put in or change things over time. Let me say that again in another way. The only thing that makes us UN-aliens any different from any other alien outside of this country is that we put our rights into writing. They are the laws of our republic. We are all aliens, but our rights are unalienable and are given by “their [our] creator,” God. If they are given by people, they are not rights, but privileges and could be bought, sold, given away or forcibly taken. They would be then, alienable privileges, but they are not. One cannot separate another from their unalienable rights, any more than they can separate the source of Him, “their [our] creator,” God that gave them, gives them freely to all, for all are, “created equal!”

Having written those things, I will leave a link below, which digs into the depth of these two words, “unalienable” and “inalienable.” Even though they are defined the same in a dictionary today, were both understood as the same in the 18th century and there were even drafts of the Declaration of Independence that used the word “inalienable,” before the final document which used, “unalienable,” most courts, corporations, and even state constitutions, only recognize inalienable rights. According to their interpretation, those rights are separate from unalienable rights and can be transferred with your permission or without it if, the court, corporation, and/or state decides it so. This is a perversion, an interpretation, a corruption; a usurpation of our unalienable rights, given freely by “their [our] creator,” God, for those rights cannot be bought, sold, bartered, transferred or taken away, with or without our permission! Why not? Because we are all aliens or foreigners in a strange land. We are pilgrims. We are just passing through. We and our unalienable rights will all one day, return to the source that gave them, “their [our] creator,” God.

Understanding of these things is of paramount importance! In addition to separating the words “unalienable” and “inalienable,” though they are defined as the same, there are those which believe the Declaration of Independence, has no place in our government nor standing, in any court of Law. There are those which believe that the preamble to our Constitution, has no place or standing, in any court of law.

The We that hold “these truths” are, the same WE behind, “We the People.”

The “We” that hold “these truths” are, the same WE behind, “We the People.” The Declaration of Independence cannot be separated from, The Constitution of the United States of America. And the preamble to the same, cannot be separated from the document including, the ‘Bill of Rights.’

To separate unalienable from inalienable, seeks to separate rights from “their [our] creator,’ God, whom gave them, from  “their [our] creator,’ God, God, being just a figure of speech, a legal fiction when in fact, it is humans (governments) that give us those rights (privileges) and can therefore, take them away? As no one can separate the Preamble from the Constitution from or the Bill of Rights, no one can separate the Constitution (a more perfect union) from, the Bill of Rights, all which are given limited power by consent of the people, to protect the rights of the People. And no one can separate the Constitution (the protector of these rights) from the Declaration of Independence (the declarer of those rights and from whence those rights have come (“their [our] creator,” God.

There are those that believe we are a democracy (rule by majority) as opposed to a republic (rule by law, a representative government). There are those that believe the electoral college should be eliminated and presidential elections should be decided by popular vote. Popular vote is, democracy, rule by majority. This is not the same thing as a republic, the rule by law, a representative government.

Nothing could be more clear in understanding the failures of democracy and the intent of the republic, than a map of the United States showing by county and by colors red or blue from the national election, November 8th, 2016. The popular vote (majority of votes) is in blue and the electoral college votes, in red.

The popular (majority) vote is in blue and the electoral college votes are in red

 

Votes from the areas in blue above show both where the majority of the votes were received and are where the majority of the people live in the USA. But it is obvious that not everyone lives in the blue areas. To control the government in this manner, all one needs to do is to receive the majority of the votes from where the majority of the people live. Now I ask you, which color (blue or red) truly is more representative of the United States? If you ca see red, then this is indicative of a republic, a representative government in action and our founders original intent. If you still desire the blue, a majority, a democracy, this was not our founders intent and you should seek to legally amend our Constitution.

There are those which believe as the times have changed, even our Constitution is subject to change. The Constitution may be amended, but it cannot be changed. We the people have the right to:

“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Excerpt from: The Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1776.

