But, is the system still for the administration of justice? Or for something else actually quite sinister in nature? This is part of the concerns the writer had when he set out to explore the system of justice we supposedly have in this nation founded on the unalienable, God-given rights of man.

Luckily, or unluckily depending on one�s perspective, the writer�s local government cooperated with writer in his quest to personally observe the system in action. By this, the writer means he became the defendant in charges levied against him for keeping his property, his automobiles, on his property.

Up to the time of the first time his property was violated unconstitutionally by a law enforcement officer and the writer being told by the city manager that the 10th Amendment allowed for such ordinances, the writer believed he lived in the United States of America with unalienable rights secured by a Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land. At least, that is what he volunteered to fight and possibly die for at the ripe old age of 17.

�Luckily� is stated above because now the writer was forced to do as much research as humanly possible into the Constitution, the State of Missouri�s Constitution, and revised statutes of the State of Missouri. In the month�s that followed, at least 4000 hours [Now at least 5000] were spent in getting at the truth concerning the design of government, particularly the legislative and judicial systems and the relationship to one another and the people of this nation.

�Unlucky� is stated because one never knows the outcome when dealing with any department of government, be it the executive, legislative, or judicial. And, one would be extremely hard pressed to predict with certainty the outcome of any judiciary processes (with exceptions noted below). There are simply too many variables which ignore the constitutions and, as the writer found, state statutes.

Most judges are attorneys (but cannot actively practice privately while holding the office). Thus, one would think, and like to believe, that judges know the laws they administer to. But, is this the case?

Judges also take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the united States of America, the constitution of their state, and of the laws of the states. Above all else, the rights of the individual are to be protected. But, is this the case?

Entering into the administration of justice are prosecutors who must be �licensed� attorneys, that is, become a member of the BAR. At any rate, they must have passed the BAR exam in order to practice law for remuneration (pay) from an individual.

As prosecutor, the attorney must take and subscribe to an oath to uphold the Constitution of the united States of America, any state they are licensed in, and the laws of the state.

Then, we have defense attorneys who have the responsibility to defend their clients against any charges or complaints made by the government or other citizens.

Thus, what we have are attorneys, learned individuals well-versed and expert in justice, bound by oath to uphold the Constitution for the United States of America, the Constitution of the State in which they practice, and the statutes of the State in which they practive, filling the halls of justice. Surely this assures the individual that he will be treated fairly with justice the ultimate outcome. How could it possibly otherwise?

Well, we could ask James Sanders who exposed the cover-up of the real reason for the downing of Flight 800.

Or, we could ask Bob Stewart who is in the process of challenging the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF - not ATF. It is a bureau, not an agency, so don�t help them perpetuate the myth by not typing one letter, the B for "bureau"). In order to do so effectively, he saw the necessity of acting as his own attorney and fired his. One might ask him why?

Or, we could ask the thousands of people who have had their lives ruined by the most horrendous criminal group to ever attack and violate the sanctity of people and their property, the dreaded Internal Revenue Service. One might think of the IRS as the financial arm of the BATF since they can be traced back to being one and the same bureau.

We could even ask the people who left the Davidian farm (it was not ever a �compound�) alive after the siege by the federal government. Whoops, no, we can�t. All were killed, including the children!!!.

Well, then, guess we could ask Danforth who was given the task of investigating the government�s actions. This is, of course, one of the exceptions in which one could make a prediction. Anytime the government establishes an organization to investigate whether the government behaved wrongfully, you can predict with 100 percent certainty that the government will be found completely innocent of any wrong-doing. In other words, Danforth would just give the same song and dance he gave following his �investigation.�

But, before you run out to ask, keep in mind that roughly 40 percent of this country�s legislators are attorneys. Or, they are advised by attorneys. Thus, legislation is controlled directly or indirectly by BAR accepted attorneys.

