What we know as fact is set forth on this link with further proof.

1. Each of the 50 states have their own governments; make their own laws; have their own prisons, have their own: district courts, circuit courts and supreme courts, and their own law enforcement agencies. The laws put forth by the sovereign people within each sovereign state, via their elected officials in each state legislature is ; the law in each sovereign state. (click here for references to the U.S. Constitution and the words of the Supreme Court.)

2. The United States government comprises of elected officials from the 50 states; is located in a 10 square mile area, known as Washington, D.C. and is the seat of government for all territories or possessions of the Government. The United States Congress may only pass laws and enforce laws for the territories, possessions and seat of Government and may not pass laws, or enforce laws against any state, or citizen within the United States; unless clearly authorized by the U.S. Constitution. (Ref: U.S. Constitution – Supreme Court: Pollard v. Hagen, Heath v. Alabama, and American Banana v. United Fruit)

The constitution is the law of the land

Either live by the Constitution or deem it abolished

3. The United States Constitution has been made a “mockery” of, by the highest ranking people in the political arenas and the Department of Justice; condoned by the past Presidents of the United States; for over the past 60 years.

to be the freest people on earth

We need to get our Constitution back, or burn it

Let’s start with:

4. The Constitution delegated full power to the Supreme Court to uphold the Constitutional laws of the land, whether such laws are passed by United States legislatures or state legislatures (ref: Article III of the Constitution). The Supreme court is the watchdog over protecting each state and citizens’ constitutional sovereign rights and immunities. That is the Supreme court’s only duty.

5. The Supreme Court is the most powerful force in the United States to ensure the people of the United States retain their State and individual sovereignty and remain the freest people on earth. This group of nine appointed judges (allegedly without any political ties) has more power than the entire Congress and President of the United States when it comes to all the laws passed by Congress; executed by the President of the United States; or passed by any state legislature if such laws conflict with the laws of the land set forth in our Constitution.

6. These nine judges have allegiance only to the U.S. Constitution; and their oaths to GOD:

7. The Constitution stated: The Supreme Court shall possess “The Judicial Power extended to all cases in law and equity, arising under this Constitution.” (Ref: Article III sec. 1, 2 of the US Constitution.)

8. The Constitution did NOT say: that any law that was passed by Congress must be brought up via legal process before the Supreme Court before the Supreme Court could consider the constitutional legality of each law. It appears directly after the first Supreme justices were appointed; the Supreme Court made up its own rules. Their rules demanded; all cases needed to be brought before them, via their legal process; before the Supreme Court could decide if each law passed by the US Congress was in fact allowed by the Constitution (the law of the land) .

BIG error: by the Supreme Court. Had the Supreme Justices originally performed their duties; sworn before GOD to uphold the Constitution, and the rights of every sovereign citizen and state; while taking upon themselves to examine all laws passed by Congress for constitutionality; we would have a republic in full force today; along with a Constitution that was alive and well. As a result today, we have the near death of our Republic and Constitution; gasping their last breaths.

9. Supreme Court; Chief Justice Marshall’s exposition; in the Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat, 264, 5 L.Ed 257 delivered in 1821 should have been the rule of necessity for all Supreme Court Justices to follow during good behavior as stated in our Constitution (ref: Article III sec 1 of the US Constitution).

Supreme Court Chief Marshall stated:

“A court must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the Constitution. We cannot pass it by, because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it is brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution.” Questionsmay occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. (Ref: ID, at 404, 5L. Ed 257 emphasis added.)

10. Chief Justice Marshall should have left out the words; if it is brought before us; as it was, and still is, the Supreme Court’s job is to make sure no sovereign citizen, or sovereign state, suffers punishment, or depravations of their constitutional rights and immunities, guaranteed by the law of the land; by laws passed by Congress which violate those rights.The Constitution states: “The judicial power of the United States shall be invested in one Supreme Court” (ref: Article III, sec 1). The Constitution continues on to state (in Article III of the Constitution, section 2): the Supreme Court’s; “judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and the treaties made”, and “to controversies to which the United States is a party” – “to controversies between two or more states” – between a state and citizens of another state.”

There is no question there is controversy over
every single law passed by Congress

1. As soon as a law is introduced there is ; a case in controversy! Controversy between states; as representatives of one state argue for the law; while representatives from other states argue against the proposed law. The case in controversy between the states and it citizen representatives being proposed; certainly involves the laws of the United States; as the law in controversy is being proposed to become the law of the United States. There is no question that the United States is a party to these cases to controversies involving two or more states; and the citizens of such states are involved due to the fact they elected these officials involved in the controversy to represent them as sovereign citizens. This controversy involving the United States introduction of a new law is normally lengthy as it travels through the House of Representatives, – to the Senate, - to the President. This “case in controversy” in which the United States is a party comes to its conclusion the day the President of the United States signs; (affirms) Congress’s controversy. The day the President signs (affirms) the Bill, (case in controversy); the Supreme Court should immediately review the affirmed case in controversy for constitutionality. Should the Supreme Court have a question as to the intent of the affirmed controversy, the Supreme Court could, immediately send a note to Congress for a clarification.

No law should be enacted until such law is deemed constitutional

11. For the Supreme Court not to address the constitutionality of each law passed by Congress before it becomes law; is against the intent of the Constitution and the duties designated by the Constitution for the Supreme Court to follow: The Constitution gave the Supreme Court the power to declare all conflicting law to the Constitution void (ref: Article III sec. 2 US Constitution).

12. The Constitution did not even suggest that the Supreme Court of the United States should not examine each law proposed to be passed by the US Congress to prevent the passage of unconstitutional law. Unconstitutional laws passed by Congress have falsely incarcerated millions of sovereign citizens. Nor, did the Constitution suggest, that it authorized the Supreme Court to allow a falsely imprisoned citizen to wait years, or even decades in prisons; before the Supreme Court decides if the laws passed decades before; were unconstitutional, and millions of citizens were falsely imprisoned under the law of the land.

13. And most assuredly; the Constitution did not allow the Supreme Court to decline any case brought forth before it for the depravation of Constitutional rights.

14. The Constitution states: “The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact,” in all cases involving the United States, its citizens; the states and their citizens or the states themselves (ref. Article III of the Constitution).

The Supreme Court refused to obey the Constitution

15. The current Supreme Court, refuses to hear over 90% of the constitutional issues brought before it. A total violation of the Constitution and their oath to GOD; each judge took when being admitted to the Supreme Court. The current Supreme Court refuses to adhere to the rule of necessity set forth by a very ethical previous Supreme Court. Chief Justice Marshall is quoted by Supreme Courts all the way to 1980.

1. The Supreme Court stated:

“A court must take jurisdiction if it should we cannot pass it by because it approaches the confines of the Constitution. To do so would be treason to the Constitution”.

The current Supreme Court knows that it has been allowing the false imprisonment of sovereign citizens for 30 years.

Current Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist was quoted in Investor’s Business Daily (1999); after delivering his annual report on the Federal Judiciary to our highest dignitaries in charge of the U.S. Government:

2. Chief Justice Rehnquist stated: That there were 57,691 Federal crimes in 1998. That was not what the Founding Fathers had in mind. "They intended, treason, piracy, and counterfeiting to be federal crimes". All other crimes were to be dealt with on the local and state levels. “If it’s not in the Constitution, the 10th Amendment says it’s a state issue.”

Did Chief Justice Rehnquist violate his oath and commit treason??

1. This question will be answered on the next link #8 on this sub-link upcoming shortly. All the current Supreme Court Justices will be discussed and which ones have violated their OATH TO GOD; their oath to the sovereign citizens of the United States ; and who committed treason; and exactly how they accomplished their task.

2. You will be astonished when you see before your eyes; the exact words stated from each Supreme Court Justice in transcript form. Exactly how some of them contradict themselves from case to case. How some justices admit; by their statements on the record; they don’t know anything about the case they are deciding. Yet people’s lives are at stake. No one will have to tell you which Supreme Court justices violate their oath to God; commit treason to the Constitution and treason to the people of the United States by their deeds.

3. Chief Justice Rehnquist went on to say: somehow a Federal Government that has no constitutional police-power has been able to assemble one of the largest police forces on earth. Chief Rehnquist went on by condemning federal prosecutors for ruthless tactics in securing indictments and the prosecutions of US citizens.

4. Chief Rehnquist should have given his report on national TV to the sovereignty states and citizens of the Republic Union of the United States; that he is sworn by oath to protect; instead of “behind closed doors” advising the high ranking Government zealots that are deliberately “burning the US Constitution”. They already know perfectly well what they are doing. It’s the people of the United States that don’t know what their honest elected officials are unlawfully doing.

