After being subjected to the current justice system and studying it extensively, including its components of law enforcement, prosecution, laws, ordinances, and judges, it has become rather obvious that the reason we have thousands of unconstitutional laws and processes being applied to citizens of the 50 states rests largely with groups of people in government who have banded together with the intent of circumventing the Constitution. And, of course, the fact that the People have allowed the atrocities against justice to begin, be developed, and continued.

The writer believes the following categories to be instrumental in deprivation of rights and the prevalence of injustice as determined by the Constitution. The categories are:

1. Lawmakers - whether on the federal, state, or political subdivision of a state, including counties, cities, and townships.

2. Law enforcement - whether federal, state, or political subdivision of a state, including counties, cities, and townships.

3. Attorneys - including those acting as or, in fact, prosecuting attorneys, and defense attorneys.

4. Judges - whether elected or appointed.

5. Juries

In regards to lawmakers, all must take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America regardless of the level of government they are in. They must defend the rights of every individual, despite any personal thoughts and in spite of any public policy or opinion of the majority.

Because of this sacred oath, it is the duty of each and every lawmaker to insure that the rights of not even one individual are infringed upon by any proposed law. Thus, the first priority for lawmakers is to ask themselves if the bill were made into law whether or not a right(s) of any individual would be infringed upon.

Obviously, from all the laws now being enforced, lawmakers have failed miserably in their primary duty to uphold and protect the rights secured by the Constitution. In doing so, they have violated the sacred trust given to them by the People. As such, they have committed treason against this nation of free people.

Law enforcement has reached the status of treating this nation �of the People� as a police state and have forgotten their duty as completely as have the lawmakers. Whether people know it or not, police officers cannot be sued for not responding to calls, including 911 calls. The reason is simple - they have not the responsibility for responding. Their responsibility is to monitor traffic, parking, and other laws made concerning public property.

It is beyond the realm of any police force to monitor the private lives and property of citizens. In fact, laws that have been made concerning private property (including all facets of the individual, not just land and their homes, but also their talents, rights, and well-being) are constitutionally null and void.

The primary task of police officers is to protect the rights of the citizens. Failing to do so should result in immediate termination for failure of duty. Such failings include stepping on people�s Real property, unlawful stops, searches and seizures on the highways or elsewhere, supporting unlawful constitutional drug and firearm laws (which is all of them), invading people�s homes armed and ready to kill regardless of any search warrant (a search authorizes a search only), killing innocent people, man-handling people and subjecting them to full body searches based on unconstitutional laws and assumption of power; in short, enforcing any law that is not within their authority and clearly unconstitutional.

Much as this writer would like to be able to do so, there is very little that he can say that is good about attorneys. Up until recently in the history of human God-given rights being recognized and defended, attorneys were not allowed in courtrooms and, when first allowed, were not permitted to receive any pay for doing so. They could serve only in an advisory, no fee, basis. Could this have been related to integrity?

If sources are correct, this writer has read that 80 percent of the world�s attorneys are in this country. And, what real purpose do they serve in a nation that is supposedly dedicated to the preservation of God-given rights with justice based solely on common law? In common law courts with self-evident rights the basis for decisions, one would think NONE whatsoever. That is my personal contention which, of course, attorneys will object to. But, bear with me.

What damage have attorneys done? The primary category executive, legislative, and judicial officials are pulled from is the tremendous supply of attorneys that this nation suffers from. Thus, what we end up with are attorneys writing the laws, enforcing the laws (as executives in government), and controlling courtrooms as judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys. By controlling these, they control law enforcement officers and their actions both directly and indirectly.

What they dislike strongly, rather vehemently, are citizens who act for themselves in a pro se (or pro per) or a sui juris fashion which are just fancy Latin words to scare or intimidate people as is most legal terminology. The writer may have discovered the reason for their fear of citizens who begin studying and applying laws as they should be. Any citizen investigating the matter will find the extent that this clique has muddied the waters of justice. You see, knowledge of law by citizens is what these denizens against constitutional law and justice fear.

For example, when subjected to court, the writer found the attorney acting as the municipal prosecutor was in fact only masquerading as prosecutor. In Missouri, a city attorney may not serve as prosecutor in prosecutions of municipal ordinances and, the writer suspects, in any other state. It is a serious conflict of interest denying the due process of a fair and impartial hearing.

