Obama is going to sue Sheriff Joe for violating the rights of Latinos. I hope Sheriff Joe kicks some Latino butts all the way back to Mexico.
Obama accuses the conservatives on the Supreme Court of being judicial activists. Black’s Law Dictionary: “Judicial philosophy which motivates judges to depart from strict adherence to judicial precedent in favor or progressive and new social policies which are not always consistent with the restraint expected of appellate judges. It is commonly marked by decisions calling for social engineering and occasionally these decisions represent intrusions into legislative and executive matters.”
First, keep in mind that Obama is a highly trained and skilled lawyer, trained to sway the case in his favor. Secondly, keep in mind that that I’m not a lawyer. I’m self-trained to sway the case in the individual’s favor, and, as my case will prove, highly skilled, like Sheriff Joe.
Obama is aware of his right as President to appointment, as per Marbury v. Madison. He is a white hat appointing white hats, his opposition black hats—progressives trying to force new social policies, “which are not always consistent with the restraint expected of appellate judges.” Says Obama, said judicial activists, the conservatives on the Supreme Court, have the final say, but their decisions “represent intrusions into legislative and executive matters.” I guess Obama knows more than we know about those black hats on the Court. Says Obama, our representatives were democratically elected, leaving out a few things that don’t matter about how and why they were elected.
Thank you President Obama! President Obama has just made himself the best promoter of my book, In Earth as It Is in Heaven 2012. Those who read my book will be able to determine who is more skilled, Obama, the professional liar, excuse me, lawyer, or voices of truth. Sheriff Joe is one who speaks the truth. I'm another voice of truth.
Obama calls himself a Roosevelt Democrat, and appoints like-minded white hats. Looking at my case before the U.S. Supreme Court in the October term of 1980, case number 1570, I find that it is apropos with today's judicial activism. I’m reading the part in my petition I bring up about Roosevelt. In 1933, Roosevelt asserted, “While it isn’t written in the Constitution, nevertheless, it is the inherent duty of the Federal Government to keep its citizens from starvation.” In 1937, FDR asserted, “The balance of power between the three great branches of the Federal Government has been tipped out of balance by the courts in direct contradiction of the high purposes of the framers of the Constitution. We have reached the point where we must take action to save the Constitution from the Court,” exactly what Obama is currently about.
As per Marbury v. Madison, Obama has appointed two white hats to the Court. Roosevelt appointed the white hat Brandeis, who asserted: “Property is only a means. It has been the frequent error of our Court that they have made the means the end.” In other words, the means, you and I, are mistaken. We have no right to property. The end of Obama care is for the good of all.
Said John Adams, judicial activist that he was, “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God anarchy and tyranny commence.”
Speaking for the Court in West Virgina State Board of Education v. Barnette, another judicial activist, Justice Jackson, “The very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts.”
In my case before the Supreme Court, my claim was that my right to exist on the fruits of my labor was higher than the government’s right to tax my income, this is judicial activism. The IRS claimed it had the right under the Sixteenth Amendment, and Congress agrees, although they’ve not generally done it, if they want to our representative can take every cent of our income, which they did in my case, calling it a mistake. I have no right to eat, to a roof over my head. I’m entitled to whatever the white hats give me.
The IRS made a mistake and taxed me more than the law allowed. I was obliged to take the IRS to court. I'm guilty until I prove my innocence. The Tax Court ruled against the IRS. The money the IRS mistakenly took from me was returned and then taken again as soon as the case was closed. The U.S. Court of Appeals, ignoring the second mistake, actually obstruction of justice, said federal income tax was legitimate. The Solicitor General told the Supreme Court that the mistake the IRS made had been corrected. I guess the Court didn’t believe me. Although the IRS had mistakenly taxed me, an obstruction of justice, as it were, my case was dismissed without a word. Presumably, the IRS is permitted by your government to make unlimited mistakes against individuals it thinks are powerless. It does not do the same to millionaires. It is for the good of all to take from the poor and defenseless their means of existence, and, instead, give them entitlements.
A district court decided to hear me. The DOJ admitted the mistake and refunded my property. The IRS went to my bank and took every cent in my bank account. The white hats claim that my sweat is theirs for the taking. I took the record to The Palm Beach Post. The Post asked the IRS why they confiscated my bank account. The IRS told the Post that it was a mistake, and refunded my property. Then the IRS went a after my wife, claiming that she owed $35,000 in unpaid tax, and that if she didn’t pay the tax she owed immediately the IRS would take our home and everything else we owned. My congressman intervened. The IRS admitted it was mistaken.
Thus white hat law: as long as the mistake is for the good of all, it is law. For the good of all, hundreds of millions of human beings have been starved, machine gunned, or poisoned like vermin. What is good for you now could be very bad for you later. You never know.
When you read my book, you learn the “Higher Law” the background of America’s Constitution. You learn, also, that the “Higher Law” places in you the kingdom of God. You have an immortal soul. My life is as good as life gets. It has to be true that if you believe in yourself no power on earth can defeat you.
Comments