Our Highest Court set the precedence
that Science Is god
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 account to nobody, however,
EZE 28:9 says:
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.
The Department of Justice will not allow any prosecutor to prosecute any civil rights violations of any judges! Period! Even though the Grand Jury is the fourth branch of government that has the preeminence over the other three, the Department of justice will not allow them to function as intended by the Bill of Rights.
Therefore we need for the Grand Jury to investigate and indict the criminals in the Justice Department for obstructing justice as well.
PSALMS 100:3 says:
Know ye that the LORD he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.
So who is LORD?
PHI 2:8-11 says:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Our Supreme Court established Darwin’s atheism as god; but see what God’s Word says in Romans 1:19-22:
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Christianity has been on the defensive for some time but today Satan has become much more bold; applying their new “Hate Crimes Law” against Christians for refusing to violate their conscience to co-operate with same sex marriages etc. ROM 1:25 tells us what the sin is that brings God’s Judgments upon our nation!
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
The United States Courts have “changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature i.e., science more than the Creator . . .” by esteeming Science as the only “absolute” evidence before the Court.
We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins…the judiciary at this point in the development of man’s knowledge is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.
Obviously, the Court relied on the scientific “development of man’s knowledge” to establish that a fetus was not a human being until birth.
Our President’s Science Czar has revealed the further development of mans knowledge establishing scientifically to mean Christians are not considered as “human beings” because they lack his ” essential early socializing experiences.”
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,”
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
The Supreme Court said in Roe v Wade:
We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins…the judiciary at this point in the development of man’s knowledge is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.
Obviously, the Court relied on the scientific “development of man’s knowledge” to establish that a fetus was not a human being until birth. This new development of man’s knowledge says we are not human beings until we agree with their science.
United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia reveals the effect of this TREASON; revealing how by the use of RAW JUDICIAL POWER our Constitution has been rewritten with CASE LAW, i.e., by the rulings of the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision in Roe v. Wade violated the Justices’ oath of office to uphold the Constitution in an attempt to legislate law, now claiming to have made abortion a Constitutional Right!
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]
When God’s people come to their wits end and cry unto God for help He will deliver. PSA 107:27-30 says:
27 They reel to and fro, and stagger like a drunken man, and are at their wit’s end.
28 Then they cry unto the LORD in their trouble, and he bringeth them out of their distresses.
29 He maketh the storm a calm, so that the waves thereof are still.
30 Then are they glad because they be quiet; so he bringeth them unto their desired haven.
God has already put in place the means He will use to deliver His Church from the planed destruction that Satan thinks he can use to eliminate Christianity from the earth.
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; he therefore utilized a grand jury to indict those the crown viewed as offenders.
Our founding fathers, being so keenly aware of this, provided for the Grand Jury in the Declaration of Independence as a buffer between a corrupt judiciary and/or government, and the people.
The failure of our ecclesiastical courts of Darwinism 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.
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 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 pre-constitutional institution,”[citing case law]
By a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, the grand jury is not a branch of the judicial, executive or legislative branches of government, but an entity to itself.
According to the 1990s ruling in U.S. v. Williams, the Supreme Court deter-mined the federal courts lack the authority to require a prosecutor to present specific information to a grand jury.
The opinion rejected the argument that the concept of “checks and balances” allows a court to “exercise supervisory power over grand jury proceedings.” Therefore, it is the ideal vehicle to bypass all of the political attachments of the judiciary.
Justice Antonin Scalia held … that the grand jury’s functional independence from the judicial branch is evident both in the scope of its power to investigate criminal wrongdoing and in the manner in which that power is exercised. Unlike [a] court, whose jurisdiction is predicated upon a specific case or controversy, the grand jury can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even because it wants assurance that it is not,” he wrote.
The Founders of the country established the grand jury as an alternative to “violent revolution.”
It is a process by which “Americans themselves can enforce the law. This is our only recourse to hold the president and his accomplices truly accountable for their actions.”
All Judicial power and/or authority is derived from the Constitution only! There is nowhere in the Constitution that give judges the right or power to interpret it based upon their own human reasoning of what they think it should say, as what has taken place since Roe v Wade. Their job is to apply the Constitution as a legal document that stands throughout time.
Their decision must be based upon the black letter of the Word in God’s Word, and the Constitution. The only standard for right or wrong is the Word of God, upon which the Constitution was based.
JUDGES ARE NOT ABOVE THE LAW!!
Any time a judge fails to uphold the law as well as the Constitution they are acting under the color of law/and/or authority; they have committed felony crime if not treason –
JUDGES DO NOT HAVE IMMUNITY WHEN EXCEEDING THEIR JURISDICTION In UNITED STATES v. ISAACS 493 F.2d 1124 (1974) the United States Supreme Court gives a clear distinction between judicial immunity and a judge’s vulnerability to criminal prosecution for violation of constitutional law/or Civil Rights.
Turning the pages of history, the Supreme Court said in an 1882 decision, United States v. Lee, 106 U.S196,220, 1 S.Ct, 240, 261, 27 L.Ed. 171, that: “No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it.” It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives.”
The Supreme Court went on at 1143 to apply this to the judiciary:
Finally we have O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 94 S.Ct.669, 38 L.Ed.2d 674, decided January 15, 1974. The court, although its language was general and perhaps dictum, touched on the vulnerability of judges to criminal process, and said, 414 U.S.488, 503, 94 S.Ct.669, 680, 38 L.Ed.2d 674: * * *we have never held that the performance of the duties of judicial, legislative, or executive officers, requires or contemplates the immunization of otherwise criminal deprivations of constitutional rights. Cf. Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S.339, 25 L.Ed.676 (1879). On the contrary, the judicially fashioned doctrine of official immunity does not reach ‘so far as to immunize criminal conduct proscribed by an Act of Congress***’ Gravel V. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 627, 92 S.Ct. 2614, 2628, 33 L.Ed.2d 583 (1972).
When judges have exceeded their jurisdiction, their ruling is coram non judice, that is, “before one not a judge,” and therefore they have lost their judicial immunity, and are subject to criminal prosecution like any other criminal!
HOW TO GET A GRAND JURY
OVER THE OBJECTION OF
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
The United States Department of Justice has an obvious conflict of interest in light of their adamant refusal to allow prosecution of Civil Rights violations involving judges – lawyers – or any Court officers. The United States Justice Department refused to allow several United States District Attorneys for the State of Montana to prosecute these Civil Rights violations against my wife and I as is evidenced by CORRESPONDENCE FROM US ATTORNEYS FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Mr. Burrowes, Deputy U.S. Attorney In his January 30, 1986 letter to Mr. Ellingwood, Mr. Burrowes, Deputy Us Attorney, says in part;
“. . . I believe, without question, that Ralph Bouma has been mistreated by the bar and the bench of the State of Montana. Further, I believe that he has had property taken from him illegally and without due process of law, all with the knowledge, assent, cooperation and/or active participation of that same bench or bar.
I urge you to do all in your power to arrange for Mr. Bouma to be given an opportunity to meet with and present an overview of his case to the Honorable Mr. Edwin Meese, and to a special investigator to be appointed to review the circumstances. Some of the events and circumstances he will report to such investigator will seem beyond belief in our legal society today I implore you hear him out.”
Former United States District Attorney for the State of Montana, Doris M. Poppler in her November 8, 1990 letter to Ralph Bouma, Conrad, MT, stated in pertinent part:
“I have carefully reviewed your packet of information, and then conferred with the attorneys in this office who are familiar with the history of the litigation. I am assured that Mr. Burrowes personally went to the Department of Justice and argued on your behalf to the full extent of his ability. I am thus informed that the Department of Justice did not allow this office to proceed. These decisions are binding on our office.”
Sherry Scheel Matteucci, United States Attorney, in her August 12, 1997 letter of to Grand Juror Walter Hammermeister to justify removing him from the Grand Jury because of his knowledge of the Civil Rights conspiracy against Ralph Bouma, and the homicide to cover it up. The first stated reason given was:
“As you know, this matter has been reviewed by two of my predecessors. Mr. Dunbar went to some length to generate support for reopening of the Bouma case. Your accusations regarding the conduct of Justice Department attorneys, which I read as allegations of corruption are particularly troubling.”
Because of this obstruction of justice we sued the United States Department of Justice for obstructing Justice in a Civil Rights action.
Whereas, the Justice Department has further conflict of interest in the fact that it committed felony crime – holding meetings with the full panel of judges for ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for four full days in the absence of these same defendants therein which resulted in dismissing the action without a hearing.
The Justice Department also has failed to protect the civil rights of Christians conscience is forbidding the FBI to investigate civil right violation without their consent.
THEREFORE:A PETITION MUST
BE BROUGHT BEFORE ANY FEDERAL JUDGE
To appoint a NEUTRAL SPECIAL PROSECUTOR – and impanel a SPECIAL GRAND JURY of ordinary citizens to investigate any crimes committed by all judges in all courts of law – as well as the President of the United States – Indicting the criminals bringing them to justice. “JUSTICE FOR ALL INCLUDES the President Himself as well as judges of the Supreme Court.
ACTS 10:34 says: “…God is no respecter of persons:”
GOD’S JUDGMENTS ARE UPON THIS NATION
UNTIL JUSTICE IS RESTORE
God says in JER 5:1
Run ye to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem, and see now, and know, and seek in the broad places thereof, if ye can find a man, if there be any that executeth judgment, that seeketh the truth; and I will pardon it.
601 8th Ave SW
Conrad, Montana 59425