Furthermore, in his fictitious position, the city attorney had not subscribed to an oath of office which all prosecutors must do. If not done within 15 days, then the office is vacated. If not done at all, and prosecutions occur, then, of course, all should be reversed with any citizen convicted given proper and complete redress for any penalties suffered. In this case, however, the city attorney committed a crime by posing as a government official.

If this wasn�t enough, this attorney did not know that in any municipal ordinance violation, that a citizen has the right to demand a trial by jury with the jury made up of 12 peers. Furthermore, any less than 12 must be agreed upon by the defendant.

But, to the meat. Prosecuting attorneys have first and foremost the duty of protecting the rights secured by the Constitution. That is the oath they must take and subscribe to. It is NOT to get convictions and protect bad laws.

Now, answer this. If an attorney does not know what the Constitution states, nor the state statutes, and does not know that only the people are sovereign and, as such, have the sole power to interpret the Constitution and all laws as the sovereigns, how can any attorney, whether prosecutor or not, defend the rights of citizens?

Case law is not the law of this land. The Constitution is the supreme Law of this Land and all associated with the judicial system (including makers and enforcers of law) must understand that no man-made law nor ruling has authority over the laws of God given to each and every human being on Earth. In fact, after reading dozens of rulings in which individuals were convicted in regards to man-made laws, most were based on unconstitutional laws which are by their very nature, null and void.

As an example, murder is a crime against Man�s common law rights. It is the removal of the right to live. As such, it is against the laws of God, not of laws made by Man. Therefore, regardless of any manipulation to the contrary that is commonly done by attorneys, if the evidence clearly shows one person killed another without proper cause (meaning one�s life is threatened), then whether a private citizen or a member of government, it is murder and proper punishment should be applied.

Granted, we must assure rights are protected. That can be done. First of all, before any search or arrest is made, then there should be proper evidence obtained indicating that the person to be searched or arrested has high probability of being the killer of another or that he has infringed upon the rights of another in a manner which demands proper redress. (Note: This is not humanly possible in alleged �crimes� in which there isn�t a victim.)

In the case of law enforcement killing innocent people, evidence is simple to obtain. If a person is killed that evidence clearly indicates the victim could not have been threatening the officer, especially in the case of no weapon or shot in the back while lying flat on their stomachs or trying to get away by running (when not having threatened another�s life), of an in-home invasion by cops on a tip not proven valid prior to the invasion, or in a car, then the officer(s) murdered the person and must be prosecuted for doing so.

Not only would a civilian be prosecuted for shooting a law enforcement officer under similar circumstances, but man-made laws do not have authority over the rights of Man given by God. This must be henceforth understood by all attorneys and other enforcers of law.

What attorneys have done is help create laws based on rulings which clearly violate the rights of every citizen. In protecting their unconstitutional laws and case law, attorneys, regardless of their capacity in government or proceedings, work together to protect what makes them the majority of their money.

If courts serving the People were common law as dictated by the Constitution in Article III, we would not have need for attorneys since common sense and law would prevail amongst the jurists. Sadly, most convictions of people are based on under color of law statutes and the like which are not laws at all but, instead fall into the category that should be ignored by the People.

Attorneys have created the myth that only they know law when the writer suspects that very few know �the law� that provides that our guiding principles, meaning those rights and behaviors based on God-given rights of human freedom.

As an example, in �Townhall.com�, one of its writers, Debra Saunders, had an article on this date in which Alameda County (California) Deputy District Attorney Russ Giuntini made this statement: �Seizure of property from people who didn�t do anything is �constitutional.� What country and time period does this apparent idiot live in?

According to Ms. Saunders, Giuntini�s statement was based on a 1996 U.S. Supreme Court ruling (the case name wasn�t stated). The writer will search for it as he suspects with the ignorance shown so far by Alameda County prosecutor, that the ruling was not that property seized from innocents is constitutional. He does not believe the high court would have ruled against violations of the Constitution to this extent. To that, though, one must keep an open mind since the high court has made far too many decisions repugnant to the Constitution.

Regardless of any ruling, any person who believes as Giuntini is an idiot and does not understand the Constitution or the purpose of law at all. He lives in a fog of ignorance with a Gestapo attitude. Seizure of property from people who have been denied due process violates the 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, 10th, 13th, and, possibly, the 14th Amendments (in the event of one granted citizenship), along with the Preamble to the Constitution, Articles III, IV and VI of the Constitution. In other words, due process and the rights of private property and person has been completely denied.

There are two items of importance here. First, it is obvious the deputy district attorney hasn�t any concept of the Constitution and, therefore, cannot possibly protect the rights of those he attempts to convict.

The second is that an unconstitutional ruling has been used in order to violate the rights of a citizen(s). Such a ruling doesn�t mean it is a proper and just or within the authority of the court given it by the People. It certainly wouldn�t be the first time a court has over-stepped its authority and ruled repugnant to the Constitution.

Guintini is exemplary of attorneys acting to convict rather than uphold their oaths of office. Most of all, though, he is a traitor to the principles this nation was founded on. And, as such, action should be taken against him and redress seeked by any who have had property unlawfully seized in Alameda County, California. When not based on due process, seizure amounts to criminal theft.

In regards to this article, another problem presents itself. Ms. Saunders phrased the report of this in this manner: �Too true. In an outrageous 1996 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the seizure of a 1977 Pontiac co-owned by the wife of the man who solicited a prostitute in Detroit...�

The problem is the phrase �Too true.� It isn�t �true� simply because the court made a ruling. In fact, the court should be taken to task for protecting unconstitutional actions by lawmakers and law enforcement, along with the other cases in which unconstitutional rulings have been made by this court.

What it boils down to is an attorney who doesn�t know constitutional law is prosecutor, a Supreme Court that apparently had a complete mental lapse or felt compelled to protect an unlawful law made a ruling against a citizen, and then was reported by a writer who assumes anything a court rules to be fact. And, a citizen suffers while his rights are stomped into the ground.

This does bring us to judges and the courts. Why is it that people believe that a court ruling and subsequent cites establishes what is lawful or not lawful? Just who are judges?

Judges are often attorneys and, if not, are advised by attorneys. Judges are also elected or appointed. Judges often become the same as captains on ships with plenary control or, in terms of this nation and its Constitution, represent Admiralty/maritime law rather than common law established by the Constitution and the People.

But, the truth which reigns supreme is judges, in spite of what they may believe, are also just men, not gods. As such, they have the same failings as all men must overcome, such as lust, greed, and so on. And, many simply are not able to overcome human frailties.

The clique formed by attorneys, judges, lawmakers, and law enforcement has resulted effectively in Admiralty law replacing what is lawful as secured by the Constitution. While lawmakers make the unconstitutional laws, law enforcement enforces them while usually acting outside their authority, prosecutors prosecute based on the unconstitutional rulings that permeate case law , and judges left to their own devices (without the control of a jury and the Constitution), rule and add to unconstitutional case law.

And, of course, we mustn�t forget defense attorneys who often do only what they must to not offend the judge or to do what makes them the most money, which is argue based on case law rather than constitutional law.

Stop and think about it. The rights of Man are sacred and the basis for our system of liberty. When one can simply state an individual�s rights have been violated with the constitutional provision given or that no crime exists because there is not a victim, would one even need an attorney, let alone one making perhaps hundreds of dollars per hour?

Judges, along with the other scalawags listed, have lost sight of the fact that in a constitutional Republic, including most of all the United States of America, that no crime exists without a victim. State or federal governments cannot be victims and courts shouldn�t even recognize in the 50 states such things as the State (City) verses John Q. Public or the United States verses John Q. Public. Governments are not people and only people are citizens.

Now, this doesn�t mean that if one citizen violates the rights of a citizen who happens to be part of the government, then that employee does not have lawful redress. He does. As a citizen, he may make a complaint against the citizen he accuses of violating his rights. But, no government has that power because no government has citizenship. Once more, only citizens may have their rights violated. If one disagrees, show this writer in the Constitution any clause giving government the status of �citizen of the United States of America.�

Judges, along with other government entities, have been subjected to the same propaganda being taught children now in public (government) schools. Because they also have the tendency to believe whatever is written or stated by authorities, they also enter their positions believing just as they have been told.

Ones who are aware are also aware of the fact, especially those appointed by government, that if they do not do as told, then they will not long hold their positions. Or that they will suffer from lost income based on the judges� share of the booty illegally taken from citizens.

The main supply of the booty obtained is through unlawful searches and seizures related to drug and so-called illegal firearm violations. Both categories are, of course, against the Constitution and laws concerning them should not even exist and, in reality, do not. But, with the power of government entities holding a loaded, off-safety automatic or semi-automatic weapon to a citizen�s head, and then the courts supporting this action and holding a figurative gun to the citizen�s head, most people are afraid to take action against them.

Then, to further prevent citizens taking action, governments filled with attorneys and the like wanted to protect themselves against valid lawsuits filed against them even though they may commit crimes (meaning any infringement upon the rights of another) against other citizens. Thus, government people came up with the concept of �clean hands� which gives government officials immunity.

In review, this immunity basically means that if an official acts in good faith while performing his duties, that he believes he is indeed acting within the laws, that he is immune to prosecution or lawsuits placed against him. This, in itself, is unconstitutional. But, since the unconstitutionality of this isn�t recognized by the courts, one must relieve the official of this unconstitutional denial of the right to sue for redress.

In order to accomplish this, all one has to do is show by clause and statute the facts to the official in documented writing. Then, the official can be shown that he knew he was acting under color of law and have a lawsuit or criminal complaint filed against him.

We, the People, however poorly the above perform, do have means to protect ourselves and regain control. It is through the power of juries which are our last best defense against unlawful prosecutions and the above categories of thieves robbing us of our rights. Judges fear it, just as do prosecutors and defense attorneys. Law enforcement gaining billions of dollars of stolen property through unconstitutional seizures will also fight against the power of juries. After all, some of these people are getting quite wealthy from confiscated property and money unlawfully seized and spread out among those involved.

The power of a jury to rule is based on the Constitution and common law. Because the constitutional basis can be made known to the judge overseeing the case, the judge then has knowledge of the law in fact. Any jury may rule as it sees fit based on what it feels is right. Juries may nullify any man-made law or so-called �legal precedent'.

This power removes completely the Admiralty law power now exhibited by judges and other court officials, law enforcement, and lawmakers. It is a duty of citizens that should be welcomed as the jury represents the people. The judge doesn�t (although he is supposed to). He represents the government and case law.

If the power of juries is properly applied, any judge who then rules against the decision of a jury because �he doesn�t like it� can be impeached for violating his oath of office. Or, sued by the jury and the defendant based on 42 USC provisions. Title 18 defines crimes and punishments and perhaps the judge may be prosecuted for a criminal violation through this title.

Judges also give instructions to juries which clearly violate proper due process and any accused from being given a fair and impartial hearing. To most people, judges are an authority that speaks only the truth and has a level of authority that probably 99 percent of the people will obey even if they silently question the judge. Such violations to fair and impartial hearings are any statements that the �defendant must be found guilty,� any in favor of either the defendant or the plaintiff, and looks with disdain or complete acceptance of one or the other, to name a few. Any behavior or statement biases the jury and denies due process.

In this matter, the People are the sovereigns of this nation. The juries are made up of the People and represent the people as a whole. As sovereigns, judges are inferior to the People and, thus, the jury. So, if one wants to develop the system of justice based on common law of the People, the means is to always insist on a jury of peers and that the jurists be advised of their power to make any decision they deem fit and proper while prohibiting the judge from doing other than over-seeing the court.

Here is what the writer would like all to consider. If the courts had NOT been permitted to develop a huge case law of rulings against the rights of Man and then use these unconstitutional rulings as the basis for what is legal, would we have any unconstitutional laws on the books today?

In other words, IF every judge, every prosecutor, every law enforcement officer, every attorney, every lawmaker, and every citizen had based every decision on what is clearly stated in the Constitution, would we now be subjected to thousands and thousands of laws that infringe upon our God-given rights?

In the case of The People v. The Courts (and others), here is this writer�s decision:

From this date forward, every lawmaker, every executive officer, every judge, every law enforcement officer, every attorney, and every citizen will be taught the Constitution as written, not as misinterpreted by those who would enslave all citizens and destroy their sovereignty.

Then, should any associated with government violate the rights of even one citizen, however minor the infringement might be, he will be immediately removed from office, imprisoned for treason for a minimum of ten years in the roughest prisons known in lieu of the penalty of death, and prohibited from ever holding another public office.

If any citizen violates the rights of another citizen, then, of course, his right to demand redress stands as was the original intent. This includes citizens who happen to be public officials or members of law enforcement when they violate the rights of others.

In summary, if the People control the courts, then no unconstitutional law can be enforced. Such a law will, therefore, be meaningless. And, if those writing, passing, and attempting to enforce unconstitutional laws are impeached and placed in prison for treason, then the writer can assure the system will begin to rapidly change for the better.

The only concern of these government entities should be to protect our individual rights while we live as free people should live - unencumbered and essentially ignored by a government limited to its duty to uphold the Constitution and defend the People against all invasions, domestic or foreign.

As always, it is up to We, the People to determine the destiny of this nation, not of those put in office, whether executive, legislative, judicial, or as law enforcement officers.

And, that, Folks, is how it was intended by our forefathers.