The Supreme Court is not “Independent”.

A constitutional scholar is shown re-enacting the same tests our holy founding fathers ran on a model designed to represent our system of checks and balances. Nobody seems to be able to reproduce the results they claim to have gotten back in Philly that summer.

The supreme court runs an event each year for people to learn about our founding.  The people are encouraged to  “build their own constitution” just like they did in Philly, complete with the checks and balances to hold it in place.  There’s a $25,000.00 prize sponsored each year for the first to complete one that actually works using the same components we have in our documents.  Just like this guy, nobody can ever do it.  But nobody ever seems to catch on to the whole game. 

We are told from the time we can think and walk that we have this great system of government built on a system of brilliant checks and balances. It is pounded into our heads in school and in the media. The bulwark of this genius is supposedly our “independent” judiciary. It is indispensable to maintaining our supposed freedoms. It stands guard over our freedoms! The whole tale is such a load of CRAP.

Today I am going to discuss what it means to have an independent vs. a dependent judiciary. When you finish reading this you will have been given an objective framework with which to analyze the independence of the court’s performance, probably for the first time in your life, and you will then be able to articulate what the real problem is with the system. Instead of just feeling like it is broken.

You will be able to see how it is an utter FRAUD. So let’s begin.

Our entire system relies on the court being able to keep the government within its limited constitutional bounds by saying no. That was why they supposedly had to be “independent”. In other words, the entire purpose for having an independent judiciary is to be sure that the court felt free to say NO to a government that overstepped its constitutional bounds.

It is a little known fact that the system of checks and balances used by our founders used many of the same principles that cat ranchers use to herd their animals. It is brilliance you know.

It is a little known fact that Madison spent his youth on a ranch.  He allegedly incorporated many of the concepts he learned there into the constitution’s design to keep the government within strict limits.  It is brilliance you know.

Yes means allowing the other branches to do things they are not constitutionally permitted to do. No means that the court steps up and says, you can’t do that, it is not constitutional. You don’t need to be independent in order to say yes. There is no controversy in a YES. Everyone is Always free to say yes! The key is setting up a system where the court feels free to say NO.

Think about it like this. Say you want to set up a trust to provide for your child. If you make the administrator of the trust dependent on the child to keep his position, then he is much more likely to say yes when he shouldn’t. But not at all likely to say no when he should say yes.

And the flip side is that if you make the administrator independent of the child he is much more likely to say no to the child when he should, but you run the risk that the power goes to his head and he denies the child access to funds that the child should be getting.  You see?  There is no controversy in saying yes, only in saying no.

So an Independent judiciary’s advantage is that it is free to say no to the other branches in order to protect the peoples’ rights because they cannot be removed. But the danger is that they will say no too often and not allow the government to exercise authority it in fact has.  It is essential you understand this distinction.

Here’s another way to think about it. Whatever action the government takes is either constitutional or not constitutional. And the court can either uphold an action or strike it down.

Many of the justices on the court enjoy the thrill of giving. So they just give and give.

Many of the justices on the court enjoy the thrill of giving so much they don’t get enough just writing opinions that hand out new powers, so they play Santa during the holidays as well.  They just want to give and give, but the question often raised is, to whom do they give?

The dependent court is more likely to uphold actions of all sorts, both constitutional and unconstitutional. The Independent court is more likely to strike down actions of all sorts, both constitutional and unconstitutional.

There is no controversy that the court was made “independent”, ostensibly, to protect the individuals’ rights from being trampled and to keep the government within its bounds, i.e. to say NO.  Here is quote from Federalist 78 on the topic.

If, then, the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments, this consideration will afford a strong argument for the permanent tenure of judicial offices, since nothing will contribute so much as this to that independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance of so arduous a duty.

I could go on and on with quotes talking about the foundational principle of independence and staying within the constitution etc etc. But I am not going to waste your time.  If you want to brush up on the idea, then go read the sales brochure number 78 I just quoted from, or pick up any high school government book. What I have said is not controversial. It is the supposed heart of our system.

