I have been trying to determine which strategy currently being used by our elite rulers is the most problematic for “We the People” to recognize and understand as the means by which we are constantly being hoodwinked and controlled. And as I read once again about this or that fraud (or worse!) having been “revealed” and as a consequence of that revelation, will shortly be brought to court – coupled with the intimation that this procedure will lead to “justice” – I realized that perhaps the first thing necessary these days is to humanely end the presumption that interaction with American courts equals the possibility of justice for the people of America.
So, let us look at our American courts. Now it is well known that various federal, state and local judicial venues have their reputations. For instance, California’s 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is a well known Leftist bastion with a long record of decisions that needed to be overturned by the US Supreme Court to bring their findings in line with the U. S. Constitution! And people familiar with the various courts and judges can pretty much predict the outcome of cases coming before these entities as can be seen with the 9th Circuit, a matter that makes judicial decisions more a matter of personal ideology than any interpretation of the law. But it is worse than simply understanding the “probable eventual findings” of this or that particular court. Indeed, the matter has become so flagrant that many plaintiffs “shop” for judges they believe will sympathize with their particular “viewpoint” and to hell with the law! Consider how often we hear that this or that conservative case has been “thrown out” by a Clinton or Obama judicial appointee. And, of course, one of the most important considerations regarding the election of any president is who that person will nominate if an opening appears on the Supreme Court!
Obviously, if all judges based their decisions upon the law itself, that jurist’s personal opinions would be nullified – but we know, of course, such is not the case! One of the most obvious examples of a decision reached before a case was decided, or, more to the point, a decision that required a particular case in order to arrive at the conclusion eventually obtained, was Supreme Court Case 410 U.S. 113, also known as Roe v. Wade. In fact, the only positive thing I have seen to date regarding the rule of law in the United States is the reversal of Roe in the decision Dobbs v. Jackson. In commenting upon the matter, Justice Alito opined that Roe was a decision that never should have been issued in the first place and, in fact, he was quite right. Actually, most of those on the Court who voted in favor of Roe in 1973 pointed out some years later that they believed making abortion a constitutional right and thereby nullifying all abortion laws across the country would only make legal those abortions already being performed quietly and without open recognition by the States in which they were performed. As well, abortion was already legal in medical issues involving maternal health so the “life of the mother” argument was never in play in the first place.
The CDC began collecting data on abortion mortality in 1972, the year before Roe finding that in that year the number of deaths reported in the United States from legal abortions was 24 and from illegal abortions 39, according to the CDC. Stanley Henshaw, who from 1979 to 2013 researched abortion statistics at the Guttmacher Institute, a group favoring “abortion rights,” agreed with the assessment in 1969. According to Henshaw, “In the 1960s, the officially recorded number of deaths from illegal induced abortion was under 300 per year. While there were undoubtedly other unreported abortion deaths, it is unlikely that the actual number was over 1,000. The figure of 5,000 to 10,000 is reasonable for the 1930s, when there were probably more abortions and less effective treatment of complications,” he said. “In my opinion, if Roe v. Wade were overturned, women would turn to relatively safe medications that can be purchased over the Internet. There would be some deaths but probably not as many as there were in the 1960s.”
In the first year of Roe, far from being the few thousand that many predicted, there were over 750,000 abortions with the figure settling out at about 1.5 million annually in the years that followed. The total number of abortions under Roe is figured as being over 63 million! Furthermore, many on the High Court were aware that the information they received in defense of legalizing abortion was not just “wrong,” but deliberately false. It became – as it still is! – a matter of what decision was desired rather than what decision followed the law or was morally as well as legally correct! We must also remember – as few do! – that the High Court is not permitted to take any case in which the relief demanded by the Plaintiff cannot be awarded. As “Jane Roe” was no longer pregnant at the time of the Court’s decision and therefore could not be granted that for which she had petitioned, the Court illegally maintained the case strictly for the purpose of reaching a desired outcome. Once Roe was no longer able to receive the abortion demanded, legally the matter should have been dropped! Instead, it was not the law, but the desire of the Court and the Left that pushed the issue to a decision directly against the law as it is written.
