ALL RIGHT, NOW I'M CONFUSED. OR AM I?

A GIFT FOR THE GOD.

&

A GIFT FROM THE GOD

 

 

GOBLINS RUNNING WILD

 

Jefferson was plainly alarmed by the possibility of judicial tyranny.

You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges … and their power [are] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and are not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective 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 become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves … . When the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough. I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves. …. — Letter to Mr. Jarvis, Sept, 1820

Jefferson plainly had an answer against judicial tyranny.

This case of Marbury and Madison is continually cited by bench and bar, as if it were settled law, without any animadversions on its being merely an obiter dissertation of the Chief Justice … . But the Chief Justice says, “there must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.” True, there must; but … . The ultimate arbiter is the people …. — Letter to Judge William Johnson, June 1823

He saw where judicial tyranny was leading.

When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated …. — Letter to C. Hammond, July 1821

He saw judicial tyranny as a subtle undermining of the Constitution.

The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working underground to undermine our Constitution from a co-ordinate of a general and special government to a general supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet. … I will say, that “against this every man should raise his voice,” and, more, should uplift his arm … — Letter to Thomas Ritchie, Sept. 1820

Jefferson saw judicial tyranny as an all-out assault on the Constitution.

I fear, dear Sir, we are now in such another crisis [as when the Alien and Sedition Laws were enacted], with this difference only, that the judiciary branch is alone and single-handed in the present assaults on the Constitution. But its assaults are more sure and deadly, as from an agent seemingly passive and unassuming. — Letter to Mr. Nicholas, Dec. 1821

He saw judicial tyranny as the greatest danger to the nation.

… there is no danger I apprehend so much as the consolidation of our government by the noiseless, and therefore unalarming, instrumentality of the Supreme Court. — Letter to William Johnson, Mar. 1823

For judges to usurp the powers of the legislature is unconstitutional judicial tyranny.

… One single object ... will entitle you to the endless gratitude of society; that of restraining judges from usurping legislation. — Letter to Edward Livingston, Mar. 1825

A Constitutional Amendment to Thwart Judicial Tyranny?

More than once Jefferson expressed his desire for a Constitutional amendment that would clearly block the power the judiciary had unconstitutionally usurped, which they began to do in 1805, in the case of Marbury v. Madison, and got away with it.

But the Constitution did not give the judiciary power to legislate, nor to decide for the other branches what is, or is not, constitutional. That is a power they left with the people, according to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. -- Amendment IX

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. -- Amendment X

 

THE FOLLOWING TAKES PLACE APRIL 9, 2002, IN LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA. CENTRAL DISTRICT.

BETWEEN 9AM AND 10AM

 

"AS TO ALL OF THE OTHER DEFENDANTS, YOU ARE HERE BECAUSE YOU HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH A CRIMINAL OFFENSE AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.

THE NATURE OF THE OFFENSE IS DESCRIBED IN THE INDICTMENT OR COMPLAINT AND THE ATTACHED AFFIDAVIT THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED OR WILL RECEIVE.

YOU HAVE THE FOLLOWING RIGHTS:
YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED BY A "LAWYER" AT ALL STAGES OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.

YOU ALSO HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE A "LAWYER" PRESENT WITH YOU ANY TIME THAT YOU ARE QUESTIONED BY A LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.

IF YOU WISH TO HIRE A "LAWYER," OR IF YOU WISH TO TALK FURTHER WITH A "LAWYER" BEFORE I PROCEED WITH YOUR CASE, I WILL GIVE YOU TIME TO DO SO. IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO HIRE A "LAWYER," I WILL APPOINT AN ATTORNEY TO RE-PRESENT YOU."

 

DO YOU READ ENGLISH? KILLERCOP?

KILLERCOP:" I READ ENGLISH."

 

THE COURT: "OKAY. ALL RIGHT. DO YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING. MS. DUARTE"

 

MS. DUARTE: "NO YOUR HONOR."

 

THE COURT: "ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO FIND THAT THE DEFENDANT IS COMPETENT AND CAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING HIS RIGHTS. THAT HE'S HAD ACCESS TO AN ATTORNEY IN THIS CASE [BUT NO LAWYER-AND NO EXPERTS EITHER].

 

THAT HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WERE READ TO HIM BY ME THIS MORNING. THAT HE'S BEEN GIVEN A FORM OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. AND THAT'S GOING TO BE WHERE THE RECORD IS GOING TO STAND TODAY. THANK YOU."

KILLERCOP: "I'M SORRY, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS A COURT OF RECORD?"

THE COURT: "YES. THIS IS A COURT OF RECORD."

KILLERCOP:" I WOULD LIKE THE COURT TO NOTE THAT I'M PROCEEDING WITH ALL OF MY RIGHTS RESERVED WITH THE LACK OF PREJUDICE."

THE COURT: "THAT'S - - THAT'S GRANTED.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THAT. ALL YOUR RIGHTS ARE RESERVED."

 

EXCEPT FOR THAT ENTITLEMENT NOT TO BE TRIED. OR DUE PROCESS. OR EVEN THE RIGHT TO BE HERE. THE WAIVER OF YOUR RIGHTS IS IMPLIED. ITS NOW A PART OF THE PROCESS. SO YOU FEEL ASSURED, AMERICA?

 

Killercop Finds Department of Justice "implicitly waived" all rights to object. A.K.A. Lifes A Bitch, Then You Meet One In A Court Of No Law.

 

"For you to go to bat and take the case to trial or even to pursue a plea, if that's what you were alluding to before, with these lawyers is going to be totally against your interest and against my duty to assure that you get effective assistance of Counsel." ~Judge A. Howard Matz, Pg. 19, Sept. 23, 2002, Pre-trial of killercop.com.