A dependent judiciary’s advantage is that it is responsive to whoever controls it but its disadvantage is that it tends to rubber stamp things.  The independent court says no a lot but you can’t control it.  It is critical to understand this distinction.

Here is an important question to ask yourself when doing an analysis of the court’s performance.  Can you think of a single time that the court struck down a law that was even arguably constitutional?

When the court heard I was challenging their independence, the court clerk was ordered to go through the different opinions and pull out the ones where the court struck down a law. She is shown in front her reviewed cases holding the proof.

I sent an advance copy of my article to the court.  As a result the court ordered this poor secretary to go through the different opinions and pull out the ones where the court struck down a law as unconstitutional. She did find one.  You can see she’s holding it  in her hands.

I could not come up with a single example. I doubt anyone can, because the examples don’t exist! Nothing even close. Of the very few laws they have struck down as unconstitutional, about 176 or so, there really was no question.  The laws were laughably unconstitutional. Of course the court has struck down a few laws. It does happen. They have to in order to keep the long con running and to keep the illusion of the system’s “checks and balances” going.

But my question was, are there any laws that were struck down that were arguably constitutional?  that is a very different issue.  That is the issue that goes to independence. The few times they have struck laws down, they were so far over the line it was ridiculous. 

Now think how many 10,000’s of laws have been passed and think how far beyond the constitutional limits the court has allowed the whole system to expand.  There is example after example of the court upholding laws that are clearly NOT constitutional but none striking down laws that are even arguably constitutional!  Because they do not behave as an independent body.

It is essential that you understand the distinction and analysis I just made between what the danger is between independent and dependent courts before moving on.

Now think about any controversial issue. Abortion, gun rights, Obamacare, busing, drug laws, special required light bulbs, toilet flushing, EPA, FDA, go on down the list. What is the PROBLEM with any of those issues? Is it that the court strikes down too many laws when it shouldn’t?  NO.

Here's an old pic of me with my buddies.  I had a real problem saying yes too much when I first got out of law school. I guess I picked the habit up in ConLaw.  Actually, I had a good time that night.

Here’s an old pic of me with my buddies laughing at me. I had a tendency to say yes too much when I first got out of law school. I guess I picked the habit up in ConLaw class.  Actually, I had a good time that night.

The problem with the court is always the same.  It says YES TOO OFTEN. Yes to the expansion of the government beyond the limits of the constitution. The exact OPPOSITE problem we are supposed to have with an independent judiciary.

Think about how absurd this whole thing is. We have a court that never strikes down laws as unconstitutional when it should, constantly upholds laws that are clearly NOT constitutional and yet it is protected from removal under the guise of it being independent. Then we are told the brilliance of our system is the set of checks and balances that all revolve around the independence of the court. And the brainwashing is so deep and so effective that people actually DEFEND the system!

A dependent judiciary can be easily removed. That is why they are referred to as dependent. That is the advantage of having them be dependent. You can control them by easily getting rid of them so they can never do much damage! The downside is they never say NO when they should.

With the independent, you can’t get rid of them. They can do a lot of damage, but they are supposed to say no.  But look at the reality.  We have the worst of both the independent and dependent judiciary.

The problem with the courts that we have is UNRELATED to their independence or dependence WITHIN the system. And thus the solution has nothing to do with its independence!  That is a DISTRACTION.   The problem is the illusion that any ONE ENTITY can EVER check itself!!!  Remember, when the government’s scope of control grows the COURT’S SCOPE of power grows.  So when the court “allows” the government to grow. It is allowing its own power to grow! Thus the court has an inescapable conflict of interest.

The conflict of interest is where the problem lies, even if we put aside corruption.  And the conflict of interest is complete and it cannot be solved inside the system they have given us.  The final say must come from OUTSIDE of the Federal system. Without that change, there will never be any protection for the people.

These guys were having quite an intellectual debate about which one of them was more capable of running the prison. Who do you think won the argument?

These guys were having quite an intellectual debate about which one of them would make a better warden. Many people in this country have the same kind of debate about the elections.  Sometimes it’s easier to see the error in others way of thinking.  

