Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007
THE LAW HAS CHANGED, SAID THE NAZI OFFER (Schindler's List)
by:  VK Durham
at:    http://www.theantechamber.net
 
As our lands, homes, businesses have been hijacked..WE the People discovered during the 1980's..The  Constitutional Law of the Land was 'blocked' by the appointed Judges on the Benches' of the Courts. 
 
For some 'unknown' reason, when these 'new' entities were copying off our Law Books..they forgot to include the Constitutional Ruling Case Law 'editions' for the People to rely on when petitioning Constitutional Law and Constitutional Rights in these 'new' courts.
 
As for instance; Constitutional Ruling Case Law. Supplement 2 published by Edward Thompson Company Lawyers Co-Operative Publishing company, Bancroft-Whitney Company in 1921 is not anywhere to be easily found.   If this CRCL. SUPP. 2 was easily found and the WE the People had access, much of this 'nonsense' of the Executive issuing "Executive Orders" which are nothing more than the President giving instructions to his "Executive Branch"..(under Constitutional Law), and are not Law, but lately these ExOrds seemingly favor Corporate Maritime Law (Re-Instated by Sec. of State Madelaine Albright 1994-95) taking over the Nation would 'Cease and Desist'..  the People would know the President, the U.S. House Members, Judges on the Bench of the U.S. Federal Government are Public Servants also known as Employees of WE the People.
[see: http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=88880 ]
 
In looking back during the NEIL BUSH & CHARLES KEATING OF THE KEATING FIVE S&L debacle..
[ http://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/s&l/ ]
and The S&L Crisis:  Chrono-Bibliography at
https://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/s&l/index.html .
In all of this..take a look  at who the FIVE SENATORS were in this S&L Debacle..

 
Increasingly all of us are becoming more concerned as  our borders are over-run and those concerned American Border Guards are prosecuted for "Doing their Duty"..
 
Then there are reports reporting U.S. GUNS POUR INTO MEXICO see:
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=98363 ..
 
Lets look at during those S&L DEBACLE years; The 'mandatory' Equity Law  forbidding "Equity Loans" and the "Homestead Laws" were thrown out the window.. This allowed Foreign Countries and Foreign Banking to take control over AMERICAN LANDS & HOMES through 'treaties international agreements other than treaties such as TIAS 12087.  You can read the entire Tias at
http://www.theantechamber.net/UsHistDoc/HistoricalDocsIndex.html

history documents. 

 
The 'failing' of our Courts during the 1980's S&L Debacle found there were many good men who in all probability, knew the Law of the Land better than these 'appointed' judges who adjudicated foreclosure cases in favor of 'foreign entities.' 
 
These men and women were advocates of THE COMMON LAW COURTS and they asked both State and Federal Entities ..QUO WARRANTO?  Or; WHERE IS THE SOURCE OF YOUR AUTHORITY to overthrow the Law of the Land?  Your 'source' did not come from the Sovereign Civil Governments of the Xth Amendment of the Bill of Rights.  WE the People did not VOTE on any of these laws..where did they come from?
 
One must ask the long standing question of QUO WARRANTO posed  to abusive Kings and Queens as far back as King John who gave 'proclamations' and made 'law' out of Necessity of State..  The Magna Carta solved that one.. You can read it at
www.bl.uk/treasures/magnacarta/magna.html .
 
Are you aware that MagnaCarta was brought to these united States of America by the Colonist?  Many of the early Americans brought with them what was known as BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES which you can read at
http://www.constitution.org/tb/tb-0000.htm .
 
You see-  There are Precedents -Preferences or Priority of Law which are set in our Law of the Land..which go all the way back to the MagnaCarta.. which in this particular instance is PRIORITY of Law having been long established; WE the People are the Sovereign CIVIL Governments of the states by compact with the Federal Government which acts as CIVIL SERVANTS of the representatives of the Sovereigns of the States sent to Federal level of government for doing the business of WE the People in (1) Paying of Debts (2) Imposing imposts and duties (3) Providing a Common Defense from Invasion of our shores or borders. 
 
Much to Attorney General Gonzales position:  "There is no specific "grant" of habeas corpus in the Constitution, because inalienable rights are not given to us by government"..is in error:
   Blacks Law:  Habeas corpus ad subjiciendum.   A writ directed to the person detaining another, and commanding him to produce the body of the prisoner, or person detained.  This is the most common form of habeas corpus writ, the purpose of which is to test the legality of detention or imprisonment; not whether he is guilty or innocent.  This writ is guaranteed by U.S. Const. Art. 1, Section 9, and by state Constitutions.   See also: 28 U.S.C.A. Sec. 2241 et seq.  [end quote]
 
Many disturbing things or issues are alleged to be coming out of those representing Corporations at the upper eschelon Representatives of our Sovereign Civil Governments in the U.S. Federal Government and none, absolutely none of it bodes well for the Sovereign Civil Governments of the Union of the Republics of the States of the united States in Union. 
 
To find the REAL LAW OF THE LAND is darned near impossible.. I have to resort to my College Books and in particular Constitutional Law.  Cases-Sixth Edition.  Noel T. Dowling. 1959  law books.   There are two cases in particular which you should take notice of to wit;
  1. MARBURY vs. MADISON
[CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. CASES SIXTH ED. 1959. NOEL T. DOWLING]  or go to
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/marbury.html
and you will find:  "Congress can not give away that which is not theirs to give, but reserved to the People"- [ Xth Amendment of the Bill of Rights]  and then go to,

  2.  Moore vs. Dempsey.  Supreme Court of the United States, 1923. 261 U.S. 86, 67 L.Ed. 543, 43 S. Ct. 265.   The case relates to "Mob Rule" and the attempting to dismiss a writ of habeas corpus..  [quote]
   "In Frank v. Mangum, 237 U.S. 309, 335, it was recognized, of course, that if in fact a trial is dominated by a mob, so that there is an actual interference with the course of justice, there is  a departure from due process of law; and that "if the State, supplying no corrective process, carries into execution a judgment of death or imprisonment based upon a verdict thus produced by mob domination, the State deprives the accused of his life or liberty without due process of law."   We assume, in accordance with that case, that the corrective process supplied by the State may be so adequate that the interference by habeas corpus outht not to be allowed.  It certainly is true that mere mistakes of law in the course of a trial are not to be corrected in that way.  But if the case is that the whole proceeding is a mask,--that counsel, jury, and judge were swept to the fatal end by an irrestible wave of public passion, and that the State Courts failed to correct the wrong, neither perfection in the  machinery for the correction nor the possibility that the trial court and counsel saw no other way of avoiding the immediate out-break of the mob can prevent this Court from securing the petitioners their constitutional rights." [end quote] Source:  CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Cases-Sixth Edition, Noel T. Dowling.  Brooklyn.  The Foundation Press, Inc. 1959.  It appears U.S. Attorney General Gonzalez is in "error"..  Be that as it may..When Law is in Conflict:  THE OLDER LAW prevails..  Being the older law.. Moore vs. Dempsey sets PRECEDENT;  Find it!  It is very important! 
 
When my husband was dying he told me a story about George H.W. Bush the man who was 6'3" tall Left Handed individual associated with Nichola Tesla's accountant George H. Scherff's son George Jr., who had alleged to be a U.S. NAVY PILOT shot down in action was not who everyone thought he was..  I thought this was just ramblings..  Yesterday I received this:
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/19-Jan-2007.html
..and today I find this posted on RumorMillNews at
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=98371 .
 
History tells us of the NAZI-ISLAM unification..
History also tells us of the "Counterfeiting" that went on by the Nazi's both pre WWII and during WWII.
 
My husband was murdered so this 'new' counterfeiting operation of the NAZI-ISLAM groups could bankrupt and overthrow the Sovereign Civil Governments of WE the People of the states in Union..  He was murdered, his signature forged, documents backdated.. see: PUBLIC NOTICE at
http://www.theantechamber.net/V-K_Durham/VkPublicNotice.html .
 
The 'UnAuthorized Use' of TRUST Collateral can also be found at
http://www.tomflocco.com/fs/FinancialTerrorism.htm ,
http://www.theantechamber.net/V_K_Durham/LeoWantaThingy.htm ,
http://www.theantechamber.net/V_K_Durham/ShahOfIransSon.htm ,
http://wwwtheantechamber.net/V_K_Durham/DungeonsDragon.html
and
http://www.theantechamber.net/V_K_Durham/DungeonsDragon2.htm .
 
And now..this comes along!  Read the following:
----- Original Message -----
From: John ......
To: J....@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 7:47 AM
Subject: [freedomfight] FOLLOW UP TO Attorney General Gonzales claim that we have no right of habeas corpus.


FOLLOW UP TO Attorney General Gonzales claim that we have no right of habeas corpus.

What is really fascinating about the Attorney General Gonzales position is the revealing look that it gives into his mind set. There is no specific "grant" of habeas corpus in the constitution, because inalienable rights are not given to us by government. Our founding fathers did not believe government "grants" rights. Instead, they knew that our
inalienable rights are given to us by our Creator.  Our founding fathers enumerated rights in our constitution, because they wanted government to PROTECT those inalienable rights, that are given to us by our Creator.

The Gonzales opinion is a demonstration of the totalitarian worldview of the evil men who currently infest the White House: Gonzales is saying that unless the Constitution explicitly grants all citizens a right, these rights can be taken away by the President. Thus, there is no right to freedom of speech, religion or assembly because there is, to use the Gonzales language: The constitution does not say that every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby "granted" or assured the right to free speech. After all, the Constitution's First Amendment simply says that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." It doesn't grant a right; all it says is that congress can't abridge it. So in the view of Gonzales, that leaves the President and the courts free to do whatever they want in taking away those our rights.

These evil men need to be impeached. THEN after that, we should perform a fumigation and an exorcism at the White House.

Why are we not surprised that our Attorney General Gonzales dares to attempt to usurp such a sacred constitutional right as habeas corpus?
The constitution has been trampled to death. Do we still remember the words "Congress shall pass no law..."?
How about the words "...shall not be infringed"?
What part of "...shall not be infringed" do they not understand?
How about "reasonable" searches that do not require a search warrant?
How about the "accused will enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial"?
Do we remember when we all knew the constitution prevented the taking of private land to be given to a developer?
Our government has made a joke out of the constitution.

If you think any branch of the federal government feels restricted in any way by the constitution, think again. They only pull it out and pretend it's still in effect to accuse the their
opposition of violating it.

It is
CHILLING that the Attorney General is the top lawyer of the land. YET, he shouldn't even be a US citizen. He is a the descendant of illegal aliens. Being an "anchor baby", he benefited from the wrongful interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Now he feels he is free to wrongfully interpret the habeas corpus clause.

 Visit: Google Search "anchor baby" "Attorney General Gonzales"

The impeachment of a non-citizen enemy of our constitution should be a "given".

The oath of office; to which Alberto Gonzales swore, was:
"I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC..."

Alberto Gonzales has violated his oath of office.Alberto Gonzales should not only be impeached for his willfully obtuse interpretations of the Constitution, and the violation of his oath of office, he should be disbarred.

Gonzales is at the center of Bush's crimes, including authorizing torture and illegal wiretapping. Is it any wonder that Gonzales allowed the imprisonment of border agents Ramos and Compean? Gonzales is acts as an agent for Mexican illegal aliens.

 Follow up articles:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53711

http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/000890.html
H.R. 698 to eliminate anchor baby citizenship H.R. 698 is a bill to deny citizenship to U.S.-born babies of illegal aliens

http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_2447.shtml
A Bold Remedy to a Grave Threat
http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_3639.shtml

Call YOUR Congressman
at 866 340-9281
1-800-833-6354
1-877-762-8762
1-866-808-0065
1-888-355-3588
1-866-220-0044
NOW!

Call THE President
at 202 456-1111


-----original message-----

Attorney General Gonzales claims there is no right of habeas corpus.
We need a NEW ATTORNEY GENERA
LWATCH THE ACTUAL VIDEO HERE:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/19/gonzales-habeas/

Yesterday, (Jan. 18, 2007) during Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, Attorne y General Alberto Gonzales claimed there is no express right to habeas corpus in the U.S. Constitution. Gonzales was debating Sen. Arle n Specter (R-PA) about whether the Supreme Court's ruling on Guantanam o detainees last year cited the constitutional right to habeas corpus . Gonzales claimed the Court did not cite such a right, th en added, "There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. "

Specter pushed back. "Wait a minute. The constitution says you can't take it away, except in the case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn' t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus, unless there is an invasion or rebellion?" Specter told Gonzales, "You may be tread ing on your interdiction and violating common sense, Mr. Atto rney General."

As McJoan noted, the right of habeas corpus is clear in Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the Constitution: "The Privilege of the Writ o f Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Full transcript:

SPECTER: Where you have the Constitution having an explicit provision that the writ of habeas corpus cannot be suspended except for rebellion or invasion, and you have the Supreme Court saying tha t habeas corpus rights apply to Guantanamo detainees — aliens in Guantanamo — after an elaborate discussion as to why, how can the statutory taking of habeas corpus — when there's an expres s constitutional provision that it can't be suspended, and an explici t Supreme Court holding that it applies to Guantanamo alien detainees.

GONZALES: A couple things, Senator. I believe that the Supreme Court case you're referring to dealt only with the statutory right t o habeas, not the constitutional right to habeas.

SPECTER: Well, you're not right about that. It's plain on its face they are talking about the constitutional right to habeas corpus . They talk about habeas corpus being guaranteed by the Constitutio n, except in cases of an invasion or rebellion. They talk about J ohn Runningmeade and the Magna Carta and the doctrine being imbedde d in the Constitution.

GONZALES: Well, sir, the fact that they may have talked about the constitutional right to habeas doesn't mean that the decision deal t with that constitutional right to habeas.

SPECTER: When did you last read the case?

GONZALES: It has been a while, but I'll be happy to — I will go back and look at it.

SPECTER: I looked at it yesterday and this morning again.

GONZALES: I will go back and look at it. The fact that the Constitution — again, there is no express grant of habeas in te e Constitution. There is a prohibition against taking it away. But it 's never been the case, and I'm not a Supreme —

SPECTER: Now, wait a minute. Wait a minute. The constitution says you can't take it away, except in the case of rebellion or invasion . Doesn't that mean you have the right of habeas corpus, unless the re is an invasion or rebellion?

GONZALES: I meant by that comment, the Constitution doesn't say, "Every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to habeas." It doesn't say that . It simply says the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspend ed except by —

SPECTER: You may be treading on your interdiction and violating common sense, Mr. Attorney General.

GONZALES: Um.


http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/011807.html

Gonzales Questions Habeas Corpus
By Robert Parry
January 19, 2007


In one of the most chilling public statements ever made by a U.S. Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales questioned whether the U.S. Constitution grants habeas corpus rights of a fair trial to every American.

Responding to questions from Sen. Arlen Specter at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Jan. 18, Gonzales argued that the Constitution doesn’t explicitly bestow habeas corpus rights; it merely says when the so-called Great Writ can be suspended.

“There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there’s a prohibition against taking it away,” Gonzales said.

Gonzales’s remark left Specter, the committee’s ranking Republican, stammering.

“Wait a minute,” Specter interjected. “The Constitution says you can’t take it away except in case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there’s a rebellion or invasion?

”Gonzales continued, “The Constitution doesn’t say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right shall not be suspended” except in cases of rebellion or invasion.

“You may be treading on your interdiction of violating common sense,” Specter said.

While Gonzales’s statement has a measure of quibbling precision to it, his logic is troubling because it would suggest that many other fundamental rights that Americans hold dear also don’t exist because the Constitution often spells out those rights in the negative.

For instance, the First Amendment declares that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Applying Gonzales’s reasoning, one could argue that the First Amendment doesn’t explicitly say Americans have the right to worship as they choose, speak as they wish or assemble peacefully. The amendment simply bars the government, i.e. Congress, from passing laws that would impinge on these rights.

Similarly, Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution states that “the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

The clear meaning of the clause, as interpreted for more than two centuries, is that the Founders recognized the long-established English law principle of habeas corpus, which guarantees people the right of due process, such as formal charges and a fair trial.

That Attorney General Gonzales would express such an extraordinary opinion, doubting the constitutional protection of habeas corpus, suggests either a sophomoric mind or an unwillingness to respect this well-established right, one that the Founders considered so important that they embedded it in the original text of the Constitution.

Other cherished rights – including freedom of religion and speech – were added later in the first 10 amendments, known as the Bill of Rights.

Ironically, Gonzales may be wrong in another way about the lack of specificity in the Constitution’s granting of habeas corpus rights. Many of the legal features attributed to habeas corpus are delineated in a positive way in the Sixth Amendment, which reads:

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed … and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; [and] to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses.”

Bush's Powers

Gonzales’s Jan. 18 statement suggests that he is still seeking reasons to make habeas corpus optional, subordinate to President George W. Bush’s executive powers that Bush’s neoconservative legal advisers claim are virtually unlimited during “a time of war,” even one as vaguely defined as the “war on terror” which may last forever.

In the final weeks of the Republican-controlled Congress, the Bush administration pushed through the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that effectively eliminated habeas corpus for non-citizens, including legal resident aliens.

Under the new law, Bush can declare any non-citizen an “unlawful enemy combatant” and put the person into a system of military tribunals that give defendants only limited rights. Critics have called the tribunals “kangaroo courts” because the rules are heavily weighted in favor of the prosecution.

Some language in the new law also suggests that “any person,” presumably including American citizens, could be swept up into indefinite detention if they are suspected of having aided and abetted terrorists.“

Any person is punishable as a principal under this chapter who commits an offense punishable by this chapter, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, or procures its commission,” according to the law, passed by the Republican-controlled Congress in September and signed by Bush on Oct. 17, 2006.

Another provision in the law seems to target American citizens by stating that “any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States ... shall be punished as a military commission … may direct.”

Who has “an allegiance or duty to the United States” if not an American citizen? That provision would not presumably apply to Osama bin Laden or al-Qaeda, nor would it apply generally to foreign citizens. This section of the law appears to be singling out American citizens.

Besides allowing “any person” to be swallowed up by Bush’s system, the law prohibits detainees once inside from appealing to the traditional American courts until after prosecution and sentencing, which could translate into an indefinite imprisonment since there are no timetables for Bush’s tribunal process to play out.

The law states that once a person is detained, “no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever … relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission under this chapter, including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions.”That court-stripping provision – barring “any claim or cause of action whatsoever” – would seem to deny American citizens habeas corpus rights just as it does for non-citizens. If a person can’t file a motion with a court, he can’t assert any constitutional rights, including habeas corpus.

Other constitutional protections in the Bill of Rights – such as a speedy trial, the right to reasonable bail and the ban on “cruel and unusual punishment” – would seem to be beyond a detainee’s reach as well.

Special Rules

Under the new law, the military judge “may close to the public all or a portion of the proceedings” if he deems that the evidence must be kept secret for national security reasons. Those concerns can be conveyed to the judge through ex parte – or one-sided – communications from the prosecutor or a government representative.

The judge also can exclude the accused from the trial if there are safety concerns or if the defendant is disruptive. Plus, the judge can admit evidence obtained through coercion if he determines it “possesses sufficient probative value” and “the interests of justice would best be served by admission of the statement into evidence.”

The law permits, too, the introduction of secret evidence “while protecting from disclosure the sources, methods, or activities by which the United States acquired the evidence if the military judge finds that ... the evidence is reliable.”

During trial, the prosecutor would have the additional right to assert a “national security privilege” that could stop “the examination of any witness,” presumably by the defense if the questioning touched on any sensitive matter.

In effect, what the new law appears to do is to create a parallel “star chamber” system for the prosecution, imprisonment and possible execution of enemies of the state, whether those enemies are foreign or domestic.

Under the cloak of setting up military tribunals to try al-Qaeda suspects and other so-called “unlawful enemy combatants,” Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress effectively created a parallel legal system for “any person” – American citizen or otherwise – who crosses some ill-defined line.

There are a multitude of reasons to think that Bush and advisers will interpret every legal ambiguity in the new law in their favor, thus granting Bush the broadest possible powers over people he identifies as enemies.As further evidence of that, the American people now know that Attorney General Gonzales doesn’t even believe that the Constitution grants them habeas corpus rights to a fair trial.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/011807.html



Ask not what your Country can do for you,
Ask what you can do for your Country.


V.K. Durham,
CEO-Signatory
PO Box 113
Ida Grove, Iowa 51445 U.S.A.


FAIR USE NOTICE

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.