Post by Admin on Apr 28, 2014 15:40:50 GMT -5
The Article VI, Clause 2
Contempt Of Constitution
TEST
Contempt Of Constitution
TEST
An Examination Of The Higher Laws of Humanity
Contempt Of Constitution Defined, Narrowed Conclusively,
&
Proclaimed – Inherent Right
Contempt Of Constitution Defined, Narrowed Conclusively,
&
Proclaimed – Inherent Right
CONFIRMATION OF CERTAIN INHERENT POWERS OF PEOPLE AND OF THE SEVERAL STATES; APPLYING ALL PROCEEDINGS HEREAFTER AS THE SUPERSEDING RULE OF RULES UNDER *RULE NISI
(*“Becomes The Imperative and Final Rule Unless Actual Cause Can Be Shown Against It”).
The Article VI, Clause 2 - Contempt of Constitution TEST.
I.
It has long been determined – by the alleged United States central
government, that the part of the proposed Constitution’s Article VI,
Section 2, known as the “supremacy Clause” – that whatever laws it
makes are literally and sheerly SUPREME over any and ever State’s,
or States,’ law(s), no matter the nature of any such law(s), when
passed by the said United States central government at any time.
II.
As Expressly Worded.
Article VI, Section 2. The 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 States, 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.
III.
Contempt, An Inherent Power.
1. It has long been established that the Power of Contempt is an
Inherent Power. The term Inherent means something that goes with
something as a matter of first or natural nature, or that is, it is inseparable
from that to which it pertains, for if attempting to separate the one from
the other, damage to the both will unfailingly occur. Contempt as an
Inherent Power belongs Inseparably, Inescapably, to that to which it
pertains or for which purpose it is self-evident that it is relative to, based
upon the expressed presentment of the Contempt form itself.
2. Additional “Meaning of Inherent Power.” “In order that any human
agency may accomplish its purposes, it is necessary that it possess power.
Th executive must have power to direct and control his business. The
superintendent of the works must have power to direct his men. In order
to accomplish the purposes for which they were created, courts must also
possess powers. . . . These powers are called inherent powers. Among
these powers is the power to punish for contempt.” Wis.-State v.
Cannon, 221 N.W. 603, 604, 196 Wis. 534.
3. The power to punish for contempt has been held to be the most
important and essential of the inherent powers of a court. § 43
CONTEMPT 17 C.J.S., pg. 108.
4. As such, contempt of court has been further noted in certain
decisions by courts as follows:
..1 It is the “Highest form of judicial power.” “Inherent power
which courts possess to punish for contempt is highest form of judicial
power.” N.M. –State ex rel. Bliss v. Greenwood. 315 P.2d 233, 63
N.M. 156 ; 71.10 Tenn.–Pass v. State, 184 S.W. 2d 1, 181 Tenn. 612.
..2 It is “Undoubted power.” “Power to punish for an alleged
contempt of its authority is undoubted.”
Cal.–Batchelder v. Moore, 42 C. 415. Bennett v. Superior Court in
and for San Diego County, 222 P.2d 276, 99 C.A. 2d 585-In re
Shortridge, 99 P. 478 90 P. 478, 5 C.A. 371.
Ala–Robertson v. State, 104 So. 561, 20 Ala.App. 514.
Ky.–Crook v. Schumann. 167 S.W.2d 836, 292 Ky. 750–Talbot v.
Commonwealth, 270 S.W. 207 Ky. 749.
Me.–Charles Cushman Co. v. Mackesy, 200 A. 505, 135 Me. 490.
Md.–Hitzelberger v. State. 196 A. 288–In re Lee. 183 A. 560, 170
Md. 43, certiorari denied 56 S.Ct. 947, two cases, 298 U.S. 680, 80
L. Ed. 1400-Ex parte Sturm, 136 A. 312, 152 Md. 114, 51 A.L.R. 356.
Mich–In re Huff, 91 N.W.2d 613, 352 Mich. 402.
N.M.-State v. Magee Pub Co., 224 P. 1028, 29 N.M. 455, 38 A.L.R. 142.
N.Y.–Douglas v. Adel, 199 N.E. 35, 269 N.Y. 144, amendment of
remittitur denied 2 N.E.2d 679, 271 N.Y. 528.
Continental Mortg. Guarantee Co. v. Whitecourt Const.
Corporation, 279 N.Y.S. 338, 164 Misc. 56.
Pa.–Penn. Anthracite Mining Co. v. Anthracite Miners of
Pennsylvania, 174 A. 11, 114 Pa. Super. 7, affirmed 178 A. 291,
318 Pa. 401.
Guarantee Trust & Safe Deposit Co. v. Heidenreich, 5 Pa Dist. &
Co. 184, reversed on other grounds, 138 A. 764, 290 Pa. 249.
..3 “Contempt .. is not creature of legislation.” Ind.-State ex
rel. Trotcky v. Hutchinson, 68 N.E.2d 649, 224 Ind. 443.
..4 “The legislature cannot impair or restrict the power.” § 43
CONTEMPT 17 C.J.S., pg. 114. Supported by cases, minimally, from
the following States (Cites omitted): California, Illinois, Alabama,
Kentucky, Montana, Ohio, Oregon, Indiana, Connecticut, Washington.
..5 Contempt is a Criminal Offense. “‘Contempt proceedings’
are criminal in their nature.” Laurie v. Ryan, 22 A.2d 6, 7, 150 N.J.Eq. 248.
..6 Contempt is a “Criminal Offense.” “A ‘contempt’ is a
criminal offense, and a sentence of imprisonment for contempt is a
judgment in a criminal case.” Rawson v. Rawson, Ill.App. 505.
..7 “A contempt is quasi criminal in its nature.” Brimson v.
State, 58 N.E. 803, 63 Ohio St. 347.
..8 “‘Contempt’ *of court* is a specific criminal offense and a
‘contempt proceeding’ is not a ‘civil action,’ either at law or in equity,
but is a separate proceeding of a criminal nature and of summary
character.” Wilde v. Superior Court of San Diego County, 127 P.2d
560, 565, 53 Cal.App. 2d 168.
..9 “‘Contempt’ is neither a [felony] crime nor a
misdemeanor; and ‘contempt proceedings,’ while quasi criminal, do not
vouchsafe to contemnor all the statutory and constitutional rights and
privileges vouchsafed to one charged with a crime.” § I.C.A. 655.1 et.
seq. State v. Baker, 270 N.W. 350, 360, 222 Iowa 903.
..10 The Crime of Contempt involves “..different classes of
contempt.” Md.-Baltimore Radio Show v. State, 67 A.2d 497, 193 Md.
300, certiorari denied 70 S.Ct. 252, 338 U.S. 912, 94 L.Ed. 562.,
recognizing also - “constructive contempt.”
..11 “Exercise of power not executive function.”
N.Y.-In re Rice, 226 N.Y.S. 585, 131 Misc. 220, reversed
on other grounds In re Richardson, 160 N.E. 655, 247 N.Y.
401.
U.S.-U.S. v. Grossman, D.C.Ill., 1 F.2d 941.
Ark.-Pace v. State, 7 S.W.2d 29, 177 Ark. 512.
Fla.-Pennekamp v. State. 22 So.2d 875, 156 Fla. 227,
reversed on other grounds 66 S.Ct. 1029, 328 U.S. 331, 90
L.Ed. 1295.
Ga.-Bradley v. State, 36 S.E. 630, 111 Ga. 168, 50 L.R.A.
691.
Garland v. State, 110 S.E.2d 143, 99 Ga.App. 826.
Ill.-State v. Froelich, 146 N.E. 733, 316 Ill 77-People v.
Boyle, 144 N.E. 342, 312 Ill. 586-People v. Panchire, 143
N.E. 476, 311 Ill. 622.
Clubb v. Clubb, 80 N.E.2d 94, 334 Ill.App. 599,
reversed on other grounds 84 N.E.2d 366, 402 Ill. 390.
Ind.-Grimm v. State, 162 N.E.2d 454, 240 Ind. 125.
Neb.-McCauley v. State, 245 N.W. 269, 124 Neb. 102.
N.J.-In re Caruba, 61 A.2d 290, 142 N.J.Eq. 358, certiorari
denied 69 S.Ct. 69, 335 U.S. 816, 93 L.Ed. 396.
Franklin v. Franklin, 65 A.2d 660, 26 N.J.Misc. 350,
affirmed 65 A. 2d 665, 2 N.J. 103.
N.M.-State v.Magee Pub Co., 224 P. 1028, 29 N.M. 455,
38, A.L.R. 142.
Ohio-In re Whallon, 26 Ohio Cir. Ct., N.S., 167.
Or.-Rust v. Pratt. 72 P.2d 533, 157 Or. 565.
Pa.-Petition of Start, 142 A.2d 449, 186 PaSuper. 509-Penn
Anthracite Mining Co. v. Anthracite Miners of Pennsylvania,
174 A. 11, 114 Pa.Super. 7, affirmed 178 A. 291, 318 Pa. 401.
Guarantee Trust & Safe Deposit Co. v. Heidenreich, 5
Pa.Dist. & Co. 184, reversed on other grounds 138 A.
764, 290 Pa. 249.
Tenn.-Winfree v. State, 135 S.W.2d 454, 175 Tenn. 427.
Wis.-Appeal of Cichon, 278 N.W. 1, 227 Wis. 62.
..12 “The power to punish for contempt is an essential
auxiliary to the due administration of law.” 17 C.J.S. CONTEMPT §
43, page 109, incorporating of all of the citing all of the above judicial
case records just above cited therein.
..13 “Inalienable and indestructible power. “Power .. to punish
for contempt is inalienable and indestructible.”
Ind.-State ex rel. Trotcky v. Hutchinson, 68 N.E.2d 649, 224 Ind.
443.
..14 “Criminal contempt is based on the fundamental right of
self-preservation.”
Wis.-State v. Messe, 229 N.W. 31, 32, 200 Wis. 454.
U.S.-Myers v. U.S., Mo., 44 S.Ct. 272, 264 U.S. 95, 68
L.Ed. 577,
Juneau Spruce Corp. v. International Longshoremen’s
and Warehousemen’s Union, D.C. Hawaii, 131 F.Supp.
866.
Colo.-Shotkin v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 235 P.2d 990,
124 Colo. 141, certiorari denied 72 S.Ct. 638, 343 U.S. 906,
96 L.Ed. 1325, rehearing denied 72 S.Ct. 772, 343 U.S. 937,
96 L.Ed. 1344, rehearing denied 73 S.Ct. 1062, 343 U.S. 970,
96 L.Ed. 1365.
Ill-People v. Loughran, 118 N.E.2d 310, 2 Ill.2d 258.
Mont.-State v. District Court of Tenth Judicial Dist. in and
for Fergus County, 10 P.2d 586, 92 Mont. 94.
N.J.-In re Jibb, 191 A. 552, 121 N.J.Eq. 531, reversed on
other grounds 197 A. 12. 123 N.J.Eq. 251.
N.Y.-Continental Mortg. Guarantee Co. v. Whitecourt
Const. Corporation, 297 N.Y.S. 338, 164 Misc. 56.
S.D.-City of Mt. Vernon v. Althen, 36 N.W.2d 410, 72 S.D.
454.
Wis.-Appeal of Cichon, 278 N.W. 1, 227 Wis. 295, 23
A.L.R. 491.
IV.
The Traceable Source of the Inherent Power of Contempt.
