Showing posts with label Supreme Court of the United States. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Supreme Court of the United States. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 8, 2015

Constitutional Corner – “Just who do we think we are?”

By:  Gary Porter

“Just who do we think we are?” stated Chief Justice John Roberts,[1] in what, I predict, will no doubt become one of the most famous statements ever made in a Supreme Court dissent, barely edging out “[The Constitution] had nothing to do with [today’s decision.]”

“Petitioners make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness,” (emphasis added) he continues. Social policy? I thought Supreme Court decisions were to be rooted in the law? “The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judg­ment,” Roberts reminds us.

“The Celebrated Montesquieu” said: “There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.”

Social justice, the great utopic goal of every Progressive, not jurisprudence, was the goal of the five Justices who formed the majority opinion in Obergefel vs Hodgesl.

It was an act of judicial activism.

What do we mean by judicial activism? The Heritage Foundation defines it this way: “Judicial activism occurs when judges write subjective policy preferences into the law rather than apply the law impartially according to its original meaning.”

There is no better example than Obergefell.

Prior to Obergefell, the most famous statement by a Supreme Court Justice which encapsulated the idea behind judicial activism occurred when Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall described his judicial philosophy as: “You do what you think is right and let the law catch up.” That’s simply an amazing statement for a jurist: Ignore the law and rule instead based on your “feelings” of what is right. It’s all about feelings to a Progressive; in fact the law is often seen as an obstacle to PROGRESS. So, if you can get a court to declare its sense of justice as “the law,” instead of constraining itself to proper interpretation of the law, all the better.

But judicial activism is often in the eye of the beholder. The perfect example is Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission. The Right saw the decision as an affirmation of unrestrained free speech, the Left saw the decision as the perfect example of judicial activism since it “declared corporations were people,” as I heard more than one liberal insist.

Judicial activism is a natural outgrowth of the doctrine of legal positivism, which replaced natural law theory in the late 1800s. Legal Positivism holds that the only relevant law is what man creates. Natural law, if it exists at all, is irrelevant; and revealed law (i.e. as found in the Bible) has no place in a mature society. Since man is constantly evolving (so goes the theory) the law must continually evolve as well. And who guides the evolution of the law? Why, the judges, of course.

In another candid moment, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wondered aloud whether the court went “too far, too fast” in its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision; yet another admission that Progressives see the Court as the “seeing eye dog” of a society groping culturally in the dark. So, perhaps the court went “a smidgen” too far in 1973; so what? Fifty million undelivered babies might have a different opinion.

Compare these previous progressive sentiments with that of Associate Justice Joseph Story, who wrote in his 1833 work: “Commentaries on the Constitution,” “The truth is, that, even with the most secure tenure of office, during good behavior, the danger is not, that the judges will be too firm in resisting public opinion, and in defence of private rights or public liberties; but, that they will be ready to yield themselves to the passions, and politics, and prejudices of the day.” Is that not what we just saw happen in Obergefell?

Thomas Jefferson saw the danger during his time, writing to William Jarvis in 1820: “To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Besides Obergefell, are there other examples of judicial activism? Lists, long ones, are not hard to find. You’ll find us discussing these cases and more tomorrow morning on “We The People, The Constitution Matters” (7am EDT,

The Heritage Foundation lists these cases (and others) as activist:

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), in which Justice William O. Douglas, in one of the most famous of judicial DIY projects, constructed a right to privacy from bits and pieces of vague privacy inferences salvaged from “emanations from penumbras” of the Constitution.

Roe v. Wade (1973), building on the “right” of privacy constructed in Griswold, the Court then further defined that “right” to encompass the murder of unborn babies, with few restrictions, striking down numerous state laws.

Lawrence v. Texas (2003), building once again on Griswold, the Court decided that the by now very useful “right” of privacy should be extended even further to sodomy — that states would no longer be allowed to decide whether certain sexual acts were immoral and restrictable. Another dose of “social policy.”

Kelo v. City of New London, Conn (2005). In Kelo, the Court took the plain language of the 5th Amendment and contorted it beyond recognition. The Amendment’s final clause requires that private property taken under eminent domain be only taken “for public use.” Historically, this has meant taking property to build roads and stadiums, install utility lines and other public features which benefit all a locale’s citizens. Not so, said the Court. The City of New London was allowed to take private property and give it to a private corporation (Pfizer Corporation) for the purpose of their building a new private manufacturing plant (reasoning that this would increase the city’s tax base, boost revenues, and thus benefit, well, whoever the city spent the money on). Ironically, Pfizer pulled out of the deal after all the necessary homes were razed and the ground sits vacant to this day. The finding in Kelo encouraged more than one state to pass legislation or Constitutional amendments protecting private property from just such predations exhibited in Connecticut.