Now do you see why those in charge endlessly discuss the supposed brilliance of the federal  system concerning an “independent” court and checks and balances? It is to confuse you and convince you of something that isn’t true.  They have created an entity with chinese walls that can never work and they tell you it is the cornerstone of the foundation! 

The only thing the independence of the court actually does in our system is provide cover to grow the government! It gives an illusion of a check. And the people allow it to “be final” because it is supposedly “independent”.  If the people saw the court for what it actually is, which is “dependent’, as I have just shown you, then the people would not be okay with it being final because they would know it was a rubber stamp for the other arms of the same government.

All the talk of the brilliance of the checks and balances and the independence of the court is just a show.

Why have you never been taught to think about the issue in the terms I just showed you? Because the government controls education and the media are all on the same side.  Why are the questions I have asked and the analysis I just made NEVER brought up by the so called constitutional scholars? Why is it never part of the “liberty movement” or the “back to the conjobstitution” movement?

Because those movements are not designed to actually DO anything about the REAL problems as I have told you and told you. They are there to drain off your time.  Do you see that the concepts they push can never succeed because they don’t even discuss the real problems. They act as though the holy founding documents are something they are not. That our “independent” judiciary is ESSENTIAL to our FREEDOM when it is not actually independent and it is in fact the key to our enslavement! Quite simply, they act as though the system is something it is not.

I try to break the truth tot people as easily as I can. But still, most just can't handle it.

I try to break the truth to people as easily as I can. But still, most just can’t handle it.

I have showed you that the courts should not be making non unanimous decisions.

I have showed you that they create powers where there are none.

I have showed you that they don’t have the power to make something constitutional.

Now I have showed you that that the court is not in any way acting independently.  The emperor has no clothes my friend. He never does. They just lie to us non stop from cradle to grave and do whatever they want because the people allow it.

Until the people wake up and stop romanticizing the founding and the constitution and our “institutions” as though they are something they are not, there will never be real change. Each person must re-educate themselves. Starting with what I try and show them.

I am done for today. I can only have so much hypocrisy at one sitting… doctor’s orders. Something about me having a stroke if I keep going.   I Hope you learned something. Maybe you will be able to laugh the next time you see some schmexpert from Harvard talking about the independent court and all the importance of keeping it that way. It is just a lie. An obvious, sad, and silly lie. Nothing more.

Take care my fellow inmate and tell someone the truth about the law.

Legalman IS the law.

Legalman IS the law.

27 thoughts on “The Supreme Court is not “Independent”.

  1. Absoluterights

    Court has a legal duty to engineer a way to make legislation constitutional.
    Read the obamacare decision, its spelled out in black in white. The result was the obamacare individual mandate penalty trans-mutating into a tax, to make it all constitutional.

    So no, they are not neutral or independent.

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Well I think you’re right Absoluterights to the extent the court says they have that duty, if that is what you meant. They claim they must bend over backwards to show deference and to find someway to make the law read as ‘constitutional”. But of course that is not IN the constitution. And that was not part of any discussion of the constitution. It is, once again, just a made up rule. The court is just making up a rule to tell us what it is supoposed to do. lol. could anything be more absurd than that one branch tells the people what its authority is? But still the people think it is legitimate. And in fact they think it is the “highest form” of freedom to ever exist and blah blah blah.

      It is nothing but the court and the other branches working together to expand out the overall power of the government. Which is all that ever happens. It never shrinks. It never will and the court will never limit the other branches. That is just a fantasy that is sold to the duped masses to get them to support their own exploitation, while believing they are getting freedom.

      It is so stinking obvious to anyone who will simply LOOK with an objective view at what goes on in government between the branches or anywhere else in government. Just actually look and see what happens. Not listen to what they say should or will happen. But actually look at what DOES happen each time and over time.

      To people like you and me it is obvious Absolute, but to the masses, it simply cannot be seen. As DaVinci said, there are those who see, those who see when shown, and those who can’t see. The bulk of the world are just those who can’t see. As incredible and blatant as it is, they just can’t see it. — L

      Reply
    2. Pat

      To be neutral and independent they should not be selected by the President. Instead, after the presidential elections, the supreme court should be elected by people or congress. In Switzerland for instance the Supreme Court is elected by the parliament, not by the president.

