Power Politics

I’ve compiled an excellent list of the most potent quotes from the recent case Carol Anne Bond v U.S. and the decision by the Circuit Court that was made September 17, 2009.

The Supreme Court ruled June 16, 2011. The question before the Court is, “whether a person indicted for violating a federal statute has standing to challenge its validity on grounds that, by enacting it, Congress exceeded its powers under the Constitution, thus intruding upon the sovereignty and authority of the States.”

It appears that although the answer was obvious to both the government (plaintiff) and the Circuit Court, the question had never been presented to the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeals held that because a State was not a party to the federal criminal proceeding, petitioner (Bond) had no standing to challenge the statute as an infringement upon the powers reserved to the States.

It turns out that Courts have been operating on the above presumption for more than 70 years and that the foundation for denying individuals Constitutional Article III standing was based on one line a 1939 case that conflated the “cause of action” doctrine with the “standing” doctrine. This is why, whenever I or anyone I told to challenge the jurisdiction of the court, were denied without any reason. The courts were “automatically” refusing to let any individual make a challenge before they even heard what the challenge was. In other words, we were denied the “standing’ to make a challenge because the “presidents” from this 1939 case was that individuals needed a State to be a party, also. Of course this was found to be erroneous by the court and people have been wrongfully denied their right to challenge since 1939.

As said above, the government and the Circuit Court couldn’t defend their own judgement and the case has been remanded for the lower court to hear Bond’s challenge and make a ruling on it.

Hear are a few of the beautiful quotes that I feel make this case totally remarkable:

“The Court of Appeals asked for supplemental briefs on the question whether Bond had standing to raise the Tenth Amendment as a ground for invalidating a federal statute in the absence of a State’s participation in the proceedings.”

“When Bond sought certiorari, the Government advised this Court that it had changed its position and that, in its view, Bond does have standing to challenge the constitutionality of §229 on Tenth Amendment grounds.”

“To conclude that petitioner lacks standing to challenge a federal statute on grounds that the measure interferes with the powers reserved to States, the Court of Appeals relied on a single sentence from this Court’s opinion in Tennessee Elec. Power Co. v. TVA, 306 U. S. 118 (1939).”

“One who seeks to initiate or continue proceedings in federal court must demonstrate, among other requirements, both standing to obtain the relief requested, see Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560–561 (1992), and, in addition, an ‘ongoing interest in the dispute’ on the part of the opposing party that is sufficient to establish “concrete adverseness.”

“Even though decisions since Tennessee Electric have been careful to use the terms “cause of action” and “standing” with more precision, the distinct concepts can be difficult to keep separate.”

“Still, the question whether a plaintiff states a claim for relief “goes to the merits” in the typical case, not the justiciability of a dispute, id., at 92, and conflation of the two concepts can cause confusion.”

“The federal system rests on what might at first seem a counterintuitive insight, that “freedom is enhanced by the creation of two governments, not one.” Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 758 (1999). The Framers concluded that allocation of powers between the National Government and the States enhances freedom, first by protecting the integrity of the governments themselves, and second by protecting the people, from whom all governmental powers are derived.”

“The allocation of powers in our federal system preserves the integrity, dignity, and residual sovereignty of the States. The federal balance is, in part, an end in itself, to ensure that States function as political entities in their own right.

But that is not its exclusive sphere of operation. Federalism is more than an exercise in setting the boundary between different institutions of government for their own integrity. “State sovereignty is not just an end in itself: ‘Rather, federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power.’” New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 181 (1992) (quoting Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U. S. 722, 759 (1991) (Blackmun, J., dissenting)).”

“Federalism secures the freedom of the individual.”

“Federalism also protects the liberty of all persons a State by ensuring that laws enacted in excess of dele­ gated governmental power cannot direct or control their actions.”

“An individual has a direct interest in objecting to laws that upset the constitutional balance between the National Government and the States when the enforcement of those laws causes injury that is concrete, particular, and redressable. Fidelity to principles of federalism is not for the States alone to vindicate.”

“The structural principles secured by the separation of powers protect the individual as well.”

“Just as it is appropriate for an individual, in a proper case, to invoke separation-of-powers or checks-and­ balances constraints, so too may a litigant, in a proper case, challenge a law as enacted in contravention of constitutional principles of federalism.”

“In this case, however, where the litigant is a party to an otherwise justiciable case or controversy, she is not forbidden to object that her injury results from disregard of the federal structure of our Government.”

These are some of the main quotes from the Court’s Opinion written by Justice Kennedy. This case was made unopposed and agreed to by the Justices 9-0. Next newsletter, I will discuss the concurring opinion by Justice Ginsburg, with whom Justice Breyer concurred and you won’t believe the things she says after she begins her separately written, but short opinion to make “The Following Observation.”

I’m still blown away by the supreme court ruling discussing the foundation of the Constitution and the concept of federalism that was stumbled upon by the court when it first set out to determine if a person prosecuted for a crime can challenge the law used against them. The court found no other direction, except to drift into the question of whether the law was valid.

Catch up on my previous post, Best Case I Ever Read, if you haven’t read about the Bond case yet.

Everyone agrees that this woman, Carol Anne Bond is a “criminal”. She used chemicals to burn her best friend’s hand. The question is, is she a “state criminal”, a “federal criminal” or in this case, an “international criminal”? What makes this case both a major “letting the cat out of the bag” and “opening pandoras box”, is that this question has never come before the supreme court and it exposes why “we the people” have been denied our Tenth Amendment constitutional right to challenge the federal legislative power of the government, as a defense, for more than 70 years.

When I read this case, I was both excited and a little pissed off! My friends and critics can’t figure me out because I’m saying it should be one way, but it isn’t; it’s the other. Here, the supreme court is going for both, when they admit that the power to challenge has always been in the supreme court, but not in the lower federal and circuit courts. What?

This case ends up defining the limit upon powers of the Tenth Amendment, standing, cause of action, and “federalism.” The very balance of powers of the Constitution! I love it when they get to the very foundation of individual rights as to government. It’s pure beauty that an individual can stand in the Article III authority while relying on Tenth Amendment grounds to challenge the statute as it applies to them in their particular case.

In the next few newsletters I’ll breakdown this case and discuss each area and how the analysts break it down stating that the “confusion” which the court “wondered” into, “seemed to conflate the merits and the standing issue.” Then they ended up discussing the Tenth Amendment, which takes us back to the original writers and how they viewed the Constitution.

One of them, Thomas Jefferson, said, “The Tenth Amendment is the foundation of the Constitution.” Incredible.

I think I first grasped the ‘separation of powers’ concept when I realized that I could use these power for my own benefit.
This made me feel powerful towards the government. At the time, I didn’t realize that the power was to be used not only individually by me, but also against an individual who would be the one violating my rights whether in government or not.

Knowing how the court works also gives one the feeling of power. To gain this knowledge, paralegal skills and knowledge of the rules and procedures are necessary. Along with knowing how the court works requires the understanding of ‘equity’ and the many aspects of judicial power relating to the case or controversy.

It’s been almost 30 years and one of my conclusions for a quasi-criminal jurisdiction, is that there is no remedy “at law.” Therefore the remedy would be a ‘separate civil action’. A separate civil move to restrain the original action by the individual that is violating one’s rights.

Last Friday, the Supreme Court came out with an opinion on June 16, 2011, ( Bond v U.S. ) stating that an individual, under certain circumstances, may challenge the federal jurisdiction. This meaning there are limits to the federal laws and those limits arise because of the powers being separated.

I had accepted the concept that each individual had a right under the Tenth Amendment to those rights enumerated to the United States and those denied to the states, are reserved to the states or the people respectively. I didn’t know that in 1937, dealing with a familiar party of the time, Tennessee Valley Authority, which we know from the Ashwander Doctrine ( Ashwander v TVA ), the court mixed the concept of ‘standing’ and ’cause of action’ in an improper way, and the appellate court, in this case, Bond, relied on that one single sentence to deny Bond. It’s in the opinion and everyone should read and try to comprehend it.

So, now I see that a separate civil action can be made to pursue violations of one’s rights and further direct challenges to the jurisdiction of the legislative power. The Article III standing now allows for not only this, but appears to allow the challenge directly to the lower court and can be taken up by appeal or interlocutory appeal.

The store is up and running with a few of the DVD’s we’ve put together. All three are discounted from $50 to $35 for a limited time.

We’ll be working on making many of the older seminars from the last twenty years available over the next few months so keep in touch and sign up for the newsletter if you haven’t already!

If you have any problems ordering, please contact us immediately!

I wanted to let you all know that we are getting ready to open the store and sell some of my previous seminars.

The two free E-Books on the website are really the GOLD. I say it all in these PDFs but am finding that people don’t have enough information to grasp the in-depth meanings of what is written. Please download them and read them until you get it or can create a question to obtain more insight. Start now because we may start charging for these in the near future.

The PDFs are a conclusion of my many years of study and the seminars that have been made into DVDs show the foundation and explain my theory as I was developing it.

Of course, the latest is probably the more comprehensive, but in many of the others I give the basics and then explain it a little different each time, some better than others. The DVDs range from 1992 to 2009.

Be on the watch for our official opening!

A guy I new 30 years ago came into my office yesterday and wanted to hear my views on “medical marijuana”. When I told him that “medical” means “commercial” and is regulated by congress, he nodded and said that is what he thought.

He said he had read both of my books on the website and that he thought they were “brilliant”, and that if I had written them myself, then that was very impressive to him. I told him that if he understood what I wrote, then that would put him into a level or group that very few people are in.

Then he stated a fact that I knew, but it still sent chills down my back and again revealed to me that there are VERY FEW people who are going to understand what freedom and liberty are, and that even fewer people are going to be able to take THE personal action that is necessary to defend one’s freedom and liberty.

He said, “Zeke, I’ve read them each more than three times and I find that I ‘get it’, and then after a day or two of being back in the ‘zombie’ world, and listening to the public media, I fall back into the ‘brainwash’ thinking.”

This reminded me of my own experience of having knowledge of the truth about the Constitution and Common Law, and seeing how the system doesn’t do what it is supposed to do. I new I was brainwashed, but it took me about 6 years to really overthrow the “status quo” concepts that I was brainwashed with from early childhood.

I am a rebel. I have an extremely strong mind and have studied the history of this country, the Constitution, and the Common Law. I have asked many “leaders” and people that are oriented towards “patriots”, but NO ONE seems to actually grasp or understand these principals that were founded by the framers of our country. I didn’t make up any of the points, just put them in a reasonable and logical format to make it easy to comprehend.

So, when my friend asked how many people “get it”, I told him “NO ONE!”

“What about your friends?” he asked, do they get it? I finally had to tell him, If you really want to get this stuff, you have to practice! Is anyone practicing? Anyone scared to go to court? Anyone have any time for this? Isn’t it easier to get an attorney?

For those who have been waiting, we are just about ready to open “the store” part of our website where we will have various past seminars that I have done over the years. We should have some great deals and a lot of knowledge available. Keep watching for this. Keep practicing.

One of our constitutional rights is the right to own, posses, and protect Property. The right to property or the ownership of property is evidenced by three things: 1) The Title, 2) The Right to Title, and 3) Possession. So basically, there are three aspects of ownership that create title.

Let’s look at the Title first. Title is a piece of paper that recites certain actions and agreements that states who has the “legal” right to the property. This Title is a document know generally as a “Deed”. There are all kinds of deeds, but it is the “Deed” that shows “prima facia” the owner of the property.

Continue reading →

Unfortunately after waiting more than three years, the Liberty Dollar, actually the Liberty Dollar founder, Bernard von NotHaus went to trial and was found guilty by the government in a government court. Do I sound surprised? I’m not. It appears that the process is exactly the same for a traffic ticket. The prosecutor tells the jury the governments story and the jury buys it; hook, line, and sinker! Sometimes, if the case is difficult, the government will play dirty.

Of course Mr. Von NotHaus, does not have anywhere near the understanding or experience that I have in the courts, he thought (although he knew different) that he was going to get a fair trial. WRONG!

Continue reading →

If you are looking past the rallies, voting, and rhetoric, you’ll find that the basic right that is guaranteed by the Constitution and the Common Law is “Due Process”.  It’s pointed out in the 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution.  Due process means notice and a fair hearing.  It makes sense that if you don’t get noticed and/or you are not getting “heard” in a fair manner, then it should be obvious you got no chance in h*ll at getting a just result.

A just result is what the framers wanted each of us to get every time we went to the government for an injury, injustice, or a wrong.  SO WHAT WENT WRONG?
Continue reading →

For many years people have been asking where they can learn more about my concepts of the Constitution.  I am happy to say for the first time that you can now read about the fundamentals of equity right here on this website.  The two pdf’s, “An introduction to Constitutional Remedy” and “An Equitable Remedy”  that are featured on the front page are available for free, but if you are really wanting to understand the concepts, you will have to work your mind to a point that you will feel like you paid for it. These articles are not for simply perusing and amusing, they will take re-reading and studying to grasp the concepts of the remedy. I’m looking forward to relevant questions from those who are more than just observers of this powerful jurisdiction called Equity.

Comment below or send me an email to zeke at powerpolitics dot com.