Perhaps the “poster child” of terrible Commerce Clause cases, but also a perfect example of judicial activism since it contorted the clause’s clear wording, is Wickard v. Filburn. Old Farmer Filburn wanted nothing more than to grow some wheat for his own animals’ consumption; but doing so would exceed his planting allotment. “ If we let you do that,” said the Court (in effect), “you’ll not have to purchase that wheat on the open market, which will affect the interstate market in wheat, which Congress has complete control of under the Commerce Clause.” See the iron-clad legal reasoning? Neither do most people. Wickard was the final nail in the Commerce Clause coffin, and essentially gave Congress (and by extension, the Executive) the power to regulate nearly any business activity. Wickard v. Filburn is the “butterfly effect” applied to the Commerce Clause.

There are many, many more examples and you can study them on several websites. Let’s turn our attention to remedies. What can “We The People” do in the face of judicial activism? We’ll examine six avenues for redress:
Congressional or state legislative or amendment action. We today have several Constitutional Amendments (11th, 13th, 16th, 26th) due to Supreme Court decisions. In some cases the precipitating action was a SCOTUS decision declaring a piece of legislation passed by the Congress to be unconstitutional (16th and 26th Amendments), and sometimes it was merely the implications of a decision. InChisholm v. Georgia the Court declared that citizens could sue sovereign states. The Congress replied: “We don’t think that should be so,” and they dutifully passed and got ratified an Amendment putting their view into effect. The 13th Amendment was at least in part the result of the Court’s horrendous Dred Scott decision. In the wake of the Dred Scott decision, many northern state legislatures scrambled to pass legislation nullifying or muting the effects of the decision.

Jurisdiction stripping: Article 3 Section 2 provides Congress the power to remove any subject area from the Court’s jurisdiction. This was most famously proved in Ex Parte McCardle when the Supreme Court shut down a case “in mid-stream,” i.e., after oral arguments had been heard but before an opinion had been published. This power has been used often by the Congress but is still not widely understood in that body. In 1996, Congress successfully stripped the federal courts of jurisdiction to review certain INS decisions. Understand also: for Congress to exert this power, a piece of legislation so stating must be passed and signed by the President, which adds another layer of partisanship to the process. Jurisdiction stripping must also be used “judiciously.” If the Congress tomorrow removed the topic of abortion, for instance, from the Court’s jurisdiction, some say that would prevent Roe V. Wade from ever being reversed, or even reviewed. You should converse with your Senators and Representative to ensure they understand jurisdiction stripping.

Impeachment or Criminal prosecution of judges: To date, sixteen federal officials have been successfully impeached by the House of Representatives. These include two presidents, a cabinet member, a senator, a Justice of the Supreme Court, and thirteen federal judges. Of those, the Senate has convicted and removed seven, all of them judges. District Court Judge John Pickering of the District of New Hampshire was the first impeached official actually convicted and removed from office. He was found guilty of drunkenness and unlawful rulings. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase is the only U.S. Supreme Court Justice to have been impeached (he was acquitted, much to Jefferson’s disappointment). In 1981, Alcee Hastings, sitting as a U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, was impeached and removed from the bench (convicted of accepting a $150,000 bribe in exchange for a defendant’s lenient sentence). Once off the bench, he ran for office and the good citizens of Florida’s 23rd District amazingly sent him to Congress as their Representative!
Presidential refusal to enforce: In a statement that is probably apocryphal, President Andrew Jackson is claimed to have said: “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!” The decision, Worcester v. Georgia (1832) required nothing of Jackson, so it is unlikely he said this, but it points to another remedy. The Congress or the President can decide not to give effect to a Supreme Court decision. This of course would create a Constitutional “crisis” and place things in a state of tension. But as Hamilton points out in Federalist 78: the reason he calls the Judiciary the “least dangerous branch” (boy, was he wrong!) is because“It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.” This comports with Jefferson’s opinion that “The Constitution… meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”[2] In other words: the Congress and President are to act as a check on an activist Judiciary.

Presidential pardon: The President’s pardon power, found in Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1, gives the President the ability to demonstrate that he believes a court acted improperly. Immediately upon taking office in 1801, President Thomas Jefferson pardoned everyone jailed under the onerous Sedition Act of 1798 (which had given rise to the doctrine of nullification) and even went so far as to return their fines.
Nullification: We discussed this last week on “The Constitution Matters” (you can download the podcast from WFYL’s website). The states and/or the people are free to (and should, according to the venerable Sir William Blackstone) ignore a judicial ruling as null and void if it contravenes natural or revealed law (like the definition of marriage?). A final remedy would be jury nullification, which was used to great effect in response to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, and in the aftermath of prohibition (Volstead Act). In both cases juries (Northern juries, obviously, in the case of the Fugitive Slave Act) routinely refused to render guilty verdicts, even in the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt. This action rendered the acts essentially null and void in those jurisdictions.

There are probably other remedies that can be sought in the face of judicial activism. But in the end, what gives a judicial opinion legitimacy (for that is simply what it is: an opinion) is the reaction of the people. A Supreme Court opinion is not the law of the land unless we give it that status.

