This article was printed from KeepAndBearArms.com.
For more gun- and freedom-related information, visit
http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------
|
Held in
Contempt by Ed Lewis Men and Women are not Infallible; I suppose this sentiment of mine could be considered contempt of court -
meaning, of course, an arbitrary ruling that one is in contempt of the
proceedings - that is, if I were in court. Actually, criminal contempt means basically any disruptions that opposes the
proceedings or the power of the court. It is meant to punish as well as coerce
(cause under duress or force through intimidation and threats) compliance. With
who? Why, the Judge most often. This often means in a court of law that one of man’s basic rights is
squelched the right to speak whether his opinion is in agreement with another
person or not. The person holding such power over other people is the Judge in
any courtroom proceeding. It doesn’t mean squat if the judge is as dumb as a box of rocks, a failure
as an attorney, whether he knows anything meaningful or not - he is the judge
and his power over other people is God-like. And, well observed by anyone who
has been in courtrooms, judges believe themselves to be God-like. It is this power I hold in contempt. The vivid recalling of the first time I
went to court probably formed much of the foundation for my heartfelt contempt.
I had received a parking ticket because about a half-inch to one-inch of my
front bumper extruded over a yellow curb denoting a ‘no-parking zone’. I was
determined to plead my case rather than cough up the $2.50 fine had I admitted
guilt and just paid the fine at the police station. As I sat there waiting for the process of traffic court to begin, a man
exited the what I presumed were the judge’s chambers. His hair was gray and
all messed up and stuck out much as Einstein’s but not as neat. His suit was
rumpled as if he had slept in it. His ‘white’ shirt was yellowed and
appeared to need laundering. His tie was not fully tied and was not centered. But, the courtroom person who sort of acts as a gopher and swears in people
and the like suddenly said, "All rise ..." This person who appeared to
be a drunken wino pulled out of an alley just minutes earlier was the JUDGE.
Right then, I thought , "Oh, darn." The result was a bad experience I
never got over. I was ruled guilty because I was a college student and he couldn’t
just let college students get by with taking over the town. Rather ruefully, when people say anything about having to go to court, or I
read of people going to court, I still picture this man with utter contempt, not
only of him but of any system that allows such a man to stand in power over
others. I am also sure this experience clouded my perception of other judges and the
entire judicial system. There must be those who do their jobs properly. Of
course, anymore it is increasingly difficult to find one that does - at least in
terms of justice. Most of us are just laymen when it comes to law. But, although we may not be
experts, we do have accurate perceptions of justice which is no more than fair
play and equity. There isn’t anything fancy about it. What is fancy, though, is how the law is manipulated. To make one point quite
clear - if any two people read and interpret a law differently, it is null and
void for vagueness. I didn’t just come up with this - the Supreme Court ruled
it. Judges do not have the power to interpret law. The bottom line is it is up to
the people to determine the meanings of law. It must say what it means and mean
what it says. It is that simple. If there is an interpretation problem, then the
ruling must be in favor of the citizen, not the government. You see, it must be this way to stop manipulation of law by attorneys and, of
course, the courts, which mean the judges. Far too often it is not facts that
determine the ruling of a court case but which attorney most appeals the most to
the jury or, in the cases of being judged just by a judge, what the judge thinks
or what his own biases dictate him to rule, not necessarily what the written law
states. You would think that a case against a citizen who is law-abiding that every
bit of evidence in his favor would be permitted. But, too often, especially in
cases involving the IRS and gun control, this is not done. The judge doesn’t
always accept evidence that might go against the IRS or the government and its
quest for gun control. And Congress in supporting this has even passed ‘frivolous’
filings and suit laws. In the case of IRS cases, however, there is one indisputable piece of
evidence. Article I, Section 9, Clause 4, states quite clearly the US Government
may not lay a direct tax without apportionment. This was never repealed and,
thus, it remains in effect. Also, the statutes covering the imposition of tax on persons lacks a very
important clause. That clause is one that makes any citizen of the 50 States
with domestic earnings liable for federal (and, hence, state) income tax. It doesn’t matter, or shouldn’t anyway, what any attorney for the
government states, nor what the judge believes; the fact is no American citizen
owes the US Government any kickback whatsoever from their earnings because the
Supreme Law of the Land states this and every State in the Union accepted this. Thus, every citizen who has ever paid the government anything because of
earning money based on his property, his labor, has been ripped off. If a court
ever decided in favor of government, it helped the government rip off the
citizen and that, Folks, is conspiracy or coercion at the highest levels. Of course, both government and the IRS conspire to rip off citizens but
courts are supposed to administer justice. Juries in cases of tax cases must be
informed of facts, not suppositions and misleading, completely false,
information by so-called ‘tax experts’. As for gun control, the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United
States recognizes the God-given inalienable right of every citizen of this
nation the right to keep and bear firearms. It takes it out of the realm of the
federal and state governments since no state may make a law repugnant to the
Constitution. The only involvement the federal government may have is if the person is
transporting firearms and selling them across state or national lines. If the
necessary excise tax has been paid, the BATF/IRS/Customs does not have any
further jurisdiction over any firearm owned or sold by any individual. The government may not regulate what firearms are owned by a citizen as its
only power is to regulate commerce concerning the firearm, meaning whether or
not is has excise, duty, or impost tax due on it. My owning firearms is simply
not in the realm of commerce between nations or the many states (Article 1,
Section 8, Clause 4). Furthermore, no State has the power to stop me from carrying a loaded firearm
if I desire to do so. That is repugnant to the Constitution and my inalienable
right to keep - AND BEAR - arms. It doesn’t matter if all other citizens of
Missouri don’t want to carry firearms since my inalienable rights are not
based on the majority but are my individual rights. They are not privileges
which may be voted away by the majority nor by the state legislature. So, why do I hold courts and the justice system in contempt? Well, the answer
is plain. Far too many courts (nearly all) hold the Supreme Law of the Land and
the inalienable rights of the individual in contempt and rule unconstitutionally
in favor of the government or its bogus agencies. Yes, bogus. The IRS/BATF is
not an agency but is nothing more than a trust set up to collect due excise
taxes on commercial products or privileges requiring such a tax. Applying the rules for collecting this tax to law abiding citizens of the 50
States who do not fall into the category of conducting an interstate or
international commercial enterprise is contemptible. Any judge who allows it to
occur is not interested in justice but dispenses injustice, or allows it to
happen. And, yet, citizens of this nation allow these thieves in suits and robes to
do just that. Now, bear with me on this. The proceedings in a courtroom is to serve
justice, correct. Criminal contempt is anything that opposes this, correct? Therefore, any judge or jury or attorney who does NOT insist on the Supreme
Law of the Land, or laws as written, being enforced is in opposition to the
intent of the proceedings. This applies in IRS cases against citizens of the 50
States with domestic earnings only and in cases of gun control laws of the US
Government being applied non-jurisdictionally to citizens not involved in
interstate or national commerce or doing so legally. Thus, they are guilty of "Criminal Contempt". All American citizens
should hold these courts and government participants acting against the citizens
of this nation in contempt. And, for once, unite by the multitudes and take
action by demanding Congress take appropriate actions to remedy the problems. Ed Lewis is another welcome addition to KeepAndBearArms.com's growing team of
Featured Writers. Mr. Lewis' archive can be found at http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com/Lewis. |
||||||||