Separating unalienable and inalienable is to separate rights of all to the priviledges of the few. Separating the Bill of Rights from the Constitution, the Constitution from the Preamble, The Constitution from The Declaration of Independence, rights from “the [our] creator,” God, reduces all to a democracy instead of a republic and robs every man woman and child from their equal rights that among these are, “Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” These are all very dangerous ideas. It is only WE the People which consent to those powers which government may by only specified limits, execute on our behalf. We the People have those rights because, WE the People are all and each, equally endowed by “their [our] creator,” God, whom gave us these rights! These rights which cannot be bought, sold, bartered, transferred or taken by force, with or without our permission! Government is neither an individual or a person (corporation), it is just a servant, our servant, the servant of WE the People.  Government’s sole function is, to protect and defend our unalienable rights from all enemies, foreign (alien) or domestic (from within us).

I offer the following link to a PDF file for your consideration. It is an except from my book of 2012, ‘RESET “An UN-alien’s Guide to Resetting Our Republic”

 

I of WE,

 

 

 

 

 

“UN-alien” or “Inalienable”

 

 

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

Legal Fiction (an Introduction)

March 2, 2015

Short url link to this post: http://wp.me/pGfx1-mF

By Dahni
Copyright © 2015, all rights reserved

LegalFiction2First, what is legal fiction and why is it or should it be important to you?

Each word in the phrase separately is easy enough to understand by almost anyone. “Legal” because, it is just that, legal. “Fiction” because, it is just that, it is fiction. Fiction as in contrast to non-fiction, does not exist; it’s not real; it’s imaginary; it’s made up. When combined, these two words together, don’t appear to make sense, make no sense at all or they are, just, nonsense. But to lawyers, judges, law and courts, there is a different point of view.

In ancient Greece, rhetoric was used to convict someone of a crime when, everyone knew they were guilty of the crime, but there was NO circumstantial evidence to convict. Let’s suppose the crime was, for stealing a neighbor’s chicken. No one saw it being stolen, but the chicken just happened to appear on the suspect’s property. There was insufficient evidence, but again, everyone knew the suspect stole the chicken. But they did not want the suspect to get away with the crime. So, since the chicken was found on their property, it was ‘as if,’ they were guilty of theft, even though technically, the crime would have been possesion of stolen property. This is an example of, “Legal Fiction.’

Another example from ancient times that still applies today is, adoption. An adopted child or person is not a biological heir, but adoption makes it possible ‘as if,’ they were and affords them all the rights and privileges bestowed upon them by, those that adopt them. It is a legal proceeding that is awarded and protected by the law.

What if you were to discover that the very United States of America you live in is, ‘as if,’ it were real, but is really just, ‘Legal Fiction?’ Would this be important for you to understand? What if, your rights have been infringed upon and your money has been confiscated ‘as if,’ this is was ‘purely’ legal. Would this be important to you? OK, maybe you think NOT, but what if you and every citizen of this country is owed a lot of money and you are, do you want it back?

As this introduction continues, please remember the two keys words in understanding ‘Legal Fiction’ and they are, ‘as if.’ Legal Fiction is, ‘as if,’  it was real. Let me share now. some terms and definitions from my book, RESET “An UN-alien’s Guide to Resetting Our Republic.”

'Legal Fiction' - Just because, it's legal, does NOT make it real and just because, it seems real, does NOT make it legal!

‘Legal Fiction’ – Just because, it’s legal, does NOT make it real and just because, it seems real, does NOT make it legal!

Legal Fiction 

“In the common law tradition, Legal Fictions are suppositions of fact taken to be true by the courts of law, but which are not necessarily true. They typically are used to evade archaic rules of procedure or to extend the jurisdiction (authority) of the courts in ways that were considered useful, but not strictly authorized by the old rule.”

“Legal Fictions were used by courts prior to the existence of handling offences. In a situation where one person sells stolen property to another person, they can then be accused of handling stolen property. Legal Fiction has been used to declare that: as the first person did not have the power to sell the property to the second person, the second person in possession of stolen property was considered to have also, stolen the property, and was therefore guilty of theft.”

“According to Black’s Law Dictionary, 804 (5th ed. 1979), “The term “Legal Fiction” is not usually used in a pejorative way in spite of the negative connotation of the phrase, and has been characterized as scaffolding around a building under construction.”