5. Of course Chief Rehnquist did not do what by sworn oath he swore to do: protect the citizens from unconstitutional laws passed by corrupt zealots in Congress and their attorney-based committee members.

1. Chief Rehnquist stated: Somehow a Federal Government that has no constitutional police power has been able to assemble one of the largest police powers on earth. Chief Rehnquist and his Supreme Court justices should have found out exactly how these zealots did it, and stopped it. However, they obviously did not want to get involved in their job or their oath. They most assuredly did not want to protect the Constitution they were sworn to protect; or the citizens that were paying with torture and their lives; being falsely imprisoned by unconstitutional laws being unlawfully enforced. Review Torture and Death Camps and BOP at the top of this page.

2. Just maybe: Chief Rehnquist and the members of the Supreme Court need to read this web site to learn what they should already know.

6. It clearly appears that our Supreme Court justices live in a vacuum; do not know the total Government corruption all around them, which has just about removed every constitutional right from all citizens.

1. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor: touts throughout the news media regarding the recent case of Blakely; letting out 10’s of thousands of unlawfully incarcerated Federal prisoners; “we can’t do that; all these horrible criminals will be back out on the street. Their constitutional rights be damned! We don’t care about their constitutional rights; we can’t let them out.”

2. Justice O’Connor doesn’t seem to be in touch with the world; as Chief Rehnquist is. She doesn’t know what her job is. To uphold the Constitutional rights of all US citizens. She doesn’t appear to know there are only 3 federal crimes allowed by the Constitution she is sworn to GOD to uphold. Justice O’Connor needs to take a lesson in learning and upholding the Constitution. Justice O’Connor also, obviously does not know about the thousands of rigged convictions; or the corruption all around her; or that more than 10% of the people in prison are totally innocent of their alleged rigged convictions even if such convictions were constitutional. Additionally Justice O’Connor doesn’t appear to know that well over 50% of the Federal convictions acquired; were from state cases that states refused to prosecute. The corrupt Federal prosecutors took over; and rigged their convictions.

3. Justice O’Connor needs to get out in the real world and find out for herself; instead of living in a vacuum of fair-weather corrupt advisors and friends.

16. It should be mandatory for every Federal judge on either the appellate courts, or the Supreme Court to spend 90 days visiting Federal prisons across the United States speaking to prisoners, unescorted. They would change their minds fast, as they witnessed first hand the amount of torture US prisoners go through; and the amount of needless deaths that are caused by the Bureau of Prisons violating the majority of federal laws. They would think twice about keeping anyone in the BOP prisons unless absolutely necessary.

Of course the Federal judges do not do this, because they don’t want to see the torture and death they are causing. If one Federal judge in 10 years visits a Federal prison for an hour or two; there are 20 escorts and every prisoner is ordered by the BOP; don’t attempt to speak to this judge or you’ll never get out of the hole.

17. If any of the honest federal judges or US congress-people visited Yazoo punishment Federal prison in Yazoo, Mississippi unannounced; and spend one day or two unescorted walking around the prison compound, and housing units; in which they would be absolutely safe; they would discover the following:

1. Hundreds of tortured prisoners.

2. They would be speaking with prisoners that were witnesses to the last days of the lives of the tortured prisoners in the BOP that died of deliberate BOP medical neglect.

3. They would be speaking with prisoners that were medically neglected to point of incapacitation and wheelchair bound.

4. They would find out how over 50% of the prisoners’ convictions were rigged by corrupt Government employees.

5. They would find out about the deadly staph infection at epidemic proportions at Yazoo.

6. They would see the unsanitary living conditions.

7. They would see prisoners sleeping in hallways and on cots in TV rooms.

8. They would see the prisoners being forced to stand in lines up to 45 minutes to acquire food in the rain, freezing cold, and scalding heat; to include the handicapped.

9. They would witness first hand the Federal laws the BOP violates against the prisoners everyday.

10. They would see there is no rehabilitation, only hatred of the Government directly caused by the BOP.

11. They would find the legal department and the higher ups in the BOP have lied to them on a consistent basis, regarding answering legal constitutional issues and their blatant violations of their own BOP policy.

They would see first hand the deadly farce the BOP is and what their Congressional and Judicial acts have done to US citizens
all across the United States.

18. Of course, this will not happen; simply because, the people that represent the sovereign citizens and states don’t want to see first hand what their actions are causing.

Let’s continue with U.S. Congress-people: These people are elected from each sovereign state to work with other sovereign state representatives, to pass laws (legislation) that do not violate any citizens or states’ constitutional rights; or interfere with the sovereignty delegated to each state and state citizens. The majority failed.

Let’s continue with the President of the United States: the President takes a sworn oath which states: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

19. Allowed our Republic to be destroyed and our Constitution destroyed.

1. When Congress passed title 4 sec. 112 (a) (b) which made the District of Columbia a legislative state to form agencies, pass laws and enforce those laws against the sovereign states and citizens of the United States; in which the US Constitution and the Supreme Court gave immunity to.

1. Was Congress asleep? Was the President asleep? Was the Supreme Court asleep? Or were many of them part of this treasonous conspiracy?

2. When Congress passed title 28 sec. 132 adding another United States criminal district court disguised as a court of record; called the United States District Court which was a non-constitutional Article III Federal court; using the same judges and courtrooms; throughout the United States; when they already had an Article III constitutional court in place throughout the United States.

1. Was Congress asleep? Was the President asleep? Was the Supreme Court asleep?

3. When Congress passed title 28 sec. 43 adding another United States criminal appellate court disguised as a court of record; called the United States Court of Appeals which was a non-constitutional Article III federal court; using the same judges and courtrooms; throughout the United States; when they already had Article III constitutional appellate courts in place throughout the United States.

1. Were they still asleep; or part of this treasonous conspiracy?

4. When Congress allowed the 1948 amendment substituting a name change form the Constitutional Article III district court of the United States ; to the same named non-constitutional phony “court of records” they just put in place called the United States District Court. The only difference in defining which court was a constitutional court was the (d) and (c) on the word district and court were not capitalized.

1. Were they still asleep; or part of this treasonous conspiracy?

5. When Congress allowed the 1948 Amendment for another name substitution for the well known constitutional Article III Court of Appeals of the United States; to be called the “circuit court of appeals.” (Note the small c on circuit and court.)

1. Were they still asleep; or part of this treasonous conspiracy?

6. When they set up a Kangaroo defacto court called the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (note the spelling is in all CAPS) and the United States Court of Appeals all across the United States?

1. Were they still asleep; or part of this treasonous conspiracy?

7. When Congress passed the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act that hid the fact that Congress admitted the Constitution gave immunity to all US sovereign citizens from United States federal criminal courts and then turned right around and removed the constitutional immunity without any citizen knowing it.

1. Were they still asleep; or part of this treasonous conspiracy?

8. When Congress was passing thousands of Federal laws to be charged against all sovereign citizens in all 50 sovereign states of the Union unlawfully and unconstitutionally.

9. When Federal prosecutors, Federal judges and Federal agents were paying off informants to indict and convict US citizens holding immunity from their jurisdiction, in their unconstitutional, unlawful, Kangaroo defacto federal courts; throughout the United States.

Were they still asleep; or part of this treasonous conspiracy?

20. Then after the fact: after acquiring a conviction in their rigged trials in their defacto United States District criminal courts; did they release the unlawfully tried and convicted American citizens on appeal; with rightful violations of their constitutional rights by the Federal Government? Of course not!!

The appellate courts across the United States which were not Article III constitutional courts called United States Court of Appeals; allowed an average of “one” appeal to win out of 500 filed; so it would appear people could win with constitutional arguments, when in fact, the appellate court was not constitutional at all. Just another defacto Kangaroo court put in place as a court of record.

Remember: The only court that is allowed to hear any criminal case against a sovereign citizen for a violation of any law against the United States is an Article III court of law (ref: US Constitution, Article III, title 28, Title 18 sec. 3231 which states “the district courts (note the small d and c in district court) of the United States (note “of the United States”) shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the states, of all offenses against the laws of the United States).

21. Did anyone in the past 30 years receive a federal criminal trial by jury as guaranteed by the Constitution??

The answer is No in over 99 percent of their trials.

The exact reasons why; and exactly how the Federal judges stop everyone from receiving the Constitutional right to a trial by jury; only allowing a Jury Trial; which is NOT the same; is coming up later on this main link.