To: Gary Clark 
Cc: fathersmanifesto@usa.net, manifesto@pemail.net, fmanifesto@hotmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Status: O
X-Status: 


Dear Gary,

I can't say that I didn't agree with your assessment regarding the
criminality of the US government.  The only thing I was confused
about, and still am a bit, is the timing of everything.  Your point
about the Civil War is on target, but at least the free enterprise
system and the other social and economic statistics seemed to be on
the positive side right up until the 1960s or 1970s.

Many of the cites are in the Fathers' Manifesto Class Action Suit at
http://fathers.zq.com/42usc1983.htm and if you need specific ones,
please let me know.  They are also in http://fathers.zq.com/gorish.htm

There had to be collusion between all three powers of government to
suspend Constitutional rights as completely as has happened in the
last 3 decades, but it is the judiciary specifically which is charged
with upholding (not "interpreting") the Constitution.

Once I got the dismissal to the FM Class Action Suit, it was pretty
easy to see what and who and how the Constitution was suspended.  Now
we have to make this clear to everyone--the judiciary is committing
treason, which is not going to be a popular statement.

But how do you word this so that people support a move to reestablish
the Constitution?

Sincerely,


John Knight
---Gary Clark  wrote:
>
> Mark Hall wrote:
> > 
> > Gentlemen,
> > 
> > Your comments on the following would be greatly appreciated!
> > 
> > Fight on!
> > 
> > Sincerely,
> > 
> > John Knight
> > 
> > ABSOLUTE JUDICIAL IMMUNITY
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> >But in the 1970s, this all changed. The Act of 1871 did not change. 
> >An amendment to the Constitution, ratified by three quarters of the
> >states, which would have been the proper and legal way to suspend
such
> >an important 200 year old Constitutional principle, was not passed or
> >even proposed.  Neither Congress nor the President nor the Governors
> >nor we the people deemed that the judiciary's ability to conduct its
> >business required or warranted it to have the "maximum ability to act
> >fearlessly and impartially without an atmosphere of intimidation or
> >harassment".  The judiciary decided this on its own, and unilaterally
> >suspended this vital Constitutional principle, which upset 200 years
> >of social and economic progress, and which benefitted nobody except
> >our global economic competitors.  The judiciary ignores the 200 years
> >during which judicial immunity of any kind was barred, and instead
> >cites cases like Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9, 11, 112 S.Ct. 286,
> >116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991), Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240, 1243-1244 (9th
> >Cir. 1996), Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 199-200, 106 S. Ct.
> >496, 88 L.Ed. 2d 507 (1985), and Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072,
1075
> >(9th Cir. 1986) as justification for suspending this key principle
> >from the American landscape.
> >
> >The result is that no judge in the land feels compelled to uphold the
> >US Constitution, even though he takes an oath to do so. 
> 
> Can you cite, in greater detail, the
> progression of events (e.g. legal
> decisions) that brought this about?
> 
> I have read this before, and from more
> than one source. It seems to me that if
> any branch of government sets itself
> above the Constitution, then that branch
> of government is, by so doing,
> committing a criminal act.
> 
> The term "criminal court" takes on a
> whole new meaning when viewed in this
> light.
> 
> John, I recall in one of our earlier
> discussions, in which I brought up the
> idea that the government itself had
> become, and therefore now is, a criminal
> entity, you weren't sure you agreed with
> me.
> 
> I assume that you now agree with me.
> 
> If the judicial branch of government has
> become, and therefore now is, a criminal
> entity, then it follows that the
> government itself has become, and
> therefore now is, a criminal entity.
> 
> This is the case in exactly the same
> sense that the Nazi government of
> Germany became, and was later found in
> international court to have been, a
> criminal entity.
> 
> The fact is, the government of the
> United States, by virtue of its own
> failure to abide by Constitution that
> was written to hold it in check, has
> become, and therefore now is, a CRIMINAL
> GOVERNMENT!
> 
> But this isn't confined to the
> judiciary.
> 
> Find for me, please, the body of law (in
> the Constitution, or anywhere else) that
> grants to the President any authority at
> all to issue executive orders. I have
> never been able to find it.
> 
> The Republic was founded by men who
> believed deeply in SHARPLY RESTRICTING
> the scope of governmental power. It has
> become perverted since then by criminal
> people who hold the opposite viewpoint.
> This goes at least as far back as
> Abraham Lincoln, whose FEDERAL ARMY
> fought the Confederate Army for the
> assertion of Federal power over state
> power.
> 
> There were actually two American
> Revolutions, not one. The second was the
> revolution by the southern states
> against what they saw as unjust,
> unwarranted and illegal growing Federal
> power. Had the south won, it would today
> be called a revolution. Since the
> Federal forces won, it is called a civil
> war. (Note that, by contrast, the second
> Chinese revolution in this century is
> still called "the revolution" by the
> government in Beijing... They won.)
> 
> By the way, who the hell is Mark Hall?
> 
> Gary Clark
> 

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


From CMB4227@ProfitAlert.Com Mon Jul 27 19:23:53 1998
>From CMB4227@ProfitAlert.Com  Mon Jul 27 19:23:53 1998
Received: from mx03.netaddress.usa.net (mx03.netaddress.usa.net [204.68.24.140])
	by pony-2.mail.digex.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA27791
	for ; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 19:23:50 -0400 (EDT)