      Reply
  2. Billjack

    The reality as you have described is that the courts are only allowed to exist to provide legitimacy to the unconstitutional illegal acts of government. That is the reason they wear priestly robes so that the ignorant masses will not impugn that they are endowed with some sort of devine superior knowledge. Ultimately, this has allowed the government to write more and more laws. As Tacitus said in around 100 AD-“the more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws”

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Correct Billjack. The truth about these things has been known for centuries. But the knowledge gets pushed to the bottom. It takes people to keep it alive and to spread it. I am glad you’re here. We few have to stick together. — L

      Reply
  3. Sherry

    Excellent article! I shared it with social media, sent it around to my bcc email list and also posted it to my website in the Topics===> Justice category. Keep up the excellent work. People that have not dealt with the court system have no idea. Those that have often recognize many flaws but cannot explain why the courts are so unfair. I prefer to say “rogue” to describe. Now we know more and maybe one day enough people will know too….allowing the sleeping giant (the US Citizens) to wake up, smell the coffee, and get this farce changed. I hope so. Thanks for what you do.

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Well thank you for the kind words Sherry. And thank you for reposting etc. Anytime people repost or post on to things like stumbleupon.com etc or their own site, it makes a difference. They have the standard systems on lock down. The people have to rely upon each other. What people don’t realize is that they are much stronger than the system. Much much stronger. Just think how quickly something “goes viral”. That is the power of people telling people. Glad you enjoyed it. — L

      Reply
  4. jon

    A more detailed, but hopefully more useful way to understand your courts. reaperishere.weebly.com. watch all videos. Also on the 2nd page, understanding laws, you will see how the florida courts work with statutes vs constitution. it depends on presumptions in which you have to break the courts presumption. All states work the same, but you have to find you statutes and case law.

    Reply
  5. abinico warez

    Our legal system is so complicated and convoluted that you need special high priests called ‘lawyers’ if you ever need to get something done legally. These high priests are very expensive, and because of that are not available to working people. Therefore, this legal systems serves the wealthy, and itself – screw the common man.

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Certainly true to an extent Abinico. But the problem is hardly with the lawyers, trust me. Are they great? lol, of course not. The problem is with the people allowing there to be a system like this. The people have the POWER, but they don’t use it. That is the BIG secret. As long as the people try and express their power through a giant system instead of many smaller systems they will get screwed. As long as the people accept the lies about “law and order” and “justice” from a government system of any sort, they will get screwed. As long as the people allow liars to continue to run free and hold office, the people will get screwed. Quite simply as long as the people give away their power to large institutions, those running those institutions will run things. It is that simple. They have given away control of their own minds and thoughts and this is the result. They have been told lie upon lie, and when you can’t even see the truth, then you can never fix the problem. Dividing people “against lawyers” or “against doctors” or against basically anyone you can see in the public eye beyond the governmental system which is the one with the guns, is a distraction. The bankers are only powerful because they run the government. Without the guns of government non of this can occur. NONE. Do not fall prey to the petty divisions amongst the people. The problem is GOVERNMENT. That is what must be slashed and limited and reduced and dismantled at every turn. Do not let them lead you into race, or sex, or age, or wealth. Those are straw men. The issue is the control exercised by government coercion. Period. Work on that problem and other problems become manageable or disappear. My two cents. Glad you’re here. — L

      Reply
      1. liberalconservative

        The people do have the power. That much is true, but how do they wield it? The people do not know how to wield their power. Voting? Laughable at best… What about the grand jury? The common law grand jury. Scalia himself has referred to it as a 4th branch of government run by “the people” and it not being an institution of the courts.

        How come you aren’t promoting those ideas on your site? Maybe you are and I haven’t read the entire site so it’s my fault. Anyways, all of your posts are so true and so insightful, but people need to know how to act not just that they can. No one knows where to start in a system like this. Hire a lawyer? non starter…

        Reply
        1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

          Well the answer is complex Liberalconservative. I get the question a lot. I am going to add a section on it I believe when I have time. I have written some things about it. But each thing requires a lot of explanation because most people just have no idea. I think juries have a lot of potential. Not just grand juries. Those I think are much more complicated for average people to understand. Further, the problem has to be broken down into what can you do for YOU and what can you do for the situation. And as I said, it is complicated. Step one is a real understanding of the problem and that alone takes time. Once you have that you can explain it to others. Hopefully my site is a resource to do that. So send them here as well. — L

          Reply
          1. liberalconservative

            Absolutely. I have been researching and reading sites like yours, scanned retina, and others for while now. I will definitely send people here because you write in a clear and eloquent manner that is easy for the layperson to understand. Especially with the examples of facts and what they mean. But yeah, it is hard to wrap ones head around the depths of the fraud that has been happening basically since day one. Anyways, thanks for hosting such a great site.

          2. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

            Thanks Libconserv. I do my best to make it understandable to just normal people. The “expertification” they have introduced into the culture holds a lot of people back. They have been taught and convinced that only “experts” in a field can understand the concepts and the principles. It just isn’t true. Clear writing is clear thinking. And when someone tells you that “you can’t understand it”. They usually really mean, they can’t explain it. And that usually means that THEY don’t really understand it. They have not sorted out the very fundamental building blocks of what they call their “knowledge”. That is why I have always been fascinated by the study of epistemology. A greatly underrated area to look into. I also enjoy linguistic study for the same reason. There is nothing that average normal people cannot understand if they will simply take the time. Now it is true that the fundamental education we received in the government centers was almost crippling, but people have to overcome that. Either overcome it or simply give up and be a slave. lol. I choose overcome to the maximum extent. Always always always remain open to the fact that a fundamental belief you have may be simply WRONG. lol Because I have found almost nothing is sacred. I don’t touch on many of the things that I have discovered that are total lies, because it might turn off too many people. So I stick to the areas that I am an “expert” in. and people seem to accept that easier. lol

            The law of course is just another area that has been promoted as an “experts only” area. The reasons that most of it seems so complicated is because it is intentionally PRESENTED that way in order to cover up the fact that it makes no actual sense. So the trick is make sure people don’t really look into it. They use the same system for most everything. Because most everything we are taught is just a pack of lies to serve those in control. Nothing more. Glad you enjoy the site. Oh, and as silly as it is, it helps if people hit the “like button” on the facebook thing. I know my facebook presence sucks at this point but I am going to fix that. And I am going to open a youtube channel as well so my stuff will be available to just watch/listen. Anyway, good to hear from you. — L

  6. Eileen K.

    A truly “independent” Judiciary is also not beholden to Special Interests, such as PACs, Lobbies, NGOs, etc. This is the biggest problem with the Supreme Court nowadays; once it has become beholden to these Special Interests, corruption filtered in; and Justices have been targeted for blackmail from members of these Special Interests. Current Chief Justice John Roberts is a case in point; he’s been blackmailed by Banksters into ruling that Corporations are PERSONS under the Constitution (he and the other Justices are DEAD WRONG on this). Once Supreme Court Justices, especially Chief Justices, are blackmailed into violating the Constitution, the Republic is in serious jeopardy of vanishing.
    What opened Roberts to blackmail were the financial skeletons in his closet. It’s so sad that America’s Founders didn’t have enough foresight to have Supreme Court Justices appointed to limited terms instead of for life.

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Eileen, you are right of course. But again, the problem comes down to government. Whenever the government is GIVEN the power to run systems this large and powerful and can impose such an absurd system on the people well, the system doesn’t have to BECOME corrupt, it ALREADY IS corrupt by its nature. Of course the lobbyist make it worse. But the problem is ultimately that the government is in charge of policing itself once again! That can NEVER work. As long as the “DOJ” is empowered to investigate corruption, well, there will be corruption that is never rooted out. As long as there is a one size fits none system designed to “give the law” to 330 million people, there will be corruption. All discussions of solving crime and corruption and cleaning up government that come from or are controlled by anything but small local civilian run entities will become corrupted instantly. Do not fall for the idea the lobbyists are the problem. The problem is that there is a political or judicial office powerful enough that if corrupted it can cause mischief. Do you see the fundamental difference? that is the KEY. You can never stop corruption, THAT is human nature. The issue that must be addressed is the idea that there are political or judicial offices that are too powerful. Period. If the corruption couldn’t do much damage, the corruption would be much less of a problem. The system we have is a system where corruption of one person can wreak havoc. And the people have been convinced that the only “proper” party to address this corruption is another branch of the same corrupt entity. Do you see this? As long as people give away their power and allow this, the situation will continue. — L