“A maxim or a short, pithy statement expressing a general truth or rule of conduct as it compares to “Legal Fiction” is:

“Fictions arise from the law, and not law from fictions.”

Unknown origin

FICTION OF LAW (Legal Fiction). The assumption that a certain thing is true, and which gives to a person or thing, a quality which is not natural to it, and establishes, consequently, a certain disposition, which, without the fiction, would be repugnant to reason and to truth. It is an order of things which does not exist, but which the law prescribe; or authorizes it differs from presumption, because it establishes as true, something which is false; whereas presumption supplies the proof of something true. Dalloz, Dict. h. t. See 1 Toull. 171, n. 203; 2 Toull. 217, n. 203; 11 Toull. 11, n. 10, note 2; Ferguson, Moral Philosophy, part 5, c. 10, s. 3 Burgess on Insolvency, 139, 140; Report of the Revisers of the Civil Code of Pennsylvania, March 1, 1832, p. 8

Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 1856 Edition

John Bouvier published three editions of his Law Dictionary in twelve years, the first in 1839. He was preparing a fourth at the time of his death in 1851. The fourth revision was published in 1856. Other well known legal scholars contributed to its several revisions. By the year 1886, there had been fifteen editions. We are approaching the discovery of the “cause” and the specific time when Our Republic was changed. It is important to note that Bouvier’s Law Dictionary would have been in use at this specific “time.” Legal Fictions have been used for centuries whether they were called this or not. Bloodlines were valued as being important, especially in royal or noble households. In ancient Rome if there were no physical heirs to assume the parental status, adoption was used. This was a Legal Fiction in that the adopted individual was assumed or presumed to be the legal heir as if they were the legal heir by birthright. “Legal Fiction,” as far as this book is concerned, is compared with government “de facto.” A true child or true law (government de jure) is to each other as “Legal Fiction” would be to an adopted child or government (de facto). See: de facto/de jure

Excerpt from: ‘RESET’ “An UN-alien’s Guide to Resetting Our Republic”  Chapter 12, ‘Defining Terms pages 141-143 Copyright © 2012 by Dahni & I-Magine – All rights reserved.

de facto/de jure 

“dē jūrē  or de jure is a Latin noun and pronounced [di joor-ee, dey joor-ey]. Its origin is believed to have first been used sometime around 1610. Its literal meaning is “pure law” or “of law”, thus “legitimate, lawful, by right of law, required by law.”

dē factō or de facto is a Latin noun and pronounced [dee fak-toh]. Its origin is believed to have first been used sometime from 1595-1605. Its meaning is, “in fact; in reality.” It carries the idea of something actually existing, especially when without lawful authority. It may also be understood as something existing for such a time that it is as if, it was the law.

Excerpt from: ‘RESET’ “An UN-alien’s Guide to Resetting Our Republic” Chapter 12, ‘Defining Terms page 140 Copyright © 2012 by Dahni & I-Magine – All rights reserved.

Legal Fiction” is to government “de facto” as both are related to the word interpretation in this book. See: Private Interpretation.

Perhaps this sounds very complicated and this is the point. What began as simple and clear, became complicated, unclear, a haze.

Like a purple haze and essentially hidden, it continues by ignorance of it and from a “mindset” to it. It is a corrupt “system.” WE need to RESET Our Republic.

Excerpt from: ‘RESET’ “An UN-alien’s Guide to Resetting Our Republic”  Chapter 12, ‘Defining Terms page 143 Copyright © 2012 by Dahni & I-Magine – All rights reserved.

The United States operates today, NOT as, government de jure, but as, government de facto‘as if,’ it was, the pure law. It is NOT! It is, ‘Legal Fiction!’ In a future post, I will share the entire chapter from ‘RESET’ “An UN-Alien’s Guide on Resetting Our Republic. The title of the chapter is, ‘Legal Fiction’ and it provides more detail and how it impacts, every single one of our lives. Until then, here is a link to a visual picture of what  ‘Legal Fiction’ looks like, in our government today.

What Legal Fiction Looks Like

or

http://www.i-imagine.biz/Day10.htm

1 of WE the People,

MySignature_clr