1. As recognized within the framework of U.S. law as it came to us
from England, we find that: “At English common law disobedience of a
writ under the King’s seal was early treated as a contempt, and by early
eighteenth century, English practice comprehended use of summary
powers of conviction by courts to punish for a variety of contempts
committed within and outside court.
U.S.-Green v. U.S., N.Y., 78 S.Ct. 632, 356, U.S. 165, 2 L.Ed.2d 672.
Mo.-State ex rel. Gentry v. Becker, 174 S.W.2d 181, 351 Mo. 769.
2. It being that the acclaimed U.S. supreme Court joined certain of the
Several States in their convictions as they pertain to the Inherent Power
of Contempt, it is recognized, without dispute, that the larger number of
case deciding decisions involving the nature and applicability of
Contempt is from the Several States themselves. As such, we find the
following States to have, from their root courts to their higher courts,
entered themselves into the process of defining the power of contempt,
for the power belongs (and belonged) to them before it does (or did so) to
the alleged United States central government itself: Alabama, Arkansas,
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Missouri,
Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Wisconsin.
3. The Several States holding the majority of fundamental
discernments of the meaning of Contempt over the “federal,” the greater
Power of that subject must Inhere to the Several States, to their required
Republican Form of Government existence, and to the Republican
Sovereignty of the People thereof, not to the alleged United States central
government, instead thereof.
4. The Illustration below sets forth the order in which the Crime of
Contempt of Constitution Inheres as the Inherent Power for Justice that it
is.
CONTEMPT - OF THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE
----------
V.
Different Classes of Contempt of Constitution, In Unique Parallel to
Different Classes of Contempt of Court as Set Forth Above.
1. The word Inherent, derived form the word Inhere, denotes that
which belongs to something based primarily on the essentialness of the
nature of the object belonged to. It is also defined as being a thing of
essential character vested in something by right, or by that which is right.
That which is Inherent therefore, is that which is unalienable, and is also
defined as being that which is “involved in the constitution or essential
character of something;” “intrinsic.”
2. The following are the discernible classes of Contempt of
Constitution as are found to Inhere Directly, Uniquely, to the Several
States, and to Inhere Indirectly, Uniquely, to the People thereof, for their
necessary cause of action, if any, accordingly.
3. The Definition of Contempt of Constitution is as follows: Contempt
of Constitution is a Sovereign Crime, Committed Against the Sovereign
Person(s) whom such Constitution Represents, whether such
Sovereignty be a Monarchy, an Oligarchy, or a Republican Form of
Government in its direct representation of the People thereof itself,
being ultimately therefore the Very People themselves. For Purposes of
Contempt of Constitution as is applicable to the proposed Constitution for the
United States [of America], Contempt of Constitution is the Sovereign Crime
Committed against the Sovereign People of the Several States of the United
States, by their existence as within a Republic, State by State, of the Several
States thereof, for whom such Constitution was First Ratified, September 17,
1787, first or ratifying Session only. The Classification of Degrees and Types
of Contempt of Constitution and like Crimes set forth hereby is:
I. GENERAL CONTEMPT. Where Contempt has been Committed or
Asserted, but may have been done Ignorantly or Unknowingly. (Not a
Defense). This includes Attempted Contempt.
II. MALICIOUS CONTEMPT. Where General Contempt has been
Repeated, so that Ignorance of the Law is Clearly In No Sense An
Excuse or Defense, or Contempt Deliberately Committed with Afore-
Knowledge, or where the Results of the Contempt is Severe Against One or
More Persons Victimized by it so that a Distinct Harm has Befallen or
Inevitably Will Befall such Person(s);
III. TYRANNICAL MALICIOUS CONTEMPT. Contempt so strong that
it is apparent that the Author(s) of Tyranny Work(s) acts of Malicious
Contempt, on a similar or dissimilar basis, in an effort, no matter how
small, to gain a Destructive Power over any person within the
proposed United States or its the Territory, or where a Corrupt Use, or
Active Taking-Part-In such Use, of Power, whether or not, by any manner
delegated, whereby such Power may be used Maliciously toward any
Citizen or any Person coming or being under the Protection of the United
States Constitution as the same was meant to truthfully apply to the People of
the Several States, and of the Territory, and its such District thereof.
IV. NOBLE CONTEMPT. (1) Noble Contempt of Constitution occurs
when a person or business is recognized and/or treated differently, either
greater or lesser, under any Operation of Law not in Pursuance to the
Constitution, than it is recognized for other common or ordinary citizens, as
well as for businesses. Noble Contempt also exists wherein private
citizens or business are elevated in status above other common citizens or
business by either what they are provided as rights to be entitled above
other Citizens of equal merit to do, or by where they are regarded by some
sense of fame already in existence as to being given advantage(s) that other
ordinary or common citizens or other businesses under the same
circumstances would not be provided – Noble Contempt also includes
Noble Contempt by Denobilization, which Denobilization is an Act of
Subjecting an Individual or even a Specific Populace to a Condition of
Degradation or Reduction in Status or Importance under the Law, whether by
Statute or by Common Law (Practice By “Policy” is a Violation of the
Constitution), in Favor of Not Reducing All Citizens to be Affected thereby
Equally, or Else Not Reducing Such Citizens At All. This Jurisdictional
Charge and all Penalties that may arise hereunder Applies to Both
Citizens and Non-Citizens of the United States.
(2) Noble Contempt is also Recognized as a Violation of the
Constitution’s Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 for Officials of the United
States central government, and/or Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 for
the governments of the Several States, or of either of them, as the
same prohibit such governments to issue or recognize Titles of
Nobility, and Extends to the British Titles of “Knight,” “Gentleman,”
or the Title of “Esquire,” which in British hierarchy comes between
Knight and Gentleman, and includes an official Title of Lady, as in
First Lady, not being an Lawful Office of the United States central
government, or of the Several States, either of them.
V. NOBLE MALICIOUS CONTEMPT is the establishment of Noble
Contempt where the Party or Parties involved in such Contemptuous
Activity Refuse to Vacate such Contempt and such Contempt can be shown to
work a Hardship or Deprivation of the Common Rights upon any other United
States Citizen. This Jurisdictional Charge, and all penalties hereunder,
applies to both Citizens and Non-Citizens of the United States.
VI. NOBLE TYRANNICAL MALICIOUS CONTEMPT is the
establishment of Noble Contempt on a harsh and repetitive basis where the
Party or Parties involved in such Contemptuous Activity effectuate such
Contempt to the degree that it represents a Blatant Disregard for Basic Human
Rights, Rights Embraced by the proposed Constitution, where Gross
Insensitivity toward the undue suffering of any United States Citizen, which
includes any person residing or having domicile in any of the several States, is
the result, and it is reasonably believed that such party or parties knew of the
UnConstitution[ality] of their acts, but proceeded with obvious contempt to
continue them at any cost, or where there exists a corrupt use of power in
conjunction with such Noble Contempt, whether or not, by any manner,
Delegated, that may be used Maliciously as toward any Citizen of, or any
Person under the Protection of, the United States central government, or its –
the Territory, when Fully Constrained under the Tests at Article I, Section 8,
Clause 18, under Article III, Section 2, Clause 3, and under Article I, Section
8, Clause 15, or under the protection of a State’s government when not so
Constrained by any of the foregoing. Furthermore, Noble Tyrannical
Malicious Contempt may be Recognized as having been Committed in any
event where the Wanton Disregard for the Rights, Safety and Secureness of
the Common People, whether or not the same shall be considered
Sovereign, is Enacted, as Represented by the scientific formula written as
“Σ (#1) = F∞ (TOTAL HUMANITY),” putting either all or a great portion
of humanity at risk of Life and/or Liberty, for the benefit of One, or else an
unlawful few, which may be representatively defined in analogical format,
put in antiquated-like, but clearly expressive terms as, “The Sum of Me is
Equal to All of Thee,” expressed again, further as “Σ (#1) = & > F∞” or
“The Sum of Me is Equal to and Greater than All of Thee.” This
Jurisdictional Charge and all Penalties that arise hereunder, if any, applies to
both Citizens and Non-Citizens of the United States, or either of them, alike.
VII. CONTEMPT BY PERJURY. Perjury Committed during a Contempt
of Constitution Trial itself Constitutes Contempt of Constitution to the same
degree as the Highest Degree of Charges being charged upon any Accused.
Therefore, because the example of perjury “Gotten Away With” encourages
others within proceeding who may be called upon to testify at any time, to try
to do the same thing, thereby wasting the People’s Time and potentially
Obstructing Justice, in a Contempt of Constitution Trial when Charges are
brought to show that a Witness, under Oath, Committed Perjury during
Testimony given, such Witness is to be given a separate or bifurcated trial
during the main Trial before the main Trial shall again commence and
continue.
VIII. CONTEMPT BY OMISSION. A form of Perjury, and therefore
a Contempt by Perjury, as well an abuse of process, and an elimination
of due process without lawful process in doing so. Such Contempt
Offense exists where a case questioning the injustice of government is
brought before a judge, one or more of them, and as an effort and in an
Act of Omission to stifle the Truth that would be revealed were that
matter in question fully answered,
[1] An Offense of Omission, inclusive of Contempt By Omission,
must go, and so goes, to where the Offender is or exists, in order that the
Substance of the offense alleged itself may be tried, for it is impossible to
actually Try, except by Obfuscation and fraud, an added Contempt, a case
with - no substance.
[2] Therefore, when a judge, at any level, as with any other
government official duly bound, “sits” on a case decision, or, even by the
use of “Chambers Papers” as justification, denies or omits proclaiming the
same for the purpose, or else effect, of gaining so much an advantage over
the People, or even one of them, that judge, or other government official,
has committed Contempt By Omission, for which the same may be duly
tried - in the People’s own soon due time.
[3] The Opposite of an Offense of Commission in its going to where
the Offended is, Contempt By Omission is a Criminal Offense, going to
where the Offender is, is to be Determined At the Same Level as such
Other Contempt Crime that it Covers For, for Punishment Purposes, to be
brought about BY Due Process - of the People, in the People’s own due
time.
IX. CONTEMPTUOUS CORRUPTION OF CONTEMPT recognizes First
that Contempt is a Crime in and of itself, without need of any other support or
participation from or by any other party, but is an Individual Act, even if in
concert with others, therefore, any party who effectuates a Contempt by use of
Corruption whereby he/she offers or else provides, either directly or indirectly,
any Bribe, Favor, or other form of payment or contribution in an effort to
induce any public Official to ignore his/her Duty to uphold the Constitution,
and to, instead, take any action that leads to any law or other act alleged to
come under any law to be Effectuated Contrary to the Constitution for the
proposed United States, is Guilty of Contemptuous Corruption of Contempt,
and is punishable by the same standards as applies to other equal levels of
Contempt of Constitution as any party in Direct Contempt of Constitution
shall be found guilty of.
X. CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT CONTEMPT OF CONSTITUTION,
as with any other form of conspiracy, is an Unlawful or UnConstitutional
concept in law, for it, as though a matter of enforceable law, Fails to
Separate the Acts of the Mind from the Actual Act of Attempting, without
Possibility of Repentance (withdrawing from the attempt) BEFORE the
Act Alleged is Actually Committed, whether done by Words or Deeds,
and Constitutes, as a Claim for Prosecutable Law, both a Contempt of
Constitution for Double Jeopardy Violation as well as for Multiplicity and
may Not be Enforced, but Must Be Enforced Against by the Citizens,
Except where such State of Mind Leads to an Actual Attempt whereby
No Act for Repentant Restraint was or could be effectuated in order to
deny the Actual Attempt itself from having taken place at all as an Actual
Crime, and Not an alleged Crime of the Mind itself.
XI. SEDITIOUS CONTEMPT. All Citizens of the Several States of the
United States have the Unalienable and Inherent Right to Exercise Free
Speech under the Constitution, and Lawful Changes in the Constitution can
be Duly Accomplished BY Amendment as per Constitutional Provisions.
However, NO Citizen, whether in or out of government, has the Right to
Commit Any Degree of Crime whatsoever, nor to use Words, Written or
Unwritten or Spoken, or any Other means of conveyance, to Persuade,
Sway or Influence any other Citizen to Commit a Crime. This Principle
contributes to the very Root of Crime, causing the Society in which the
Sovereign People must live to become Unwholesome and Unsafe. Contempt
of Constitution is a Crime, Inherent in its nature, and without Classification
of Crime as to Law, putting it Directly under the Power and Authority of
the Sovereign People themselves. Therefore, any Person(s) who uses
Words, whether Written or Verbal, or by any other Means of Conveyance,
Induces or Attempts to Induce, to any degree, any other Citizen of the Several
States of the United States, or any Citizen of the Territory of Washington and
its such District thereof, or any other Person who may for any period of time
be under the Jurisdiction of the United States, such Jurisdiction being its
proposed Constitution itself, is Guilty of Seditious Contempt of
Constitution, and is Punishable by the same Standards as applies to
other equal levels of Contempt of Constitution as such other Applicable
Party or Parties determined Guilty of Direct Contempt in any Case
brought before any Court within the Jurisdiction of the People, subject
to Lawful State Indictment only and tried by Trial By Jury, is found
Guilty of.
XII. CONTEMPT BY ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT is the Crime
of Contempt of Constitution where an Accused person, previously
charged with the Crime of Contempt of Constitution, has been determined
by any State Court of lawfully established Jurisdiction, following trial and
conviction of the said Accused, as being Guilty of the Contempt Crime,
and any party or parties to the Crime continues to commit acts of support
toward such Trial determined Contempt, is Guilty of Contempt of
Constitution By Accessory After the Fact, and is Punishable by the same
merits or standards as applies to other equal levels of Contempt of
Constitution as such other applicable party or parties determined Guilty of
Direct Contempt in any Case brought before any State Court of lawful
Jurisdiction is found Guilty of.
XIII. OBSTRUCTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL JUSTICE is the
Deliberate and Knowing Interference, by one or more persons, with the
Operations of the lawful acts of the People of the Several States, or either of
them, in carrying out the Inherent Duties of the People to protect, preserve,
and defend their Article IV, Section 4 Rights under the United States
Constitution as was proposed September 17, 1787, first Session thereof,
which Knowing Interference is done in order to abort or otherwise impede
or interrupt the process of justice issuing or attempting to issue forth
from any State Court of lawful jurisdiction and competent standing
before the People thereof, so that the operation of Preserving,
Protecting, and Defending, by the People, the Integrity or Soundness of
their Constitution for the United States, –– the very purpose of the Inherent
Power of Contempt –– as was originally proposed on the aforesaid
September 17, 1787 date and session, is rendered to have a lesser effect of
enforceability, in all of its material effects, than the Full Effect established
therein.
XIV. ORDER OF ENFORCEABILITY OF CONTEMPT OF
CONSTITUTION. The Order of Enforceability of Contempt of
Constitution, begins, procedurally, with the Several States Governments, or
Either of Them, at Article VI, Clause 2’s “in Pursuance thereof” clause,
rendered in full applicability as “in Pursuance of the Constitution for the
proposed United States,” whereby it is the States, one or Any Several of
“Them,” who have the Right to Hold Accountable, and to Punish for
Contempt of Constitution according to the Inherent Powers of a State, the
United States central government when its “Laws” are found NOT to be in
Actual “Pursuance thereof,” and second and finally, to be Enforceable upon
the Several States, or either of Them, by the People thereof when, in the event
that the States, or either of them, do not think fit to Act to Enforce the Rights
of the People against any such Article VI, Clause 2 “in Pursuance thereof”
Failure-Encroachment upon the Rights of the Very People, when TESTING
Any Part of the Constitution, or the Constitution itself as a whole, and
Finding the alleged United States central government, whether its Congress,
its Executive, its Judiciary, or any department, agency, claim for bureau,
commission, administration, service, or other function thereof, to be In
TESTED Fault, accordingly. The Right of the Very People to Enforce
Contempt of Constitution as a matter of Final Judgment shall not be denied;
the principle of the Eighth Amendment is the Controlling Standard for
Governing Punishments for the Sovereign Crime, at any degree, of Contempt
of Constitution.
VI.
Appearances of Contempt of Constitution throughout the centuries.
1. Whether or not it is fact that Queen Marie Antoinette of France,
when told that the people were starving and that they had no bread,
replied with the insult, “Qu'ils mangent de la brioche,” or “Let them eat
cake,” is irrelevant to the fact of the outcome of her life, that she was
subsequently beheaded by guillotine, October 16, 1793, presumably for a
reason other than simply being rich and extravagant, beautiful, and a
queen, as some modern researchers, now coming forth, challenge her
historically alluded to infamous words, spoken and told so as to infuriate
the French masses, to her own swift death thereafter.
2. The Nobility of the House of Queen Marie Antoinette, 1793, by her
perceived Breach of the Peace, by her Commission of the Crime of
Contempt of Constitution, even though not known by that term, to a
perceived Malicious Tyrannical Contempt of Constitution Degree,
against the French Common People’s “Unwritten” Constitution, the same
being Written Upon Their Hearts Instead, such Contempt of Constitution
being committed by said Lady Marie Antoinette to a Malicious
Tyrannical Contempt Degree, Therefore Mandating Her Imminent Death
as Remedy Therefor, Thereby, constituted an Appearance of Contempt
of Constitution, the Crime thereof, and its swift remedy, as was just and
proper for all of that which comes under Inherent Law.
VII.
Revealing Article I, Section 6, Clause 1’s
Unique and Particular Meaning Therein.
1. Expressly Stated. “Article I, Section 6. [1] The Senators and
Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be
ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.
They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace,
be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their
respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for
any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any
other Place.”
2. By examining Article I, Section 3, Clause 7’s wording, we find that
the Power of Liability Accountability for Criminal Wrongdoing by
“federal” Officials goes to “Office,/any Office,” which Extends likewise
to “Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”
Consequently, Clause 7, Section 3, Article I’s “Office, / any Office”
Extends such accountable liability to Article I, Section 6, Clause 1’s
“Breach of the Peace,” to whatever extent the meaning of said “Breach of
the Peace” parenthetical phrase therein applies.
3. As Heretofore Clarified, Inescapably, Contempt of Constitution is a
Criminal Offense. It is NOT a “civil action;” it is NOT a “felony” (high
crime); it is NOT a “misdemeanor.” It is a quasi crime, variable in its
many aspects, having ultimate ownership by or belonging solely to the
People and to the People alone. This condition is irrevocable, and
irreversible
“Breach of the Peace,” A Contempt of Constitution Recognition.
1. ..1 Article II, Section 4 includes “Treason, Bribery, or other high
Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Clause 4, Article II exhibits that the
Constitution’s Framers understood the nature or existence of
“Misdemeanors,” so that the lack of referencing that particular term in
Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 cannot be construed as accidental, but was
rather deliberate as to the use of the clause “Breach of the Peace,”
concluding self-evidently that “Misdemeanors” would have to be
included in that category of offenses;
..2 But not limited to Misdemeanors alone, and In Fact NOT likely
to include Misdemeanors, as a general rule, at all;
..3 But extending to any and every form of offense that could,
conceivably, bring about an actual Breach of the Peace, such as a
Contempt of Constitution sovereign criminal offense could bring about,
at whatever level it may be found to occur;
..4 Including alleged United States central government officials
themselves, as we see in that same Clause and Section, the Power of
State Government Officials to Effectuate Arrests of “federal” Officials,
even though they be Senators and Representatives, as they travel back
and forth (through counties and cities, from State to State, in order to
arrive in the Territory of Washington, wherein the District of Columbia
is located – or back within their home State and home);
..5 NOT being “Immune” at all when these particular Crimes of
Treason, Felonies, and Breach of the Peace are committed by such “federal”
or United States officials, be they Senators, Representatives, Judges, or
Even “federal” officers of law enforcement, whether as alleged, de facto,
or de jure, the cover up of this Certain Power of the Several States under
the false or inadequate premise claiming total superiority of those same
under the proposed Constitution’s Clause 2 of Article VI, the “supremacy
clause,” now overshadowed and seized under the greater “in pursuance
..’of [the Constitution]” as the Inherent Contempt of Constitution Power
– for the Several States, that it Factually, Entirely Lawfully, Actually Is.
2. The States’ / State’s own Power for Arrest of “federal authorities,”
whether de facto or de jure, being deliberately caused to exist at Clause 1
of Section 6, Article I, being seasoned by these words, “[The Senators
and Representatives] shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and
Breach of the Peace, be privileged from *Arrest during their
Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and
returning from the same.”
. . . *otherwise, they shall be arrestable when any of these
offenses are an involved issue – in any State, by such State
law enforcement authorities (there were no “federal” law
enforcement authorities existent at the time) having specific
local jurisdiction and venue over the said crime perpetrated or
existing before them, State law enforcement authorities, so
appearing.
3. Knowing also this evident fact, that were these very concisely
revealing words, “and Breach of the Peace,” IF it were to have
particularly involved the offense of Misdemeanors, any of them, that being
the only thing left short of Contempt of Constitution itself, then there
might have been No Real Possibility for the “Senators and Representatives”
to have attended any “Session” of Congress at all, without first being
subject to Arrest, Trial and Sentencing, BEFORE the Fact of Attendance
of Session, whether “going to or returning from” the same, or not.
4. This Reality eliminates Misdemeanors and leaves us with that
One Element of Crime whose Act and Existence Truly Disturbs the
Peace (not “noise making,” etc.), the Sovereign Crime of Contempt of
Constitution, and no less than that same, being the core meaning and
applicability of Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 of the proposed
Constitution of September 17, 1787, first session thereof.
IX.
STATES’ RIGHTS OVER CONTEMPT OF CONSTITUTION
1. States’ Rights Over Contempt of Constitution, coming under
their own Inherent Power, at Article VI, Clause 2’s “in pursuance” of the
Constitution clause, as a Unique and an Inherent Power to Intervene and
to Punish over the Article VI, Clause 2 Contempts of the United States
central government, its Senators, its Representatives, its Judges, at every
level thereof, its President, its departmental, bureau, agency, and
commission heads and chiefs, and its members of law enforcement, by
whatever form of alleged authority they have been caused to appear.
2. The Fundamental Right of the States/State to recognize Contempt
of Constitution at Article VI, Clause 2’s “in Pursuance thereof” clause
is further grounded in the foregoing stipulation that – “Criminal contempt
is based on the fundamental right of self-preservation.”
Supra, # III 4. ..14 above.
3. Right of State Law Enforcement Authorities, Inclusive of Local
Law Enforcement, To Arrest United States Officials And Authorities For
Breach of the Peace/Contempt of Constitution Offenses is Visibly
Grounded In the Net Understanding at the Proposed Constitution’s
Article I, Section 6, Clause 1, NOT Limited To The Senators and
Representatives Referenced Therein Alone.
4. How a State May Go About Exercising Its Own Unique Inherent
Power of Contempt of Constitution as Must Be Evidently Applicably,
For Preservation of Itself and Its Own Rights, at Article VI, Clause 2’s
“in Pursuance thereof” clause.
