header-for-peoplenow-new-with-new-march-dove-bigger_011315.jpg

 

"We no longer ask of a judicial ruling or a legislative act: is it good? Is it fair? Is it just? Is it right? Will it help bring about a better society or a better world? Those used to be the political questions, even if they invited no easy answers. We must learn once again to pose them." —Tony Judt (From page 1 of his book Ill Fares the Land)


Draft

SDG Target 10.3.2 & Target Action Plan #13

13. Vacate as Null and Void, Set Aside, Repeal, Replace or Amend All or Portions Of Unconstitutional, Unjust, and/or Injurious Laws

(Updated May 20, 2016)


(Readers - please provide constructive comments and additional injurious, unjust items

to the compiler and editor of this document Ron Fisher, Fisher@PeopleNow.org)


 

13.1     Introduction:

 

13.1.1 It is important to note that:

 

13.1.1.1          The U.S. is a nation of laws not men

 

13.1.1.2          “The Law” or ‘Laws” are not limited to just codes and statutes. According to Ballentine's Law Dictionary, Third Edition, the Law is “The whole body of rules of conduct that applied and enforced under the authority of established government in determining that which is proper and should be permitted and that which should be denied, or even penalized in respect of the relationship between a person and the state, between him and society and between him and another individualThe whole body of rules of conduct include provisions of the Constitution, legislative enactments or statues, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), ethic laws, the Canons of Judicial Conduct, Attorneys’ Code of Professional Responsibilities, municipal ordinances, ethics laws, election laws, SEC regulations, treaties, the Geneva Convention etc.

 

13.1.2  Under our Constitution:

 

13.1.2.1          Congress, directly responsible to the people, makes the laws and the President insures the laws are faithfully executed

 

13.1.2.2          The President may not lawfully make new law or modify laws passed by Congress, with signing statements and executive orders


ACTION: Congress and the President refine and implement the Plan to Vacate the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, Nationalize the Federal Reserve, Reform and Regulate Financial Systems and Wall Street and Provide Affordable, Community Based, Personal and Commercial Banking and repeal items 1. through 13 above which were passed to eliminate and weaken the laws regulating banking and other financial institutions, Once these injurious, unjust laws are repealed and declared by congress to be null and void, the regulations that were in effect before items 1 - 13 were enacted such as the Glass-Steagall Act will be effective retroactive to the time it was passed in 1933.



The following TOC provides an outline of this plan. Individual items can be accessed by clicking on their page number.


Table of Contents

 

13.1     Introduction

 

13.2     Purpose

 

13.3     Objectives

 

13.4    Action: Vacate as Null and Void the Following Unconstitutional, Unjust and/or Injurious Laws as Null and Void

     13.4.1 Congressional Rules and Administrative Procedure

     13.4.2  All War Power Laws

     13.4.3  War Funding Laws

     13.4.4  Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs)

     13.4.5 Federal Reserve Act of 1913

     13.4.6 Laws that Fraudulently Deregulated Financial Firms

     13.4.7 Laws that Violate Human Rights and Civil Liberties

     13.4.8 Laws that Harm the Environment

     13.4.9 Media

     13.4.10     Free Trade Agreements and the World Trade Organization

     13.4.11     Health

     13.4.12     Food Safety

 

13.5    Laws Regarding Void and Voidable Statutes, Regulations, Court Judgments, Rulings and Orders

     13.5.1 Definitions

     13.5.2  Constitutionality

     13.5.3  Void Statutes

     13.5.4  Void Judgments and Court Rulings

     13.5.6  Fraud

     13.5.7  Jurisdiction

     13.5.8 Fraud on the Court And Disqualification Of Judges

     13.5.9  Bribery of public officials, Title 18, U.S.C. Section 201

     13.5.10      Judicial Review of Statutes

     13.5.11     Legislative Review of Judicial Rulings and Laws

 

13.6    Background and Credits

 

Attachment A: Table of Contents of the Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute, mcli.org, Tool Kit With Over One Hundred Unconstitutional, Unjust, and/or Injurious Laws that Should be Confirmed as Null and Void Since their Enactment


Attachment B: Draft Proposed Bill to Confirm that Public Law 107-40, the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Has Been Null and Void Since its Enactment-September 18, 2001 


Attachment C: Draft Proposed Bill to Confirm that Public Law 93-148, the War Powers Act (1973) and All AUMFs Have Been Null and Void Since Their Enactment 

 

13.2     Purpose


Provide a plan to vacate, set aside, repeal, replace or amend the large number of injurious, unjust laws, statues, rules, regulations and court opinions, rulings and orders and correct the injustices caused by these acts.

 

13.3     Objectives:

 

13.3.1  Outline the laws regarding null and void statutes, regulations, and court rulings and orders

 

13.3.2  Identify and briefly describe salient injurious, unjust laws and court opinions, rulings and orders, all or parts of which have had serious injurious, unjust effects on human beings, democracy and/or the environment. Most of these items are unconstitutional, were obtained by fraud and/or were used to commit fraud and are null and void or at least voidable.

 

13.3.3  Outline proposed needed, corrective actions by Congress, the President and/or the Courts to set aside, repeal, replace or amend these items.

 

13.3.4  Outline additional work required by the people

 

13.4    Action: Vacate as Null and Void the Following Unconstitutional, Unjust and/or Injurious Laws as Null and Void


The following identifies/presents a small portion of the numerous unconstitutional, unjust and/or injurious items that must be vacated - declared null and void..

 

13.4.1 Congressional Rules and Administrative Procedure

 

13.4.1.1          The Senate Filibuster Rule (Rule XXII) “gives a minority of 41 Senators . ... . the power to prevent the Senate from debating or voting on a bill, resolution, or a Presidential appointment. A “filibuster” is the use of unlimited debate not to inform or persuade, but to obstruct the proceedings of a legislative body Footnote . Emmet J. Bondurant, in his article THE SENATE FILIBUSTER RULE (http://bit.ly/9aswoa), clearly shows that the filibuster rule is unconstitutional. Also, the filibuster rule was used to block civil rights legislation and to commit fraud on numerous occasions. The Senate Filibuster Rule (Rule XXII) is null and void or at least voidable.

 

13.4.1.2           Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (Public Law 79-404) (1946) This is one of the most important pieces of United States administrative law. It unconstitutionally enabled bureaucrats, instead of legislators, to write laws.

 

13.4.2  All War Power Laws including:

 

           13.4.2.1           War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548) (1973)

 

           13.4.2.2           The Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; U.S.C. 1541 note) signed into law on September 18, 2001),

 

           13.4.2.3          The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq (Pub.L. 107–243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) Resolution of 2002


All three of these laws are unconstitutional, null and void on their face. The reasons they are null and void are outlined in:

 

          Section IV of this plan: Laws Regarding Void and Voidable Statutes, Regulations, Court Judgments, Rulings and Orders

 

           Proof of the Unconstitutionality and Illegality of the U. S. Wars/Occupations and Use of Force in the Mideast

 

          A Summary of U. S. Illegal Wars and Use of Force in the Mideast

 

          Numerous other reports and articles



Congress repeal as null and void all three of the above War Power Acts as outlined in Attachment B: Draft Proposed Bill to Confirm that Public Law 107-40, the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Has Been Null and Void Since its Enactment Sept.18, 2001 (AUMF) is provided as at least as a starting point.