      Reply
  7. Hereticdrummer

    I cannot remember the exact case (maybe Legalman can help me here) but I think it was during the presidency of Andrew Jackson (“Old Hickory”). The Supreme Court (Now “The Nine Swine” or the” Three Stooges Times Three”) made a ruling he was vehemently against. It was reported he just smiled and said, “The justices have made their decision. Now let them enforce it.” As chief executive he controlled the muscle and firepower of the nation. Paper documents and solemn pronouncements by fools in black dresses pale in comparison. Chairman Mao was right, power comes out of the barrel of a gun. Moreso true today than ever before.

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Yes Heretic I can help. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester_v._Georgia Here’s the NSA’s take on the case. I am more and more convinced that the real power is the control of the minds. Tony Montana thought that chico had to first get the power then you get the money then you get the women. But perhaps the real game is to first get control of your own mind, then others’ minds, then that gives you the power which means you get the money and the women. Just a thought I am leaning towards more and more. — L

      Reply
  8. Publius

    The judicial’s once elected and or appointed to their respective bench, they are to act wholly and distinctly separate from the legislative and executive powers of state.
    It has been this way from the beginning of our country and the concept was derived from the Virginia Bill of Rights, unanimously Passed and signed into law in one hours time on June 12, 1776, 23 days later in Philadelphia PA. the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776.
    The basic idea is the judges are to be able to restrain the legislative and executive powers of state and to protect the people for whome they work for from the over reaches and oppressions of the legislative and or exectuve powers of state.

    Reply
  9. Park

    Informative articles like this one need to reach as many people as possible – more exposure – that is what is needed:

    A compiler of ‘Independent News and Editorials:
    The News Scouter: http://newsscouter.com/

    What we need is to bring awareness to masses. We need to promote the truth – the knowledge – let the Information reach the maximum number of people. It is all about knowing the facts.

    Now, more than ever, in this fast changing world, we need “information” – Fast & Quick – at a single point.

    Here is a source that we have stumbled upon – A new comer that is already gaining momentum and recognition among both the readers and writers alike at a lightening speed:
    The News Scouter.

    “All the ‘Must-Read’ News Stories, Information and Editorials from around the world – Everything from Global Affairs & Finance to Science & Technology – Updated Regularly – Sorted and Categorized – All in one place.”

    Here is the Link to The News Scouter: http://newsscouter.com/

    * In the interest of all the honest writer, journalists, and blogger, we are doing our best to promote The News Scouter – If you go there, you will find out what I am talking about.

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      I agree Park. Why am I not in the NY TIMES as well! lol. Seriously you’re right. I have found that if people repost my stuff in places like newsscouter.com or stumbleupon.com or any other site that I get a lot of traffic from people who then share it themselves. It is all about spreading the word through word of mouth and referrals. WE can’t ever hope to get on mainstream places. But we don’t need them luckily. At least until they shut it down completely. Never outright, but behind the scenes. Take care.– L

