|
Edited on Fri Sep-29-06 02:40 PM by Jcrowley
Declaration of Grievances Against Federal Officeholders of the United States When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for a people to petition for redress against the political body that oppresses them and to assume among their rightful powers to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the underlying letter and spirit of the Constitution of the United States requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to seek remedy and reparations for injustices done against them, yet in their name. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all humans are endowed by their creator with an affinity for justice that is aggrieved when their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is preempted by deference to institutions and officeholders. That when they who derive their just powers from the consent of the Governed, yet act destructive of these ends, it is the people’s duty to seek their ejection from office and the institution of new officeholders in their place, so that great care to most likely effect the safety and happiness of the Governed is restored. All experience hath shown that humankind are more disposed to ignore the suffering of others or suffer evils unless pressed to action otherwise, than to right themselves against the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design of degeneracy and despotism, it is the people’s duty, to throw off such rule of law, and to rightfully provide new guards for their security. ---Such has been the patient sufferance of these petitioners; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to petition the Governed for redress of their grievances. The history of the federal courts of law is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, leading to the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these petitioners. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world. Officeholders of the federal judiciary have upheld a most unwholesome and improper law, detrimental to the public good, in dereliction of duty and in violation of oath of office as established by the Constitution. The Constitution, ordained by need for commercial harmony among the states and a “profound love of liberty,” granted them lifetime tenure of office and assurance of continued compensation so that they might have “complete independence” from the agencies inclined to participate “in passing bad laws.” They were granted powers, along with the legislative and executive, for the purpose of “carrying into effect the objects disclosed in the Preamble” -- “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.” Though the Framers themselves were not immune to impaired judgment, and caused to be excluded large numbers of persons from being fully vested in the government by presumption of inferior capacity based on skin color, gender, or other unfounded considerations, this does not diminish the Framers’ aim toward human ideals as ordained in the Preamble. Contrary to these ideals, officeholders of the federal judiciary have allowed false evidence to be used in the establishment of unwholesome and improper law, in violation of the standard of justice, giving their assent to acts of pretended constitutionality; using judge-contrived rule of law and term of art such as “rational basis,” they uphold prohibition, draconian penalties, and maladministration of the peoples’ resources, in excess of billions of dollars annually, by explaining, “we have never required Congress to make particularized findings in order to legislate.” End Part 1 <« Reply to this comment>
Justice as a Principle, Part 2
Posted by: material witness on Aug 27, 2006 12:42 PM
Contrary to these ideals, they have allowed severe criminal penalties without showing causation of harm for conduct made criminal by false evidence and thus have allowed the arbitrary exercise of federal power to supercede the preeminence of liberty over unnecessary and improper government action, permitting a bill of attainder, in practical effect, to which they explain--“the relevant question is simply whether the means chosen are ‘reasonably adapted’ to the attainment of a legitimate end.”
Disregardful of their duty “to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void” and to keep the legislature within the “limits assigned to their authority,” they give deference to Congress and a presumption of constitutionality to their enactments, an unconstitutional and unconscionable delegation of duty, reconstituting the judiciary into an extra-executive arm operating in super-prosecutorial capacity against petitioners.
They have obstructed the administration of justice, by substituting the letter and spirit of the Constitution with judge-contrived rule of law based on depression-era economic case law to justify an aggressive police economy for the purposes of carrying on a war against people.
To pursue this policy of persecution they have allowed a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and pilfer their substance.
They have upheld legislation passed in places distant, proclaiming such constitutional by presumption, yet refuse to allow the details of the legislation, particularly the draconian penalties, to be disclosed to the citizen-juror, who sits in judgment, for the sole purpose of herding the citizen-juror into compliance with a legislated verdict.
Though the First Amendment recognizes that humankind does not live by bread alone, they have upheld federal preemption over personal sovereignty by prohibiting individual choice even though it is not the place of government nor is it possible to make the world fit only for a child.
Though the Fourth Amendment recognizes the right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches, they have upheld urine testing, body cavity searches, strip searches, dog sniffs, pretext detainments, and SWAT force raids, in deference to legislators, US attorneys, law enforcement officers, prison officials and other policy makers or executives -- the poisoned fruit of these sanctioned standards being drug task force sweeps against children in schools and abuse as practiced at Abu Ghraib, Guatanamo, and countless American prisons.
They uphold state sovereignty so that the Fifth Amendment may be abridged to allow an individual “to be twice put in jeopardy,” by separate state and federal prosecutions for the same government pretended offense, but they deny state sovereignty, in states where prohibition has been lifted, in the name of regulating commerce.
They uphold government policy that is racist in origin and in practical application, violating equal protection under the laws.
They uphold warrants that have been issued on the basis of “informants” but the accused are not allowed to confront these witnesses against them.
They have upheld long term incarceration without basis in necessity for non-violent conduct among consenting adults and for conduct without causation of harm.
They have upheld long term incarceration without basis in deterrence enabling America to have the highest incarceration rate in the world, making mockery of the constitutional preeminence of liberty.
They have upheld mandatory minimum sentencing, imposing long term incarceration, million dollar plus fines and asset forfeiture, yet such “mandatory” sentencing policy has been suspended where relatives of legislative or executive officials have been involved. End Part 2
<« Reply to this comment>
Justice as a Principle, Part 3
Posted by: material witness on Aug 27, 2006 12:43 PM
They have upheld seizure of social security contributions and other federal returns, even though, in some cases, the forced payroll deductions in the government social security program long preceded enactment of the unwholesome law that allows these hard earned contributions to be confiscated.
Though the Ninth Amendment provides that “the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,” they have by judge-contrived rule of law subjugated the presumption of liberty to their term of art “fundamental right” to deny and disparage all rights not deemed by them as “fundamental.”
They have refused to allow, in the name of commerce, laws passed by referendum for the accommodation of large segments of people, demanding these people should relinquish the right to self-determination, a right inestimable to them and formidable to totalitarianism.
They have allowed, by upholding unwholesome law in the name of commerce, for millions of individuals to suffer assault, battery, degradation, wrongful incarceration, deprivation of property, deprivation of liberty, and, in some cases, deprivation of life at the hands of government actors.
They have allowed, by upholding unwholesome law in the name of commerce, for precious resources of the people to be diverted to a police economy of federal agencies, task forces, informants, prisons, drug testing industries, and other related persons or operations that degrade rather than “promote the general welfare.”
They have allowed, by upholding unwholesome law in the name of commerce, for the constitutional preeminence of justice to be subjugated by rule of law contaminated with corruption and degeneracy.
In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered with repeated injury – they direct us to write letters to Congress in cavalier disregard for the imbalance of power of petitioners when weighed against the influence of such special interests as pharmaceutical companies, law enforcement associations, prison guard unions, security industries and the like – “for nothing is more natural to men in office than to look with peculiar deference towards that authority to which they owe their official existence.”
Too long they have been deaf to the voice of justice and blind to “those ill humors, which the arts of designing men, or the influence of particular conjunctures, sometimes disseminate among the people themselves, and which (h)ave a tendency (t)o occasion dangerous innovations in the government, and serious oppressions of the minor party in the community.” An officeholder of the federal judiciary whose character is thus marked by acts which may define dereliction is unfit to administer the constitutional trust.
We, therefore, humble petitioners appeal to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, and, in the name, and by the authority of good people everywhere acquiesce in the necessity, do hold those officeholders of the federal judiciary, who have upheld unwholesome law, unfit to sit and seek their ejection from office and forfeiture of their pensions, honoraria, gifts and other commercial gains of office in reparation for harm done by their failure to uphold their duty.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
