Main Menu - The Fool Hath Said... - U.S. Attorneys - The Publisher - Lying in the U.S. - Enigma - The Tsunami of Currency - The Schiavo Scandal - Supreme Solecisms - Five to Four Fallacies - Church and State - Voting "Rights" - $100 Oil - Immigration - Worst Eminence - Assassinations - The Chief - Order "The Firm League of Friendship" - Email Firth


LYING in the U. S.

W

HY, after almost three centuries, is this still the home of the brave? Why is it that no-one, however gifted, however successful, however popular, is safe from conviction? Because of the unelected judges and prosecutors of the United States, who make their secure livelihoods by harassing tax-payers. Know, now, that the U. S. is just another paper tiger: the truth shall make you free.

The U. S. has no jurisdiction intra-State.

Once upon a time – from 1789 to 1795 – the U. S. courts had jurisdiction when a citizen of one State sued a different State. The Eleventh Amendment ended that jurisdiction; a citizen can sue no State in the U. S. courts, least of all hir own State.

The U. S. has no criminal jurisdiction.

True, the Congress is empowered to punish the counterfeiting of the current coin, and piracy, and treason – crimes that violate the rights of the citizens of every State (Art. I, Sec. 8: counterfeiting numismatic coins would affect only a tiny handful of citizens.) But, we see, the trial must take place in the State where the act was done (Art. III, Sec. 2): why is this? Because the trial is to be in the court of that State.

A fortiori, if the U. S. courts cannot try cases of treason, still less can they try the crimes invented by congress, for which Standard Oil, Aluminum Company of America, General Electric, International Business Machines, Microsoft, and all the other companies that have made the United States the most envied nation of the world, were prosecuted.

There can be no District or Circuit courts.

Obviously, the Constitution did not require the Congress to set up courts in each and every State –– it merely allows Congress to set up inferior courts, if found necessary (Art. III, Sec. 1.) But said courts would handle such matters as bankruptcy or admiralty or State land grants or natural–ization, which are the legitimate concern of the U. S. A “district” or “circuit” court would have jurisdiction in only some States, while the judges would have been chosen “by and with the advice and consent of the senate” – the people in some few States would have been deprived of the republican form of government guaranteed by the Constitution (Art. IV, Sec. 4.)

No majority can find the Law.

The judges of the Continental Congress were indeed allowed to proceed by majority, – but that authority was snuffed out by the Constitution. Both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution are meticulous in specifying the majority required to proceed – two thirds to expel a member of congress, three fourths to ratify an amendment – except in three cases: first, for the jury in the trial of “all crimes,” second, for the States in convention, and third, for the U. S. judges. But everyone knows full well how the criminal jury proceeds: unanimously – otherwise one could not hold every individual member responsible for the verdict. And we know how the States proceed: “done in convention, by the unanimous consent of the States present.” The judges are bound by the same rule of unanimity: they are there to find a Law that all [reasonable] persons understand. And the judges of the U. S. can have no difficulty finding the Law, they have the precedents of twelve or more sovereign States to direct them (the common law was at first discovered by only a handful of courts.)

True it is that some States have authorized their elected judges to decide cases, and even to create precedents, by majority: but even forty-eight fiftieths of the States would not suffice to grant any such power to the mere appointees of the senate and the president.

If the U. S. judges were granted authority to hear cases between one State and another (Art. III, Sec. 2), why are they not chosen by the electors of the States, as are the president and the vice president? Because the sphere where great questions were expected to arise was in the contest between legislative and executive branches: therefore the judges are properly to be chosen by the parties principally concerned.

But – I can hear you objecting – the justices are not neutral between congress and president; often the senate only grudgingly agrees to the nomination of a justice. Yes, indeed – but this is just another example of the inveterate Washington lying. In the convention, Alexander Hamilton, an unabashed aristocrat who strove to give the president powers proper to a monarch, proposed that, in the lesser matter of appointments (as opposed to treaties) the president act “subject to the approbation or rejection of the senate.” But the States refused to allow aristocracy to creep in, and insisted that the president act only “by and with the advice and consent of the senate” (Art. II, Sec. 2.) When we see “and” twice over, we know we are not talking about just one thing: first the senate advises a few names, then the president nominates one of them, finally the senate consents to his selection. Democracy means that the many – the State officers – have the first word; in this case they have the last, also.

Discrimination is not optional.

Today, it is supposed that discrimination is a faculty that one may or may not possess. Judges, however, are paid, are required, to discriminate, whenever possible. The question in any criminal case is, is this defendant one of us, an equal? If not, we take no responsibility for hir, any more than for a shark or a grizzly or a rattlesnake. If se is an equal, se will respect the rights of each of us, will YIELD to whomsoever has the right of way, will come running if se hears gunfire on our property (at least at night.) But none of us lives up to that standard 24–7–52: sometimes we are asleep, sometimes “mistakes were made,” sometimes we are sick or drunk or drugged. Only if we acted wrongly – if we did wrong intentionally – have we proved ourselves less than equal, unqualified to claim the protection of our neighbors. And we all want the neighbors to be active, alert, armed and zealous citizens (except the very few of us who would like to encroach on the neighboring property.) And except those all-too-many of us – judges and prosecutors and police and prison guards – who live at the expense of the tax-payers.

The Constitution is politically correct.

President Bush, 43, asks us to believe that an amendment to the Constitution, once ratified by three fourths of the States, would bind the remaining fourth. To the contrary, three fourths of the States are enough to command the congress – e.g. what to do if, in some of the States, some part of the people is disenfranchised (XIVth. Amendment: of course, to obey is the last thing the congress will do.) In every case, those powers of congress which are not necessary are proper or correct, that is, favorable to minorities – patents and copyrights are in favor of original minds, bankruptcy is in favor of the unfortunate few.

Does all this matter?

Yes, it does. What happened on 9/11? When the States needed to be defended, the U. S. government just packed up and went home. Why? Because the government we set up to defend the States has dedicated itself to defying and dominating the States. The Federal [so-called] Bureau of Investigation is scattered all over the nation, investigating crimes invented by congress. Agents, even Special Agents, saw suspicious incidents before 9/11 – but no-one knew enough to join up the dots all over the nation. If we don’t want any more debacles, we need to make it a felony for the attorney general, the director of the F.B.I, and every other person receiving any consideration whatsoever from the Justice Department, to investigate any crime other than one seemingly directed against the citizens of every State. (Crimes committed by the president and/o r vice president can be investigated by special prosecutors.) Once the myrmidons of the F. B. I. were afraid to spy on citizens, they would undoubtedly begin to spy on foreigners: spying is their way of quenching their inferiority complexes.

U. S. officers fall into three classes, those of honor, of trust, and of profit (Art. I, Sec. 3.) U. S. attorneys fall into the third, lowest, class. Officers of profit are themselves divided into three classes; the one who is elected, those appointed by-and-with-the-advice-and-consent, and “inferior officers,” appointed in some other manner (Art. II, Sec 2.) U. S. attorneys again fall into the third, most inferior, class – except that they fall BELOW the third class! Except for judges, who hold office during good behavior, appointments last only until the next election: that is the meaning of republican government (Art. IV, Sec. 4,) ballots instead of bullets. Any officer who claims – as U. S. attorneys do – to hold office past the next election is perjuring himself every time he signs his pay-check (U. S. officers take an oath to uphold the Constitution.) Again, U. S. officers are confined to acting for all of these United States, even as do ambassadors and consuls. Any U. S. officer who pretends to act in one State, or only part of the U. S., is violating the Constitution on that count also. These officers are not equals of ours, they are only paid servants exemplifying the typical servants’ jealousy of their betters.