OUR PROTECTORS Now let's take a look at the branch of government which was supposed to be the protector of the American citizen. The Judicial branch! Many who read this would say that statement is the biggest joke of this book thus far. Really, the federal courts are required to make secure the people's unalienable rights by helping to keep all governments and officials within the limits of their powers imposed by the people under the Constitution. A look-see on the background and operation of the federal courts is first. The only court established by the Constitution is the Supreme Court. The authority to establish courts below the Supreme Court was given to the Congress. Under this constitutional authority, the Congress has established Circuit Courts of Appeal, District Courts, the Court of Claims, Customs Court, Court of Customs and Patents Appeals, Tax Court and Territorial Courts. The Supreme Court has "original jurisdiction" in certain cases spelled out in the Constitution. By original jurisdiction, it means a case begins in that court. Usually, the Supreme Court has 'appellate' jurisdiction which means that an appeal from a lower federal court would be taken to the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court is not required to review all appeals brought before it. An action [case or suit] of certain kinds, is started in a lower court and usually would be the district court. If the decision of that court is something that a person does not agree with or feels the court made an incorrect decision, that can be appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals. And again, if the person does not agree with the Court of Appeals decision, this can be further appealed to the Supreme Court. This is the usual procedure of the federal court system. A system is also available for certain cases decided in state courts to be appealed directly to the Supreme Court. This is just a general outline of the operation of the federal court system. It's not nearly as complicated and mysterious as judges and lawyers would have you to believe. They want it secretive to perpetuate their own fraternity and keep themselves and their brothers in business. The first requirement for the judicial division of the central government was that the branch be completely free of any influence of the other two branches of government. Two special grants were made to judges. First, that their salary should never be reduced. Secondly, that they should hold their positions during good behavior. The intention of these special grants were to insure that federal judges would be independent and be able to make impartial decisions, especially when deciding for a citizen  of the United States. Let me point out here, that all judges take an oath to uphold the Constitution, well, nearly to uphold anyway. Here is that oath: "I____________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all duties incumbent upon me as ________________ according to the best of my abilities, agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God." Pretty simple language, isn't it? Not easy to read in any double meanings. Since no citizen must obey any law which is made outside the authority of the Constitution that oath makes it look as though no one has anything to fear from the judiciary. However as we go along, it will appear that the oath has a hollow ring to it. The colonists had a great deal of trouble with judges who were appointed under the authority of the king. They were dependent on the King's will and good graces. If they made any decision which the King disliked, they were ousted from their positions. As a consequence, the colonists suffered one injustice heaped on another. Notice some of the statements in the Declaration of Independence: "He [the king] has obstructed the administra- tion of justice . . . Has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries." Angry statements are included to show that people who were accused of crimes were sent to England for trial and the right to trial by jury was suspended. The framers of the Constitution sought to protect future citizens of this country from suffering the same problems. Those are the reasons for a judges salary which can't be reduced and the holding of their offices during good behavior. And since federal judges are nominated by the president with the consent of the senate, the removal by impeachment still applies. Impeachment for federal judges works the same as it would for a president or other major government dude. The Constitution requires the House of Representatives to investigate the charges and the Senate to conduct the impeachment proceedings. This is an area which we will see needs vigorous research and action by American citizens. The first thing which should be pointed out is there is no authority in the Constitution, actual or implied, that any decision on a case by federal judge at ANY level should carry any weight on other or future cases which come before the courts. This is not the case today. Law libraries are loaded to the rafters with books showing decisions in previous cases which lawyers research and use as arguments to sustain  their positions in the case on which they're working. This is nonsense for there is no permission from our charter for government for such arguments. Each case should be decided on it's own merits and "agreeably to the Constitution and the laws of the United States." By laws of the United States is meant a bill passed by the Congress which, as required, conforms with the basic document. These books which clog a law library are not "laws of the United States." They are what legal eagles like to call 'case law' and have no authority in the Constitution to be a substitute for the laws of the United States. This case law is a record of the case which was decided, if a record is really necessary, and cannot become public policy. Chief Supreme Court Justice John Marshall brought this matter to the attention of the legal profession in 1821 when Marshall included this opinion on decisions becoming 'law': "It is a maxim not to be disregarded, that general expres- sions, in every opinion, are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used. If they go beyond the case, they may be respected, but ought not to control the judgment in a subsequent suit when the very point is presented." Even the Chief Justice agreed that it should involve only the case at hand! So where does the legal profession and the judicial branch find the right to say 'case law' is the law in any opinion? This matter of becoming "public policy" is a dangerous violation of our Constitution. By allowing this to occur, we are allowing federal judges to amend the Constitution in direct violation of Article V which specifies the method of amendment under our control. No where is there any power for a judge to decide that a particular school has to desegregate and by that single decision, make all schools follow the same policy. This is what is meant by becoming public policy. There is no room in our form of government for 5 people (a majority of 9 in the court) who are not elected and do not represent anyone to make any decisions which affect us all. NONE! They have no right to decide any social policies or to change our basic law by edict. They have no right to issue any orders which, because of a mystique created by the knights of the black robe, can become law! The lawmaking ability is restricted to Congress and cannot be spread throughout the government. By all the examples thus far, all these 'lawmaking' decisions, orders, regulations and so forth, are way out in left field. We are being overrun by power hungry men and women and it is time for all of us to assert our rights and demand that the basic document be obeyed. SUPPORT THE SHAREWARE CONCEPT . . . PLEASE REGISTER! 