Your state does not have a judicial branch of
government. The missing
judicial branch was the court system originally created as a check and
balance to prohibit civil servants from controlling their masters.
That's right. The
judicial branch was created to protect you from government. Inquisition is trial by government. Inquisition is prohibited within a State.
TRIAL BY GOVERNMENT IS PROHIBITED BY YOUR STATE CONSTITUTION.
The judicial branches of state governments enforce the
un-legislated Biblical law. As
I have repeatedly shown, servants are not greater then their masters.
Legislated laws do not apply to people outside the government.
The separation of powers prohibits the judicial branch
from enforcing legislated law. These
judicial courts are almost extinct, because only sovereigns are qualified to
use them. You cannot be
sovereign within your state if other persons govern you.
The master controls the servant. Always. This is
true for the Lord Almighty, and it is true for you.
And civil servants control their subordinates. You are sovereign if you are the master of your civil
servants. This is why
Christians are hated by those in power.
In their courts, you no longer place your left hand on
a Bible, while saluting the black robed priest with your right hand.
I see this as worship of a false god.
Here are proofs that judicial powers do not exist.
Proof #1: There is a separation of
powers. Judicial courts do not
enforce statutes. Legislative
courts enforce statutes. "Courts
enforcing statutes do not act judicially", Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE
579. Courts are often empowered to act as administrative
adjudicators, as in Federal Radio Commission v. GE 281 US 464. The US Supreme Court said: “Such legislative or
administrative jurisdiction, it is well settled cannot be conferred on this
court either directly or by appeal.”, Keller v. Potomac 261 US 428.
Keller v. Potomac also went on to explain Muskrat v. US, 219 US 346,
that judicial power “does not extend ... to administrative or legislative
issues or controversies.”
Proof #2: Look at the yellow fringe flag
in your state's courts. Then
look up the authority allowed to fly the yellow fringe flags in Title 4
United States Code. The yellow
fringe flag is a military flag. Also
see the 1925 Attorney General Opinion 34 Op Atty Gen 483.
(Here is another reference which I have not confirmed: 1959 President
Eisenhower's Executive Order 10834 published in Federal Register at 24 FR
6865 "A military flag is a flag that resembles Fringe border on three
sides"). By the way, the
yellow fringe is prohibited outside the federal military, according to Army
Regulation AR840-10 1-6e(3). Then read the US Supreme Court's decision in Ex Parte
Mulligan, 71 US 2, and prove to yourself that the judicial branch of a state
government must protect its citizens from the federal military. That's right, the judicial branch of any state's government
must protect its citizens from the yellow fringe flag. If your state supreme court is flying a yellow fringe flag
(and it is), then you must confess that it is no longer protecting you from
the flag it is flying.
Proof #3: Lawyers are officers of the
court, yet can serve in the Legislative and Executive branches of
government. There is no
separation of powers. Almost
all courts are within the legislative branch, not the judicial branch.
[I said "almost all" because there is one
courtroom in your State's Supreme Court building which probably hasn't been
used since the early 1940's. It
has a real US flag on the wall, not on a staff (authority that raised up
from the land, not from the sea). Its
justice is not available to PERSONS. The
entire authority of the state rests in this empty courtroom, ready for a
remnant to awaken it. (Aside:
Throughout the history of your once-great nation, more than two million men,
with a duty to defend the Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign and
DOMESTIC, have marched off to secure the blessings of liberty to their
as-yet-unborn posterity, never to return home.
It behooves you to preserve whatever blessings of liberty remain.
Don’t spit on their graves by flippantly discarding what they
Proof #4: Federal and State constitutions
existed prior to the existence of bar attorneys (the American Bar
Association was born in 1878 in Saratoga Springs, N.Y.), yet you cannot get
the non-bar "Assistance of Counsel" guaranteed by the 6th
amendment. In fact, an attorney
cannot represent an ordinary citizen. The
practice of law is an occupation of common right (meaning anyone can
practice law) according to Sims v. Ahrens, 271 SW 720 (1925). And the US Supreme Court in Schware v. Board of Examiners,
353 US 238,239 refused to say whether or not states can license the practice
of law. Everything is backwards
for enfranchised persons. If
you enlisted into the government, then you are prohibited from a non-bar
attorney guaranteed by the 6th amendment.