The Constitution does not begin with “We the Judges,” “We the Congress” or with “ I the President.” As I tell all my classes, it is the peoples’ document (with all due respect to those who hold it to be a compact of the states) and “We the People” need to take individual ownership of it. We need to actively work with our representatives in Congress to “put right” terrible Court decisions, and there are many ways to do so. There have been many terrible Supreme Court decisions over the years and Obergefell, I fear, is not the last of them.

Join us tomorrow morning, 7am, on WFYL (Listen Live at to hear your trusty commentators, joined by special guest, Dr. Herb Titus, Founding Dean of the Regent University Law School, as we discuss: “Judicial Activism.”

“Constitutional Corner” is a project of the Constitution Leadership Initiative, Inc. To unsubscribe from future mailings by Constitution Leadership Initiative, click here
[1] Obergefell vs. Hodges, 576 U. S. ____ (2015)

[2] Letter to Abigail Adams, 1804.

Sunday, September 6, 2015

Constitution Seminar for Youth Announced

On September 9, 1777, future Chief Justice of the U.S Supreme Court John Jay had the opportunity to address the Grand Jury of Ulster County, NY.  Among his remarks, he said: “Every member of the State ought diligently to read and to study the constitution of his country and teach the rising generation to be free. By knowing their rights, they will sooner perceive when they are violated, and be the better prepared to defend and assert them.” 

At the Constitution Leadership Initiative, we have taken John Jay's charge to heart.

Although I've had to cancel the previously announced seminar planned for 29 August due to low registrations, I have rescheduled it for 19 September (two days after Constitution Day) and moved to a new location.

The seminar is built around the book "Our Constitution Rocks" by Juliette Turner, and each participant age 14-18 will receive a free copy.  This is an explanation of the Constitution written by a teen for teens.  In addition, each child will receive a free box lunch and Pocket Constitution.  All this is made possible by generous donations to CLI's Young Patriot's Fund.
This will be a wonderful opportunity for students to study the entire U.S. Constitution in one sitting and learn of the events which led to it as well. 
There will be a special guest appearance (via Skype) by Constituting America President and Founder Janine Turner (mother of Juliette).
Parents who wish to audit the seminar with their children will be asked to pay $10 to cover the cost of their lunch.
All participants must be pre-registered to participate.  The seminar is limited to 30 participants.  Register via email to or by calling 757-867-9120.
Request your assistance in publicizing this important and worthwhile event.

Thanks for your help in the cause of freedom.

Tuesday, June 30, 2015

Governor McAuliffe Launches Statewide Virtual Datathon Challenge

~ Teams from across Virginia will create new and innovative applications ~
(Or, How to get people to work for free)

RICHMOND – Governor Terry McAuliffe today launched the 2015 Virtual Datathon Challenge, a competition that will bring together teams of innovators from across the Commonwealth to create new applications that improve government

“We can’t have an innovative new Virginia economy without an innovative government,” said Governor McAuliffe. “That’s why last year my administration launched Virginia’s first ever open data portal, and why last September we brought together state agencies to build brand new apps from scratch. This year, I’m challenging innovators across Virginia to use our state data in creative ways that will encourage collaboration and transparency within our government, enhance the services we provide our citizens, and build on our state’s reputation for innovative, efficient and customer-oriented government.”

Virginia Secretary of Technology Karen Jackson continued, “This Virtual Challenge will give all Virginians the opportunity to use data and technology to improve their government and how it serves their communities.  Apps are changing lives; we are seeing a movement where longstanding challenges are being solved by technology solutions developed by a growing population of civic coders. We want Virginia to lead the way.”

The Virtual Challenge winner will advance to the final round of competition at the statewide competition where they will compete for the Governor’s Cup.

For more information and competition registration, please visit  To join the big data conversation, follow @DataVirginia and #TechInVA.

Thursday, March 26, 2015

How To Beat The Traffic Ticket Scams In 3 Parts

Some interesting arguments for traffic court.  How to beat traffic tickets from Marc Stevens.  Now these are not the only arguments for beating traffic tickets there are a number of ways to argue and ways that you can legally beat them that is as long as they do not change the rules on you in the middle of the case.

  We have seen judges completely ignore the law and evidence put right before them and still rule against you anyway.  It is true that the courts seem to just want your hard earned money and nothing more.  Those rules they expect you to follow never seem to apply to them.  How does that work?

  Now most judges are not familiar with the arguments above as the videos here have not exactly gone viral.  That is good news.  That means you stand a good chance of using the techniques above and with good effect.  Now if these videos were old and with hundreds of thousands of hits then you can rest assured that most judges have a battle plan against these arguments.  The trick is to use what they do not expect.  Its fair game here.  The courts do not have the appearance that they have your best interest at heart at any point so everything is fair game to shut them down legally in every way anyone can.  Please note the term, legally.  Do what is legal to do.  Do not break the law just because they might.