This was and remains the sort of “protection” offered the American people under our “court system” and it has only gotten worse. Indeed, we know it has gotten worse! Crooked judges, “adorned in the ermine of justice” as Col. John Mosby wrote of such criminals almost 150 years ago, betray and continue to betray their oaths of office and justice in the name of a desired agenda, whatever that agenda may be! And it continues to get worse as judges not only legislate from the bench but openly favor one side over the other in various adjudications. One of their favorite means of destroying any right to redress under the law is the use of the legal concept of “standing.” The term “standing” denotes the right of a plaintiff in any action to bring that action before a judge. If the plaintiff does not have that right, he cannot legally bring the case. The value of the use of standing to block the adjudication of a legal case is simple: if the plaintiff is adjudged without standing, the acts committed and the law or laws involved are not reviewed at all by the Court! The judge simply declares that the Plaintiff has no right to bring his case and therefore, it is dismissed. This was the means by which every case brought against Barack Obama’s right to seek the office of president was simply nullified. Many ignorant Americans reject the claim that Obama was unqualified under the Constitution because he was never found so by any court though the matter was challenged in the courts! But, of course, no court ever entertained that claim because, according to the courts involved, no plaintiff had the “standing” to bring the case to trial!
But long before any recognition of the machinations of the Deep State, Americans were well aware of the games being played in our legal system. One well publicized misuse of the system became big news during the OJ Simpson trial. Simpson, who was black, was indicted for the murder of his white ex-wife and a white young man who had the misfortune to be returning her glasses after she had left them in the restaurant in which the man worked. As “OJ” was famous, obviously this was a very widely publicized matter and when polls were taken, the majority of whites believed him guilty on the basis of his past violent behavior towards his victim while the majority of blacks believed him innocent on the basis of his race rather than his behavior. Nevertheless, consideration of the racial composition of the jury strongly influenced the decision of the prosecution to file the Simpson case in downtown Los Angeles rather than – as is usually the case – in the judicial district where the crime occurred, Santa Monica. Had the case be filed in Santa Monica, the Simpson jury would have been mostly white instead of, as was the case in LA, mostly black. The racial makeup of the jury in that venue was eight blacks, two whites and one Hispanic.
With the above poll data in hand, it became evident that the prosecution considered racial “justice” more important than actual “justice” and the result of the move to LA was that Simpson was found “not guilty” by a jury of his racial peers. Vincent Bugliosi, the celebrated prosecutor in the Charles Manson case, said the decision by the prosecution to file in LA “dwarfed anything the defense did” in acquitting Simpson. But in his “innocence,” Bugliosi referred to the determination by the prosecutor’s office as “a mistake.” He was wrong. It was a deliberate attempt to prevent a black uprising should an all or mostly white jury find Simpson guilty. In moving the venue of trial to an area that guaranteed a black or mostly black jury, the prosecution avoided any public demonstrations without actually ending prosecution of the criminal. In other words, Simpson could still be found guilty – hardly likely however! – but no one could say it was a “racist” decision. Of course, in the end, it certainly was a “racist” decision. And this is only one example of the use of our “judicial system” to provide what is desired rather than what satisfies the law.
There are so many other obvious failures of our court system to maintain the concept of “blind justice” – from the baker in Colorado who is being destroyed by the LGBT+ movement using the courts to force him to either bend to their will and betray his deeply held religious beliefs or give up his livelihood because he will not comply, to the FISA judges who cooperated with the FBI in illegally allowing them to spy on Donald Trump and his associates when Trump ran for President in 2016. And then there are the George Soros’ purchased “District Attorneys and Prosecutors” who now service the criminals rather than the victims in many of our “blue” cities and states. And the list goes on and on and on . . . Indeed, the matter has become so obvious, that Senator Ted Cruz wrote a book on it entitled Justice Corrupted: How the Left Weaponized our Legal System. Cruz opens his book with the claim of “with liberty and justice for some” writing: “The left has corrupted the U.S. legal system. Wielding the law as a weapon, arrogant judges and lawless prosecutors are intimidating, silencing, and even imprisoning Americans who stand in the way of their radical agenda. Their “enemies list” even includes parents who dare to speak up for their children at school board meetings.” The review of the book points out: “In this shocking new book, Senator Ted Cruz takes readers inside the justice system, showing how the wrong hands on the levers of power can strangle liberty, crush opposition, and wreck lives. The notion of a “Democratic” or “Republican” Department of Justice is outrageous. That institution should safeguard the Constitutional rights of all Americans.”
But the problem is, our present “justice system” is a fraud and protects no one but those who should be among those whom it prosecutes while prosecuting those whom it should safeguard. And this “system of justice” is still very much in use as judges cease to be what English common law and, indeed, what any decent legal system declares that they should be: fair and just arbiters of the law to participants in the case before the bar. Indeed, in few cases today is any entreaty to America’s “legal system” useful in the dispensation of “justice.” Of course, when one considers this in light of what is going on in the United States, the consequences of the loss of the third branch of the Federal Government to the forces of tyranny removes what little hope we might have held out for our future as a free people.