 

13.4.3  War Funding Laws

 

           13.4.3.1          The table below shows enacted appropriations, adapted from "The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11" by Amy Belasco, Congressional Research Service, March 29, 2011, (PDF) showing how subject Representative JDoe 250 voted. Votes are on final passage of the conference report unless there was no recorded vote. In that case, the indicated vote is on initial House passage.

 

Name of Law                                                 Public Law No./ Date                   DOD Funds          JDoe 250

                                                                                                      Enacted            ($bln)                   Voted

FY01 Emerg. Supp. Approp. Act for Recovery

 from and Response to Terrorist Attacks on    US P.L. 107-38     9/18/01             13.6                       Yes


FY02 Dept. Of Defense and Emergency

Terrorism Response Act                                 P.L. 107-117         1/10/02             3.4                         Yes

 

FY02 Emergency Supplemental                     P.L. 107-206         8/2/02               13.8                       Yes

 

FY03 Consolidated Appropriations               P.L. 108-7             2/20/03             10.0                       Yes

 

FY03 Emergency Supplemental                     P.L. 108-11           4/16/03             62.6                       Yes

 

FY03 DOD Appropriations Note a.             P.L. 107-248         10/23/02          7.1                         Yes


FY04 DOD Appropriations Act

(rescission of FY03 funds) 

                                                                        P.L. 108-87           9/30/03             -3.5                        Yes

 

FY04 Emergency Supplemental                     P.L. 108-106         11/6/03             64.9                       No


FY05 DOD Approps Act, Titles IX & X

 Note b.                                                            P.L. 108-287         8/5/04               25.0                       Yes


FY05 DOD Appropriations Act Note c        P.L. 108-287         8/5/04               2.1                         Yes


FY05 Supplemental Appropriations               P.L. 109-13           5/11/05             75.9                       Yes

 

FY06 DOD Approps. Act, Title IX                P.L. 109-148         12/30/05           50.0                       Yes


FY06 DOD Appropriations Act Note c.         P.L. 109-148         12/30/05           0.8                         Yes

 

FY06 Emergency Supplemental                     P.L. 109-234         6/15/06             66.0                       Yes

 

FY07 DOD Appropriations Act                     P.L. 109-289         9/29/06             70.5                       Yes


FY07 Supplemental, Amendment #2 (Did

 not include Withdrawal Deadlines

from Iraq) Note d.                                         P.L. 110-28           5/25/07             94.5                       No

 

FY08 Continuing Resolution                         P.L. 110-92           9/29/07             5.2                         Yes

 

FY08 DOD Appropriations Act                     P.L. 110-116         11/13/07           11.6                       Yes

 

FY08 Consolidated Approps. Act                  P.L. 110-161         3/11/04             70.0                       No


FY08 Supplemental, FY09 Bridge Approps.

 Act (Roll call #431) Notes d. and e.             P.L. 110-252         6/30/08             157.9                     No


FY09 Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance,

 and Continuing Appropriations Act               P.L. 110-329         9/30/08             2.5                         Yes

 

FY09 Supplemental Approps. Act                 P.L. 111-32           6/24/09             80.0                       No

 

FY10 Consolidated Appropriations Act         P.L. 111-117         12/16/09           1.4                         Yes

 

FY10 DOD Approps. Act, Title IX               P.L. 111-118         12/19/09           127.3                     Yes

 

FY10 Supplemental                                        P.L. 111-212         7/27/10             30.8                       No


FY11 DOD and Year-Long Continuing

Resolution Note f.                                       P.L. 112-10           4/15/11             159.1                    No

 

TOTAL WAR FUNDING VOTED FOR                                                                                $545.3 billion


a. FY03 Appropriations Act included $7.1 billion in regular FY03 defense appropriations for GWOT that DOD cannot track; the FY04 DOD Appropriations Act rescinded $3.5 billion in FY03 war monies.

b. Title IX funds in FY05 do not include a $1.8 billion scoring adjustment that reverses the previous rescission of FY04 funds because this did not change wartime monies.

c. Reflects funds obligated for Operation Noble Eagle from DOD's regular appropriations as reported by the Defense Finance Accounting Service.

d. The House took separate votes on different sections of the bill, which were then combined when sent to the Senate.

e. The FY08 Supplemental included funds for both FY08 and bridge funds for FY09.

f. This bill was the final DOD Appropriations Act and the final version of the CR. It was preceded by seven other CRs.

 

Other Defense Authorization and Appropriation Acts and supplementals wrongfully and unlawfully provided funds for illegal war/occupation, drone attacks and covert operations.


Legislation appropriating funds for wars, occupations and the War on Terror are unconstitutional, null and void or at least voidable as outlined in Proof of the Unconstitutionality and Illegality of U. S. Wars/Occupations and Use of Force in the Mideast.


ACTION: Congress:


Reprogram current appropriations to eliminate funding for wars, occupations, drone attacks and covert operations to provide funding for defensive, withdrawal and peaceful purposes beginning by refining, expanding and enacting H.R.200 -- Responsible End to the War in Afghanistan Act.


Revise all Budgets to reduce Department of Defense and Military Industrial Complex spending and provide funding to Help Secure a Peaceful, Prosperous, Just World as outlined in the Universal Movement and Strategic Plan for a Peaceful Prosperous Just Sustainable World with no layoffs.

 

13.4.4  Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs) Footnote


Currently the U.S. has SOFAs with over 100 nations' and approximately 800 bases or facilities world-wide, allowing U.S. military to maintain a foreign presence across the globe.


SOFAs are stand-alone agreements between the U.S. and other nations that allow the U.S. to station military forces in those foreign nations. Every SOFA is different, but most of them define the legal status of the U.S. Armed Forces while operating abroad and address which of the laws apply to military forces while they are within that nation.


Some of these SOFAs ... "preserve the right of U.S. forces to initiate unilateral military actions” and round up individuals in abusive preventive detention facilities where human rights are violated routinely,"


“The nations that house U.S. military bases are threatened by the constant U. S. military presence on their soil and the peoples of the United States are less safe because of them. These bases "stretch our military beyond its capabilities, bringing about fiscal insolvency and very possibly doing mortal damage to our republican institutions," according to Chalmers Johnson.'


These SOFAS are also dangerous to the peoples of the U. S. because they spread our military thin. If the U.S. were to suffer an invasion or attack, it would be more difficult to defend the country from abroad. Also, in Italy, more than 70,000 protestors marched through the city of Vicenzain in 2007 to show their objections to the expansion of a U.S. military base.' The protestors said that they did not want the base there at all because they believe Americans cause trouble and that in case of military conflict, the base, which is at the heart of the city, could become a target.' There have been similar protests in South Korea.'° In the Philippines, as in many other developing countries, the SOFAs sometimes provide that the "host" country supply the logistical support necessary for the U.S. military to maintain their forces in the region, spare parts, transportation, communication, medical services, and many more."


