The TRUTH is OUT now, we are all watching
.....
What are they defending if not the
Constitution ?. We hear judges say their job is to "interpret" the
constitution, when in fact it is to UPHOLD constitutional judicial due
process. It is a JURY in a republic who decides the "facts and
the law". What the the judges and BAR attorneys are defending is a
criminal operation, deprivation of rights by design and outlaw
process.
Judges in Oregon are actively, not
"figuratively" "thumbing their noses at the constitution", on the record,
in the court. The people have to enforce prosecution now on outlaw agents
acting in unconstitutional process against us. As this judge says soon we
are going to see more extreme violations of our rights by judicial order.
We are the authority, WE have to reign them in, remove them from offices
of trust NOW. Stop them, IN the court, confronting them on the Record YOU
make against their criminal operation. WE have to stop them... they are
not prosecuting themselves ...... Right now in the courts they are not
answering the People. The Oregon Supreme Court is in deafault
and failing to appear or answer. We cannot tolerate this anymore.
This continues exactly as long as we allow it.
pamela
gaston www.avoiceforchildren.com
From:
tango@wilkes.net
From: "Art" <helouh1@alltel.net>
Fox's
'Judge' pens blockbuster book
Andrew Napolitano's 'Constitutional Chaos'
exposes government lawbreaking
and
A
Constitution of Convenience
The
government can't have it both ways
Posted:
October 27, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2004
WorldNetDaily.com
Known simply as "Judge" on Fox News Channel, Andrew
Napolitano is set to release his blockbuster book on the misuse and abuse of
power in the U.S. criminal justice system, "Constitutional Chaos: What Happens
When the Government Breaks its Own Laws."
Though the official release
date is in November, the book is available now at WorldNetDaily's online
store.
"Constitutional Chaos" makes the case that there is a pernicious
and ever-expanding pattern of government abuse in America's criminal justice
system.
Napolitano's vast experience in the legal world has prompted him
to adopt as the creed: "The government is not your friend."
He reiterates
that creed in the introduction of "Constitutional Chaos":
It should be
against the law to break the law. Unfortunately, it is not. In early 21st
century America, a long-standing dirty little secret still exists among public
officials, politicians, judges, prosecutors and police. The government -
federal, state and local - is not bound to obey its own laws. I know this sounds
crazy, but the events recounted in this book prove it true. "Constitutional
Chaos" should be a wake-up call for every American who prizes personal liberty
in a free society.
Because it breaks the law, the government is not your
friend. When I arrived on the bench, I had impeccable conservative Republican
law-and-order credentials. When I left eight years later, I was a born-again
individualist, after witnessing first-hand how the criminal justice system works
to subvert and shred the Constitution. You think you've got rights that are
guaranteed ? Well, think again. Because the government breaks the law and denies
it, the government is not your friend.
Eternal vigilance is the price of
liberty, particularly when it comes to the American criminal justice system.
Nowhere else does the state have greater raw power over an individual's life,
liberty, and property. And nowhere else are our constitutionally guaranteed
rights and freedoms under such a relentless, subtle and ultimately devastating
attack.
Because the government breaks the law and hides it, the
government is not your friend.
An attorney, law professor, commentator
and judge, Napolitano is Fox's chief legal analyst and substitute host of "The
Big Story." In his new book, Napolitano gives specific examples of government
agents figuratively thumbing their noses at the Constitution.
Continues
Napolitano in the book's introduction:
Even though the Constitution,
through the First Amendment and 14th Amendment, commands that neither the
federal government nor the state governments can abridge the freedom of speech,
you will see shortly that the government regularly prosecutes Americans for
speaking freely and punishes them when they say things that the government
doesn't want
to hear. Despite the government's duty to use its power to
protect us, you will see how the federal and state governments have failed to
protect us and have enacted laws which make it impossible for us to protect
ourselves.
Despite the government's obligation to protect us from crime,
you will learn that the government actually creates crime by setting traps for
the ignorant, the naïve, the criminally inclined and those it
hates.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
November 3, 2003
A Constitution of Convenience
The
government can't have it both ways
Andrew P. Napolitano
Late last month the Defense Department charged one of its own, Air
Force Senior Airman Ahmad I. al-Halibi, with espionage and with spying for his
native Syria. According to court documents, many of the acts which constituted
these charges took place while Airman al-Halibi was on active duty as an Air
Force translator at Camp Delta in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. If the government can
prove the charges against him in court, he could receive the death penalty.
But problems of proof are the least of the government's concerns in this
case. First, the government must confront the self-inflicted problem of federal
jurisdiction—which it has claimed does not exist for acts committed in
Cuba.
Here's how the government shot itself
in the foot. The U.S. Constitution is the document that created the federal
government. In broad general terms, it sets forth the government's powers,
establishes limits on those powers, and guarantees rights to all persons under
the government's jurisdiction. The most potent of the government's domestic
powers are the powers to enact federal criminal statutes and prosecute
violations of them.
Since the Constitution is the sheet anchor of
the government's powers, one would expect that the government would contend that
it exists and subsists wherever the government wants to enforce federal law. But
the government only wants to enforce part of the Constitution.
Just last
year, the government successfully argued to four federal courts that the U.S.
Constitution does not apply at American military facilities in Cuba and, thus,
no American court has jurisdiction over the acts of the U.S. government and its
personnel there. The cases in which this perverse argument was made involved
litigation filed by relatives of prisoners confined at Guantanamo Bay who sought
to have federal courts order the government to explain and justify the
prisoners' confinement. This right—the ancient right to habeas corpus—is
guaranteed in the Constitution (except in time of war when Congress specifically
suspends it) to all persons confined against their will by the government.
One would think that the government would gladly
justify in open court its detention of prisoners of war. But in its zeal to keep
its behavior away from judicial scrutiny, the government argued that the
Guantanamo Bay detainees lacked the right to habeas corpus because the
Constitution does not apply to the government when it is in Cuba. The government
went on to persuade federal judges in Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, and San
Francisco that, because the U.S. leases Guantanamo Bay from Cuba, the sovereign
power over Camp Delta is not the U.S. government, but is rather Fidel Castro!
Tell that to the commanding American officer.
Comes now the same government a year later to
argue that while one is not entitled to the protections of the Constitution when
one is at an American military base in Cuba, one can still be prosecuted
pursuant to powers given by the Constitution while at an American military base
in Cuba. Hence the government's jurisdiction headache: it cannot—under the
doctrine of judicial estoppel—argue today contrary to what it argued last year
on the same point of law.
Not only can the government not argue both ways,
it cannot have it both ways. Either the Constitution, with all its powers to
prosecute and with all its due process protections as well, applies fully or it
does not apply at all.
The government knows that it cannot escape the
Constitution merely by leaving the U.S. mainland because the Supreme Court has
told it so. In Ex parte Milligan, the Court declared that: "The Constitution of
the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace,
and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times,
and under all circumstances." And, in a consistent series of cases that goes
back over 100 years, the Court has ruled that federal courts have jurisdiction
over acts of the U.S. military in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Does the government
really expect Americans to believe that nothing restrains it, and it need not
respect our rights, when it leaves U.S. soil? The government's argument is
nonsense. Wherever the government goes—even to the moon—the Constitution goes
with it.
If there is strong evidence to believe that
Airman al-Halibi is a spy, then the government should prosecute him no matter
where he was when he spied. But in its prosecution of the war on terror, it
seems that government lawyers from the Attorney General on down have
self-interpreted their oaths to uphold the Constitution: They want to uphold the
parts that grant them power, not the parts that restrain their exercise of it.
Unfortunately, the government's selective
defense of the Constitution is not surprising or novel. Since 9/11, the
government has willfully disobeyed the orders of federal judges in U.S. v.
Moussaoui and in Padilla v. Rumsfeld; claimed it can lock up Americans and strip
us of all our constitutional rights without judicial review in Rumsfeld v.
Hamdi; and successfully threatened to strip Americans of all rights in order to
get confessions and guilty pleas in the Lackawanna Six case. So far, it has
gotten away with all this.
The government argues that certain defendants
are so fearsome, their guilt so palpable, and their knowledge of our secrets so
volatile that we need not respect their liberties. This is the justification of
tyrants. When the government violates or ignores the Constitution it has sworn
to uphold, it undermines the infrastructure of our culture, history, and
jurisprudence. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. No court has
ever seriously suggested that the
rights it guarantees are discretionary.
All this makes one wonder: Does this government
take seriously its commitment to uphold the Constitution? Is the government
defending constitutional liberties or attacking them? If the government doesn't
defend liberty, what is it defending?
Andrew P. Napolitano, who practices law in
New Jersey and in New York City, was a judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey
from 1987 to 1995, taught constitutional law at Seton Hall Law School from 1989
to 2001, and is the Senior Judicial Analyst with the Fox News Channel.