Again: a licensed attorney cannot represent private people and a
non-licensed attorney cannot represent public persons.
Which kind are you? How
do you suppose you enlisted?
You are considered legally incompetent.
A judge will tell you to retain competent counsel.
Like a child, you are under a legal incapacity and must be
represented. There are many
advantages to remaining incompetent. Others
will manage your affairs. You
can receive benefits such as Social Security.
And, you can only go to jail when a lawyer wants to punish you.
Like a child being given “time out”.
Here is proof:
The Supreme Court in a 1972 case Argersinger v. Hamlin,
407 US 25, ruled:
knowing and intelligent waiver, no person may be imprisoned for ANY offense,
whether classified as petty, misdemeanor, or felony, unless he was
represented by counsel at his trial."
That’s right! A
Roman officer cannot bind (arrest) a Roman citizen. Acts 22:29.
I don’t know about other states, by in my state there
is a law that made the bar association an agency of the state in 1933.
The cannon of ethics prohibits any lawyer who is an agent of the
plaintiff from representing the defendant.
That's right! A lawyer would instantly loose his license if he were to
claim to represent a private citizen in any proceeding brought by the state.
The US Supreme Court in the 1793 case Chisholm v.
Georgia, 2 US 419, confirmed that the law profession was corrupted in
ancient times: "The rude and degrading league between the bar and
feudal barbarism was not yet formed."
Let him who has wisdom calculate. Bar = barbarism.
Proof #5: A lawyer cannot claim that you
have rights. U.S. v. Johnson,
76 F.Supp 538 is a 1947 case where a defendant "... indicated he was
standing upon the right of a lawyer not to disclose the confidential
communications of his clients."
"Likewise, he claims that the judge before whom the
matter was heard, assured him that his rights would be protected and lead
him to believe that he would be immune from prosecution."
He lost his case and appealed. The appeals court determined:
privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive
resistant, nor the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one
indifferent therein. It is a
fighting clause. Its benefits
can be retained only by sustained combat. It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor.
It is valid only when insisted upon by a belligerent claimant in
Now read that again and notice "It cannot be
claimed by attorney..." That's right!
An attorney cannot go into a courtroom and claim that you have
Proof #6: Read the 1988 Judicial
Improvements Act, Public Law 100-702 (102 STAT 4672) Section 297(a)
allows federal judges to serve in state courts.
(It is interesting to note that Title 28 US Code section 297(b) refers
to states as countries). If
there were judicial branches in any state this could not happen. How did we go from a Supreme Court decision in the Mulligan
case, that state courts must protect their citizens from your Federal
Government, to a law that allows federal judges to sit in state courts?
Answer: your nation has been surrendered.
Proof #7: Your nation was settled by
persecuted Christians who risked death to establish a nation where they
could live Biblical lives. Where
God’s commandments prohibit bearing false witness.
Where civil authority must punish those who bear false witness
per Deuteronomy 19:18-19. Where,
historically, sworn testimony was taken when placing your hand on a Bible.
Where now the Supreme Court determined on March 7, 1983 in Briscoe v.
Lahue, No. 81-1404, that police cannot be punished for giving
perjured testimony that convicts someone.
Did you authorize your servants to lie?
Can anyone be safe in such a system?
Do you want your nation back?
Proof #8: Back when states were states,
we had a system of justice where you had a right to a jury of your peers.
A jury of your peers is a jury of 12 people who know you, see
Now that you know lawyers have forced you to take oaths
to their gods, and forced you to deny God's dominion here on earth, you can
now appreciate what Christ said in Luke 11:52 "Woe unto you lawyers for ye have taken away the key of
knowledge; ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering
in ye hindered." And
also in Matt 23:13,33 (NIV) "You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's
faces. You yourselves do not enter,
nor will you let those enter who are trying to... How will you escape
being condemned to hell?" Did
you read that right? Did Christ
lie, or are lawyers condemned to hell? see John 8:44. [Again I’ve underlined the word enter, so that you
understand the voluntary citizenship issue].