In looking at the Executive Branch, 24 Presidents have been attorneys with two others having attended law schools. Since 1861, the administration in which it seems the push for unlawful executive orders and towards a one world government began, all but nine have been lawyers with two of those trained in law. And, as we all know, those nine had access to any attorney or staff of attorneys they wanted - and at the expense of the payers of tax, both legitimate and illegitimate tax.

As to the latter, we have found that expense is no object when government entities hire attorneys at the public�s expense. How many did Starr end up with what - 60 some? Lord, what a waste. Come to think of it - is Starr�s office filled with his army of lawyers still operational?

Thus, what we have are attorneys as legislators writing nearly incomprehensible, senseless laws meant only to remove rights; attorneys to prosecute or defend with judges (also largely attorneys) judging whether or not the laws have been violated by a citizen or violates the rights of the citizen (society); and the laws enforced by executive branches who are largely lawyers. Or, controlled by lawyers in positions of power, if no more than indirectly through the super wealthy they represent.

This conceivably creates an extreme potential for the corrupted to corrupt and be protected by the corrupted.

Lady Justice symbolizes the scales of justice. But, what is justice? Is it citizens being convicted and fined or incarcerated for victimless crimes? Are the acts these "marauders against society" are convicted of actually crimes? Has justice been served when one of these vile criminals has been incarcerated or fined out of house and home? Or, had homes and all assets confiscated even though no charge was ever made?

Most of us think of justice as being a judgment which is fair and morally right that it is in the conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude, or, simply, righteousness (American Heritage Dictionary, 4th Ed., 2000). In law, it means the conformity to truth, fact, or sound reason.

Crime means an act committed or violated in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction; a serious offense, especially one in violation of morality.

Illegal means prohibited by law. But, what law? This is the tricky part.

This nation is founded on principles established through moral righteousness. Although many will deny the involvement of religion or that religion hasn�t any place in government, those who do so deny the validity of unalienable rights and the very foundation of the principles this nation was founded on. In other words, they deny human rights and liberty.

The Declaration of Independence begins:

�WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with one another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature�s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them in the Separation.�

And then proceeds with:

�WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed...�

Then, the Preamble of the United States Constitution states:

�We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.�

Thus, it is seen clearly that this nation was founded on religious principles, that rights to be protected are God-given, that they are unalienable, and that these are the �blessings� of liberty and above the authority of government. No wonder the government wants to destroy the precepts this nation was founded on.

Since our founders were wise enough to recognize the dangers inherent with a few men being placed in positions of authority exceeding the authority given them, the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution in the form of Amendments. The Bill of Rights is taken as being the first ten amendments.

To further protect the rights of the individual, especially those who were not at the time born natural by-right citizens, the 13th and 14th Amendments were also added, with the 13th prohibiting involuntary servitude and the 14th assuring all people have equal protection of the law and due process as delineated by the Constitution.

Thus, unalienable rights are those given by God, not by men. Unalienable rights are those that are above the laws of Man. Furthermore, these laws not of men but of our Creator, are the supreme Laws of the Land to which all judges, officials, officers of the law, legislators, executives in government, assistants, and the People of this nation MUST obey to be just and righteous.

These laws are not changeable by men because men do not have the power to remove what has been given by the Supreme Being, regardless of what one calls the supreme power. In this nation, the dominant name is God, an enemy of oppression and the evil of tyranny.

Thus, any law infringing upon the rights of the individual are, in fact, not laws at all. They are null and void from their inception since they infringe upon the rights of the People. And, it makes no difference what the majority believes or votes. If the rights of one person are infringed upon, then the law is made null and void and should not be obeyed because it doesn�t lawfully exist. (16 Am Jur 2d, section 177)

Now, enter BAR attorneys, lawyers with every negative connotation imaginable, who might be considered as a plague on Liberty. Lawyers are in the business to make money by winning - no, for litigating cases or just for advice in cases. Lawyers are also in the business of writing �laws�. Lawyers are also in the business of ruling on the laws they write. See the problem yet?

First of all, the Constitution in establishing justice is actually quite simple. If one individual infringes upon the rights of another, then justice demands that the victim being given redress by the one who infringed upon his rights.