The constant presence of a military base in a foreign nation is essentially a threat against the territorial integrity and political independence of a nation. Having a U.S. military presence in so many countries creates what the CIA calls "blowback," or the unintended consequences of military action. Such a presence could result in future terrorist attacks on the U.S. or U.S. bases on foreign soil.


Many of the SOFAs were obtained directly or indirectly by bribery or fraud


Status of forces agreements (SOFAs) violate or ignore:

 

          U.S. Constitution Art. Art. I, 8, Cl. 2: “Congress shall have power .. to provide for the common Defense and general Welfare”

 

          U.S. Constitution Art. II, 2 Cl. 2: The President does not have “the Advice and Consent of the Senate”. Most, if not all of the Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs) have not been submitted to the Senate for ratification.

 

          U.N. Charter, Art. 2(1), 2(4), Art. 55 & 56.l

 

          The Geneva Convention


All SOFAs are null and void or at least voidable.


ACTION: Congress:

 

13.4.4.1           Set aside or vacate all Status of Forces Agreements

 

13.4.4.2           Cease funding for overseas bases and commands

 

13.4.5 Federal Reserve Act of 1913 which unconstitutionally, wrongfully and unlawfully established the Federal Reserve System (the Fed)

 

13.4.5.1          The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 established the Federal Reserve System (the Fed), a private, non-government corporation. This act unconstitutionally, wrongfully and unlawfully gave powers to the Fed to that the Constitution gives only to Congress namely:

 

13.4.5.1.1        The Congress shall have the power ... “To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof and foreign Coin”, to draw money from the Treasury without the Consequence of Appropriations made by law

 

13.4.5.2          To write regulations for and to regulate banks.


Congress does not have the Constitutional authority to delegate these powers and most certainly not to a private concern.


Major portions of The Federal Reserve Act are unconstitutional, null and void or at least voidable.


The Federal Reserve has abjectly failed to perform most of its duties which, according to the Federal Reserve Act and official Federal Reserve documentation on its website include:

 

    to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.

 

    to conduct the nation's monetary policy

 

    supervise and regulate banking institutions

 

    maintain the stability of the financial system

 

    provide financial services to depository institutions, the U.S. government, and foreign official institutions”.


On September 23, 2009, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) released a report card demonstrating the poor record of the Federal Reserve in using the tools provided by Congress to protect consumers from abusive financial industry practices. Chairman Frank cited several examples of the Federal Reserve’s unsatisfactory performance and stated: The Federal Reserve's inattention and inaction on consumer protection is a key reason why Democrats are working to create the Consumer Financial Product Agency in the coming weeks and months. As the above report card shows, consumer protection has long been overlooked by federal regulators, and their motivation to protect consumers has been driven more by congressional pressure rather than a sense of duty to the protect the American public.


Not only has the Fed, not properly regulated banks, former and current Fed executives have been instrumental in getting rid of regulations including the Glass Steagall Act.


Their main job, appears to protect, not regulate large banks. The Feds actions have increased the frequency and severity of boom-bust economic cycles including the Great Depression of the 1930s, the late-2000s recession, and the current great recession.


ACTIONS: Congress and the President:


1. Enact legislation to nationalize the Federal Reserve System and operate it as part of Congress and the Department of the Treasury under the direct control of Congress with Congress making all decisions about “coining,” appropriations, money supply, interest rates and loan guarantees by public laws, passed by the House and the Senate and signed by the President as required by the Constitution. (During the last Congressional session Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), introduced H.R. 6550, The National Emergency Employment Defense Act, which would have nationalized the Federal Reserve)

 

13.4.6 Laws that Fraudulently Deregulated Financial Firms


Background


Congress passed the Glass-Steagall Act (the Banking Act of 1933) and other legislation during the Great Depression which prohibited commercial banks that provided consumer activities such as checking and savings from engaging in the investment business, speculative trading, mergers of bank sales of securities. This legislation also provided for better regulations over the stock market and financial institutions.


The Act built on the Federal Trade Commission Act (1914) prohibiting unfair or deceptive business practices.


Later, the Truth in Lending Act (1968) required banks to disclose loan terms and fees. "To assure a meaningful disclosure of credit terms so that the consumer would be able to compare more readily the various credit terms available to him and avoid the uninformed use of credit, and to protect the consumer against inaccurate and unfair credit billing and credit card practices."


Items one through thirteen are injurious, unjust laws and revised regulations passed to eliminate and weaken the banking and other financial institutions such as the Glass-Steagall Act

 

13.4.6.1     Depository Institutions De-regulatory Act (also cited as The Monetary Reform Act) (P. L. No. 96-221; 94 Stat. 132) (1980) Highlights:

 

    Allows banks to merge

    Allows financial institutions to charge any interest rate they choose and prohibits States from controlling interest rates (For years the maximum interest rates that banks could charge was 6% or less in most states?.

    Forces all banks to abide by Federal Reserve rules (The Federal Reserve is a private institution and it is unconstitutional for Congress to authorize the Federal Reserve to regulate banks)

    Raised the FDIC level of insurance on deposits in banks and credit unions from $40,000 to $100,000.


Portions of this act are clearly null and void or at least voidable.


ACTION: Congress replace the Depository Institutions De-regulatory Act (P. L. No. 96-221; 94 Stat. 132) (1980) with legislation that:

 

    Limits maximum annual interest rates to, at the most, 4% on all mortgages, home equity, government guaranteed and other secured loans and to, at the most, 6% on credits cards and unsecured (signature) loans and limits late fees to $ _____.

 

    Makes these maximum interest rates and lower fees retroactive to the origination of the mortgage, credit card or loan and requires financial institutions to calculate amounts due and balances based on these lower rates and fees with excess interest and excess fees paid to reduce the principal as payments were made.

 

13.4.6.2     The Alternative Mortgage Transactions Parity Act of 1982 (AMTPA). The following is quoted from the article Lawmakers may say they are outraged, but it was actually two key pieces of legislation that primed the pump for the housing implosion. By Jon Birger, senior writer CNN Money Footnote


Prior to the passage of AMTPA, banks were barred from making anything but the conventional fixed-rate, amortizing mortgages. AMPTA lifted those restrictions, giving birth to all the new and exotic mortgages that have so many borrowers in hot water today. For instance:

 

    Adjustable-rate mortgages, in which the interest rate becomes floating after a number of years.

 

    Balloon-payment mortgages, which have an outsized payment when the loan comes due.

 

    Interest-only mortgages, which require only repayment of interest (not principal too) during the first few years of the loan, only to hit borrowers with crushing monthly-payment resets once the new monthly payment kicks in.

 

    And worst of all, the option-ARM, which allows borrowers to underpay by as much as they want during the first few years. The awful upshot is the unpaid monthly interest gets tacked onto the size of the loan. So your $300,000 mortgage can turn into a $350,000 loan in a hurry, destroying any equity you have in your home.


..... the problems that are rampant today existed on a smaller scale in the 1990s, which is why McCoy faults the 1990s Congress for not acting at that time.


"Certainly by the late 1990s, Congress knew of the problems," says McCoy. "It had plenty of time over the past 10 years to do something, and it did nothing."


ACTION: Congress replace AMTPA, with legislation that bans banks from making anything but the conventional fixed-rate, amortizing mortgages.

 

13.4.6.3    Truth in Lending Act “Reform” (Sept. 30, 1995) Eased regulations on creditors. This bill was powered through by Rep. Bill McCollum (R-FL), a key recipient of finance, insurance, and real estate (FIRE) donations ($136,000 in 1993-94).”

 

13.4.6.4    Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (1999) A bank deregulation bill that repealed much of the Glass-Steagall Act Footnote by allowing commercial and retail banks to engage in investment activities, speculative trading and mergers. It passed the Senate 90-8 and was signed by President Clinton. The driving force was Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX) who had received $4.6 million from the FIRE sector over the previous decade and became Vice Chairman of the UBS Corporation, an international Investment bank after leaving the Senate.


It was also called the "Financial Services Modernization Act." That act of "modernization" actually turned the clock back - from 1999 all the way back to 1929, stripping away some of the common-sense measures that prevented the formation of too-big-to-fail banks that could gamble with their customers' money or bring the economy to the brink of ruin - which they promptly did, less than a decade later. What did our wise leaders say when that bill was signed? "The world changes, and Congress and the laws have to change with it," said Phil Gramm. "In the 1930s ... it was believed that government was the answer ... We have learned that government is not the answer. We have learned that freedom and competition are the answers." ''This legislation is truly historic,'' said Bill Clinton. ''We have done right by the American people.'' ''With this bill,'' said Larry Summers, ''the American financial system takes a major step forward toward the 21st Century -- one that will benefit American consumers, business and the national economy.'' Actually that bill helped crash the economy, costing trillions and leaving millions of people un- or underemployed. They, on the other hand, all got rich Footnote .


This act is credited as the major contributor to the 2008 financial collapse. It led to a wave of mega-mergers “too big to fail” most of which had to be bailed out by tax payers during the financial collapse.

 

13.4.6.5     Commodity Futures Modernization Act (Dec. 14, 2000). Sen. Gramm attached a 262 page amendment that deregulated derivatives and credit default swaps trading to an omnibus appropriations bill just prior to the Christmas holiday in December of 2000. Gramm's amendment was supported by then Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan and then Treasury Secretary Larry Summers. The amendment was never debated by the House or Senate and by-passed the substantive policy committees in both the House and the Senate so that there were neither hearings nor opportunities for recorded committee votes. This law unleashed the derivatives market, paved the way for banks to become more aggressive about investing in mortgages, and opened the door to an explosion in new, unregulated securities.


The amendment also contained a provision lobbied for by Enron, a generous contributor to Gramm. that exempted energy trading from regulatory oversight allowing Enron to run rampant, wreck the California electricity market, and cost consumers billions before it collapsed.

 

13.4.6.6    American Home Ownership and Economic Opportunity Act (Dec. 27, 2000). This act makes it harder for consumers to get out of lender-required insurance.

 

13.4.6.7    Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (April 20, 2005) The act makes it harder for consumers (but not businesses) to discharge debts. The strict means test that would force more debtors to file under Chapter 13 (under which a percentage of debts must be paid over a period of 3-5 years) as opposed to Chapter 7 (under which debts are paid only out of existing assets), the additional penalties and responsibilities the bill placed on debtors, and the bill's many provisions favorable to credit card companies.

 

13.4.6.8    Suspension of the uptick rule that required that short sale transactions be entered at prices that are higher than the price of the previous trade. This rule prevents short sellers from adding to the downward momentum when the price of an asset is already experiencing sharp declines.

 

13.4.6.9    De-regulation that allowed reduced margin and position limits for speculators.

 

13.4.6.10   The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-16, 115 Stat. 38, June 7, 2001) ("The Bush Tax Cuts")

 

13.4.6.11   The "Jumpstart Our Business Strength" Act, 2004, introduced by Sen. Chuck Grassley using the phony name - "JOBS Act", was supposed to create jobs. What it really did was provide $39 billion in tax cuts for overseas earnings by US corporations.

 

13.4.6.12   Portions of the Restoring American Financial Stability Act (RAFS) of 2010

 

13.4.6.13   The "JOBS" (Jumpstart Our Business Startups)Act undoes Sarbanes-Oxley's key provisions. In a typically cynical move, the corrupt dealmakers of DC have appropriated two good ideas - "crowdfunding" by individuals, as is done on Kickstarter, and the need to find investment capital for small and medium-sized businesses that are the engines of job growth.


But this bill will actually hurt both those efforts. Kickstarter finances creative projects, where it's fairly easy for investors to decide whether they feel a project has artistic merit. But this bill will unleash a torrent of unscrupulous scam artists onto the public, leaving them unable to decide which project has merit and which doesn't. Since these ventures won't be required to provide some basic financial data, many of them will bilk their investors - drying up the pool of available capital for truly worthwhile startups.


Besides, why have we been pumping capital into the nation's banks through the Fed? Wasn't the purpose of all that support - including TARP - to prop them up so that they would lend to American businesses?


Worse, the bill is designed so that even billion-dollar corporations can be considered "startups," leaving the door open for a dozen Enron of tomorrow to shaft the unwary. The common-sense protections proposed by Sen. Jeff Merkley were rejected, while the equally rational protections of Sens. Scott Brown and Jack Reed, which were passed, will be fairly easy for clever sharks to swim around. We've seen this play before, and it never has a happy ending. That will no longer be required of them, thanks to the "JOBS" Act. Footnote


ACTION: Congress and the President refine and implement the Plan to Vacate the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, Nationalize the Federal Reserve, Reform and Regulate Financial Systems and Wall Street and Provide Affordable, Community Based, Personal and Commercial Banking and repeal items 1. through 13 above which were passed to eliminate and weaken the laws regulating banking and other financial institutions, Once these injurious, unjust laws are repealed and declared by congress to be null and void, the regulations that were in effect before items 1 - 13 were enacted such as the Glass-Steagall Act will be effective retroactive to the time it was passed in 1933.

 

13.4.7 Laws that Violate Human Rights and Civil Liberties

 

13.4.7.1    Espionage Act of 1917 allowed the government to prosecute almost any critic of World War I on charges of "insubordination" or "disloyalty." The post office refused to distribute a populist magazine, The Masses. A federal appeals court said the magazine did not speak with "the voice of patriotism" and therefore did not deserve to be distributed.


In 1918 the Espionage Act was extended to cover a broader range of offenses, notably speech and the expression of opinion that cast the government or the war effort in a negative light or interfered with the sale of government bonds. [Read more here]. Socialist leader and four-time presidential candidate Eugene V. Debs was convicted of sedition and stripped of his U.S. citizenship for speaking out against the act . He remained in jail through the 1920 presidential election, in which he was a candidate. This Act is being wrongfully and unlawfully used currently to indict and imprison patriotic whistle blowers.

 

13.4.7.2     The National Security Act (P. L. No. 235, 80 Cong., 61 Stat. 496, 50 U.S.C. ch.15) (1947). This was the granddaddy of all the others. It was the start of the national security state we are now under, and the beginnings of a fascist state.

 

13.4.7.3     Taft-Hartley Act, The Labor-Management Relations Act (80 P.L. 101; 61 Stat. 136) (1947) Federal law which monitors activities and power of labor unions. Labor leaders have called it the "Slave-Labor" bill. It favor management over labor..

 

13.4.7.4     Welfare Reform Act (Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, H.R. 3734, P.L.104-193) (1996) Sets time limits on entitlements and cash assistance to welfare recipients; requires most recipients to get jobs; changes disability definitions for SSI for children; denies many legal immigrants from collecting SSI and food stamps, and much more. Inherent in the Act: misogyny, racism, and exploitation of women (do whatever job you can get and don't complain - or risk homelessness). Attention should have been directed to conditions of low-wage labor market - living wage, health care, and child care all desperately needed.

 

13.4.7.5     Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act [FISA].

 

13.4.7.6     The Patriot Act

 

13.4.7.7     Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA) which suspends Habeas Corpus.

 

13.4.7.8    Sections 1021 and 1022 The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY 2012 unconstitutionally, wrongfully and unlawfully allows the military to indefinitely detain terror suspects, including American citizens arrested in the United States, without probable cause, a warrant, charge or trial.


Chris Hedges, war correspondent author and a senior fellow at The Nation Institute in New York City, with others brought a lawsuit against President Barack Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta over the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). In his article Totalitarian Systems Always Begin by Rewriting the Law, Mr. Hedges states:

 

The NDAA implodes our most cherished constitutional protections. It permits the military to function on U.S. soil as a civilian law enforcement agency. It authorizes the executive branch to order the military to selectively suspend due process and habeas corpus for citizens. The law can be used to detain people deemed threats to national security.

 

Glenn Greenwald, the columnist and constitutional lawyer, has done the most detailed analysis of the NDAA bill. He has pointed out that the crucial phrases are "substantially supported" and "associated forces." These two phrases, he writes, allow the government to expand the definition of terrorism to include groups that were not involved in the 9/11 attacks and may not have existed when those attacks took place.

 

It is worth reading Sections 1021 and 1022 of the bill. Section 1021 of the NDAA "includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war." Subsection B defines covered persons like this: "(b) Covered Persons -- A covered person under this section is any person as follows: (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks. (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or its coalition partners." Section 1022, Subsection C, goes on to declare that covered persons are subject to: "(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force." And Section 1022, Subsection A, Item 4, allows the president to waive the requirement of legal evidence in order to condemn a person as an enemy of the state if that is believed to be in the "national security interests of the United States."

 

The law can be used to detain individuals who are not members of terrorist organizations but have provided, in the words of the bill, substantial support even to "associated forces." But what constitutes substantial? What constitutes support? What are these "associated forces"? What is defined under this law as an act of terror? What are the specific activities of those purportedly "engaged in hostilities against the United States"? None of this is answered. And this is why, especially as acts of civil disobedience proliferate, the NDAA law is so terrifying. It can be used by the military to seize and detain citizens and deny legal recourse to anyone who defies the corporate state.

 

13.4.8 Laws that Harm the Environment

 

13.4.8.1    Cap and Trade (Emissions Trading) (1970) A complex market-based carbon-emission trading scheme which enriches Wall Street with funds that could be used to reduce the emissions. Although Caps are needed, trading these Caps does nothing for the environment and hurts the economy.


ACTION: Congress keep Wall Street out of cap and trade.

 

13.4.9 Media

 

13.4.9.1    The repeal under Reagan in 1987 of the Fairness Doctrine (Federal Communications Commission [FCC] policy) (1949). The Fairness Doctrine had required that broadcasters present controversial issues in an honest, balanced manner. In 1988 FCC Commissioner Johnson wrote that bringing back the Fairness Doctrine was absolutely necessary to have the free press guaranteed by the Constitution.

 

13.4.9.2    Telecommunications Act of 1996 (P. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56) (1996) The Act was claimed to foster competition. Instead, it continued historic industry consolidation reducing the number of major media companies from around 50 (1983) to 6 (2005). It led to a drastic decline in the number of radio station owners. Example of corporate welfare spawned by political corruption - it gave incumbent broadcasters valuable licenses for broadcasting digital signals on the public airwaves. Lesson from this act: Deregulation before meaningful competition spells consumer disaster.

 

13.4.10     Free Trade Agreements and the World Trade Organization

 

13.4.10.1  Free Trade Agreements and the World Trade Organization (WTO) (1995), North American Trade Agreement (NAFTA) (1994), Central American Trade Agreement (CAFTA) and other free trade agreements, have functioned principally to pry open markets for the benefit of transnational corporations at the expense of national and local economies - workers, farmers, indigenous peoples, women and other social groups - health and safety - the environment - and animal welfare. In addition, in the WTO system, rules and procedures are undemocratic, un-transparent and non-accountable and have operated to marginalize the majority of the world's people.


ACTION: Congress:

    Not enact any additional Free Trade Agreements and Replace existing Free Trade Agreements with Fair Trade Agreements.

    Ensure that the rules and procedures of the World Trade Organization (WTO) are democratic, transparent and accountable and are operated to promote the general welfare of the world's people.

 

13.4.11     Health

 

13.4.11.1  FDA Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA, P. L. 105-115, 21 U.S.C. 301) (1997) FDA relaxes rules of prescription drug advertising, eases restrictions on direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs, allows manufacturers to disseminate journal articles describing the results of trials for unapproved uses of drugs and much more.

 

13.4.11.2   Portions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) of 2010 which provides billions of dollars to health insurance companies and increases the cost of health care.


ACTION: Congress replace the so called Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) and Medicare Part D Pharmaceutical Legislation with meaningful legislation, which provides publicly supported nationwide Medicare (single payer) for all.

 

13.4.12     Food Safety

 

13.4.12.1  The Food Safety Modernization Act, S. 510 (P. L. 111-353, H.R.2751). Basically, the [this] act precludes the public's right to grow, own, trade, transport, share, feed and eat each and every food that nature makes. Footnote It provides an under handed way of making it Illegal to grow, share, trade or sell homegrown food, suppresses the small farm/sustainable food movement and forces small farmers and food processors into burdensome and excessive requirements. It may give large corporations such as Monsanto control over US seed, and put US food and farms under the Department of Homeland Security. Footnote


“If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.” ~Thomas Jefferson, 1781


ACTION: Congress repeal the Food Safety Modernization Act, S. 510 (P. L. 111-353, H.R.2751)


 

13.5    Laws Regarding Void and Voidable Statutes, Regulations, Court Judgments, Rulings and Orders


All parts of a statute, regulation, court judgment, decrees or order, and civil and military orders and instructions which are unconstitutional, violate constitutional rights, were obtained by fraud, or used or intended to be used to commit fraud are null and void or at least voidable and should be set aside and/or repealed.


Null and void portions of an order, judgment or statue are null and void whether or not a judge has found it to be null and void, the order is appealed and/or a complaint is filed.

 

13.5.1 Definitions

 

13.5.1.1     Null: Nonexistent; void; of no legal meaning.

 

13.5.1.2     Null and void: That which binds no one; that which is incapable of giving rise to any rights or obligations under any circumstances; that which is of no effect.

 

13.5.1.3     Voidable: adj. capable of being made void, capable of being adjudged void, capable of being annulled, capable of being declared ineffectual, capable of being declared void, defeasible, liable to be annulled, revocable, subject to being revoked, or subject to cancellation.

 

13.5.2  Constitutionality

 

           13.5.2.1     The Constitution. "The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land" Endnote and takes precedent over all “Laws” including the Constitution of each state. The “Supremacy Clause”, Article VI of the U. S. Constitution includes: “This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” United States Constitution, Article VI (2).

 

           13.5.2.2     Unambiguous Constitutional Provisions Apply as Written. If a constitutional provision is plain and unambiguous, we do not construe it but apply it as written Endnote . The Constitution means exactly what it says.

 

           13.5.2.3     Purposes of the Constitution. The overall purposes of the Constitution are found in its Preamble, i.e., We the People of the United States, in Order to

 

13.5.2.4     form a more perfect Union,

 

13.5.2.5     establish Justice [right and fair],

 

13.5.2.6     insure domestic Tranquility [calmness, serenity],

 

13.5.2.7     provide for the common defense [not offense],

 

13.5.2.8     promote the general Welfare [well being, health and happiness for all including undocumented aliens], and

 

13.5.2.9    secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,


do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. [paragraph numbering added by the compiler]

 

Any law or court ruling or any part of any law or court ruling that is injurious to the Union, Justice, domestic Tranquility, the common defense, the general Welfare or the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, is null and void or at least voidable.

 

13.5.3  Void Statutes

 

13.5.3.1    "The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it... No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it." Endnote

 

13.5.3.2     "It is well settled that, quite apart from the guarantee of equal protection, if a law "impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution [it] is presumptively unconstitutional" Endnote and therefore null and void or at least voidable.

 

13.5.3.3     "An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never passed." Endnote

 

13.5.4  Void Judgments and Court Rulings

 

13.5.5 A void judgment [is one]:

 

13.5.5.1     which has no legal force or effect, invalidity of which may be asserted by any person whose rights are affected at any time and at any place directly or collaterally. Endnote

 

13.5.5.2     which, also, from its inception is and forever continues to be absolutely null, without legal efficacy, ineffectual to bind parties or support a right, of no legal force and effect whatever, and incapable of confirmation, ratification, or enforcement in any manner or to any degree.

 

13.5.5.3     that has merely semblance without some essential elements, as want of jurisdiction or failure to serve process or Party in court. See also Voidable judgment. Endnote

 

13.5.5.4    When a judgment is absolutely void, no rights are divested or obtained from that judgment”. Endnote

 

13.5.5.5    Judgments that are void may be attacked in any court at any time, directly or collaterally.” Endnote

 

13.5.6  Fraud: An intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right." Black's 5th, 594

 

13.5.6.1    Fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments." Endnote

 

13.5.6.2     "Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading ... We cannot condone this shocking conduct... If that is the case we hope our message is clear. This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is routine it should be correct/ed immediately" Endnote

 

13.5.6.3    Under settled legal principles, a judgment is void ab initio [from the beginning] if it has been procured by extrinsic or collateral fraud, or entered by a court that did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter or the parties." Endnote

 

13.5.6.4     Extrinsic fraud: The character of fraud which will afford a ground for setting aside a judgment, that is, fraud which is collateral to the issues tried in the case wherein the judgment was rendered. Endnote

 

13.5.6.5     Collateral fraud is the same as intrinsic fraud, which includes:

 

13.5.6.5.1  Fraud practiced in procuring a transaction. Endnote For example: In the trial of an action:—perjury, forgery, bribery of a witness, and other frauds which could have been relieved by the court in the action itself. Endnote

 

13.5.6.5.2  In reference to relief from a judgment: fraudulent acts pertaining to an issue involved in the original action, or fraudulent acts which were or could have been litigated in the original action. Endnote

 

13.5.6.5.3  For the purpose of grounds of equitable relief against a judgment, fraud which has prevented a party from having a trial, from presenting all his case to the court or has so affected the manner in which the judgment was taken that there has not been a fair submission of the controversy to the court. Endnote

 

13.5.6.5.4  For the purpose of serving as a defense to an action on a foreign judgment, any fraudulent conduct of the successful party in the foreign action, practiced directly and affirmatively on the defeated parts out side the actual trial of the cases, whereby he was prevented from presenting his side of the cause fully and fairly. Endnote

 

13.5.6.6     Actual fraud characterized by an evil intent to take undue advantage of another person for the purpose of actually and knowingly defrauding him. Endnote

 

13.5.7  Jurisdiction

 

13.5.7.1    It is essential to the validity of a judgment or decree that the court rendering it shall have jurisdiction of both the subject matter and parties. But this is not all, for both of these essentials may exist and still the judgment or decree may be void, because the character of the judgment was not such as the court had the power to render, or because the mode of procedure employed by the court was such as it might not lawfully adopt." Endnote

 

13.5.7.2     "We [public servants] have no more right to decline the jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution.” Endnote

 

13.5.7.3    Under settled legal principles, a judgment is void ab initio [from the beginning] if it has been ... entered by a court that did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter or the parties." Endnote

 

13.5.7.4     A court engaged in a statutory proceeding is governed by the rules of limited jurisdiction; there is no presumption that the judge holds jurisdiction. Should the judge engage in any act beyond that which the law or the statute grants him or her authority, the order of the court is void, of no legal force or effect anywhere and at any time.

 

13.5.7.5    Where the court, as here, is exercising special statutory powers, the measure of its authority is the statute itself; and a judgment or order in excess of the powers thereby conferred is null and void. In such a case, even though the court may have jurisdiction of the general subject matter and of the parties, an adjudication with reference thereto which is not within the powers granted to it is coram non judice."

 

13.5.8 Fraud on the Court And Disqualification Of Judges Footnote

 

13.5.8.1    Officers of the Court


All judges and all attorneys are officers of the court. Federal and state judges and attorneys are public servants paid by the government to act impartially and lawfully.


A judge is not the court. People v. Zajic, 88 Ill.App.3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 (1980)

 

13.5.8.2     Fraud on the court

 

Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in "fraud upon the court". In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury.

 

... It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function --- thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted."


        "Fraud upon the court" has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to "embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication." Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated "a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final."

 

13.5.8.3     Effect an act of "fraud upon the court" has upon the court proceedings

        "Fraud upon the court" makes void the orders and judgments of that court.

        It is also clear and well-settled Illinois law that any attempt to commit "fraud upon the court" vitiates the entire proceeding. The People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354; 192 N.E. 229 (1934) ("The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters applies to judgments as well as to contracts and other transactions."); Allen F. Moore v. Stanley F. Sievers, 336 Ill. 316; 168 N.E. 259 (1929) ("The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters ..."); In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.2d 393 (1962) ("It is axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything."); Dunham v. Dunham, 57 Ill.App. 475 (1894), affirmed 162 Ill. 589 (1896); Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 338 Ill.App. 79, 86 N.E.2d 875, 883-4 (1949); Thomas Stasel v. The American Home Security Corporation, 362 Ill. 350; 199 N.E. 798 (1935).


        Under Illinois and Federal law, when any officer of the court has committed "fraud upon the court", the orders and judgment of that court are void, of no legal force or effect. (Source: http://www.ballew.com/bob/htm/fotc.htm)

 

13.5.8.4     What Causes "Disqualification of Judges?"

        Federal law requires the automatic disqualification of a Federal judge under certain circumstances. In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality. If a judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified." [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).


        Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) "is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.") ("Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.").


        That Court also stated that Section 455(a) "requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that "It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice."


        The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice", Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). A judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of justice.


        "Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).


        Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking for his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that "We think that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is filed." Balistrieri, at 1202.


        Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound to follow the law. Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given another example of his "appearance of partiality" which, possibly, further disqualifies the judge. Should another judge not accept the disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has evidenced an "appearance of partiality" and has possibly disqualified himself/herself. None of the orders issued by any judge who has been disqualified by law would appear to be valid. It would appear that they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect.


        Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) ("The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.").


        Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the party has been denied of any of his / her property, then the judge may have been engaged in the Federal Crime of "interference with interstate commerce". The judge has acted in the judge's personal capacity and not in the judge's judicial capacity. It has been said that this judge, acting in this manner, has no more lawful authority than someone's next-door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge). However some judges may not follow the law.


        If you were a non-represented litigant, and should the court not follow the law as to non-represented litigants, then the judge has expressed an "appearance of partiality" and, under the law, it would seem that he/she has disqualified him/herself.


        However, since not all judges keep up to date in the law, and since not all judges follow the law, it is possible that a judge may not know the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and the other courts on this subject. Notice that it states "disqualification is required" and that a judge "must be disqualified" under certain circumstances.


        The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution. If a judge acts after he has been automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting without jurisdiction, and that suggest that he is then engaging in criminal acts of treason, and may be engaged in extortion and the interference with interstate commerce.


        Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts. Since both treason and the interference with interstate commerce are criminal acts, no judge has immunity to engage in such acts.

 

13.5.9  Bribery of public officials, Title 18, U.S.C. Section 201.


Following, directly excerpted from the US Code, shows how comprehensive and inclusive the bribery laws are. “Anything of value” includes campaign contributions, jobs, honorariums, gifts, negative advertisements. “Official acts” include drafting legislation, introducing legislation, legislator’s votes in committee or on the floor, threatening to filibuster, filibustering and judges and jurists’ rulings and citations of law.


Title 18, U.S.C. Section 201 (b) (1) Whoever— directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent—


(A) to influence any official act; or


(B) to influence such public official or person who has been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or


(C) to induce such public official or such person who has been selected to be a public official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person;

 

Title 18, U.S.C. Section 201 (b) (2) Whoever— being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:


(A) being influenced in the performance of any official act;


(B) being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or


© being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person;

 

13.5.10  Judicial Review of Statutes


The United States Constitution does not give the Supreme Court the power of judicial review of laws. The Constitution explicitly states that Congress shall make the laws. Congress has the duty and may and should pass laws that void Supreme Court rulings and laws that are contrary to the Constitution such as in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

Following is paraphrased from Wikipedia (www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States)


Judicial review in the United States refers to the power of a court to review the constitutionality of a statute or treaty, or an administrative regulation for consistency with the Constitution.


The United States Constitution does not establish the power of judicial review or repealing laws. Rather, judges have granted themselves this power of judicial review and striking laws


The Supreme Court's landmark decision on the issue of judicial review was Marbury v. Madison (1803),[2] in which the Supreme Court ruled that the federal courts have the duty to review the constitutionality of acts of Congress and to declare them void when they are contrary to the Constitution. Since that time, the federal courts have exercised the power of judicial review. As of 2010, the United States Supreme Court had held unconstitutional some 163 Acts of the U.S. Congress.

 

           13.5.10.1   Marbury v. Madison


Following is paraphrased from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison


Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) is a landmark case in United States law which formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States


The case resulted from a petition to the Supreme Court by William Marbury, who had been appointed by President John Adams as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia but whose commission was not subsequently delivered. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to force the new Secretary of State James Madison to deliver the documents.


Chief Justice John Marshall first examined the Judiciary Act of 1789 and determined that the Act purported to give the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over writs of mandamus. Marshall then looked to Article III of the Constitution, which defines the Supreme Court's original and appellate jurisdictions. Marbury had argued that the Constitution was only intended to set a floor for original jurisdiction that Congress could add to. Marshall disagreed and held that Congress does not have the power to modify the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction. Consequently, Marshall found that the Constitution and the Judiciary Act conflict.


This conflict raised the important question of what happens when an Act of Congress conflicts with the Constitution. Marshall answered that Acts of Congress that conflict with the Constitution are not law and the Courts are bound instead to follow the Constitution, affirming the principle of judicial review. In support of this position Marshall looked to the nature of the written Constitution—there would be no point of having a written Constitution if the courts could just ignore it. Finally, Marshall pointed to the judge's oath requiring them to uphold the Constitution, and to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which lists the "Constitution" before the "laws of the United States."

 

13.5.10.1.1      On February 24, 1803, the Court rendered a unanimous (4–0) decision, that: “13.5.10.1.1.1 Marbury had the right to his commission

 

13.5.10.1.1.2   Madison's refusal to deliver the commission was both illegal and remediable.

 

13.5.10.1.1.3   Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 is unconstitutional to the extent it purports to enlarge the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond that permitted by Article III of the Constitution.

 

13.5.10.1.1.4   The supreme court did not have the power to force Secretary of State Madison to deliver the commission because the provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that enabled Marbury to bring his claim to the Supreme Court was unconstitutional

 

13.5.10.1.1.5  . Marbury’s petition to force Madison to deliver his commission was denied

 

13.5.10.1.1.6   Congress cannot [may not] pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution and it is the role of the Judicial system to interpret what the Constitution permits.”


In the late Nineteenth Century, Supreme Court Justices wrongfully and unlawfully used a false statement in a headnote as a precedent to justify a ruling of unconstitutionality instead of each justice reviewing the statute in light of exactly what the Constitution says and state exactly in their ruling why each part of the Statute that they claim is unconstitutional. This is what was done in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).


Since the late 19th Century, many Supreme Court Justices and other judges have used false precedents to corruptly, wrongfully and unlawfully set aside just laws and make injurious, unconstitutional rulings such as separate but equal in hundreds of cases instead of comparing their rulings with the constitution. precedents or a false statement in a Headnote to justify a ruling of unconstitutionality. Such rulings are unconstitutional, null and void or at least voidable.

 

13.6    Background and Credits:


Primary credit for initially outlining and describing many of these items goes to Ms. Ann Fagan Ginger, Executive Director, Emeritus, Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute, www.mcli.org who compiled and edited A Tool Kit for Congress and Activists which contains succinct summaries of at least 100 laws that must be amended or repealed. The table of contents for the “Tool Kit” is provided as Attachment A. Since this “Tool Kit” was published in late 2007, at least another hundred of similar laws have been enacted in particular the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 which authorizes unconstitutional detention of U. S. Citizens and others.


Credit for outlining and describing other key items and calling these laws “injurious” because of the injurious effects on human beings, democracy and the environment goes to Ms. Libby Hunter, an activist and talented musician, who also added several items.


Ron Fisher, the compiler and editor of this document, has also added other key “injurious” laws.


Since different individuals have added the same items, in many cases items are not distinguished by which person added which item.



Attachment A: Table of Contents of the Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute, mcli.org, Tool Kit With Over One Hundred Unconstitutional, Unjust, and/or Injurious Laws that Should be Confirmed as Null and Void Since their Enactment


Edited by Ms. Ann Fagan Ginger, Executive Director, Emeritus,, www.mcli.org.


This “Tool Kit” contains descriptions of over one hundred unjust, injurious laws that must be set vacated, set aside and/or replaced. Since this “Tool Kit” was published in late 2007, at least another one hundred similar laws have been enacted.


INTRODUCTION TO THE TOOL KIT 1


TEXT OF THE LAW in U.S. Constitution, Statutes and Treaties (excerpts) 4


AGRICULTURE 10

Sewage disposal permits issued for Concentrated Animal Feed Operations (CAFOSs) 10

ANTI-TRUST 12

Federal Communications Commission Cross-Ownership Rules Relaxed 12

BUDGET 14

Labor, HHS, Education Appropriations Act of 2006 14

Budget for Military Aid for Israel Ignoring Existing Law 15

DEATH PENALTY 16

National Application of Federal Capital Sentencing Laws 16

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 19

Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20 19

Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT Act) 21

Presidential authority to use PATRIOT Act powers in secret without critical review mandated by Congress 23

Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA) 24

Statement on Signing the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 27

Real ID Act of 2005 29

Mismanagement of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita Relief Efforts 30 Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act of 2006 (AETA) 32

Failure to Appoint Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board 33

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments Act of 2008 35

Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 37

DETENTION/HABEAS CORPUS 39

Page V

Habeas Corpus as to Detainees Suspended 39

2002 and 2003 Torture Memos by John Yoo and Jay Bybee 41

Black Sites and Extraordinary Rendition 43

No Enforceable Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Regulations to Protect Immigration Detainees 47

Inadequate Healthcare in Immigration Detention Facilities 49

Statement on Signing the Department of Defense Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act of 2006. 52

ECONOMIC CRISIS, 2008 see page viii

EDUCATION 54

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) 54

Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) 56

ELECTIONS 59

Help America Vote Act of 2002 59

ENERGY/ECOLOGY/ENVIRONMENT 61

Non-compliance with Clinton's Executive Order re Environmental Justice 61

2006 NASA Memo Canceling the DSCOVR Satellite Project 63

Energy Policy Act of 2005 65

Complex Transformation of U. S. Nuclear Weapons 66

Consolidated Appropriations Act Cutting Funding for EPA Libraries 68

HEALTH CARE 70

2003 Revisions of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996 70

New Freedom Commission on Mental Health (TMAP) and Subsequent Reports 71

Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) 73

Deleting Testimony on Climate Change 76

Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (MSEHPA) 78

Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) 80

Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 82

HOUSING/MORTGAGE FORECLOSURES 85

Lack of Federal Regulation of Banks and Mortgages 85

HUMAN RIGHTS 87

Directive Abolishing Interagency Working Group on Human Rights Treaties and Transfer of Their Authority to the Policy Coordination Committee on Democracy, Human Rights and International Operations 87

IMMIGRATION 89

Funding and Administrative Support for Massive Immigration Raids 89

Secure Fence Act of 2006 91

Real ID Act of 2005 93

Board of Immigration Appeals Continuing Inadequate Coverage of Asylum Law 95

State and Local Enforcement of Federal Immigration Law 97

LABOR 100

Page VI

Department of Labor and Office of Labor-Management Standards' Enforcement of Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (Landrum-Griffin Act) 100

Exploitation of Low-wage Immigrant Workers and Proposed "No-Match" Regulations 102

Lack of Enforcement of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) 105

LAST MINUTE BUSH REGULATIONS INTO CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS see page viii

LAWS WHICH WEAKENED GLASS-STEAGALL ACT see page viii

MILITARY COMMISSIONS 107

Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA) - Suspension of Habeas Corpus as to Alien Detainees 107

MILITARY RECRUITMENT 110

Expedited Naturalization Executive Order, and National Defense Authorization Act of 2006 110

No Child Left Behind At of 2001 (NCLB) in 111

NATIVE AMERICAN/TRIBAL LAND AND RIGHTS 114

Western Shoshone Claims Distribution Act of 2004 114

PRISON ADMINISTRATION 118

Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 118

TAXES 121

Economic Growth and Tax Reconciliation Act of 2001 121

The Jobs and Growth Reconciliation Tax Act of 2003 124

The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 125

Internet Tax Freedom Act Amendments Act of 2007 127

VETERANS 129

Budget for Veterans Administration Treatment for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder 129

Financing of Walter Reed Army Medical Center 131

Financing for the Department of Veterans Affairs Homeless Veterans Program 132

WARS IN AFGHANISTAN, IRAQ AND ... 13

Lack of Enforcement of Veterans Benefits 134

Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Afghanistan (AUMF) of 2001 136

Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (AUMF 2002) 138

Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs) 141

Statement on Signing the Ronald Reagan National Defense Authorization Act, 2005 144

Department of Defense (DOD) Budget for the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq 145

Outsourcing the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to Civilian Contractors 147

Criminal Immunity of Civilian Contractors in Afghanistan and Iraq 149

Signing Statement as Commander-in-Chief. on U.S. Combat Activity in Colombia 151

Page VII

2008 ECONOMIC CRISIS 153

Commodity Futures Modernization Act (2000) 153

Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (2005) 153

LAWS WHICH WEAKENED GLASS-STEAGALL ACT 153

• Bank Holding Company Act Amendments (1970) 153

• Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act (1982) 153

• Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act (1991) 153

• Truth in Lending Act "Reform" (1995) 154

• Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (1999) 154

• Commodity Futures Modernization Act (2000) 154

• Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act ( 2005) 154

• Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (2008) 155

• Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) 156

LAST MINUTE BUSH REGULATIONS INTO CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS 158

"Midnight Regulations" issued by outgoing President on many controversial issues (2008) 158

APPENDIX 159

TEXT OF ALL PROVISIONS OF U.S. CONSTITUTION AND TREATIES CITED 159

United States Constitution 159

Amendments to the Constitution 162

War Crimes Act 164

Anti-Torture Statute 164

United Nations Charter 165

Geneva Conventions Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners (of War) 167

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 168

International Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (ICAT) 172

International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) 175

Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict 178

Convention on the Rights of the Child (Signed by the U.S. but not yet ratified) 179

 

INDEX TO STATUTES, BILLS, EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND SIGNING STATEMENTS 180

INDEX OF SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES WHO INTRODUCED BILLS 184Page VIII

 


 

 

Attachment B: A Draft Proposed Bill to Vacate as Null and Void the AUMF, Public Law 107-40 as of September 18, 2001, the Date of its Approval




Attachment C: Plan to Confirm that the War Powers Acts, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and Scores of Other Laws Have Been Null and Void Since Their Enactment 


Endnotes