  In a future article we are going to show you tricks that law enforcement uses that invalidates their tickets against you.  We are also going to show you how to fight back if the courts do find against you even though you had the right legal argument.  Now none of this is legal advice in any way.  Only an attorney appointed by the bar can give you legal advice.  We prefer the common law and will show you that the common law still applies here in the USA and the courts can not get around that once you know how the system is designed to work.  You can win without a BAR attorney.  You just need to educate yourself.

Monday, January 19, 2015

Gloucester, Virginia Board of Supervisors Video With Notes On Law, Jan. 2015

Video from the January 7th, 2015 Board of Supervisors meeting.  This is where the Gloucester Main Street Preservation Trust begged the Board for money and the board approved giving them their pleading.  Your tax dollars now working against you as now that money will be used to get others to beg from the Gloucester Main Street Preservation Trust to give up some of that money to them.

  This is how government and others conspire against the people.  They turn everything into a begging contest.  Let me explain.  In order to be considered, you must submit an application for various benefits.  Let's break that down.  Submit, submission, submissive.  To be under.  You apply to be under.  Hence you are begging.  Bet you never looked at it this way.  What did you think it meant?  Bet you never even thought about it since you are told to beg everyday for pretty much everything.

  Now this money is supposed to be used to generate pre qualified entrepreneurs.  Amazing.  They want people to beg for stuff they already have a right to do.  How is that working for everyone?  It's the same with a business license.  If you already have the right to contract, why do you need a business license?  You don't no matter what they tell you.  Zoning permits?  You already have the right, why are you asking for permission?  When you ask for permission, they have the right to say no or charge you a fortune to tell you yes when you already had the right?

  Your pocket is being picked and you are allowing it to happen to you.  Stop asking for permission for what you already have the right to do.  Those permits and licenses are for them, not for you.  Why are you paying?  Because you did not know any better.  When we challenged the county on all of this, they remained silent.  Why?  Because we already showed them through Federal Law we were right.

California Law prohibits Cities and Counties from enforcing City or County Codes and Ordinances upon property that is not OWNED by the City or County even if the property is within City limits.

California Penal Code: Chapter 5b CITATIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF COUNTY, CITY, OR CITY AND COUNTY ORDINANCES Sections 853.1through 853.4 was repealed in 1967.

The Supreme Court ruled that Municipalities cannot exert any acts of ownership and control over property that is not OWNED by them, see Palazzolo v. Rhode Island 533 US 606, 150 L.Ed. 2d 592, 121 S.Ct. ___(2001) (no expiration date on the taking clause for City's illegal enforcement of its Codes on the man's private property and restricting the man's business), affirming both Lucas v South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 US 1003, 120 L.Ed. 2d 798 (1992).(butterfly activists and Code Enforcement cannot restrict development of the man's private swampland unless they lawfully acquire the land FIRST, surveying with binoculars constitutes a "takings"), and Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes, 526 US 687 (1999), 143 L.Ed. 2d 882 S.Ct.____ (1998).

In the Monterey case, the California private property owner was awarded $8 million for Code Enforcement's illegal trespass and restriction of his business, and another $1.45 million for the aggravation of a forced sale.

Federal Law also prohibits Cities and Counties from issuing citations against businesses, see Title 18 U.S.C.891-896, quoting Section 891 "An extortionate means is any means which involves the use, or an express or implicit threat of use, of violence or other criminal means to cause harm to the person, reputation, or property."

Black's Law Dictionary 5 th Edition (page 1140): Recaption. At Common Law, a retaking or taking back.

We do not have to make any of this up.  Here it is right from the law books.  The county has no right to get involved in your business at any time for any reason.  You may also want to look up Hale vs Henkel, the government does not even have a right to ask you about your business and if they do, you have a right to tell them to go very far away and never come back.

The above is a link to one of the interpretations of the case.

Now let's talk a bit more about government corruption shall we?  If you own a small business and are collecting and paying sales tax, the question that must be asked is why?  Is the county or the state paying you to do this?  If they are not, you have been tricked into doing so thinking it is required.  It is not.  In fact, if they are not paying you to do this, you have a right to sue them.  They are in violation of the 13th amendment of the US Constitution.

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

  If you are not being paid to collect sales taxes, then what crime have you committed that makes you an involuntary slave to the government?  You can not just stop paying those taxes without penalties because you already agreed to a contract that you didn't understand.  It's called an adhesion contract.  But they will do everything to enforce that illegal contract down your throat.  You have to give them advanced notice that you will no longer be collecting or paying that sales tax.  You can sue them for back payments for your costs of collecting these taxes as well as not giving you full disclosure when they contracted you in their scheme.  Don't you just love the way the government operated these days?

  None of this is legal advice.  Only a Bar attorney can give you legal advice as they are franchised members of the franchised legal system having paid their annual franchise dues.  We discuss concepts of law here instead.  Everyone has a right to discuss concepts of law as it is an inherent right.

York Herald 2015 1-15, By Phil Bazzani 

The most recent issue of the York Herald by Phil Bazzani, York District Board of Supervisors for Gloucester County, Virginia.  Get his take on some of the issues or the avoidance thereof.  But most of them try to avoid many of the issues.  They have to or they end up with a great deal of liability.  Not that this is not already an issue anyway.  Just saying anything on the issues ups their liability however and they all know this so they all do everything they can to avoid it.


Tuesday, November 11, 2014

Writ Quo Warranto; Judges Beware?

The Line in the Sand - Breaking News November 10, 2014 Unified Common Law Grand Jury in every State files writ_quo_warranto.pdf in every Federal District Court, United States Supreme Court and served upon every Federal Judge and all 9 US Supreme Court Justices. Information in the nature of a quo warranto. A proceeding against the usurper of a franchise or office. Jarman v. Mason, 102 Okl. 278, 229 P. 459, 460.; An extraordinary proceeding, prerogative in nature, addressed to preventing a continued exercise of authority unlawfully asserted. Johnson v. Manhattan Ry. Co., N.Y., 53 S.Ct. 721, 289 U.S. 479, 77 L.Ed. 1331. watch the Video.

The above video and information come from the National Liberty Alliance.  The pdf is available above as it is live linked here and it is covered in full detail in the above video.  Will this work?  Will judges just stop being thieves and sell outs?  Not likely.  There is way to much money and power in what they are doing now.  They are not going to give up that power and corruption without a fight.  

  What I will say is that I do like what these folks are doing and I have decided to join.  So I am a member of NLA and cover Gloucester, Virginia.  Now I have many hours of training to go through.  What kind of impact will all of this have?  Hope for the best, expect the worst.  It's the right stand no matter what.  Standing for the rights of the people is always the right decision.  I need two more people for Gloucester to have 4 people covering this county.  Each county should have 4 representatives.  I already have a second person.  May already have a third, but waiting on their answer.  Who will step up to be number four?

Please visit the NLA, National Liberty Alliance at the below link


Thursday, August 21, 2014

Governor McAuliffe Statement on Supreme Court’s Decision to Grant Stay in Same-Sex Marriage Case

Governor Terry McAuliffe released the following statement in reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to grant a stay that will delay same-sex marriages in Virginia until the court decides whether or not it will hear the case:

“Today’s decision is a temporary delay to the inevitable conclusion that Virginians who love each other should have the opportunity to marry regardless of their sexual orientation. Building a new Virginia economy means creating an environment that is open and welcoming to all, where world-class innovators and entrepreneurs can locate without fear of discrimination. That is why  my first act as Governor banned discrimination in the state workplace based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and why I support marriage equality in Virginia as a key ingredient of that economy of the future.

“I applaud Attorney General Mark Herring for his continued efforts to see this case concluded as quickly as possible, and I hope the Supreme Court takes immediate action to uphold the 4thCircuit’s decision so that Virginia can finally take this next important step in our history. In the meantime, my administration will make the necessary preparations so that we are ready to implement this decision if the ruling is upheld.”

Our Notes:  Isn't this what our forefathers fought for?  So that there could be gay rights?  Wasn't that already added into the US Constitution?  97th Amendment, the right to be free and gay?  Now isn't it that in a republic this can be voted by the will of the people?  In a democracy, it's just forced onto the people.  Which one are we seeing in this state now?  If there is one upside to trampling all over the will of the people, it's that certain bloodlines should never reproduce.  We just got that wish the difficult way.

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

Official Declaration of Contempt of Constitution by The People of the United States of America

