Sunday, March 19, 2017

The Judicial Dictators of the Federal Court

The Constitution of the United States for the United States of America was penned in simple understandable English for a purpose. The purpose is that all may read and comprehend the Constitutional Limitations and Prohibitions imposed upon a Federal Governance.

Article I grants the Congress the regulatory oversight of Immigration. Article II stands the President of the United States as the chief magistrate to enforce the Laws of the United States. Article III established that "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

NOwhere in Article III is the Federal Judiciary given the authority to legislate from the Bench, nor rewrite the laws of the United States to fit a judge’s personal whim and fancy. Such judicial action is not only judicially moved in Violation to Title 28 USCA § 453, it is sedition cloaked under the color of law.

In the first instance case coming out of Seattle addressing the Executive Order Banning entry from seven specified nations by aliens, Federal District Court Judge James Robart violated Title 28 § 453 in order to move a colorful judicial order that violated Title 8 USCA § 1182(f).

Not to be outdone , William Canby, Richard Clifton and Michelle Friedland who sat as the “Motions Panel” on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, collectively continued this Deep State usurpation to the Rule of Law by supporting the rhetorical arrogance lofted about by Robart under the color of law.

When the Courts move seditious muse from the Bench under the Color of Article III, they are legislating from the bench in this instance an improper movement by James Robart in Seattle, which was the judicial sedition emulated by Derrick Watson of Honolulu, followed closely by Theodore Chuang in Greenbelt.

Hart–Celler Act of 1965 does not support the specious argument moved by the State’s Attorney General in Seattle, or in Honolulu nor do the laws of the United States support Theodore D. Chuang 43 page political dissertation.

In all instances from Seattle, Honolulu and finally Greenbelt, the Plaintiffs had no justiciable standing in law which left these three appointed public officials confirmed by the Senate, one order, which was to have dismissed these fictitious claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

The Judicial Assault upon the Article II prerogative regarding immigration as authorized by the Article I legislation enacted as The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as subsequently amended substantiates the “Deep State” is a collective of State and Federal public actors sitting in a seditious conspiracy to obstruct the constitutionally constituted rule of law.

The Court does not make "law', nor may "case law" be invoked as "law" to override the rule of law.

Unfortunately the Federal Judiciary has brazenly legislated from the bench without concern to being held accountable for such seditious acts under a Bill of Impeachment.

Since 1803 Fifteen Federal Judges have been impeached, where four were convicted, three resigned, and eight were acquitted by the Senate.  Not one was Impeached for sedition, which is what legislating from the bench truly shall be.

When Thomas Jefferson was confronted with a Judicial arena populated by known partisan enemies, he engaged Congress to enact the Judiciary Act of 1802 (2 Stat. 156) which directly abolished sixteen judgeships. 

It is time to reorganize this corrupted judicial branch by holding these life time appointees accountable for their legalistic wrongs, by Bills of Impeachment and Judicial Reorganization as authorized in Article III clause 1: "and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

No comments: