Monday, October 25, 2004

Crimes against the U.S. Government

...

What is the difference between a judge who acts without jurisdiction, and therefore, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, is engaged in an act of treason to the U.S. Constitution, and Usama bin Ladin?

Both are enemies of the United States. The latter is a foreign enemy of the United States, the former is a domestic enemy of the United States.

Both have declared war against the United States. Both have engaged in a crime against the U.S. Government.

The United States Supreme Court has clearly, and repeatedly, held that any judge who acts without jurisdiction is engaged in an act of treason. U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821).

Engaging in an act of treason against the United States Constitution by any citizen of the United States is an act of war against the United States. Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958).

The United States Supreme Court, in Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 29 S.Ct. 14, 24 (1908), stated that "Due process requires that the court which assumes to determine the rights of parties shall have jurisdiction."; citing Old Wayne Mut. Life Assoc. v. McDonough, 204 U.S. 8, 27 S.Ct. 236 (1907); Scott v. McNeal, 154 U.S. 34, 14 S.Ct. 1108 (1894); Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 733 (1877).

Due Process is a requirement of the U.S. Constitution. Violation of the United States Constitution by a judge deprives that person from acting as a judge under the law. He/she is acting as a private person, and not in the capacity of being a judge.

All enlisted personnel of the U.S. Military, the National Guard, all U.S. attorneys, all members of the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives, all Cabinet secretaries, have taken the following oath of office: "I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; ...".

The Illinois Supreme Court has held that those who aid, abet, advise, act or execute the order of a judge who acts without jurisdiction are equally guilty. They are equally guilty of a crime against the government.

The U.S. Government has also stated that anyone who shelters, hides, assists an enemy of the United States is as guilty as the terrorist who wages war against the United States.

Why have the former U.S. attorneys for the Northern District of Illinois, James B. Burns and Scott Lassar, not brought charges of treason against those few judges who act without jurisdiction, and therefore are engaged in the act of treason? Evidence of judges who acted without jurisdiction were presented to both former U.S. attorneys, and should be in the files of the office of the U.S. Attorney. Why are these former U.S. attorneys engaged in treason?

Why did former U.S. attorneys for the Northern District of Illinois James B. Burns and Scott Lassar not support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic?

Will the current U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois Patrick J. Fitzgerald comply with his oath of office, or will he also engage in treason to the United States Constitution?

The above piece was found here on the web.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


View My Stats