      Reply
  10. andrew mango

    I am thankful that their are souls and saints out there who seek to inform us regarding a topic so critical that its so-called ” checks and balances” must be inforced at an obvious and transparent degree for all to see and acknowledge as an, individual Lord God given, alien cover of freedom and protection against warrantless harm against a soul by criminal government. Governments by their very nature are synonomus with corruption! However, it must be noted and I am going on record saying that ” Government” without the Organic Church at its head is a dangerous and fraudulent entity. There is no arguing about that. A government without the True Church i.e. the Holy Roman Catholic Faith, which is the Apostolic Church first set up in Rome by Saint Peter and Saint Paul, under Lord, ( same as Law ), Jesus Christ and His Holy Spirit, which in the fourth century became LAW under Emperor Constantine. And the DeFacto brutal Roman Regieme became a DeJure rule of LAW meaning decreed thus enforced by Ministers of Lord God. See Romans 13: 1-7, It must be squarely noted that man is born with sin and is therefore not perfect. That means that man cannot make nor enforce LAWS outside the doctrine of the ancient church by the Holy Spirit, whom by the way is a person. Oh! you didn’t know that? Do you have a problem with that? Afterall, corporations are persons are they not? That means Wall Street is a person is it not? And money is their god is it not? See where this is going folks. And the spirit of money as we know it is Satan…A spirit and thus also a person as well. Unholy and wicked to. There are three Divine persons in one Divine Lord God; And Emperor Constantine as its first figure head to give this all to long awaited edict a reality. When Constantine, a Roman Emperor and the Pope of Roman, the Vicar of Christ, mergered you had in effect therefore a Christendom whose soul purpose was to nurture the soul and protect the body! This is where the word Constitution comes from. Constantine and Constitution! It’s origins combine to connotate the Church and State. That is the ONLY way to enforce and rule by Law! And the Law which is commonly referred to as the 10 Commandments. Lord Jesus Christ naturally condenses the Law as a simple way and not make jurist out of His creation. Lord God warns for souls to avoid judging! But that’s not all there is to it. Do not judge someone within a system that you yourself wouldn’t want judging you! That goes for your peers as well. If you are Catholic would you want to be judged by someone say who is of the Church of Satan? Catholics do not judge Catholics unless of course you are in a forum of DeJure law. Otherwise Catholics violate Natural law by serving on juries of the DeFacto criminal corporation. Now let that sink in for a momemt. LOVE! Keep in mind Lord God loves differently than what man can relate. Nevertheless, if you have love for your fellow man do you intend to harm him in anyway that would violate Lord God’s law by stealing, being dishonest, hurting, maming, conniving, murdering, taking his wife, and coveting, same as envy, or enslaving him by claiming that your neighbor is indebted to you. According to Lord God your neighbor’s well being is ahead of your own and you have a duty to humbly help him. And insofar as debt goes. Well, all that could be said about that is Lord Jesus Christ purchased your soul, and we’re all created from the same soul, by His holy blood stained cross you were purchased! His resurrection is a binding receipt! And this is fact! Many people will have a problem with this no doubt, but keep in mind that under Bush the second, the jews got their Noahide laws passed. If this is true, and it appears that it is, then all I can say is that you better wake up and figure out real quick who and what you are. Do not put your complete trust in a phony document forged by sinful, heretical, mauraders, that jewish history claims are your founding fathers. England spawned today’s criminal Israel! And israel was severed at the root by Lord God and to never ever be reclaimed again. The new Israel, the Ark of the new and everlasting and binding covenant, through the Holy Mother of Lord God, Immaculate Mary, is that Covenant and not Jacob any longer! Her Holy Son is the Word, and the Word is Lord God, and the Word is with Christ.

    Reply
  11. consent-of-the-governed

    Below is a question that was submitted in the form of a PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. The question presented for review:
    The question:
    Whether a court of general jurisdiction is authorized to extend its jurisdiction beyond the boundaries fixed therefor by the Constitution, into geographic area fixed by the Constitution exclusively for the courts of limited jurisdiction.

    You can read the writ at the link below.
    https://organiclaws.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Petition-for-Writ.pdf

    Please read and distribute far and wide this Writ is right on point with Legal Man’s legal opinion and conclusions.

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      It appeared to be from an “unpublished opinion”. I have seen that many times. The case cannot be used as support for any other case. It is a typical scam they run to screw individuals and yet not make news and not have any scrutiny. I will be beyond shocked if Cert is granted. No point making these arguments in the courts. They “only follow the law” as it is given to them from their higher ups as I explained in my article on judicial tyranny. — L

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *