So, what’s it going to be, Judge?
by Ed Lewis
elewis@shighway.com
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United Sates, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Article VI, Clause 2,
Constitution for the United States of America
Our forefathers were genius in establishing a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. They even considered the far-reaching effects of the omnipresent possibility of those corruptible by power and money ending up developing a tyrannical government. Thus, these men gave very simple written instructions concerning all lawmaking, executive, and judicial undertakings.
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by
Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; …”,
And to assure against the potential of any religious sect or belief, including atheism, from being used as a means of disqualifying a citizen from running for and being elected or appointed to a government office or position,
“…but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Article VI, Clause 3,
Constitution for the United States of America.
Of importance is the fact that the forefathers did not separate church and state – in fact, religion was an integral part of the establishment of this nation. This is not a treatise on this matter but the majority of our forefathers recognized and wanted to preserve the self-evident rights of people, which is to say they wished to protect and preserve against erosion and denial of God-given rights.
Coinage did have on it “In God We Trust” with oaths taken to tell the truth and upholding of the Constitution made with one’s right hand raised and the left on a Bible. Only of very recent have such phrases and actions been removed or prohibited. One needs only study the process that has been undertaken by the enemies of liberty, the freemasons, Illuminati, Counsel of Foreign Relations, and the independent banking company, the Federal Reserve, and other world banks (commonly known as the IMF) to understand who has pushed for this denial of faith and why.
Due to the fact, though, that the People ignored warnings of remaining vigilant over government, what the forefathers established has been battered nearly beyond recognition. In investigating the destruction of rights, this treatise is about a government group that has contributed largely to the battering, a group made up of those who now believe themselves to have plenary power over any person that stands before them. These tyrants believe themselves to have the high power of monarchs or the captains of ships on the high seas. In other words, these people believe themselves to be in
plenary control of the people, with all people subservient to them, that they have been given god-like powers to determine what the rights of men are to be. This is about (shudder) judges and justices.
Is this assumed power over people by judges what the framers of the Constitution and those who fought and died for the preservation of God-given rights had in mind? Was such a monarch-like authority part of the securing of rights a necessary evil to be tolerated by the People? In examining this, we must look to irrefutable information.
The people created the Constitution for the United States of America (as stated in the Preamble to the Constitution). The Constitution by the will of the people then created government. Therefore, government is a creation of the People. Putting this as simplistic as possible (in order that lawyers and others in the field of “legalese” can understand), the People are sovereign over government. This means only the People have the authority to interpret the Constitution; only the People have the power to change it; and only the People retain and have monarch-like powers. Thus, all levels of government are subservient to the People, not vice-versa.
Lawmakers, executives, judicial entities, and other enemies of Liberty often state that the Constitution is a living document; that it changes with relevancy to the times. This could not be further from the truth. It is a living document only in that it was meant to survive for all time with changes only possible if sufficient numbers of the People wished it so.
But, no change may interfere with God-given rights or we would no longer be united in order to preserve self-evident, God-given rights that define liberty. The United States of America would cease to exist with this Republic replaced by either a democratic form of government, anarchy, or, most probable, a communistic/socialistic/tyrannical form of government.
Furthermore, not only is government limited to the protection of self-evident rights, so is the majority. (Majoral rule is a democratic form of government that does not recognize the individual as
sovereign.) Of supreme authority is each and every individual citizen in this Republic. This may not be interpreted differently by any lawmaker, law enforcement officer, any justice or judicial officer, or by any individual citizen elected to or appointed to any position in any level of government. Article VI of the Constitution, along with Article III and IV provisions, and amendments 1 through 10, plus the 13th an 14th secure this for the sovereign and those who are made citizens (the 14th).
In other words, government is subservient to the People or, more specifically, to each individual citizen which makes up the People. Majorities or minorities, as is the case of the very few (relatively speaking) citizens who are in government, cannot just decide to do
otherwise -- unless they wish to violate every premise upon which this nation was founded.
Thus, government is limited to the primary function protecting the rights of the sovereign whether against a foreign agent or a domestic agent. Each must take an
oath to do just that. If that oath is violated, the trust has been violated and treason has been committed. It matters not whether the enemy to the liberties secured by the Constitution can be identified or not – the enemy has been aided in his quest to destroy the freedoms and rights given to the People by the highest authority, their Creator.
In the matter of judges, it is time the People are made aware of the limited powers of a judge. Judges are mere mortals – they have not the power to abridge God-given rights, or to rule over a sovereign. They may not at a whim or based on what they think, change any right secured by the Constitution. Should people waive their right to a trial by jury, judges may only determine whether or not one sovereign infringed upon the rights of another sovereign (individual citizen interfering with the rights of another individual citizen). But, they may not decide if a person violated a man-made law since all man-made laws NOT protecting the rights of each individual citizen is not a law of the land at all but is, instead, an
"under color of law" made by officials violating their oaths of office. Such laws are null and void for repugnancy to the Constitution.
A courtroom is not a judge’s private domain to rule over as a monarch. “His” court factually belongs to the People since judges are merely elected or appointed government officials. Each and every courtroom is a place set aside and owned by the people to determine the above; that is, whether or not a citizen (or government entity) has infringed upon the rights of another.
Judges may not rule that a citizen has violated a state or federal law as no state or federal law has authority over the sovereign. If a citizen does infringe upon the rights of another citizen, then redress may only be based on this. In fact, a citizen may not even be lawfully tried for violating any under color of law government requirement since all under color of law requirements are made null and void for being repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.
Judges are therefore very limited in their duties. The first is, of course, to protect the rights of the People. The second is to maintain order in the court. But, judges are not to be revered as a higher authority than the Constitution and the unalienable rights of the People, or the people as the sovereigns. To place judges outside the confines of the Constitution is to give them a title of nobility and honor. This is also prohibited by the Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Clause 8).
To be precise, judges are essentially hired to oversee conflicts between sovereigns. They are not hired (whether elected or not – they receive pay for doing the job) to interpret
law in ways that step outside their constitutional yoke, nor to apply what they think is law since this is based on interpretation.
Determining a citizen infringing upon another’s rights is simple - infringement has occurred in any circumstance in which one citizen violates the rights of another. There is nothing complicated about this. Steal from another and you have violated his rights. Take his life and his right to live has been violated. Encroach upon his property and his rights have been violated. Take his property by coercive measures or other force and his rights have been violated. Interfere with his right to travel freely and his rights have been violated. Disrupt his sense of well being in any manner and his rights have been violated. Steal his remuneration for labor rendered and his rights have been violated. Convert rights to privilege and his rights have been violated. Remove his freedom of choice and his rights have been violated.
To put it simply, interference in any sovereign’s (individual citizen's) life, liberty, or his sense of well-being, is an act repugnant to the Constitution and
is thus strictly prohibited. We were meant to evolve to the state of having respect for others and their property. With understanding and acceptance that other people’s rights are equal to, and just as important to them as ours are to ourselves, we learn as a society to behave properly. We learn to avoid infringing upon the rights of others just as we would have others avoid infringing upon ours.
But, is this what those in government, including judges, are doing? Or, are they instead infringing upon individual
citizens’ rights by making and enforcing unconstitutional laws? The pursuit of happiness has been, and always will be, based on freedom of choice with only one limitation – to not interfere with the rights of others.
Those in government, however, have assumed the authority of a monarch, exactly the situation that propelled this nation to war against the King of England. This is in spite of the fact that nobility and positions of honor placing a person above all others cannot lawfully exist in this nation. All citizens are created equal and not above the laws of God
upon which this nation is based. Therefore, if committing crimes against the People and their rights, are these people who hold positions as judges to be treated any different from crime syndicates (fancy word for group) or a thief in the night?
Consider. If one of these people out of his “robes” and not identified to you encroached on your property and starting stealing stuff, or suddenly reached into your billfold or purse and tried taking your money and credit cards, it is likely you would take action. How is this any different than as a judge encroaching upon your life and stealing your rights away, including those rights to sole ownership of your earnings and property gained through your earnings?
In the writer’s opinion, there is absolutely no difference. Stealing one’s property, whether Real, intangible, tangible, a sense of well-being, or one’s freedom of choice, is theft and treasonous, plain and simple. It matters not if it is done by a citizen or a citizen as a government entity. Protecting the individual rights of the people is the primary job of government. Since this is a fact, then it stands the test of reason that any judge as part of government is bound by the same primary duty.
The Constitution says this is so, that all judges are indeed bound by and to the Constitution. Thus, any judge not upholding the Constitution should be removed from his position by any means that may be required. He is a threat to the liberties of the people of this nation, a nation of people united in common effort to preserve the unalienable rights of Man for all posterity.
It is a matter of fact that every judge involved in the hundreds of rulings against the Constitution has violated his oath of office and should be impeached and/or criminally tried for treason. Although the writer would like to say that each should be tried and then hung (shades of JUDGE Roy Bean) so as to teach others a lesson apparently forgotten or ignored by those in government, he cannot because some find this an objectionable act (although death is the punishment for treason).
Instead of openly advocating death for treasonous acts, then perhaps impeachment should be pushed with loss of citizenship being a suitable punishment since so many elected officials act out of ignorance. But, remember that We the People can make any punishment we wish to enforce our rights. It doesn’t matter what the Supreme Court of the US Government or any justice of any State expounds to be true. It is within the sovereign authority of the people to match the punishment to the crime.
Although he doesn’t expect any answers, this writer asks all judges these questions. Will you honor your oath of office and uphold the Constitution or will you one day face the wrath of people too long subjected to rights being removed by uncaring corrupted officials? Do you want to keep your job of privilege granted by the People or would you rather be returned to the masses many of you have so often abused?
Judges have at this moment the freedom of choice so often denied citizens by those corrupted by power. This false power will not last. Increasing numbers are getting increasingly sick and tired of being sick and tired of unconstitutional laws based on unconstitutional edicts from government and then ruled “constitutional” by corrupted, politically guided justices.
So, what’s it going to be, Judge – rulings for the liberty of the American people or unconstitutional rulings in favor of government tyranny?
Also from Ed Lewis
