In 2011, I wrote my book, Secret Corruption. That book detailed the business of litigation in America. I wrote that book out of my own personal experience in our legal system. My purpose in writing that book was to bring to light the roots of corruption I experienced in courts across America. I did that to aid others in their own struggles in our legal system. At that time, I believed the legal system was redeemable. I do not believe that today. I believe it is rigged against ordinary men and women, has become too expensive, and has made judges too powerful and unaccountable.
In my last 2 blog posts, I wrote about the hidden roots of the corruption of the American Republic. In my first blog post, I wrote about the perversion of the meaning of sovereignty. That perversion began in the late 1800s with 2 Supreme Court decisions that essentially made the state sovereign. That was done by reinterpreting the 11th Amendment. The 11th Amendment was passed on March 4, 1794. Interestingly, that Amendment says nothing about sovereignty. Yet, in 1890, in a decision by the Supreme Court, it began subscribing sovereignty to both the federal and state governments.
Please understand: That decision contradicted the original intent of the founding fathers. In Chisholm v Georgia, 2 US 419 (1793), the 1st Chief Justice of the Supreme Court clearly stated what the founding fathers intended, "Georgia is NOT a sovereign state". If Georgia is not a sovereign state, then no other state can claim sovereignty. Listen to what the Supreme Court said in 1793,
In despotic governments, the government has usurped, in a similar manner, both upon the state and the people. Hence all arbitrary doctrines and pretensions concerning the supreme, absolute, and incontrolable, power of government.
That is what the Supreme Court thought of the idea of sovereignty; they, it was filled with "haughty notions of state independence, state sovereignty and state supremacy". Why is it important that we understand what the Supreme Court thought immediately after the American Revolution? Simply put, they were closest to the founding fathers at the ratification of the Constitution. Literally, the Supreme Court reinterpreted the law under a new lens that did not exist at the time of the founding fathers nor was it in the mind of the first Supreme Court that had ruled on this exact issue.
In light of that prior case precedent, in 1890, the Supreme Court used the 11th Amendment to further what was unjustifiable under existing Supreme Court precedent, state sovereignty. Instead of narrowly considering the 11th Amendment, and going by the plain language of the 11th Amendment, it was radically reinterpreted to provide sovereignty to states to bar all suits against any state, including the federal government. From that point, the idea of sovereignty devolved from the people to the state.
In my second blog post, I detailed the change in the laws of the United States after the passage of the Rules Enabling Act in 1934. Essentially, the Rules Enabling Act gave the Supreme Court the ability to write its own rules. In 1938, with the passage of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, American law was fundamentally changed. The "due process", as described in the 5th and 7th Amendments, and existed for 150+ years, was abolished. Deceptively, the language of the Constitution was changed, reinterpreted, through the lens of those new rules passed by the Supreme Court.
Unconstitutional? Likely! But this change was hidden from the eyes of ordinary men and women. Further, it was done at a time when ordinary men and women had just returned from the Great War. People were unaware of what was being done by lawyers who believed it was necessary to create a system of new rules to simplify the pleading process. Instead, the court system began its grotesque transformation into the behemoth it is today. That transformation has caused the Supreme Court to become a 3rd political branch of America's government. Hence, the desire to control it today.
For the Supreme Court to stand as it does today, it required a third leg in its stool of justice - legal precedent. I wrote about that 3rd leg in my book, Secret Corruption. Secret Corruption, pgs. 74, 75. Thomas Jefferson stated what would happen through the self-aggrandization of the Supreme Court's power: it would become an oligarchy. And, it has. Today, the judicial branch has become America's most powerful branch of government. How do I know? I lived in Illinois. In Illinois, 5 of the last 7 Governors were indicted, convicted, and sentenced to jail.
While Governors have been easy to jail, judges have not been, even for criminal acts committed by them. Rarely, are judges impeached. There is no requirement for judges to have good behavior, even though that is required by the Constitution. Why is this? Because judges have stopped interpreting the law and begun writing them. Instead of saying what the law is, what judges say has become the law. That perversion of American law has been allowed through misinterpretation of the common law, predicated on the assumption of sovereignty, to allow judges to grant themselves absolute immunity.
Today, we have unaccountable judges who have absolute immunity for acts committed by them. Although there are very narrow allowances for judges to be sued civilly, it is nearly impossible to hold judges criminally liable for illegal acts they commit. In a Supreme Court case, Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978), judges were granted broad sweeping immunity for even criminal acts, as had likely been committed by the judge in this case, who forcible caused a young girl to be sterilized. How is something that egregious not criminal? But forced sterilization is hidden within America's history.
The pillars of American justice are built upon shaky grounds. Today, greed has consumed American justice. Ordinary men and women are unable to afford to enforce their rights. Prosecutors use legal fees as a weapon to force even the innocent to enter guilty pleas. Innocent men and women are unjustly held in jails across our great nation. Racism is more egregious in the legal system than in almost any other area of society. Yes, justice is blind to the needs of ordinary men and women. Some may think I am exaggerating the severity of the problem. I am not.
Why am I writing such thought-provoking ideas? To inform and educate. I believe my voice against injustice is powerful. I believe truth is essential in that fight against injustice. I believe the cries of multitudes of men and women who have experienced such injustice, like me, demand a response. Silence is not optional. No. I must speak. Some may listen. Others may not. I am okay with that. I believe justice is inevitable. I believe "[i]t is God alone who judges; he decides who will rise and who will fall." Ps, 75:7, NLT. Abraham Lincoln believed that. And he wrote about it. In Lincoln's second inaugural address, he said,
Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-men’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn by the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether.'
Yes, a day is coming when injustices done will be judged. Yes, America is facing judgment for its present and past secret sins. Yes, if we would judge ourselves, we can minimize that divine judgment and appease the divine judge. Yet, unlike Lincoln, leaders today, who boast in Lincoln, deny the very words spoken by him. They do not believe in divine retribution for the injustices we allow to happen. How long will God allow us to escape His judgments? I do not know. But I give my advice to those sitting in the judgment seats: "Prepare to meet your God in judgment." Amos 4:12, NLT.
Post a Comment