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 the 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 worshiping
of a false god.
Here are proofs that judicial powers do not exist. People - pay attention:
Proof #1: There is a separation of powers. Judicial
courts cannot enforce statutes. Only legislative courts enforce statutes.
"Courts enforcing statutes do not act judicially" Thompson v.
Smith, 154 SE 579; FRC v. GE, 281 US 464; Keller v. PE, 261
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
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 U.S.
Supreme Court's decision in Ex Parte Mulligan, 71 US 2 and prove
to yourself that the judicial branch of a sate 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" and yet
they 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 U.S. 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 preserved.)
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 in 1925. And according to the U.S. Supreme Court
in Schware v. Board of Examiners, 353 US 238, 239 attorneys cannot
represent any private citizen nor any business because a state cannot 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,
"Absent a 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
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 Dall.
440 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:
"The 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 person."
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 rights.
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
28 U.S. 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 Appendix
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.
Proof #10. The "Summary Judgement" 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
Judgement 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 6:5-6: "Shame ... to go to law against another ... in
front of unbelievers. Why not rather be wronged?"
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 judgement (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 judgements (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) "The very fact
that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated
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 worshiping of
a false god.
Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Mr. Jarvis dated September
25,1820: "To 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 become despots."
THATS RIGHT! THE SUPREME COURT DOES NOT INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION.