RAW JUDICIAL POWER
Our judges have become so embolden by the strangle hold of the Department of Justice on this nation that Judges think they are GOD, i.e., they have taken upon themselves to abolish our form of government and begin legislating!
In J. P. McFadden’s book titled Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation, our former President Ronald Reagan openly takes the highest court of our land to task, where he shows how grievously the Justices of that court have violated their oath of office to uphold the Constitution and the law.
When the highest court of our nation removed our Standard of justice, and set a new precedent to build the foundation of justice on human philosophy instead of the Old and New Testament precepts, our very Constitution was being removed. Our Constitution is founded on Old and New Testament precepts; therefore by removing these precepts as the Standard of Justice, the foundation upon which our nation was built is being destroyed!
The highest court of the land has exceeded its constitutional limits of its jurisdiction, and therefore its judgment is Coram Non Judice, i.e., before one not a judge and void on its face. President Reagan went on to show how they violated the constitutional separation of powers by legislating instead of upholding the Constitution and the law where he said:
“Our nationwide policy of abortion‑on‑demand through all nine months of pregnancy was neither voted for by our people nor enacted by our legislators—not a single state had such unrestricted abortion before the Supreme Court decreed it to be national policy in 1973” (page 15).
“Make no mistake, abortion‑on‑demand is not a right granted by the Constitution. No serious scholar, including one disposed to agree with the court’s result, has argued that the framers of the Constitution intended to create such a right. Shortly after the Roe v. Wade decision, Professor John Hart Ely, now Dean of Stanford Law School, wrote that the opinion “is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.” Nowhere do the plain words of the Constitution even hint at a “right” so sweeping as to permit abortion up to the time the child is ready to be born. Yet that is what the court ruled” (page 16).
Forced abortions and sterilization are generally practices eschewed by all but the most radical scientists—but President Obama’s science czar, John Holdren, called them constitutional in a 1977 textbook he co-authored with Paul and Anne Ehrlich..
In Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment, they wrote,
“[I]t has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society,” though adding that the current population didn’t justify the practices.
The authors continued:
“Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution mentions a right to reproduce. . .
“Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children? The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being,” the authors wrote.
The books’ content was not discussed in Holdren’s Senate confirmation process in March, which he breezed through on a unanimous vote to become head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Under Obama the office carries added significance: Not only will Holdren advise the president on science policy, but through it the administration plans to double the budgets for three key basic-research agencies—from $10 billion to nearly $20 billion—by 2016 . . .
The above quote copied with the gracious permission from WORLD MAGAZINE
Copyright © 2009 WORLD Magazine
Articles may not be reproduced without permission
2009, Vol. 24, No. 16
With this mentality the stage is set for the Nazi style elimination of any segment of our adult population that may not be considered to have had “early socializing experiences’ nor have become human beings, therefore are not convenient to tolerate. Translation: they can “legally” exterminate anyone.
It is in this vein of thought that:
White House hopeful Hillary Clinton called for big changes in American culture, saying “religious beliefs need to be overhauled in order to make way for birth control, abortion and women’s health care.
More to point, she said, “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed” to give women full access to “reproductive health care and safe childbirth” the news outlet said.
“We move forward” she said, “when gay and transgendered women are embraced as our colleagues and friends, and not fired from their jobs because of who they love. . .
WWW.wnd.com 4/25/15 HILLARY: CHANGE ‘RELIGIOUS BELIEF’ OF NATION
Raw Judicial Power
President Reagan refers to the Supreme Court’s abuse of their judicial power “as an act of ‘raw judicial power’ (to use Justice [Byron] White`s biting phrase)” (page 16).
Even as gruesome as abortion is, it has paled in the light of raw judicial power. Raw judicial power is a far greater threat to our nation today than nuclear war, chemical warfare, terrorism or other acts of aggression, for which we are aware and on guard. When the foundation of justice was removed, human reasoning became the standard of what is right or wrong, rather than the wisdom found in the Old and New Testament precepts.
On September 24, 2008 Great Falls Tribune reported on Scalia’s speech in Missoula Montana on page 4, Section M, which article is quoted from with the gracious permission of the staff of the Great Falls Tribune.“The U.S. Supreme Court does not have a liberal conservative split, Justice Antonin Scalia told a University audience on Wednesday.
“Rather, Scalia said, the court is divided between justices who believe the Constitution is subject to change from generation to generation and those who are ‘originalists’ believing the Constitution is a legal document that should stand through time. Scalia said he is an originalists and therefore in the minority on the Supreme Court.
‘The notion of a ‘living Constitution that morphs’ changing as justices exercise their ability to add or remove rights, has taken hold, said Scalia.
‘It’s not a conservative-liberal fight on the court,’ Scalia said. ‘It really isn’t. It has to do with what your view of the Constitution is.’ The Judge who believes in the living Constitution is ‘a happy fella’ because in his mind, the Constitution means whatever he thinks it should mean, Scalia said. With originalists in the minority, the Supreme Court rewrites the Constitution term by term, he said . . . It’s a mini constitutional convention whenever you appoint someone new to the Supreme Court,’ he said.” [Emphasis added]
Our founding fathers, who founded our Constitution on the authority of the Word of God, understood the Scriptural principle that:
“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” (Jeremiah 17:9).
In his introduction McFadden compares this raw judicial power with the Nazi Holocaust where he says:
“The question remains: Who will listen?”
This comparison between what the highest courts of our land is doing to us as a nation, and the Nazi Holocaust by such distinguished men should open our eyes to see who is to blame for this condition in America.
Since our Constitution provides for checks and balances through the separation of powers, it is incumbent upon our legislature to enforce our constitutional rights by using their impeachment power to enforce judges’ oath of office to uphold the Constitution and the Law.
Any time a judge fails to uphold the law as well as the Constitution they have exceeded their jurisdiction, and their ruling is coram non judice, that is, “before one not a judge,” and therefore, void on its face.
This failure of our legislature by good people to assume their responsibility in stopping the use of raw judicial power is parallel to the Nazi Holocaust. McFadden charged:
“After the Nazi Holocaust, it was charged that those who knew what was happening (great men among them) failed to halt the slaughter (page 13).
Justice Robert H. Jackson of the United States Supreme Court was the representative of the United States in Nuremberg, Germany, at the trials of high‑ranking Nazi personnel for alleged war crimes during World War II.
It fell to Justice Jackson, among the several prosecutors of the Allied nations, to handle that portion of the prosecution related to the charges of conspiracy. His classic summary to the President and members of the War Crimes Tribunal is anthologized in The Law as Literature 467 (London 1960 Edition), the eloquent, angry, pungent language of which many jurisprudents consider to be a classic in the literature of conspiracy law.
Justice Jackson spoke of,
“this trial’s mad and melancholy record, which will live as the historical text of the twentieth century’s shame and depravity.”
He spoke of how the Nazis asked the tribunal to nullify its own charter, except for which they themselves would have had no right to be heard at all, despite the fact that:
“in the days of their pomp and power, they never gave the right to be heard to any man.”
In this vein, he especially took to task the German judiciary, which he said:
“could have remained the last obstacle to this reign of terror,” but outlined how the independence of the judiciary “was soon overcome and it was reorganized to dispense a venal Justice,” by means of “the puppet judges.”
Justice Jackson outlines how the whole group of interrelated crimes fit in with every other in the common conspiracy “like stones in a finely‑ wrought mosaic.” Of Hermann Goring, he noted that he “stuck a pudgy finger in every pie” in order to “help bring the gang into power.”
He then took up each of the other defendants by name and one‑by‑one shows how that defendant advanced the cause of the conspiracy:
”to pour wine on the troubled waters of suspicion … to take up the bloody mantle and build a conspiracy … on a foundation of guiltless corpses, to establish a “new order of authority without law.”
Until you rightly understand the term “raw judicial power” and where it began, you will never understand or believe the magnitude of the arrogance of our judiciary, and their total disregard for the law, or our constitutional rights to life, liberty or property.
Then, and only then, you will begin to either understand or believe the conspiracy set forth herein that resulted in the homicide of Robert Paul Kropp.
The Grand Jury is the solution
The inception of the Grand Jury took place in the 12th century when King Henry could not get along with the Pope. King Henry’s problem was that the Pope had an ecclesiastical court in England into which many of the important cases involving the crown were shunted.
The ecclesiastical court did not charge and prosecute to King Henry’s satisfaction, and he therefore utilized a grand jury to indict those the crown viewed as offenders, whether the offence could be characterized as ecclesiastical or not.
The failure of our courts to recognize crimes and allow prosecution as in the days of King Henry, (especially those committed by the various members of the judiciary in acting under the color of law beyond their jurisdiction) must be brought to the attention of the grand jury for indictment.
Any U.S. District attorney is required by our Federal Criminal Code to inform the grand jury of any information he receives from any person of an alleged offence. Title 18 U.S.C 3332. requires:
“Any such attorney receiving information concerning such an alleged offense from any other person shall, if requested by such other person, inform the grand jury of such alleged offense, the identity of such person, and such attorneys action or recommendation.”
McCracken in his infamous October 22, 1979 letter of intimidation to the Pondera County Commissioners to scare them out of asking for a grand jury revealed the legal profession’s worst fear, i.e., what he alluded to as “a runaway grand jury,” i.e., a fully informed and unrestricted grand jury. McCracken explained that:
“A grand jury consists of not less than fifteen nor more than 20 persons. Its powers and duties are somewhat awesome and once launched, it may be a runaway. As a reference, you might examine the powers and duties of a grand jury provided at 46-11-312 M.C.A.
“Among other things, ‘the grand jury may inquire into all public offences…’ If any member of the grand jury knows or has reason to believe that an offence has been committed, he has to declare it to his fellow jurors who must investigate it.
A grand jury can also inquire into the condition and management of the ‘public prisons within the county’ and any ‘…willful or corrupt misconduct in office by public officers of every description…’
With reference to the powers and duties of a federal grand jury, the GRAND JURY CHARGE, under the heading of The Grand Jury’s Tasks and Procedures, are charged of their duties and responsibilities. If they believe “it is necessary in the interest of justice,” they have the power to indict even over the active opposition of the government attorneys. This is the provision and the legal profession’s greatest fear, which they refer to as a runaway grand jury. The Grand Jury’s Tasks in part are:
“By the terms of the Constitution, you may also make a ‘PRESENTMENT’ directly to the court. A presentment is an accusation initiated by the grand jury itself without any formal charge or written indictment having been submitted by the government. To form the basis for a prosecution, it must be followed by an indictment. You have the power to make a presentment, even over the active opposition of the government attorneys, if you believe it is necessary in the interest of justice. I mention this POWER OF PRESENTMENT to you only to indicate the extent of your powers, and not to suggest that you are likely to find it wise or necessary to exercise this procedure.”
After some thirty years of legal wrangling I have certainly established beyond a doubt that you cannot ask the fox to set the security standards for the henhouse, any more than you can expect any member of the judicial branch to agree that their new standard of justice as boasted of by Justice John C. Sheehy is against the Constitution as he boasts:
“he likes being a philosopher, and bluntly expressed his belief that judges have a right to make law according to their understanding of social right….
“The task of wise judges is always to make the law what it ought to be—the servant of, and not the tyrant of, humans,” Sheehy said.
“My Irish father always maintained he was descended from the kings of Kerry. He would be pleased to know that we now again supersede the peerage, and can sit above the salt.”
Appealing a case where a judge has exceeded his constitutional authority is a waste of time and money. Neither is any person going to get a grand jury to venture to indict a single judge for any single violation of their judicial power. This is why I believe the Lord has provided this nation with the landmark case set forth in my book WAKE UP AMERICA The Lord Is God – wherein the judicial violations are numerous, and beyond dispute would set a precedent that judges can be prosecuted for exceeding their judicial power.
As U.S. attorney for the District of Montana, Pete Dunbar told me years ago:
“Ralph, I’ve been an attorney since I was a young man, I’ve been with the FBI for 20 years, and I’ve been a prosecutor for the United States Justice Department now for eight years. In every case I’ve ever seen there is always evidence on both sides, and the case is decided by which side has the most evidence. I’ve never seen a case like yours that all the evidence is on one side! There just is no answer to what you say.”