“..contempt … is a proceeding of a criminal nature, instituted by the
[State] in its own motion.” Extended Practice as seen at Dodd v.
Una, 5 A. 155, 165, 40 N.J.Eq. 672.
5. Within the Scope of The Clause 18 TEST, we find that there has
never existed a Power, before or after relevant Clause 18, that authorized
the Congress, or the other two branches of the alleged United States
central government, to deport any State citizen to – anywhere, from
anywhere. The existence of the former INS or the present Homeland
Security Department is entirely UnLawful, or UnConstitutional, or
Illegal, in this light.
6. At Article I, Section 9, Clause 1, we expose the fact that the Only
Authority, as a modifying authority only to the Expressly Stated Power at
Clause 4 of Section 8, Article I, is that from 1808 – forward; the United
States central government was to have the Power to make an (1/One)
Rule involving the Prohibition of the Importation of persons – for
naturalization purposes, not directly involving a Power of Importation
itself at all. Having NO Power to “Import” anyone from anywhere, only
the Power over 1 Rule, to Prohibit Importations, the United States
central government and its Congress Received NO Authority to Establish
Any Law or Department to Deport ANY Person from within Any State –
to Anywhere, either within or without such State.
7. While the alleged United States central government has, and had,
NO Lawful, or Constitution[al] authority to deport Any State Citizen
from anywhere within the State to anywhere, either in or out of the said
State, this does not hold true for the Several States themselves, Either of
Them, for at No Place in the Constitution does it limit the Right of
Deportation by the Several States, or either of them, to Effectuate
Deportation it its own right, Any Person who Poses a Threat to its Peace,
or that is, Exists as a Breach of the Peace or Contempt of Constitution, as
the States each had the Inherent Right to Maintain – at Article I, Section
6, Clause 1, which Right has been set forth in exacting detail above.
8. The Several States, Each of “Them,” therefore, Have/Has the Yet
Unrequited Discretion and Right, and therefore Each “in its own
motion,” Supra, may move to oust, or deport, any and every alleged
United States central government official from out of its midst, to such
other place as will have them, else if none other, then to such lands as the
alleged United States central government has lawfully obtained for itself
– if any – since March 4, 1789, and thereafter, if any.
X.
Understanding the Integral, Inherent Nature of a Constitution.
1. All nations and their peoples have constitutions, whether they are
aware of them, their constitutions, or not. From the very fundamental
concept of the term constitution as being derived from its root of
“constitute,” we find that it is that which makes up, or is made up of, that
or those elements, persons, or things, which inalienably belong to its
most core existence.
2. Identifying that core existence where living persons are concerned,
we discern that such people who are made inseparably to that natural
constitution to which their vital interests belongs, have common
understandings among them, which may or may not be represented by
their invisible feelings, as to what those vital interests mean to them, and
that their fundamental rights to be satisfied of those vital interest, in
whatever form they, their understandings and representative feelings
thereof, may appear in representing them, people, be regarded as
inescapable, irrevocable, and irreversible, except they all agree to it in
some real and formal way, expressly open and unveiled, with there being
no guile among them on each matter of concern within their collective
constitution.
3. Because the collective understandings, held in common by a
people, and their representative feelings of those same understandings,
represent the heart of the core will of that same people to whom such
understandings and feelings pertain, we are come to discern and discover,
without variance, that any such constitution exists for the people to which
it pertains, right into their collective core will, or heart, or center, of those
people’s understandings, feelings, and subsequent understood will, itself.
4. Oft times those things which represent a people, person by person
by person, where the understandings among them have reached a level
demanding the most essential degree of human decency, has become so
strong that by polling those same people in common, we are made aware
of their understandings and the vital desires, or pressed-for insistences,
that reach out from among them, which may be written down at any time,
whether or not on paper, for themselves and their posterity, we
understand that such potential for such importune writings are those very
same that pertain to their hearts as though one heart, collectively, not
subject to the denial of one except it be a denial of all;
5. Which foregoing compels us, irresistibly, from every source, and
from every single fiber of our beings, to know and to recognize,
without dispute or denial, that a constitution, any constitution, before it is
, is First Written Upon The Hearts Of The People
to whom it pertains, as One Heart It Is Written; It May Never Be Written
Upon Paper, but Its Existence As being Written Upon Their Very Hearts
Shall and Does Persist, and Shall Always Exist, Forever, to their very
end thereof, if any, and if ever.
6. And it is upon these noble words, these understandings and their
outward expressions, that obedience to the Law and the laws are
commanded, except there be a gross breach, and violation, of the
constitution of that very people that it is made up of, or represents.
XI.
Clarification of Contempt of Constitution.
To Whom Does The Power of Contempt of Constitution Ultimately
Belong, or Inhere, Inseparably, To. NOT Unto Government, . . . As
“Defined:”
1. “Contempt Nowhere Defined.” . “Contempt
of court is a specific criminal offense. But what class of criminal
offenses contempt belongs to is nowhere defined.” In re. Acker, 66 F.
290, 292. Also - Words and Phrases. Permanent Edition - 1960. West
Publishing Co., Volume 9. Consult through Contriving. Page 104.
Additionally, “Contempt is in the nature of a criminal
offense.” Roberts v. Hackney, 58 S.W. 810, 811, 109 Ky.
265.
2. “..contempt … is a proceeding of a criminal nature, instituted by the
court in its own motion.” Dodd v. Una, 5 A. 155, 165, 40 N.J.Eq. 672.
3. Attempts since that time, to convert the long recognized condition
that held Contempt, from its origin, to be a Criminal Offense and
Nothing Less, or to create such a thing as “civil contempt” in its place is
an effort to create a safe-out condition against the Higher Crime of
Contempt of Constitution – so that Contempt of Constitution Wrongs
may be the easier gotten away with – IS Contempt of Constitution in and
of itself, by Attempt to Subvert and Deny Contempt of Constitution as
an Inherent Right of the People, and the States - and States’
Governments- secondly - wherein they, People, have domicile or reside.
XII.
People’s Inherent Rights for Contempt of Constitution over the
Several States, and Each of Them, of which they may reside and
have their domicile.
1. The People are the final and ultimate Power behind any
constitution, which constitution lies inviolate and inherently ordained
beneath any form of government, no matter the constitution form, no
matter the government form, no matter the land in which they may be
found, whether consciously formed or innately formed as that which
makes them up, as to the beings that they are.
2. Because of the greater truth as to what a constitution, at any and
every level, is, it is not necessary that the people to whom it pertains
understand it in all of its precious elements in order for it to be the power
that it is; its greater power, wielded in its Contempt form, cannot be
questioned or doubted; it, Contempt of Constitution, pervades and
prevails over and through all forms of government, and exists for the
same reason that the lower powers of contempt exists, in order to
maintain the integrity and orderliness and peace for which cause
government is brought into its existence in the first instance, or is
allowed to exist in any form at all.
3. When it is called upon for its enforcement, it recognizes, by its
lawful authority, absolute justice, by the people assembled for this
purpose, which enforcement for peace will be done, and the restoration of
peace when foul and corrupt government’s injustice has been undone; the
people need not be forgiven their duty in these matters; it is the
government that may stand in need of mercy on such an occasion, or not.
XIII.
Willful Misuse or Contemptuous Use of a Treaty To Circumvent and
Collaterally Attack the rights of the governments and the people of
the Several States constitutes Contempt of Constitution of the
Highest Order.
..1 This TEST engages and sets aside the long profuse and
constructively illiterate (or lacking of actual competent knowledge)
claims that because of certain language contained in the proposed
Constitution’s Article VI, Clause 2, . . . that whatever IT, the United
States central government, decides for itself is “supreme Law,” or that
each and all of such conclusions that it so reaches are altogether True and
not False and in conjunction with the proposed Constitution’s Article I,
Section 6, Clause 1, and by the “in pursuance thereof” Clause instead
gives the Several States’ governments - Directly, and the people thereof –
Indirectly, but Ultimately, – a way to punish for it.
..2 This TEST Action invokes the Inherent Responsibility and
Inherent Authority and Right Thereto, of the Several States, and of
Each of Them, for Mandatory Enforcement of the Enforcement of this,
The Article VI, Clause 2 Contempt of Constitution TEST, wherever and
whenever the same may be determined by due course of law and fact to
be necessary in the State(s)’ Government(s)’ capacity to do so;
..3 However, such invocation shall in no wise be construed to be
an action on the part of any plaintiff(s) to direct the Several States, or
Any of “Them,” in any case; how the Several States, or Each or Any of
Them, proceeds to carry out their Inherent Responsibility and is not for
any plaintiff(s) to say, without sleight part authority of denial therefor,
thereof.
..4 This referenced to Exhibited TEST is an Exigent TEST that
Must Be explored, thoroughly, in order for the United States central
government, under the tutelage of the Several States to be able to best
perform their Inherent Powers and Responsibilities according to those
fundamental Truths that are inherent, from ancient times forward
according to Inherent Constitution[al] Law.
XIV.
The Rights of Citizens of the Several States, or Either of Them, Are
The Rights of State Governments’ Law Enforcement Authorities
AGAINST Unlawful Acts of Alleged “Federal” Authorities of the
alleged United States central government.
i. To Illustrate the Rights of State Law Enforcement within a State,
over “federal” authorities, in the cases below, the terms “federal” and
“Constitutional” have been inserted into the mainstream of the case text
in order to exhibit the precise equal rights of State Law Enforcement
Authorities against those alleged “federal” law enforcement authorities
whose presence in a State constitutes an encroachment on States’ Rights
as are preserved by the TESTS themselves, inclusive of this Article VI,
Clause 2 – Contempt of Constitution TEST.
ii. This TEST also incorporates, minimally, The Clause 18 TEST; The
Article III, Section 2, Clause 3 TEST; and The Clause 15 TEST to show
further authority for absolute enforceability by the States’ Local Law
Enforcement Departments and Agencies against “federal” ones whose
Corrupt and UnLawful Acts have reached a level of irreconcilability
between the State(s) and the United States central government altogether.
iii. Different States’ honored courts, having seen these unalienable
rights of the people to preserve their lives and integrity against unlawful
aggression and oppression, the same power thus recognized by the States
returns again to empower the Several States in their own power of need,
by their realization that what has been done must be undone, else all that
which they have strove for be lost. These honored decisions, by States,
whose declarations of protective power, now returns to them, minimally,
as follows:
1. “Citizens [State Law Enforcement] may resist unlawful arrest
[by unlawful “federal” law enforcement] to the point of taking an
arresting [“federal”] officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136
Ind. 306. {Representing the State of Indiana} This premise was
upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad
Elk v. U.S. The Court stated:
2. “Where the [“federal”] officer is killed in the course of the
disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted,
the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the
[“federal”] officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if
the [“federal”] officer had no right.” What may be murder in the first
case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts
might show that no offense had been committed." John Bad Elk v. U.S.,
177 U.S. 529.
3. "When a [State law enforcement officer] person, being without
fault, is in a place where he [State law enforcement officer] has a right to
be, is violently assaulted, he [State law enforcement officer] may,
without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his
[State law enforcement officer’s] right of self defense, his [State law
enforcement’s] [“federal”] assailant is killed, he [‘State law enforcement
officer’] is justified." Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74
Ind. 1. {Representing the State of Indiana}
4. "An illegal [federal] arrest is an assault and battery. The
person [State law enforcement officer] so attempted to be restrained of
his [State law enforcement officer’s] liberty has the same [Contempt of
Constitution] right to use force in defending himself [State law
enforcement officer] as he [State law enforcement officer] would in
repelling any other assault and battery [by any “federal” officer]." (State
v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260). {Representing the State of
Maine}
5. "Each [State law enforcement officer] person has the right to
resist an unlawful [“federal”] arrest. In such a case, the [“federal”]
person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a [“federal”]
wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in [State law
enforcement officer’s] self-defense." (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83
S.E. 2d 100). {Representing the State of North Carolina}
6. "One [State citizen / other State law enforcement officer] may
come to the aid of another [State citizen / other State law enforcement
officer] being unlawfully [“federally”] arrested, just as he [State citizen /
State law enforcement officer] may where one is being assaulted,
molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense [for a State
citizen / State law enforcement officer] to liberate one from the unlawful
[“federal”] custody of an [“unlawful ‘federal’”] officer, even though he
[State citizen / State law enforcement officer] may have submitted to
such custody, without resistance." (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E.
910). {Representing the State of Georgia}
7. Not Grounds For Arrest: "The carrying of arms [by a State
citizen] in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about
the [State citizen] person, is not a *breach of the peace. Nor does such an
act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace." (Wharton's Criminal and Civil
Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197).
{Representing the State of West Virginia} *Contempt of Constitution
iv. Considering that these States are not alone in their recognition of
unlawful federal conduct, these same enforcement powers are extended,
irreversibly, to all of the Several States, for their use when occasion
requires them to do so.
SEALED WITH POWER
NOTICE TO STATES’ GOVERNORS
XV.
1) While its claim to vain glory has been exclaimed within its halls
and courts as to the words “shall be the supreme Law,” the United
States central government, in its long history, made no effort to ask
or propose the question as to - what happens when ITS laws are
NOT “in Pursuance” of the Constitution, and how its own courts, at
any level, would have the right to decide such an important question
as this, for itself, without it being both an instant Conflict of Interest
(a prosecutable Offense) AND a Contempt of Constitution,
potentially of the highest order of such Offenses, and punishable for
the Offense that it is, by other Powers, not its own, wheresoever those
Powers may be lawfully and justly found.
2) States’ First Direct Rights of Contempt of Constitution Over
the “Federal” at Article VI, Clause 2’s “in Pursuance thereof”
clause, is reinforced as to the Framers’ Intent at Article I, Section 6,
Clause 1 – “Breach of the Peace.”
3) While the alleged United States central government has made,
over the many years since it was given its birth, many boasts as to the
superiority of its laws, whatever it thought to contrive and impose
upon the Several States and the People thereof, its inattention to
Constitution[al] detail and true meaning thereof comes home to root
out its evils for its governmental arrogance, for there can be no
mistaking that it is not entitled to proclaim any superior law where
that same is NOT in “pursuance” to the proposed Constitution,
rendering such power to do so first to the Several States to whom it
owes first allegiance, and to the People thereafter, but ultimately.
4) It is more than just an issue that such laws, when Not in
“pursuance” to the Constitution, as Tested and Required, are simply
“repugnant to the Constitution,” for such a lacking precept leaves
the Contempt Crime itself unpunished, the right of certain
punishment of the United States central government contemnor by
the Several States themselves being the greater Power existent at
Article VI, Clause 2, the “in Pursuance” clause therein, by which the
Several States do have both duty and authority for remedy over the
said central government contemnor, any claim for governmental
supremacy by that aforesaid same flying, and therefore – Not having
Standing at any time.
XVI.
1. Affirming that Contempt of Constitution, as a prosecutorial
Inherent Power, is an actual and rightful Inherent Power of the People,
and does not and cannot at any time belong to government, except it be
Extended to a government or governments, as with the Several States, for
the purpose of procedurally enforcing the same upon another
government, such as the United States central government, whose
Contemptuous Conduct is such that it must be sanctioned and corrected
for its UnLawfulness, with the Understanding that it is the People, alone,
that still Retains this Power, which Inheres to them Alone, no matter
where within the world or the universe they may be found to be; it is
NOT a creature of the legislature; it is NOT a creature of the executive; it
is NOT a creature of the courts, any or all of them;
2. And IF it should, at any time, be claimed that Contempt of
Constitution is NOT an Inherent Power belonging, ultimately,
exclusively to the People, then by such false claim the Inherent Power of
contempt of court ceases to exist altogether, instantly, and the People’s
Right to exercise it Directly for Themselves becomes Immediate; AND
3. IF there be any Offender, or Contemnor, who upon being
Convicted, by the People Themselves upon such occasion, of the Offense
of Contempt of Constitution, then, having Denied the Inherent Ability of
the Constitution and therefore Denied its Inherent Existence as the same
connects Inseparably to those same People, the Protection of the Eighth
Amendment also Ceases to Exist, forthwith, on behalf of the Contemnor
so found guilty, the Principle of which Amendment is the ONLY thing,
within the Constitution, that Protects Wicked Government(s) from the
Awful Things that may be Wielded by Them, People, for denial of that
Certain Inherent, or Unalienable, Right that Preceded All Governments in
the Land wherein the Contempt Offense Itself Was Concluded, Or Taken
Place, For There Exists NO Constraining Power, Thereafter, To Protect
Bad Government Officials From The People If There Be No Longer The
Eighth Amendment [Principle] Upon Which To Rest Human Restraint.
4. Therefore, it is Well Said that Corrupt, or Erring, Government
Officials have Gotten It WRONG, or Errantly Incomplete In Their
Analysis of the Law of the Constitution, in Concluding that the Eighth
Amendment Was Only to Protect the People from Them, Corrupt
Government Officials, But Rather The Eighth Amendment Is Also To
Protect Such Corrupt Government Officials From The People, Which
Without That Same There Is NO Protection From the People,
Whatsoever, As To What Imagination Or Pain May Be Executed By
Them – Where Contempt of Constitution as a Right Be Denied
Confession To Them, People, As To Their (People’s) Capital Punishment
Or Other Punishment For Such Contempt As The Contemnor(s) Is Duly
Found Guilty Of – Upon Every Contemnor As Offender, Such Eighth
Amendment Being Representative of the Principle of the First
Sovereignty - or the People of Humanity Themselves - Existent In Every
Land, Even In Those Lands and With Those People Who Are Not Aware
of It At This Time.
5. Thus, since it was the Constitution that first gave rise to the courts
of this land, as alleged to be existent under that same, then it becomes
self evident that, the Constitution being superior or supremely over said
courts, Contempt of Constitution is the Higher Power, not equal or lesser
to the courts, whose own power of contempt of court falls below it, being
subject to it, Contempt of Constitution, so that no judge or tribunal may
think to offend the People in their Inherent Right to have the Law
adjudged Exactly as the Common Language of the People Allows, or
Calls For, the Language of the People, as to its Lawful Interpretation,
being another Inherent Power that Belongs To The People, Lest It Be
Another Contempt of Constitution to Say , or Write - From Within -
that It, Defining of Common Language, does not Belong to Them,
People, and NOT Courts, Legislature, or Executive, AT ALL.
6. Because of the bare meaning and purpose of Contempt as a
Criminal Offense, as the same applies to both the government and its
institutions and their restrained interactions within the framework of the
proposed Constitution itself, the one arising under, not over, the other, it
becomes a foregone and unbreachable conclusion that contempt of court
can only exist under the aegis or control of Contempt of Constitution, and
not the other way around, rendering a hard-fast conclusion that were
Contempt of Constitution not be deemed to exist, then contempt of court
would cease, forthwith, without escape or denial at that same moment of
alleged determination, undoubtedly, or beyond doubt.
7. For The Court Created Not Itself, but was created for the sake of
the People and their progeny, instead, alone, thus constituting that
Inherent Constitution foregoes all government, so that it be the fact that
the Constitution created, or sustained, the court, and not the court
creating the Constitution; the one is subject to the other, the Inherent
Powers of the one is greater than the other, the one greater being the
Constitution, over all courts, and not the other way around, which greater
truth shall inure to the benefit of the People and their Constitution over
all, in all things where the Crimes, not “civil offenses,” of Contempt of
Constitution may be duly determined and convicted for, without end.
XVII.
[1.] Constitutions are those Uniquely Existing, Supremely Governing
Laws that Exist Inherently as a Protection and Guarantee of
Fundamental, or Unalienable, Rights of the very People for whom the
Constitution, by the very Nature of the Relationship between the People
and their Constitution, is Indelibly Made For.
[2.] A Constitution exists as an Agreement to a Body of Laws, either
Expressly Established or Respectively Understood, that Exists as Legal
Chains, Unbreakable By Corruption Whatsoever, Except There Be
Consequences. Made to Serve the People in their valued Rights, a
Constitution, in Serving those Rights, Exists in “Righteousness.”
[3.] Therefore, The Existence of Corruption, at Any Level and in Every
Detail, IS Contempt of Constitution.
[4.] Hiding Corruption is Contempt of Constitution. Resisting
Detection of Corruption IS Contempt of Constitution. These two
offenses are Crimes against the Sovereignty of a Nation, or else a Place
and People, for which the Contemnors, inclusive of spies and saboteurs
of government secretly acting against the People, are to be made
Criminally Accountable.
[5.] Therefore, those Corrupt individuals who work for Corrupt
Government, who, “behind the scenes,” work Corruption against the
People, even a single one of them, and/or their own governments, are
Guilty of Contempt of Constitution, and are punishable for that Crime
Committed, whether under the jurisdiction of a State’s Constitution, a
Nation’s Constitution, or under the Earth’s Constitution, or – “the Law of
Nations.”
[6.] It is the Right of the People, and the Governments who do actually
serve them, to ferret out Corruption in Government, and to Punish it as
Contempt of Constitution – to whatever degree of Punishment such
Crimes against them Calls For.
[7.] It is NOT the Right of Corrupt Government to Deny Them, People.
XVIII.
Inherent Contempt. While there are different forms of Contempt of
Constitution that a people may electively rely on to protect their
sovereign rights as are consciously or subconsciously embraced by them,
there are certain forms of Contempt of Constitution that Inhere to any
constitution without regard for conscious or subconscious necessity or
affirmation to do so.
Inherent Contempt 1 – LANGUAGE - SEIZURE OF. The necessity
of the People to understand one another, and to know that that same
understanding is to be made applicable in government for any
enforcement purposes, is fundamental, and cannot be “statuted” (or
created by statute) away, nor can it be lost within any governmentally
expressed constitution, whether State of “federal,” whatsoever, except it
be by way of Inherent Contempt – of Constitution, of both the Earth and
the land wherein such Constitution shall arise or be found.
1..1 Recognizing that the taking over of the basic language of the
people, by whatever claim of authority may exist to do so, creates instant
Contempt conditions that allows two laws, not controverting, to be
rendered - by “language meaning control” - as controverting or opposing,
and where two laws are controverting, or opposing, to render them as not
controverting, but as though in perfect harmony with each other, so that
injustice and corruption may be made “perfect” due to such Seizure Over
The Language –Inherent Contempt.
1..2 A Greater Corruption of Power than “Who Has The Gold Makes
The Rules” ever was, a Seizure Over The Language - Inherent
Contempt can make it so as to determine who actually has “the Gold” in
the first place, and who doesn’t; –
1..3 Such an Inherent Contempt as took place in a famous 1803 case,
where a seizure - or changing of word meaning - took place by a
particular governmental institution, where it was, however, never even
explained or clarified as to – by what claim of authority such seizure over
the fundamental language itself took place, therefore rending, as a matter
of alleged “case law,” by the examination of this TEST, that such
governmental institution, and all others like unto it, have No Such Power
Or Authority, except it be an Inherent Contempt by their doing so, which
Inherent Contempt is to be enforced against them, by such adjudgment as
may be found or determined under the auspices of this TEST, now before
the People, and the Nations of the World, Many of Them.
1..4 To continue, whether in the judicial, the legislative, or the
executive, to hold on to the claim for power over the right of common
language and understanding of the People, is to Commit the Crime of
Inherent Contempt, DAILY, by such UnLawful Power Seizure, to a
Punishable Degree, the which In Due Time the People Will Have All
Due Power and Authority To Effectuate Same Upon All Convicted
Contemnors.
Inherent Contempt 2 – Control For The Sake Of Control.
This form of Inherent Contempt extends not only to nations of
Republican Forms of government, but to oligarchies and to monarchies,
for their powers inhere - incumbent - upon the people whom they serve,
whether or not such people shall be subject, under law, to any such
government at any time.
2..1 For it being understood, after the centuries, that such Inherent
Conduct of Control for the sake of Control is the very sign and mark of
that corruption of government officials who have exceeded the measure
of authority that they were first given by the people who ordained them,
which identify them as tyrants, fiends, and base, irrespective of the false
honors that such officials of power have doled unto themselves, for to
seek or to obtain “Control For the Sake of Control” – in any government,
is to cause the nation’s morals to fall upon themselves, as the cur that
turns to consume its own vomit, such is the Inherent Grossness, and High
Level Unlawfulness, of such an act of Inherent Contempt as this Offense
IS.
2..2 For like unto that sick creature who has turned again to
consume its own wretchedness, the stomachs of the people are turned
likewise against them, in sickness, or are revolted, justifying accordingly
that very principle called after that same precept, or revolution, for to be
revolted is to be sickened, and when sickness sets in upon a people, no
creator of humanity, in any perceived form, can hold that people morally
accountable for what they may do against those ones by whom this form
of Contempt Crime is perpetrated, until the sickness has run its course,
and that which has caused their sickness is no more.
2..3 Not that there is any condoning of any such revolting by the
people for any sickness toward government that has come upon them, for
there is never any such condoning for a reacting to those conditions
which may the People morally and socially sick; it just happens.
2..4 Establishing with crystal clarity as to why this Inherent
Contempt, a crime against humanity itself, wherever its foulishness
may appear, is never to be trifled with, but is to be avoided at all costs,
lest in time its consequences be visited upon the heads of those to be
found guilty of that terrible same, and they be denied, by the People, the
sanctity of a constitution for themselves, having denied the People this
most fundamental and vital Right against such Mindless Oppression,
being also a Violation of the Law of Nations since the beginning of
Time.
Inherent Contempt 3 – TAKEOVER, by whatever means, whether
overt or covert, and by whatever device or system, whether alleged as
“legal,” existent as collateral fact as to the knowledge and right of the
People, and their State governments, either overtly or covertly, to
continue as they are without such takeover ever taking place, or else
claimed as a matter of inherited tradition and/or existing or arising
practice, constitutes an Inherent Contempt of Constitution, and may be
effectively and finally purged in all of its vile takeover elements at the
discretion of the disposal of the same at the behest of the People alone.
3..1 Which People’s behest is assuredly to come forth in its own
due time as certain as the rains falling upon the ground produces torrents
of water to come and wash away that filth that has come to plague, or
disease, them; not a matter of if, but when, and to what extent will the
driven People pour out their wrath upon those Contemnors that not even
the Principle of the Eighth Amendment can protect, that they,
Contemnors, who reviled the People by subduing them may know that
this universal law of Contempt of Constitution exists wherever any
people or intelligent being shall be found, to be reckoned with in their
discovery of its meanings, its Power, and its applications of that Power,
to those who scorned justice and her children, who believed not the truth
of the Law of the Constitution, and obeyed it, but had pleasure and gain
in UnLawfulness.
3..2 Where a takeover of the Several States, and the People
thereof, therein, by the United States central government, is found to
have been underway at any time, this Inherent Contempt shall and does
exist for their unparalleled benefit in redeeming that, all, which was
UnLawfully taken from them, and given to another.
Inherent Contempt 4 – [Alleged] IMMUNITY; - Attempting To
Obtain Or Corrupt Establishing Of Governmental Immunity. Often
found to be an integral part of an UnLawful, and therefore Illegal,
takeover process - or else a Self-Serving Subjugation of the Republican
People to be made less in their rights than they rightfully are, the selfproclaiming
of immunity of government, or even the attempt thereof,
constitutes an Inherent Contempt that is worthy of swift and sure
punishment for its harsh disrespect of the Human Equation involving the
very existence of a People, from which fundamental Human Rights
essentially have their progress and existence from.
4..1 While many of a government’s officials may be deceived into
being pulled into the “Government Immunity” Contempt Crime Process,
ordinarily it is by the acts and desires and wicked ideals of a wicked few
that such corruption is initially borne. Being conned into believing that
it’s necessary for government to function efficiently, or at all, or that it’s
for the good of the People, the promoters of this Scheme to Defraud the
People of their most vital and valuable rights are those whose
consciences are burned away, inward tyrants in outward nobles’ clothing,
only concerned with what can be “gotten away with” by doing it, and
how much they themselves can hope to gain as a result of such claim for
alleged immunity as such government proclaims for itself at any time.
4..2 But one cannot give what one does not first have of
themselves; this includes legislators. For legislators of any land are
given no such Power as this, in order that they might grant, as though by
legislation or law, any further immunity to those within government,
inclusive of themselves, and in the instant that a legislature, or any other
branch of government, either proposes it or proclaims it, either one, it
becomes Contempt Of Constitution - as an Inherent Contempt of the
Highest Order, for its Constitutes a Betrayal of them, People, in their
very nature and existence as a People, no matter how imperfect or simple
such People may be known to be.
4..3 Therefore, the act(s) of assessing attempting or establishing
such immunity, becomes, and is, alleged, and is set aside by only the
realization by the People themselves as to this, and what has been done,
or may yet be done to them because of it.
4..4 Being one of the Inherent Contempts, it can never be undone
or obtained by government, no matter how “good” that government
perceives itself or holds out itself to be, or the direct betrayal comes, or
has come, at the moment it was professed by its professors; this Inherent
Contempt Law is Universal, and to challenge it knowingly is a Contempt
of itself, punishable as the People see fit, in their own soon due time.
Inherent Contempt 5 – The Fundamental Right To Free Legal
Speech; -
5..1 The Right to Free Legal Speech, a Fundamental Right of selfdefense,
which may relate to both the actual physical defense or the
fundamental, or the unalienably essential legal defense of a person or
persons, even if by use of the assistance of Free Legal Speech of
unprofessional others, is of such an essential nature to the very human
existence, that to go against it or attempt to abolish, or deny, or disparage
it, to the least degree, is to Commit an Inherent Contempt as an Offense
against the very People whom it pertains.
5..2 Some governments, by means of “political” flimflams, have
managed to convert or distort this Inherent Right into a virtual
nothingness, all for the sake of the support for UnLawful takeover of the
People, that Inherent Contempt offense set forth above, compounding
that Inherent Contempt with this Inherent Contempt, which by these
Dual Inherent Contempts the retribution upon the unjust by the just is to
be to the maximum limits by which the Eighth Amendment Constraint
for punishing the same may provide allowance for.
5..3 By examining the conditions that surrounded the First
Amendment to the Constitution in which this critical fundamental Right
was first openly and visibly proclaimed, we determine that there existed
at its time no existence of a practice which professed a right for public
vulgarity or profanity as was protected by it, for such gross language, or
actual speech – not “expression,” was given protection from by the
common law, not yet done away with under pretext of color of
constitutional right, and therefore not covered by the Original Intent of
the Constitution’s First Amendment itself, leaving us, by process of
elimination, to determine what other form of speech the First
Amendment’s stipulation thereto could be considered as referring to, and
including therein.
5..4 Turning first to the commonly acclaimed “political speech” as
the same arises with and exists as a part of “politics,” we, in
consideration of our understanding of what a Republican Form of
Government, as Guaranteed at Article IV, Section 4, is and is not, are
startled by the realization that, irrespective of any commonly accepted
practice or even widely published popular “policy” to the contrary, that
neither “politics,” “political speech,” or even “politicians” (those
concerned with making and enforcing “policy,” NOT Law) is in
Constitution-Fact – UnConstitutional.
5..5 Recognizing that the concept of “politics”, politicians, and
“political speech” is so well and deeply entrenched into government,
after long years upon years of never having discerned and rid ourselves
of the same, it goes without saying that it is a hard thing, even though a
necessary thing, to cause the People, and their governments, to come to
understand that there exists NO RIGHT, under a Republican Form of
Government, for “Political Speech,” not under the First Amendment, not
under the Ninth Amendment, not as any alleged fundamental right equal
to any other actual fundamental right;
5..6 The only actual right along these lines being speech that
pertains to the existence of actual law, in any of its actual varied forms,
provably existent law, or else law to be made existent, never as a matter
of whim, changeable or variable by personal beliefs or opinions to the
least degree, or that is, Legal Speech, which members of government
have the right to speak, not “express,” forth for the support of a
Republican Form of Government, which Government they are, or must
be, sworn to uphold, and not deny.
5..7 For it is also found True that a Republican Form of
Government exists, not only as a government of Law and NOT of
“policy,” but as one of its identifying characteristics, it always exists as
three (3) separate branches, over whom the People themselves have
Ultimate Power.
5..8 Recognizing that, unlike any elected agency of law
enforcement, a department whose primary purpose is to enforce policy
more than law, thereby striking the “y” and inserting the “e” in its place,
which spelling alteration yields the word “police,” a different form of
term and law enforcement entity than “sheriff,” we discover by a review
of the second main definition in Webster’s, the dictionary belonging
largely to the common people, that the term “police” has the following
meaning:
“2 a : the department of government concerned primarily with
maintenance of public order, safety, and health and
enforcement of laws and possessing executive, judicial,
and legislative powers.” (emphasis! added)
5..9 This is Contempt of Constitution, straightforward. We now
discern, explicitly, from this expose that there exists a greater
fundamental wrong with that agency than the spelling aspect alone, for
its very existence breaches entirely the distinct separation of powers
requisite for a Republican Form of Government to lawfully function
with, and it matters not that its existence, more for serving a monarchy or
an oligarchy than an Article IV, Section 4 form of government, has been
“gotten away with” all of this time, or for countless decades, even though
“voted upon” by those few members of a city’s council, and whose very
few votes find themselves overriding or superseding the votes, and rights,
of thousands, or perhaps even millions in larger metros, who first voted,
and voted not away, those elected officers, even sheriffs, all as a part of
the UnLawful process to diminish the Law, and to replace it with
“policy,” by which UnLawful enforcement power Free Legal Speech can
be finally done away with forever.
5..10 Recognizing this Corruption for what it is, it is not hard to
see why a smaller group of people, as with an oligarchy, even if
unofficially so, within the existence of the People themselves, as a whole,
would desire to employ such an enforcement agency over a lawfully
elected one, for such UnLawful Power as this can be made to serve
singular interests, whether or not known publicly, which goes to the
enforcement of “policy” over law, of those who design government to
serve primarily, if not solely, themselves alone. The enforcement of
policy over law, or the enforcement of policy at all, goes to the ability to
suppress Free Legal Speech, and Strips Bare the Fundamental Rights of
Legal Defense of either oneself or else relative others in whom one may
have a real interest in.
5..11 Stripping away the veneer that masks the Truth behind the
Right of Free Legal Speech, we determine that:
5..11..1 From the beginning, on December 15, 1791, there was no
such thing as “free profane or vulgar speech” among the Several
States, there existed at that time, the same as today, no such term as
“expression,” “expression” serving as an auxiliary to speech, not
being actual speech – as such – itself, for which there can be no
actual, or Constitution[claim], not either errant or else fraudulent,
claim for a right for, The Ninth Amendment TEST demonstrating
the particular Moral Power that the States, each and all of them,
were to continue to have over such bad moral speech conduct, the
First Amendment not having been “extended” to them at that time,
thereby excluding the concept of such immoral speech as being a
matter of Original Intent Protected Speech at that time, and further
excluding it from the First Amendment’s Original Intent for
Protected Speech as a matter of Constitution-Law.
5..11..2 And from this legally revealed exclusion of Political
Speech, as well as “politics,” as being a derivative of
“policy,” and the enforcement and furtherance thereof, as
being, under a Constitution’s Guarantee, or Warrant, for a
Republican Form of Government, as being ANY First
Amendment Right also;
5..11..3 Then we find, inescapably and indisputably, that
ONLY Free Legal Speech was to be the Intended, Guaranteed
Speech by the First Amendment itself, any Act or act against
or denying the same, either in or out of government, serving
as a commission of the Inherent Crime of Contempt of
Constitution, as an Inherent Contempt, and not any lesser one
than that.
5..11..4 For in the event that we proclaim “policy” in the
place of Law, or even along side of it, or simply try to ignore
it, keep silence, or cover it up, as with a Misprision, we deny
the existence of that form of government that was to be
Guaranteed by the Constitution’s own Section 4 of Article IV,
and we Contempt that part of it, and commit, either by
commission or omission, a Criminal Offense, for which there
is no adequate defense for the sake of the People.
5..12 Denial or suppression of Free Legal Speech constitutes an
Inherent Contempt, an Inherent Crime, committed by those who hope or
desire to gain significant legal advantage in government and in due
process by its implementation, and its final punishment may cause
measure for measure to be exercised against those who, for the joy of
UnLawfulness, have sought and gotten gain thereby, to such an extent
and the People alone shall determine.
5..13 The First Amendment to the proposed Constitution, being the
first place, so far as is known, where this Inherent Right, giving rise to
the recognition of this Inherent Contempt thereof, was first proclaimed,
as to its Original Intent when considering the scope of the whole
Constitution in its entirety, Lawfully contains only One (1) form of
Protected Speech, being that of Free Legal Speech, the least protected
form of speech, as a matter of UnLawful Fact, in this proposed nation, of
all.
Inherent Contempt 6 – Assertion of “Right” To Due Process; -
Stipulation under color of [any] constitution that, as a “right” of the
People, there exists a “Right” to Due Process, which stipulation would
indicate that, as a right comparable to any other right, said right could
thusly be “waived,” by which alleged waiver a state of no-due-process
would come to exist, which state is coexistent with chaos and anarchy.
6..1 Equivalent to the presentment, for clarification purposes only,
of the term “due process” in the Fifth Amendment, and again in the
Fourteenth Amendment, the latter Amendment’s extending that same to
those citizens who received it not-first from the prior Amendment, being,
when in a Republican Form of Government, the same as the alleged
Right to a Trial BY Jury – without a judge, such concept as though an
“individual Right” misleads those made subject to this misperception
under the pretext that whatever actual Right one has can be “waived,” the
result on such an occasion being “no due process” for the individual, and
therefore “no due process” for any others to whom such due process was
a rightful right, whether or not such alleged “waiving” or granting of
such a decadent state was ever made by them.
6..2 For were a nation to awake to a state or condition wherein
there existed “no due process” for them in their doings, they would find
themselves borne into a condition worse than slavery, for anarchy, like
“policy,” making it possible to conceive anything or to change anything
at any time, no matter the consequence or outcome thereof, with no
respect at all as to how, or by what procedure or process, that the end
object was achieved.
6..3 To be able to “waive” “due process,” by any individual, or
group of them, as though the same was merely a “right” for them to do
so, is paramount to Abolishing the Eighth Amendment itself in its
constructive limitation on cruelty, or unusualness, establishing a
constraint upon both government and the People for whom such
government is to serve, for it is not the inherent nature of government to
serve itself alone, except it be a government, more than merely a
monarchy or oligarchy, of dictators, despots, and tyrants, evil schemers
to the core of their being;
6..4 In order to actually “waive” that same “due process,” those
two universal words of Power found in both the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments of the proposed United States-nation, would require not
less than a one-hundred percent conscious and knowing vote of the very
people to whom it would affect by doing so; there can never be such a
thing as any actual “waiving” of the Inherent Power of “due process” for
anyone, by anyone; not even for a single moment in time may such an in
totem Right of Power be “waived.”
6..5 “Due Process” is an Absolute Mandate, NEVER a
“Discretion,” for government – and even for the People themselves, to
Follow At Every Moment, In Every Place, On Every Occasion, Or In
Every Conceivable Event; there can be no backing away from it, by
anyone, no matter the title or alleged entitlement, for to do so reaps a
condition which can never be rewarded, but punished only, even if such
punishment has been put to a distance because of the lack of perception
and knowledge by the People of this most heinous of Inherent Contempt
Crimes.
6..6 For even the acts which constitute a breach or violation, an
offense, of Moral Turpitude must first get the identification of their own
existence from these two words, so very fundamental, so concise, so
undeniable are they, no matter how far, or to where, they may reach,
whether to the smallest place within in a nation, to one or more nations of
the earth (the Constitution of Earth), or to any place outside of the Earth,
no matter how far away that might be. Indeed, it may be said that these
two words, “due process,” are so critical to our very existence, that they
are literally the binding legal (and scientific) force of the very “universe”
(which we scientifically know to exist) itself.
6..7 The final legal point on this point of the attempt or claim to do
away with, or waive “due process,” if any, whether for one or for all,
Does Not Exist, Nor Ever Has, Nor Ever Will. An Attempt by any
government, or by any official, whether de jure of de facto, of
government to, by any means, act so as to deny Due Process, constitutes
an Abuse of Process, a Misuse of Process, and an Abuse of Discretion in
that moment of doing it, and therefore, as an Inherent Contempt, exists in
that same instant as, more than an Abuse or Misuse, Illegal Process and
Illegal Discretion under the Greater Law of Humanity, as is punishable as
the People see fit, in their own due time, by due process, to come.
XIX.
CONTEMPT OF CONSTITUTION - EARTH
I The Constitution of the Earth, as was and is recognized, not
established, by the proposed United States Constitution’s Article I,
Section 8, Clause 10, referenced thereto, therein, as “the Law of
Nations,” is the Constitution that was ordained for mankind, the same as
the proposed Constitution for the United States was recognized as
ordained in its own Preamble, under which all nations have the right to
coexist in peace and prosperity on this world that has long been
proclaimed as the Earth.
II Which Constitution of the Earth exists to the same extent and for
the same unalienable reasons as do the various constitutions, written or
unwritten, which Several Nations embrace, although all nations have
constitutions inherently and immovably incorporate into their existence,
even if they do not know that they have them at any time.
III The Constitution of the Earth existing above all constitutions of
every nation, therefore the Constitution of the Earth is to be enforced for
the sake of a free economy and a free and benevolent people, anything in
any established or perceivable constitution of any nation to the contrary
notwithstanding – against the Constitution of the Earth.
IV When acts of Contempt of Constitution in one nation are such that
they also constitute Contempt of Constitution of the Constitution of the
Earth, thereby affecting either directly or indirectly the people and/or
governments of an other nation, the people and/or their governments of
that nation have the unfailing right to bring actions, of whatever kind and
magnitude of force, against the offending nation whose acts or laws exist
in the capacity of a Contemnor as to Contempt of Constitution – EARTH,
until the Corruption by the Contempt of Constitution – EARTH shall be
purged or cease to exist, leaving in the wake thereof peace, both for the
nation so harmed by such nation as Contemnor, as well as the people of
the Contemnor nation itself.
V For NO nation-Contemnor, or any of its officials thereof, therein, in
Contempt of Constitution – EARTH, or by its acts against the Law of
Nations, has either right or authorization to do or continue any thing that
causes a breach, or Contempt of Constitution, of the Peace.
VI NOR does the Contemnor nation need to be tried before any world
court or international court of acclaimed jurisdiction; it is sufficient that
the Contempt of Constitution – EARTH be identified as such and that
such Contempt Crime – EARTH be noticed to at least 3 (three)
disassociated other civilly organized nations, being made as Three (3)
Witnesses, who, after carefully examining and pondering the matter,
shall agree with the nation who first made its presentment of the
Contempt Crime – EARTH, to other dissociated civilly organized nations
located anywhere throughout the world.
VII Once the 3 (three) Witnessing Nations have reached their verdict
(or “true word”) on the matter, it becomes their instant right, under “the
Law of Nations,” to combine together, with such other nations of the
Earth who may elect to join them, in order to still those acts of Contempt
of Constitution – EARTH that are being perpetrated within the
Contemnor Nation itself until such UnLawful Contempt Acts shall be no
more.
VIII This Legal Revealing is Done.
This Legal Revealing cannot be UnDone.
XX.
JUSTIFYING PROCESS FOR PURGING CONTEMNORS,
OFFICIAL CORRUPTION, AND FOR RESURRECTING AND
SUSTAINING CITIZENS’ ARREST, AN INHERENT POWER,
UNDER CONTEMPT OF CONSTITUTION INHERENT POWER,
ACCORDINGLY.
I > Ordinarily the People of the Several States are strictly law abiding,
as they should be, and therefore resistant to engaging in any action that
would confront the Crime of Contemptuous Conduct by their own
government(s), even where acts of Contempt of Constitution have grown
so blatant as to become materially destructive in the daily lives of the
People themselves, even though Contempt of Constitution is their,
People’s, own Inherent Power and does not exist on the part of any
government institution or official to do with as they please.
II > While the above is true as far as the People being resistant toward
taking any overt action of an aggressive nature where Contempt Crimes
have been or are being committed in the name of law, or under color of
law, or even under color of constitution, this condition does not and will
not either deny or hold still the People in doing so where a true process
for prosecution of said Crimes is made available to them, People,
including the authority for arrest of the Contemnors themselves under the
Inherent Power and Authority of “Citizens’ Arrest,” ordinarily, as a long
standing practice within this proposed United States’ history, a process
that required at least two Citizens to engage the suspect, though three
Citizens were always preferred in order to make the arrest more sure for
purposes of the offense being alleged against the perpetrator of it.
III > Even though the Power and Authority of Citizens’ Arrest has
always been supportive of legitimate governmental law enforcement,
particularly that which is directly representative of the People
themselves, as elected law enforcement generally is, the utter
clarification of the Inherent Power of Contempt of Constitution, a
Criminal Offense, demands confirmation that Citizens’ arrest, by either
two or three Citizens, of any fundamental jurisdiction wherein a
constitution knowingly exists, is likewise an Integral Component of the
Contempt of Constitution’s Inherent Power – and cannot be denied.
IV > Generally, respectfully, Citizens’ Arrests have always lead to the
perpetrator being turned over to standardly operating governmental law
enforcement for prosecutorial actions against the same, by way of court
proceedings thereafter, where the Crime in question was one strictly
coming under some sort of moral turpitude offense, either as a
Misdemeanor or a Felony (“High Crime”).
V > However, under the proposed Constitution’s own Article I, Section
6, Clause 1’s “Breach of the Peace,” wherein the Inherent Power of
Contempt of Constitution is embedded, solely as a direct Power of the
very People themselves as the Enforcers, where serious conditions have
arisen that point toward Contemptuous Acts and activities by
governmental Contemnors that the People should have been able to trust,
but in review of Breach of the Peace/Contempt of Constitution
actualities it becomes evident that such governmental authorities in
question may not be trustable at all, then the Power of Citizens’ Arrest, in
the Enforcement of Contempt of Constitution, bypasses, or prevails over,
standard powers of law enforcement, even though duly elected, and goes
directly to the Right and Authority of the People to Effectuate such
arrests of themselves, whereafter public prosecutions by the People
assembled, duly noticed to the occasion, may further be held when the
Contemnor is brought before them to do so, for such punishment(s) that
serve to render justice to the Contemnor and to Restore Public Peace.
VI > While the Enforcement of Contempt of Constitution, Embraced
within and by Clause 1 of Section 6, Article I, is not to be disputed or
denied, the following means for doing so is to be considered, under such
extraordinary conditions which may direly demand its necessity,
Temporary at most; a greater, orderly, remedy being set forth hereafter,
for the lawful, and not unlawful, use of the People, below:
VII > As it always has been, throughout the history of the world on
these occasions, careful and conscientious Contempt Crime proceedings
must always be ordained prior to the People’s assembly being engaged
against the Contemnor to be Tried, for from among the People present a
Jury of Twelve Persons, plus One Person to serve with the Jury as Jury
Director, to tip the scale of justice in the event of a tie vote of the other
Jurors – and supplanting any claim for a magistrate or other judicial
officer’s necessity in being there, is to be chosen by process of the open
nomination and election of the same, that nothing before the People may
be hidden from view by them, making the People’s Jury ready,
accordingly;
..1 To Try the Contemnor for the Contempt Crime alleged before
them, People, to have been perpetrated by the accused;
..2 To be found either guilty or not guilty on the spot, by weight
of the evidence and testimony adduced; and
..3 To be either sentenced, coming under the protective power of
the Eighth Amendment to the proposed Constitution, with the
sentence being swiftly carried out thereafter if found guilty, or let
go without delay if being found not guilty;
..4 Such foregoing proceeding constituting the entire Inherent
Process belonging solely and directly to the People, where
Contempt Corruptions have emerged so numerous or frequent as to
make any appeal to corrupted government a likely impossibility
that it can, or will, change of itself, as though it, corrupted
government, had reached a Tyrannical Malicious Contempt level of
operations, and simply could not be turned back away from it.
VIII > The foregoing being but a temporary measure for enforcing the
Rights of the People at Article I, Section 6, Clause 1, we look now to the
greater intent, procedurally, that aforesaid Section 6, Clause 1’s Power
and Authority of the People was to be embodied in, that same being ––
The Tenth Amendment to the proposed Constitution of
the proposed United States of America:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved
to the States respectively, or to the people."
(emphasis added)
", OR TO THE PEOPLE."
THE ABOVE is well known as the “concurrent powers amendment,”
which means that it is applied equally and at the same time unto all
parties involved therein.
But a Greater Truth - that is little realized by the many People, including
many in government - is that there are three (3) distinct and separate
parties, not two (2), as has been believed to exist up to now, contained
within those 28 words, by which Particular Power is to be Exercised
between each of them - All.
The people are the State only in the sense that they created the State, but
the people are NOT the State at all in the literal sense, but maintain a
separate identity from the State.
To understand this more clearly, to understand how the Amendment
would have had to have been written IF the people were the State itself,
the exact same thing, the word "to" would have had to be removed, and
the end phrase would have had to be moved forward and placed so that it
would read as follows:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States , …… are
reserved to the States, or the people, respectively.
(emphasis added)
This is stone-grammatical reality. But the further, true reality is that the
underlined phrase is at the end of the Great Amendment, not within, and
the word "to" is there also. In this case, the word "to" is an extension
word, establishing that there is recognition that the Powers that the other
two entities contained therein, being the “federal” and the states, were
extended by Greater Right - To the People, who were the creators of the
former two, not the other way around.
Thus, when Understood in conjunction with "We the People," it Clearly
Establishes the Fact that although the People ARE the State(s) in a
certain respect, they are also to a far greater degree NOT the State(s),
BUT ARE in Fact, the Sovereign People.
For were it to be asked as to what concurrent rights belong to the other
two Powers, or that of the States and the United States central
government, contained within the said Tenth Amendment, it would be
answered that the States have also the concurrent Power to tax, and it
would be answered that the States have also the concurrent Power to
punish offenders for Crimes committed against them, and it would be
answered that the States have also the concurrent Power to establish
courts, by which to examine, charge, and prosecute offenders, or
violators, of that law which is theirs, finally, to command;
IX > Consequently and Therefore, By THAT Power -- and by THAT
Inherent Right found Visible and Present at the Constitution’s own
Clause 1, of Section 6, of Article I, -- Found and Established by and
within the 10th Amendment – the Concurrent Power of the People also,
to, in their own due time, establish such courts as are to be recognized,
not as common law courts but as Constitution Law Courts, and not more
and not less than this, are the People yet to have, as an Equal and
Concurrent-Power Right under the 10th Article of Amendment, in their
own soon due time.
X > In consideration of the fact that such Contempt of Constitution
proceeding goes strictly to acts involving Contempt Crimes as per the
Inherent Crime of Contempt of Constitution, which Inherent Power
belongs to the People alone, the foregoing Trial BY Jury proceedings do
not exist as and therefore cannot be recognized as or claimed to be a
common law trial or court for any statutory question; any claim for a
such statute to deny this Power of Proceeding comes under the Inherent
Contempt category set forth above, as an attempt to establish
governmental immunity against the very People that they, corrupted
government, pretentiously serve, and so becomes prosecutable in its own
separate right against those Contemnors whose unlawful act served to
deny the People their Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 “Breach of the Peace”
Right to Preserve and Restore THEIR proposed Constitution, using the
same reasoning for such Right as judicial officers do and have done in
their own claims for contempt of court, Contempt of Constitution now
arising and prevailing over such governmental courts’ contempt power,
being the Inherent Power that it always has been, and is, Over All.
XI > Whether due notice to the People in any public assembly requires
that it be published in a manner where the Contempt Crime in question is
addressed in such publication or else where it is announced, vocally,
before any group of People, lawfully assembled for any legal purpose,
where the People assembled, at any such time, oppose-not the proposal
that an accused Contemnor be presented unto them for immediate
Contempt of Constitution Trial purposes - is for the People of the local
Inherent Jurisdiction alone to say or determine, and the Power to do so
may not be either abrogated by any claim of governmental authority, or
abdicated by any person acting officially within such assembly, except
the People thereof, as well as other People not then present, have the
additional Bifurcated Power, another Inherent Power auxiliary to the
People’s Contempt of Constitution Power, to bring such offenders to
justice for the UnLawful acts or attempts to act committed against them,
the People, such as were conceptualized in the Preamble to the proposed
Constitution for the United States, September 17, 1787, first session.
XII > The People Are Justified, and Authorized, under Article I,
Section 6, Clause 1, as to its Breach of the Peace – Contempt of
Constitution Power Inherently Existent therein, to do all of these
foregoing things, and because THEIR proposed Constitution has
Proclaimed it, Breach of the Peace, Inherently or Inseparably Connected
or a Part Of Contempt of Constitution, THERE CAN BE AND IS NO
CRIME OF MORAL TURPITUDE THAT THEY CAN BE
DETERMINED GUILTY OF;
XIII > And It Being The Truth, The Fact, And The Case, That
There Is Not ANY Crime of Moral Turpitude That They, People,
Can Be Determined Guilty of In Their Pursuit To Obey The Power,
Preserved For Them, At Article I, Section 6, Clause 1, There Can BE
NO Further Claim Or Concern or Fear For That Which Is Called or
Recognized Among Them As “SIN,” Or “Transgression” Or As
Breaking The Higher Law of Such Deity That They, People, May
Have Any Regard For On Their Own, Inclusive of That Deity Whose
Existence Was Officially Recognized, Honored, And Set Apart, At
The Proposed Constitution’s Article I, Section 7, Clause 2, As A
Right Of A Separate Society of the Republican People To Do So.
XIV > AFFIRMED. The People’s Right To Enforce and Execute
Their Inherent Power of Contempt of Constitution, To Sustain Or
Restore Right[eous] and Lawful Government – As Was Provided For
By The Constitution’s Framers and Founders – Is Article I, Section
6, Clause 1 Ratified.
XV > THIS POWER, RIGHT, AND AUTHORITY, IS SEALED
UNTO THE PEOPLE, ALL, AND IS DONE, AND CANNOT BE
UNDONE.
XXI.
..I. Whenever a government makes or causes its people to quake
and tremble in its presence, to even question its authority and its
existence as to any unlawfulness or deceit that may have been
instituted under color of that said government, make no mistake,
such government’s very existence is a government in tyranny, the
fear that it causes, or has caused, becomes germane to the charge of
Contempt of Constitution, the greatest power known to exist, at any
time, no matter the time, anywhere, no matter the where, which
Power belongs solely to the People alone, theirs to keep and to
command, no matter the suppression and the obfuscation that such
People may have been subjugated to, forever.
[/font]
..II. THEREFORE, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OVER THEIR
CONTEMPT OF CONSTITUTION POWER DOES ALSO RESERVE
THEM THE RIGHT OF COLORS AND FLAG UNTO THEM, for the
same or like Purposes for which the courts impose contempt of court; to
ensure the soundness and integrity; to bring order to; to quiet riotous acts
and activities of; and to restore all aspects of the Law which is Found,
Whether By TEST or Otherwise, within that same Constitution, to the
Securing of the Peace for the People, having been Breached, as Cause
for Power was first Grounded, In Writing, Inherently for the People and
the Several States at Clause 1 of Section 6, of Article I, of the Proposed
United States nation, of North America.
CONTEMPT OF CONSTITUTION POWER DOES ALSO RESERVE
THEM THE RIGHT OF COLORS AND FLAG UNTO THEM, for the
same or like Purposes for which the courts impose contempt of court; to
ensure the soundness and integrity; to bring order to; to quiet riotous acts
and activities of; and to restore all aspects of the Law which is Found,
Whether By TEST or Otherwise, within that same Constitution, to the
Securing of the Peace for the People, having been Breached, as Cause
for Power was first Grounded, In Writing, Inherently for the People and
the Several States at Clause 1 of Section 6, of Article I, of the Proposed
United States nation, of North America.
..III. These Inherent Powers Of The People Have Been Clarified Before ALL.
These Inherent Powers Clarified Herein Are Done.
These Inherent Powers Cannot Be UnDone.
Cease To Ignore The LAW; DISOBEY The Frauds, AND Cease,
Forthwith, To Commit Acts of Contempt of Constitution, a Criminal Offense.
DULY SUBMITTED AND INCORPORATED BY THIS REFERENCE;
This TEST and Exhibit Is SEALED, And INCORPORATED,
Against That Which Is Found To Be Untrue In The Constitution For The United States,
And For That Which Is True In The Said Same Constitution,
Into This Case, Now ARISING, Before The Lawful Courts of the
Several States of the Union of “them,” And Not Lawfully Concurrently Elsewhere.