With this Document, Filed, Presented or Posted with any agency, department, representative or body politic of government in any form which such government shall take, shall be construed by force majeure as the same shall be duly gathered by We THE People, and the same shall at any time be required or necessary, to be an official and undeniable Declaration of CONTEMPT OF CONSTITUTION for the People of the United States of America, and sets forth the following information and Declaration in support thereof.
The inherent authority and power to charge one with contempt of court has long been recognized within the courts and the legal structure of the governments of the United States of America. It has been well understood, and is accepted, that such authority and power belongs to common law courts as a result of the nature of what contempt of court is, an inherent authority and power being undeniable and un-separable to the courts because of the nature of what that authority and power is. It is further recognized by We THE People, as claimed by the courts themselves, that contempt of court is the highest authority and power as being true and correct on its face accordingly.
Likewise, it is recognized that such authority and power arose first from an acknowledgement and allowance of the King of England in the early Eighteenth century, or early 1700’s, as revealed by the U.S. Supreme Court case of In Re Green v. U.S., N.Y., 78 S. Ct. 632, 356 U.S. 165, 2L. Ed. 2d 672. This revelation being thus shown to illustrate the fact that the power of contempt of court itself actually comes under the sovereignty of a country just as it did in England at that time centuries ago, proves to the People and establishes by like principle that the power of contempt of court in the United States also belongs under the ultimate Sovereignty of the United States of America the republic thereof, or the People, as was expressly embodied in the Preamble as “We the People.”
Proclaiming and explaining the inherent right of the courts themselves to simply declare the right to contempt of court, it is stated at Corpus Juris Secundun, Volume 17, Section 43, Page 108 that “In order that any human agency may accomplish its purpose, it is necessary that it possess power.” The executive must have power to direct or control his business. The Superintendent must have power to direct his men. In order to accomplish the purposes for which they were created, courts must also possess powers. … these powers are called inherent powers. Among these powers is the power to punish for contempt.”
We THE People of the United States of America, having come together in peaceful assembly to return to Original Jurisdiction and Venue and return the formation of a republic, being noted in the Preamble as “We the People,” likewise have, and hereby reveal and prescribe, an Inherent Authority and Power, and for the same or similar reasons, in their own fashion, do so reason and Declare:
In order that any human body of people forming a constitution representing them directly by prescribed or written agency may accomplish their purposes, in order to keep their constitution secure, safe and sound in its integrity, clean, pure, inviolable (not being violated), it is necessary that that body of people possess all inherent authority and power. The business owner must have authority and power to direct or control his business or punish or fire bad employees who refuse to be directed or controlled as required. The Superintendent must have authority and power to direct his men. In order to accomplish the purpose for which they created a Constitution, a People organized in a republic, or even recognized between themselves as bearing or having a constitution, whether or not written, must also possess Authority and Powers. …these authorities and powers are called Inherent Authorities and Powers. These Authorities and Powers are undeniable, irrevocable, irreversible, indisputable, and unalienable, by any elements of government. Among these authorities and powers is the authority and power to punish for Contempt of Constitution. Contempt of Constitution belongs and is inherent to We THE People alone. No part of authority or power of government may attach it, detract from it, taint it, or approach it.
Furthermore, not only does the Inherent Authority and Power of Contempt of Constitution belong to the People alone, wherefore no body of government may approach it without committing Contempt of Constitution at its highest level, but the principle of Contempt of Constitution was embodied by the Constitution’s Founding Fathers or Framers, at Article I, Section 6, Clause 1, perceived and understood therein as “breach of Peace” being understood so to be, to wit:
Treason and Felony are referred to in Article I, Section 6, Clause 1, but Misdemeanor is not. Thus, mere Misdemeanors, even if seemingly causing a breach of peace by today’s standards, would not be sufficient to prevent a Congressman or Senator from attending Congress in session. Reviewing all forms of Misdemeanors and recognizing that none of them apply to such a breach as described in the Constitution, by process of elimination, the only kind of breach that could be so serious as to be thought by the Founding Fathers as being worthy to stop an attendance of Congress in session was that kind of an offense serious enough to be regarded as equal or greater than the commitment of either a treason of felony.
Whenever any person of We THE People, or the People as a Whole, shall have their rights subsequent to mandated rights and requirements usurped by government, and shall further have as to such abuse, contempt, or usurpation by government their:
Rights that any person or People not be assaulted in their fundamental or constitutional rights or their rights of due process in connection with Life, Liberty and Property are abused or denied (5th Amendment);
Rights to be or feel secure in their houses, not just house, as to all their communications, even with modern technology, the advent of modern technology not amending the Constitution in any part thereof (4th Amendment);
Rights to feel secure while traveling abroad by not being forced under penalty of fine or imprisonment (being in duress, by the conduct of government agents) or violation of other rights to show or produce their papers (4th & 5th Amendment);
Rights of speech, religion, assembly, the press, and petition, not polluted with false concepts of expression leading to gross depravity. Perversion, and leading to all forms of social self-destruction, including children murdering children (1st & 9th Amendments);
Rights to exist peacefully in their homes during times of peace (3rd Amendment);
Rights not to have the State’s militia suppressed, oppressed, or done away with under pretense or disguise of being a national guard, or military assaults committed against private homes for constitutionally violation purposes (Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 & 2nd, 8th and 10th Amendments);
Rights of justice by an impartial jury, under control (trial, try – to control) of a Jury, not under control of a judge, thus representing the People directly (Article III, Section 2, Clause 3 and the 6th Amendment);
Rights to not have judges wearing the (black) robes of England or any other country, to not be required to “all rise” for, to not be required to speak, say or lavish the title of honor where no constitutional law can be required of the People to do so, and to have government of the United States and of the several States to not support, either by law or by practice, a title of such as, but not limited to “esquire,” or any association or organization, foreign or domestic, in support thereof (Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 and Article I, Section 10, Clause 1);
Rights to be fully informed of all material facts that transpire in the courts, not to have judges or attorneys take “silent judicial notice” of elements of proceedings thereby impairing the obligation of contract with the court (Article I, Section 10, Clause 6);
Rights to have the separation of powers between the several States and the United States in cases of criminal offense alleged and recognized (Article III, Section 2, Clause 3);
Rights to have all commerce not crossing or else no longer crossing a State’s borders recognized as intrastate commerce, not interstate commerce, and therefore not under the power and authority of the United States government (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3);
Rights to not have Congress have the right to regulate (make regular or uniform) commerce among the States (or interstate commerce) to be extended to mean “to regulate or control interstate society” where such wording is not plainly stated (not being found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3);
Rights to assistance of counsel (not necessarily attorney or lawyers), assistance not being forced, controlled or limited by any organization what-so-ever (6th Amendment);
Rights against governmental and other encroachments to have civil matters in cases of determined value tried by jury, also not under the control of a lawyer judge (7th Amendment);
Rights of reasonable bail set, but not by prosecution and trial, and no cruel and unusual punishment (8th Amendment);
Rights to not be forced to use an unlawfull form of money, consideration or value received on export (or income from an accounting standpoint) be taxable by the United States Corporation or Government, weather alleged to be to any foreign country or to any local county or State or nation, or no tax on the export side of interstate commerce in any form (Article I, Section 9, Clause 5);
Rights to the Inherent Right to have the language of the People, in all aspects to which it applies to them, belong to the People alone and under their control, and to not belong to or be controlled by any form of government thereof to any degree whatsoever, and rights to the common law thereunder (9th, 5th and 7th Amendments);
Rights to have all rights, through not specifically numbered (enumerated) within the Constitution but retained without Article V required amendment, retained by the First Generation, or that generation which came under the wording “retained by the people” (9th Amendment);
Rights to have certain powers considered forever and distinctly separate between bodies of government, United States, States, and People (10th Amendment);
Rights to bear arms in order to secure against the loss of the condition of a free state, whether by overt or covert means, being the loss of right to Life, Liberty and Property without due process of the law (2nd Amendment combined with the 5th Amendment);
Rights of all other things as they exist within the main body of the Constitution itself as well as other parts of the Constitution not named;
Then they, the People, are NOT at peace by any of these breaches, either as individuals, or as a People, and Peace clearly has been breached thereby. Article I, Section 6, Clause 1- the minimal embodiment of Contempt of Constitution.
THEREFORE, by these unalienable and mutual understandings beheld now by We THE People, whether or not previously spoken, written, or declared by any knowledge of fact or law, and by mutual covenants of the People, by the People, and between the People unspoken and unwritten yet existent, thus giving their heart-felt, undeniable, and solemn consent to this proceeding, without regard to any expressed numeration of the People so represented hereby but being all inclusive for all of the People United, the People of the United States of America and of the Several States do file and Declare CONTEMPT OF CONSTITUTION to belong as an inherent Power to them, the People, alone, AND THAT by each and every filing and declaration of this Inherent Power throughout the land, this Unalienable Power of Contempt of Constitution shall, for the People alone, GROW EXPOENTIALLY accordingly.
THAT because Contempt by its own nature is a Quasi-Crime, or has many different appearances and aspects, and not a civil offense, and because there are different classes of Contempt, re: Corpus Juris Secundum, Volume 17, Section 43, Page 115, it is necessary to set forth what appears to be the different classes of Contempt of Constitution herein.
The definition(s) of Contempt of Constitution is as follows: Contempt of Constitution is a Sovereign Crime, committed against the sovereign person(s) = People whom such Constitution represents. For the purposes of defining Contempt of Constitution as applicable to the Constitution for the United States of America, the classification of and degrees of types of Contempt of Constitution and like crimes shall be, and hereby are:
General Contempt. Where Contempt has been committed or asserted, but may have been done ignorantly or unknowingly. (Not a defense) This shall include Attempted Contempt.
Malicious Contempt. Where General Contempt has been repeated, so that ignorance of the law is clearly no excuse, or contempt deliberately committed with afore knowledge, or where the results of the contempt is severe against one or more of the person(s) = People victimized by it so that a distinct harm has befallen or inevitably will befall such person(s) = People.
Tyrannical Malicious Contempt. Contempt so strong that it is apparent that the author(s) of tyranny work(s) act of Malicious Contempt, on a similar or dissimilar basis, in an effort, no matter how small, to gain a destructive power over any person=People within the United States of America or any of its territories, or where a corrupt use, or corrupt taking-part in such use, of power, whether or not, by any manner delegated, whereby such power may be used maliciously toward any citizen or any person=People under the protection of the Constitution and Bill of Rights of the United States of America.
Noble Contempt. Noble Contempt of Constitution occurs when a person or business is recognized and=or treated differently, either greater or lesser, under any operation of law (even though a special fee {which shall be unlawfull} might have been paid to a government for such special recognition) that is recognized for other common or ordinary People, as well as for businesses. Noble Contempt also exists wherein private People or businesses are elevated in status above other common People or businesses by either what they are provided as rights to be entitled, above other People of equal merit, to do or by where they are regarded by some sense of fame already in existence as to be given advantage(s) that other ordinary or common People or businesses under the same circumstances would not be provided. Noble Contempt shall also include Noble Contempt by De-nobilization, which is an act of subjecting an individual or even a specific populous to a condition of degradation or reduction in status of importance under the law, whether by statute, code, regulation or common law, in favor of not reducing all People equally, to be affected thereby. This jurisdictional charge and all penalties hereunder, shall apply to both People and non-nationals of the United States of America and of any State. This is an Inherent Power expressed by the Constitution at Article I, Section 9 Clause 8, and Article I, Section 10, Clause 1.
Noble Malicious Contempt. Is the establishment of Noble Contempt where the party or parties involved in such contemptuous activity refuse to vacate such Contempt and such Contempt can be shown to work a hardship or deprivation of common rights upon any other United States of America native born national or native born in a state of the union. This jurisdictional charge and all penalties hereunder, shall apply to both native born People and non-nationals of the United States of America and of any State. This is an Inherent Authority and Power expressed by the Constitution at article I, Section 9, Clause 8 and Article I, Section 10, Clause 1.
Noble Tyrannical Malicious Contempt. Is the establishment of Noble Contempt on a harsh and repetitive basis where the party or parties involved in such contemptuous activity effectuate such Contempt to the degree that it represents a blatant disregard for basic human rights, rights embraced by the Constitution, where gross insensitivity toward the suffering of any United States of America native born Freeman or Free-Woman is the result, and it is reasonably believed that the party or parties knew of the unconstitutionality of their acts but proceeded with obvious Contempt to continue them at any cost, or where there shall be a corrupt use of power in conjunction with such Noble Tyrannical Malicious Contempt, whether or not, by any manner, delegated, that may be used maliciously as toward any native born Freeman or Free-Woman of, or any person=People under the protection of the United States of America nor any of its territories. Furthermore, Noble Tyrannical Malicious Contempt may be recognized as having been committed in any event where the wanton disregard for the rights, safety and secureness of the common native born Freeman or free-Woman, whether or not the same shall be considered sovereign, is enacted, as represented by the scientific formula written as ” ∑(#1) = F∞” (Total Humanity),” putting all or a great portion of humanity at risk of life and=or liberty for the benefit of one, which may be representatively defined in analogical format, put in antiquated-like, but not clearly expressive terms as, “The Sum of Me is Equal To All of Thee.”
IN THE FURTHERANCE of this DECLARATION of CONTEMPT OF CONSTITUTION, where there shall be any attempt to refute, deny, or twist the same so as to be made of alleged non-effect, while holding that the authority and power of contempt of court exists at all, it is further hereby NOTED, UNDERSTOOD, and DECLARED THAT if there be at any time any claim that CONTEMPT OF CONSTITUTION does not exist or that the We THE People have no right thereto, that contempt of court does not exist or that the We THE People have no right thereto, then contempt of court does not exist either, nor contempt of legislature, nor contempt of the executive; the lower cannot supersede the higher, nor set it aside. Therefore, any attempt to declare that Contempt of Constitution does not exist for or belong to We THE People alone in favor of contempt of court or any other authority or power of government, represents a Contempt of Constitution to the Tyrannical Malicious Degree, and is inherently prosecutable there under.
Other forms of Contempt of Constitution may exist as We THE People alone discern or duly proclaim them to be hereafter.
NOTED NOW, and DESCERNED. There is no statute of limitations of Contempt of Constitution, and there can be none, except it be declared by We THE People themselves, which they shall not, except it be by Amendment by Pure Convention, (shall) do.
Contempt of Constitution
Has been formally and officially Declared by this proceeding to the same extent as contempt of court was first declared many ages ago, and has the same lawfull intent and purpose as does contempt of court, the keeping and securing of the Constitution in a safe and sound condition, maintaining its integrity in its rights established solely for the benefit of We THE People of the United States of America.
A tribunal representing a lawfull force recognized by and under the Constitution of the United States of America (Article I, Section 8, Clause 9), also by the power of the tribunals long known and existing under common law, by the power of separate and third party existence as established under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, Circa 1778 as amended at 1791, the Tribunal of We THE People undersigned, representing the People in law and in sovereign law, whether by direct representation or by those solemn and sovereign authority and powers in spirit and in fact as embodied and held, being retained by the First Generation as set forth and required by the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, now hereby below subscribe their appellations, giving force, authority and power to this proceeding and Declaration, by use by proxy of the appellations of those Founding Fathers whose historical appellations now are entered below upon this Extraordinary Writ of Sovereign Declaration, joined by others thereafter in spirit and=or in fact, this Declaration of Contempt of Constitution is and has been put into Perpetual and Sovereign Effect and Power by the Power and Effect of these Three appellations so autographed, real People=Citizens standing in Symbolic Proxy for the Same, and is therefore,
{Place your statement of facts and=or your issue by verified Affidavit}
It is Ordered, Sentenced and Decreed by the Lawfull Authority and Power by the Political Will of We THE People of the United States of America the date of the Declaration of this Inherent Authority and Power of Contempt of Constitution being Timeless, extending to all times when the offense(s) shall have been committed, by
Autograph: (Seal)
Autograph: (Seal)
Autograph: (Seal)

We have no idea who the original author is but this came off the site linked below and posted by "Freewill".