In Rule 6 Ch.4 sec.101 in footnote 13 the grand jury is eloquently described
“The power of the grand jury is not dependent upon the court but is original and complete, and its duty is to diligently inquire into all offenses which shall come to its knowledge, whether from the court, the prosecutor, its own members, or from any source, and it may make presentments of its own knowledge without any instructions or authority from the court.”
“… Its authority is derived from none of the .Its authority is derived from none of the
three basic divisions of our government, but rather directly from the people themselves.’ [Citing case law]”
In UNITED STATES v. CHANEN,C.A.9th, 1977, 549 F.2d. 1306,1312,the courts held:
In our view, tradition and the dynamics of the constitutional scheme of separation of powers define a limited function for both court and prosecutor in their dealings with the grand jury.
But under the constitutional scheme, the grand jury is not and should not be captive to any of the three branches. The grand jury is a preconstitutional institution,[citing case law]
Title 18 U.S.C 4 provides that:
“Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by the court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person [like the foreman of the grand jury as required by Title 18 USC <3332, Supra.], in civil or military authority under the United States, Shall be fined not more than $500. or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.” [Emphases added].
What can further ensue as a result of any public servant’s failure to act promptly, such as is required by Title 18 USC <3332 and Title 18 <4 is provided for in Title 18 <3, which says:
“Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.”
“Except as otherwise expressly provided by an Act of Congress, an accessory after the fact shall be imprisoned not more than one‑half the maximum term of imprisonment or fined not more than one‑half the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the principal, or both; or if the principal is punishable by death, the accessory shall be imprisoned not more than ten years.”
Who is responsible for this judicial arrogance?
Such brazen arrogance is a public confession of constitutional crime. The obstruction of justice by our United States Department of Justice is to blame! Our judiciary has become embolden by the internal policies of the Department of Justice.
I spoke to Arnold A. Anderson, special agent for the FBI, requesting him to investigate allegations of a most recent civil rights violation. Mr. Anderson’s closing remark was:
“Well Ralph you know that no U.S. attorney can not prosecute a civil rights violation without consent from the United States Justice Department. Well for your information, neither is the FBI allowed to investigate a civil rights violation without their permission.”
The internal policies of the United States Department of Justice, that does not allow the FBI to investigate, nor any U.S. Attorney to present any Violations of our constitutional or Civil Rights to a Grand Jury for indictment without permission from the Department of Justice, is where our judiciary finds its security against what is called “a runaway grand jury.” Yet the apathy of our legislators has allowed this high treason to go unnoticed as though they are helpless to perform their oath of office.
To uphold our Constitution as they are under oath to do, our legislators have a mandate to police the other branches of government, also using their impeachment powers when any member of either the executive or judicial branch of government fail to perform according to their oath of office. By our legislators leaving such treason go unnoticed, violates their constitutional mandate and oath of office to uphold the very foundation of justice, that is, our Constitution, and the very laws they are elected to make.
The apathy of our legislators, in allowing such internal rules of the Justice Department to stand, emboldens our judiciary to publicly boast as Justice John C. Sheehy that “he likes being a philosopher, and bluntly expressed his belief that judges have a right to make law according to their understanding of social right…”
This type of arrogance in deciding right from wrong by judges based on their own philosophy left unbridled is not only the end of all civilization, but it brings God’s displeasure upon us as a nation. God has spoken of such arrogance in Ezekiel 28:2, 9: “Thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, I sit in the seat of God.”
“But God asks, “Wilt thou yet say before him that slayeth thee, I am God? but thou shalt be a man, and no God, in the hand of him that slayeth thee.”
Our legislators are to be held responsible for decay of our whole society! Our legislature must take 100 percent of the blame for the brazen arrogance of our judiciary. Our State and U.S. Constitutions both gave the state and legislatures and the U.S. Congress the responsibility and authority to police our Executive as well as our judicial branches of government. They have been given impeachment power to use against any member of the judicial or executive branches of government who violate their oath of office.