"They promise them freedom, while they themselves are
slaves ..." 2nd
Peter 2:19 (NIV)
Proof #9: The acts of congress cannot be
copyrighted, and the acts of the Courts cannot be copyrighted, yet all legal
citations refer to copyrighted law books.
If you make the mistake in court, just once, of referring to one of
their copyrighted law book, then you just granted in rem jurisdiction.
The Summary Judgment rule enforces the pagan maxim that “he who
refuses to fight must lose.” If
you don’t respond to the specifics of the accusation, then you are
automatically guilty. Because
of this automatic guilt:
You are forced against your will to fight your neighbor
or lose whatever they want to take.
You are a pawn. You
are put on a dueling field and forced to fight. This is a form (forum) of entertainment for your Roman
occupation forces. The same
adversarial traditions that fed Christians to the Lions still entertain
these anti-Christs. Their own
Gladiators went to their deaths to entertain the bloodlusts of these black
robed Latin speaking priests.
Jesus gave us an example to follow when we are
confronted with this summary Judgment rule.
Jesus Christ remained silent at his arraignment before Pilate (Matt
27:14, Mark 15:3-5). This is referred to by Christians as the good confession (1st
Tim 6:13). Also see Mark 14:61.
Jesus Christ said in Matt 5:25 and Luke 12:58 that you are to agree with your adversary least they deliver
you to the judge.
1st Corinthians 6:5-7: Shame... to go to law against another ... in front of
unbelievers. Why not rather be
Traditionally, according to the Bible, justice was
served when a thief made fourfold restitution.
Why then did Jesus Christ say in Luke 6:30 that if anyone takes what is yours you must not demand
restitution? Why did the same
unchanging Jesus that warned us to judge not least ye be judged (in
Matt7:1-2 while speaking to the multitudes) also tell us to judge
righteous judgment (in John 7:24 while speaking in the temple)? Why are we told not to judge our brother (Romans 14:10) yet
the least esteemed in the Church are to make judgments (1st
Corinthians 6:4)? Could it be that there are two court systems?
One under Roman law and one under Christian law?
Could it be that we are not to participate with evil?
Now that you understand the alternative: Why not rather be wronged?
Early Christians did not ask for restitution.
The few that did were harshly admonished.
Example: 1st Corinthians 6:7 (NIV):
fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely
Is your court system for Christ or is it Anti Christ?
2nd Samuel 23:3
(King James Version) "...He that ruleth over men must be
just, ruling in the fear of God."
According to Occult
Symbols by Dr. Cathy Burns, “The Law of Karma has been symbolized by
the Scales of Justice.”
Can a Judge be a Christian?
(Answer: Matt 7:1-2, Luke 6:37, Romans 2:1, Romans 14:4,10, 1st
Cor 4:5, etc.)
Jesus Christ said in Matt 5:34 that Christians cannot swear oaths, and in verse 37 that any
testimony beyond a yes or no answer is evil.
Is you local court for Christ or is it Anti Christ?
In your once great nation there was a time when an oath
to God put an END to all argument. Hebrews
6:16. Is this court rule available to you in your local courtroom?
According to all encyclopedias an oath is always a
religious ceremony. Does your
court require separation of their church from their state, or does
your court prohibit separation of their church from their state? In
their courts, you no longer place your left hand on a Bible, while saluting
the black robed priest with your right hand.
I see this as worship of a false god.
Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Mr. Jarvis dated
September 25, 1820:
consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions
is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the
despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so.
They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and
the privilege of their corps... their power the more dangerous as they are
in office for life, and not responsible as the other functionaries are, to
the selective control. The
Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that, to whatever
hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would
THAT'S RIGHT! THE
SUPREME COURT DOES NOT INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION.