MERRY-GO
ROUND
Hello, people of America.
I have been watching all this banter back and forth on E-mail
about how wonderful the Constitution and Bill of Rights are.
I have seen people quoting parts of it and how it protects them.
Many people sit on the merry-go-round and continually argue
that it is turning. They say they can prove it, like the flat
world people of the 14th Century, they can prove the world is
flat. I got off the merry-go round around 1984. Much to my surprise
the merry-go-round was standing still. Now I was going around,
as the rest of government was, while the people on the merry-go
round thought that government was standing still and they were
moving. This just proved that those on the merry-go round were
absolutely wrong. They were standing still and the world was
revolving, not them. What I am trying to prove here is that
no one wants to get off and research correctly that the Constitution
has been an utter fraud from the beginning and so has the Bill
of Rights.
I said I was not going to do this but the Almighty says I have
to keep trying. At least no one, when finding out the truth,
can say "I never told you so." So with that, I am
going to give you three cases that prove beyond a shadow of
doubt that these merry-go-rounders are all wrong. Howard Griswold,
Big Byrd, Dave DeRiemer and only a hand full of others are also,
"off the merry-go-round" as they too have read these
cases and agree. All the e-mail that I see that starts by showing
the Bill of Rights are designed to protect the people in the
States, I hit the delete key. I am waiting for a good e-mail
to come over that does not say that. As a result, all the e-mail
I get, extolling the constitution or the Bill of Rights gets
the delete key right away. It takes up too much of my time reading
falsehoods. I CAPITALIZE these words for effect in the cases.
FIRST CASE:
Supreme Court of United States--Constitutional law, John Barron
v The
Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 7 Peters 243.
This defendant had his property taken by the State of Maryland
and he plead the fifth amendment. The court lacked jurisdiction
because the 5th did not apply to a state man, only to a United
States man. And, the property was not within the United States
or part of it's land ceded to the United States by Maryland.
Therefore, the man could not use any of the amendments to the
separate United States Constitution because it did not apply.
THE COURT STATED: "The provision in the fifth amendment
to the Constitution of the United States, declaring that private
property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation,
is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power
by the government of the United States, AND IS NOT APPLICABLE
TO THE LEGISLATION OF THE STATES. The Constitution was ordained
and established BY THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, FOR THEMSELVES,
FOR THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT, AND NOT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
INDIVIDUAL STATES. Each State established a constitution for
itself, and in that constitution provided such limitations and
restrictions on the powers of ITS PARTICULAR government as its
judgments dictated. The people of the United States FRAMED SUCH
A GOVERNMENT FOR THE UNITED STATES as THEY supposed best adapted
TO THEIR situation, and best calculated TO PROMOTE THEIR INTERESTS.
The powers conferred on this government were to be EXERCISED
BY ITSELF; and the limitations on power, if expressed in general
terms, are naturally and necessarily applicable TO THE GOVERNMENT
CREATED BY THAT INSTRUMENT. They are limitations of power granted
in the instrument itself, NOT OF DISTINCT GOVERNMENTS FRAMED
BY DIFFERENT PERSONS AND FOR DIFFERENT PURPOSES. IF THESE PROPOSITIONS
BE CORRECT, THE FIFTH AMENDMENT must be understood AS RESTRAINING
THE POWER OF THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT, NOT AS APPLICABLE TO THE
STATES. * * *
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record
from the Court of Appeals for the Western Shore of Maryland,
and was argued by counsel; on consideration whereof, it is the
opinion of this court that there is no repugnancy between the
several acts of the General Assembly of Maryland, given in evidence
by the defendants at trial of this cause in the court of that
State, and the Constitution of the United States; whereupon,
it is ordered and adjudged by this court that this writ of error
be, and the same is hereby dismissed for the want of jurisdiction.
SECOND CASE:
Hepburn and Dundas v. Ellzey, 2 Cranch 445
This was a case where a citizen of the District of Columbia
(United States) tried to maintain an action in a Circuit Court
for the Virginia district against a Virginia citizen.
THE COURT STATED AND HELD: "A citizen of the District
of Columbia CANNOT maintain an action against a citizen of Virginia,
in the circuit court for the Virginia district. A citizen of
the District of Columbia IS NOT A CITIZEN OF A STATE, within
the meaning of the constitution. * * *
It is contended that a citizen of the District of Columbia is
a citizen of a state. It is said that he is a citizen of the
United States, and not being a citizen of the same state with
the defendant, he must be a citizen of a different state. But
there may be a citizen of the United States who is NOT a citizen
OF ANY ONE OF THE STATES. The expression "a citizen of
a state," has a constitutional meaning. The states ARE
NOT absolutely sovereigns, but (if I may use the expression)
they are DEMI-SOVEREIGNS. the word state has a meaning PECULIAR
to the United States. It means a CERTAIN POLITICAL SOCIETY FORMING
A CONSTITUENT PART OF THE UNION. * * *
Even if the constitution of the United States authorizes a more
enlarged jurisdiction than the judiciary act of 1789 has given,
yet the court CAN TAKE NO JURISDICTION WHICH IS NOT GIVEN BY
THE ACT. I, therefore, call for the law which gives a jurisdiction
in this case.
[Informer's comment. The court goes into great detail using
just about all the Bill of Rights and then makes the following
conclusion.]
Other passages from the constitution have been cited by the
plaintiffs to show that the term state is sometimes used in
its more enlarged sense. But on examining the passages quoted,
they do not prove what was shown by them. It is true that as
citizens of the United States, and if that PARTICULAR DISTRICT
which is subject to the jurisdiction of Congress, it is extraordinary
that the courts of the United States, which ARE OPEN TO ALIENS,
and to the citizens of every state of the union, should be closed
upon them. BUT THIS IS A SUBJECT FOR LEGISLATIVE, NOT FOR JUDICIAL
CONSIDERATION. The opinion to be certified to the circuit court
is, THAT THIS COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION IN THE CASE."
After completely reading the first case and solidify in your
brain cells that the court stated the Constitution and the Bill
of Rights are not for the people in the states, this second
case, when read in its entirety squares with the first case
and supports the conclusion that the Constitution and the Bill
of Rights never was yours in the first place. Now for the kicker,
clincher, hydrogen bomb, torpedo, whatever you want to call
it, that finalizes the above two cases and sets it in stone
that the Constitution and Bill of Rights YOU claim to be your
godsend to the protection of God given Rights was a fraud from
he very beginning is:
THIRD CASE
Padleford, Fay & Co. v. The Mayor, City of Savanna, 14 Ga
438.
This involved a sales tax case in 1854 by a company who refused
to pay a sales tax after he collected it and brought an action.
The opening opinion of the Supreme court judge states it quite
clearly what the question is about. Then I will quote a paragraph
or two and the final opinion only, since this case is 82 pages
long. Don't read it and you are still on the merry-go-round
and will never know the truth.
THE COURT: "But a single question is presented for decision
in this case; and that is, whether the Ordinance of the City
Council of Savanna violates the Constitution of the United States.
The Plaintiffs in error insists that it violates two of the
provisions of theConstitution---that which declares that Congress
shall have power "To regulate commerce with foreign nations
and among the several States"; and that which declares
that "No State shall, without consent of the Congress,
lay any imposts on duties or exports, except what may be absolutely
necessary for executing its Inspection Laws." * * *
Now it must be manifest to any one, on a little reflection,
that if the United States' Courts have power over the State
Courts, they have power over State laws--power over operation
of those Laws, within the territory of the States--power to
nullify EVERY ACT OF THE STATES. Was this the intention of the
makers of the Constitution--these very States? The conclusion
is, * * *the Supreme Court of the United States has no
jurisdiction over the Supreme Court of Georgia; and cannot,
therefore
give it an order, or make for it a PRECEDENT. * * * The consumer,
therefore, can waive his right to object to this ordinance,
on the score of its being void; and HE DOES THIS WHEN HE PAYS
THE TAX IT IMPOSES UPON HIM. It is time enough to hold the Law,
made under the authority of the
State, to be a violation of the Constitution, when it is complained
of by somebody that it injures. It is too soon to do this, when
the complaint is made by one that it does not injure, and one,
who, if the complaint be allowed, will be enabled to keep what,
in justice and equity, he has no right to. But, indeed, NO PRIVATE
PERSON HAS A RIGHT TO COMPLAIN, BY SUIT IN COURT, ON THE GROUND
OF A BREACH OF THE CONSTITUTION. The Constitution, it is true,
is a COMPACT, BUT HE [the private man people, that's you.] IS
NOT A PARTY TO IT. The States are the parties to it. And they
may complain. If they do, they are entitled to REDRESS. [Informer:
How many thought YOU had REDRESS? B.S., you never had any].
Or they may waive their right to complain. If they do, the right
stands waived. * * * And this brings me to my general conclusion,
which is, that the judgment of the Court below, ought to be
affirmed."
The private man flat out lost. Now, how many still want to stay
on the merry-go-round and moan, complain and argue that the
Constitution and Bill of Rights are still yours? There are a
few of us that have gotten off the merry-go-round , that is
not really moving, long ago. We only laugh now at the ignorance
of those on the merry-go-round, because we tried to get those
on the merry-go-round, that the criminal government created
so those could take the ride of their life, standing still on
the merry-go-round and getting nowhere. That is why I hit the
delete button when I see the drivel and ranting and ravings
of a lunatic. Yes people, YOU are considered one of lunacy by
the courts when you bring up the Constitution and the Bill of
Rights. Don't believe me, look up the word in the King's Dictionary
(Black's Law) and in Words and Phrases. I am feeling sorry for
those poor lost souls whose ignorance will keep them in chains
by not giving up their egos. They want to be right, because
they can't see the light, and don't want to admit to their followers
that they may have been wrong. They are clinging to a thought
process that was created by the best criminals the taxpayer
could afford and refuse to get off the merry-go-round.
The Informer.