What the redress is may be is, for example, a return of the property taken, labor of equal value, or incarceration as punishment for infringing upon the other�s rights. What is deemed suitable is determined by the People as is justice in the form of being tried by a jury of 12. The 12 represent society at large.

It is a simple formula. If the rights of one have been infringed upon, then a crime against that citizen's unalienable rights has been committed. This formula, of course, demands a victim. Thus, �victimless crime� is an oxymoron as there can be no crime without a victim.

Lawyers in their quest for money and fame distort what is law into what is legal in definitions made and manipulations of law done by men, and add in the confusion of administrative procedures which thoroughly distort justice. What is lawful is exactly what is laid down in the Constitution, the amendments to the Constitution, and all self-evident, God-given rights whether enumerated or not.

Enter corruption in government. A corrupted government doesn�t want justice. If it did, they would be few laws and those would only be concerned with determining a fair and just punishment for a true crime (infringement on the rights of another) committed by a citizen. In other words, laws would be merely to define punishments suitable to the rights violated.

What a corrupted government wants is injustice. It demands it so as to establish control over the individual�s rights or, in other words, over the masses.

For example, let�s take a look at gun control since it is a necessity as a goal for the establishment of a corrupted, tyrannical government holding the people in servitude to it. Remove the means of a population protecting itself against oppression and all are made subservient to those in power.

It is a God-given right that the People have the right to defend their lives, their liberty, and their pursuit of happiness with any means available that they can obtain through their own hard efforts. In defense of these unalienable rights, it doesn�t matter if a weapon used is a stick, a knife, an arrow, a hammer, a pistol, a rifle, a flame thrower, a car, a rock, a cannon, a tank, or a jet fighter aircraft. When it comes to defense, any and all objects can be used with impunity. The 2nd Amendment assures this.

But, executives, legislators, judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys are for the most part lawyers and/or controlled by huge business interests who control through legalities created by lawyers, essentially legalities created out of thin air. It has to be out of thin air - actually, the back alleys and darkened rooms, so to speak, of the evil controllers of finance and those in government - since there is not a constitutional, or God-given, authority given to any person or organization allowing it create any law which might infringe upon the rights of the People.

Executives in government are responsible for the enforcement of laws created by the legislators, whether it be on the federal, State, or political subdivision of a state, such as a city or county. Then, judges judge on the laws created by these people when, in reality, their only power is to guide the proceedings or determine at most whether or not an act done by one person interferes with the constitutional rights of another. What I am trying to say is that they do not have the authority to interpret law. Nor may they make law from the bench. They are merely servants to the Constitution and jsutice demanded by the people and no more.

Of course, corrupted legislators know of the dangers an armed populace has to the establishment and maintaining of a corrupted government intent of usurping the rights of Man. When people recognize that their rights are being removed by those they elect to office, then, if all else fails, the people could very well take to arms against the government they established to protect their rights. Sort of, if they won't listen, and we can't seem to fire them, then "...shoot the bastards" (Claire Wolfe).

Hence, an armed populace is the enemy of corruption in government. The goal of corrupted governments desiring complete and plenary control over the people is to remove all means of defense the People against the government.

Legislators then make unconstitutional laws controlling the disarming of the populace. Then, law enforcement arrests (or kills) people based on the constitutionally invalid laws. Then, prosecutors and defense attorneys, who are not interested in the justice established by the Constitution, work in collusion to prosecute people who have violated the laws made by these men. And, needless to state, law enforcers killing a citizen is - well, it was just an unfortunate mistake or, 'well, we thought we had the right (house, person, automobile, whatever) so it isn't our fault - looked like my (our) life was being threatened. What crap. Such killings are murder, plain and simple. But, I digress.

Anyway, corrupted (or maybe ignorant) judges who commit treason every time they rule against a citizen�s rights, rule that the legislator speaks for the majority and that they have the power to enforce invalid laws. They then become instrumental in punishing a citizen who is doing nothing more than expressing his God-given rights and doing so without interfering with the rights of any other citizen.

The end result is that what is lawful as defined by the supreme Law of the Land has been changed to what is legal as defined by the law profession which, in the mind of the writer, includes corrupted executives, corrupted members of the judiciary, corrupted law enforcement personnel (and whole departments), corrupted members of the many legislatures, and corrupted lawyers, whether allegedly on the side of the victim or the accused.

In reality, one cannot commit a crime against the State by expressing a right. It is impossible by definition since the People are sovereign over the State. One can only commit a crime against another citizen and, subject only to giving redress if the injured citizen makes a complaint against the one causing the injury (injury might be trespass, stealing from, physically assaulting, blocking movement, and so on, not just physical harm).

When a citizen is accused by another of violating his rights, it becomes the purpose of courts, meaning a jury, to determine whether or not the complaint is valid and, then, if found to be valid, to establish suitable redress. As you will see below (or in Article III, Clause 2 - US Constitution), there is not a requirement for a judge in a common law, constitutional Article III hearing. If there were, the Constitution would state it clearly.

Anyway, accepting the presence of a judge as proper, his job is to guide the proceeding in an orderly fashion. He may not interpret law nor apply his own personally "made" laws from the bench. He merely maintains order while the jurists make a ruling based on the facts presented as to whether or not the accused is guilty or whether or not he had just reason for behaving as he did.

Thus, constitutional processes distorted beyond all recognition by man-made, unconstitutional actions resulting in courts without juries and judges taking the place of juries has been made by the law profession. And, through disinformation and distortion of law, the People have been coerced and led to believe this person in black robes (figuratively speaking in many cases) has the power to represent the whole of the poeple whether or not the accused or the victim wants this to be so in a hearing.

In regards to the lack of a jury, the Constitution, however, has this to say concerning the trial of crimes:

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury;" (Article III, Section 2, Clause 3)

Have we all forgotten judges are elected officials. As such, there can be no requirement other than that to any other elected position. There is not requirement a judge even have a high school education and certainly not a requirement for a degree in law. The fact is it is highly possible that attorneys are prohibited from being judges because of their BAR affiliation. But, that is another story. And, people risk their lives and fortunes that these people without the control of a jury.

Get real. As evidenced by the the writer�s recent experiences, the judge, nor the prosecutor (a city attorney who does not have the authority to prosecute in municipal ordinance prosecutions), knew that the writer had the constitutional right to a trial by jury, let alone that this was specifically addressed by a state statute. They also didn�t know that the prosecutor was committing fraud by passing himself off as a prosecuting attorney (they still don�t since I haven�t had to fire that bullet yet). What we apparently have are the ignorant leading the ignorant.

Add to this the man-made, lawyer made, practice of courts not informing jurists of the power of jury nullification. In fact, there are many horror stories of judges preventing any mention of the Constitution. Instead, judges give orders as if they are the law. Regrettably, the orders are usually in violation of the Constitution.

Prosecuting attorneys do the same and, since defense attorneys know which side of their bread is buttered, they either don�t know the truth, or ignore the truth, and help perpetuate these frauds carried out in the courtrooms of America.

So, when a firearm owner faces a court, he does not face the justice established by the Constitution. What he faces is a corrupt system intent on removing the rights of all People, a system of injustice that demands that citizens be made examples of.

When federal agents bust in on a business, or a home, they are serving injustice, especially since they haven�t any authority in the 50 States except in the collection of excise tax on imported firearms or imported drugs. In fact, any law enforcement officer breaking into a home is committing an act of war against a citizen and, hence, against this nation of States. And, damn to Hell judges who are permitting these acts.

I don�t give a damn what they say or how it is justified - forced entry can never be justified since there are less violent means to arrest without risking lives, especially of innocent people because the dumbass law enforcement people acted on some tip from some person and then acted without proper investigation. And, even if not innocent, means of arrest can be done in which lives are not risked.

Also, there is this. Drug laws and drug enforcement, firearm laws and enforcement, are all unconstitutional and, therefore, are not crimes. So, any forced entry based on these are crimes and vicious, uncontrolled acts of WAR against the People and must be stopped.

Back to the issue at hand. The prosecutor who knows he must go along, or wishes to establish power for himself and further his career, does everything he can to convict. In doing so, he forgets his oath of office, that his first first and primary duty is to uphold the Constitution, commits treason, perjury (not telling the truth is a lie, is it not), and victimizes the citizen facing the court's wrath.

The defense attorney, which Bob Stewart (case against the BATF) figured out was a big problem for him, goes along to further his own money-grubbing career. He does not demand the Constitution be obeyed, nor does he force the issue that the jury (if there is one) or the judge must obey the Constitution for the United States of America. He knows if he does so and pisses the judge off, that he will lose every future case. Strange that pissing a judge off has a bearing in cases, isn't it? This, if nothing else, should tell you just how corrupted the system is.

Plus, a defense attorney might have as a goal becoming the prosecutor or the judge, or other political aspirations. If he does, it is required by the "good ole boys" society, that he be a �player� in the process of administering injustice.

The judge, whether acting as the jury or not, places orders to the jury that they must convict or words to that effect, and does not inform the jury of the need to protect the rights of the accused. He violates his oath of office and, as with the prosecutor, commits treason, perjury, and victimizes the accused by causing him to become a �criminal� in the blind �eyes of justice� created by these corrupted factions.

As other people hear about the atrocities (presented by mainstream media doing their part in establishing a world without God-given rights), the people become afraid to stand up for their rights even if they do know them. The corrupted have done as they wished - another gun control law (or other right-infringing law produced by the good ole boy lawyer society) has been established even though in violation of every principle our founders held dear.

In order to assure many thousands of people are convicted, including other victimless crimes that produce wealth for law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges (yes, all that confiscated wealth goes to them either directly or indirectly), lawyers have priced themselves out of the range of 70 percent of the American population. Most aren't worth a squat in the field but charge per hour more than many people make in a month to six months. Talk about a fraud to generate income.

Many of the folks standing before judges don't know the law, nor can they read. They also lack the funds to hire a shyster lawyer (which saves them money in the end). They have been indoctrinated by the government in its schools, by the media, friends, and others into believing judges and prosecutors have absolute power over them. They are then convicted on laws that do not constitutionally exist.

And, even if the "defendant" could hire a defense attorney, he is no more likely to rely on a constitutional defense than the sun has of coming up in the west. The reason is judges for the most part have decided constitutionally secured rights do not belong in their military-like courts.

These unlawfully convicted citizens then pass their experience on to others and the lawyers filling government have set up their system of controlling the masses through laws our founders would have shot them for. And, probably fought another war to either remove them en masse or die in the process.

And, of course, since the lawyers now deal primarily with the money people, their incomes increased tremendously plus there is the additional income that comes from property confiscations. One case might be worth several lifetimes of income of the poor. What did I just read. Six law firms someplace were just awarded a fee of $625 million in a tobacco company lawsuit. Good lord, no wonder the majority are treasonous shysters and little more. Hell of a note when courts decide what attorneys are worth, isn't it?

What we have ended up with are citizens innocent of any true crime being victimized by the system. They have become the victims with those in government becoming the criminals. Legal, which is usually unlawful, has been coerced onto the public. Admiralty and military law has been established even though no State is a body of water subject to Admiralty or military law and even though the Constitution states otherwise.

Hasn�t this actually resulted in martial law, the conversion of a free nation into a policed military state? Try arguing the next time, God forbid, you are stopped for no reason and berate the law enforcer doing so and then threaten him with a complaint (it is a form of kidnapping, you know, no matter what corrupted courts have decided).

Then, should you survive the encounter, consider whether or not police power and military law has been forced on you, that you still live in the United States of America in which the God-given rights to Man still dominate, the great and noble nation of states established by our founders.

If this hasn't been a process of raping Lady Justice and leaving her for dead, I don�t know what is.