Proposed Executive Order which will, in effect, be an Emancipation Proclamation for the 21st Century
.............................. ...........................
..............................
Executive Order to
Restore integrity to State Courts
Restore integrity to State Courts
In response to thousands of meritorious complaints that I
have received, from The American People, from all over the nation, since
taking office as your President, I am issuing this very belated
Executive Order.
For decades, numerous lower court judges have issued court
orders that Violate the Rights of Americans. Each such illicit court
order is a clear cut Felony Committed by the judge pursuant to US Code
Title 18, Section 242.
Although the law is crystal clear and easily understood,
the aforementioned violations have continued unabated. The results of
these Crimes Against The People have been horrendous. These Abominations
have been especially prevalent in the "family courts".
The Social Carnage of which I spoke in my inaugural address
has destroyed the lives of millions of American Citizens. Millions of
American Children have been wrongfully taken, Under Color Of Law, from
fit parents. The parents have become financially destitute in their
futile efforts to rescue their children from the foster care industry.
Many have become homeless and many have committed suicide.
Not only have the Mothers and Fathers Committed suicide,
many of the children who have been physically, sexually and chemically
abused in foster care have also Committed suicide.
This very dark chapter in American History is going to come to an end, so help me God.
The numerous violations of the Rights of The People have
enabled the "Family Court Racket" to operate for decades. Motivation for
this ongoing Criminal Enterprise has been monetary. Hundreds of
billions of dollars have been taken from the Social Security Trust Fund
to finance this Criminality.
Draining the Social Security Trust Fund, in effect, is stealing the retirement of the younger generation of Americans.
I am hereby ordering vigorous enforcement of Federal
Criminal Complaints submitted to Federal Magistrate Judges in
conjunction with Rules 3 and 4 of The Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure, pursuant to US Code Title 18, Section 242.
The Supremacy Clause for the Consitution Of The United
States shall nullify any attempt to circumvent, abrogate or violate the
Consitutionally Protected Rights of The American People.
Any non-compliance with this order will be ample grounds
for removal of any judge who is guilty of Obstruction Of Justice,
Dereliction Of Duty, Malfeasance, Misfeasance or Nonfeasance. Any such
offender will also be Indicted and Prosecuted.
Signed .............................. .............
Donald J. Trump
President of the United States
Donald J. Trump
President of the United States
Date ..........................
______________________________ __
Let it be known that I endorse and support the Proposed
Executive Order for President Trump. Signing this order will be an
enormous service rendered by the President for The American People.
Signed
.............................. .............
..............................
Date
.............................. ......
..............................
State
.............................. ..............
..............................
Organization(s)
.............................. .........................
.............................. .........................
.............................. .........................
If you endorse the Proposed Executive Order, please sign and email it to Pamela Olson at :
Exhibit A -
U.S. Code Title 18 Section 242
Deprivation Of Rights Under Color Of Law
U.S. Code Title 18 Section 242
Deprivation Of Rights Under Color Of Law
Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person
acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right
or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the
acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties.
Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.
The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the
circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.
For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the
acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties.
Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.
The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the
circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.
Exhibit B -
The Federal Rules
Of Criminal Procedure
The Federal Rules
Of Criminal Procedure
Rule 3. The Complaint
The complaint is a written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged. Except as provided in Rule
4.1, it must be made under oath before a magistrate judge or, if none is reasonably available, before a state or local
judicial officer.
Rule 4. Arrest Warrant or Summons on a Complaint
(a) Issuance. If the complaint or one or more affidavits filed with the complaint establish probable cause to believe that an
offense has been committed and that the defendant committed it, the judge must issue an arrest warrant to an officer
authorized to execute it. At the request of an attorney for the government, the judge must issue a summons, instead of a
warrant, to a person authorized to serve it. A judge may issue more than one warrant or summons on the same complaint.
If a defendant fails to appear in response to a summons, a judge may, and upon request of an attorney for the
government must, issue a warrant.
The complaint is a written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged. Except as provided in Rule
4.1, it must be made under oath before a magistrate judge or, if none is reasonably available, before a state or local
judicial officer.
Rule 4. Arrest Warrant or Summons on a Complaint
(a) Issuance. If the complaint or one or more affidavits filed with the complaint establish probable cause to believe that an
offense has been committed and that the defendant committed it, the judge must issue an arrest warrant to an officer
authorized to execute it. At the request of an attorney for the government, the judge must issue a summons, instead of a
warrant, to a person authorized to serve it. A judge may issue more than one warrant or summons on the same complaint.
If a defendant fails to appear in response to a summons, a judge may, and upon request of an attorney for the
government must, issue a warrant.
Exhibit C -
The Supremacy Clause
The Supremacy Clause
The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution
(Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws
made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute
the supreme law of the land.[1] It provides that state courts are bound
by the supreme law; in case of conflict between federal and state law,
the federal law must be applied. Even state constitutions are
subordinate to federal law.[2] In essence, it is a conflict-of-laws rule
specifying that certain national acts take priority over any state acts
that conflict with national law. In this respect, the Supremacy Clause
follows the lead of Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, which
provided that "Every State shall abide by the determination of the
United States in Congress Assembled, on all questions which by this
confederation are submitted to them."[3] A constitutional provision
announcing the supremacy of federal law, the Supremacy Clause assumes
the underlying priority of federal authority, at least when that
authority is expressed in the Constitution itself.[4] No matter what the
federal government or the states might wish to do, they have to stay
within the boundaries of the Constitution. This makes the Supremacy
Clause the cornerstone of the whole American political structure.[5][6]
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which
shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which
shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, 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.
Preemption doctrineEdit
The constitutional principle derived from the Supremacy
Clause is federal preemption. Preemption applies regardless of whether
the conflicting laws come from legislatures, courts, administrative
agencies, or constitutions. For example, the Voting Rights Act of 1965,
an act of Congress, preempts state constitutions, and Food and Drug
Administration regulations may preempt state court judgments in cases
involving prescription drugs.
Congress has preempted state regulation in many areas. In
some cases, such as the 1976 Medical Device Regulation Act, Congress
preempted all state regulation. In others, such as labels on
prescription drugs, Congress allowed federal regulatory agencies to set
national minimum standards, but did not preempt state regulations
imposing more stringent standards than those imposed by federal
regulators. Where rules or regulations do not clearly state whether or
not preemption should apply, the Supreme Court tries to follow
lawmakers’ intent, and prefers interpretations that avoid preempting
state laws.[7]
Supreme Court interpretationsEdit
In Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. (3
Dall.) 199 (1796), the United States Supreme Court for the first time
applied the Supremacy Clause to strike down a state statute. Virginia
had passed a statute during the Revolutionary War allowing the state to
confiscate debt payments by Virginia citizens to British creditors. The
Supreme Court found that this Virginia statute was inconsistent with the
Treaty of Paris with Britain, which protected the rights of British
creditors. Relying on the Supremacy Clause, the Supreme Court held that
the treaty superseded Virginia's statute, and that it was the duty of
the courts to declare Virginia's statute "null and void".
In Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), the Supreme Court
held that Congress cannot pass laws that are contrary to the
Constitution, and it is the role of the Judicial system to interpret
what the Constitution permits. Citing the Supremacy Clause, the Court
found Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 to be unconstitutional to
the extent it purported to enlarge the original jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court beyond that permitted by the Constitution.
In Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816), and Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264
(1821), the Supreme Court held that the Supremacy Clause and the
judicial power granted in Article III give the Supreme Court the
ultimate power to review state court decisions involving issues arising
under the Constitution and laws of the United States. Therefore, the
Supreme Court has the final say in matters involving federal law,
including constitutional interpretation, and can overrule decisions by
state courts.
In McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819),
the Supreme Court reviewed a tax levied by Maryland on the federally
incorporated Bank of the United States. The Court found that if a state
had the power to tax a federally incorporated institution, then the
state effectively had the power to destroy the federal institution,
thereby thwarting the intent and purpose of Congress. This would make
the states superior to the federal government. The Court found that this
would be inconsistent with the Supremacy Clause, which makes federal
law superior to state law. The Court therefore held that Maryland's tax
on the bank was unconstitutional because the tax violated the Supremacy
Clause.
In Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859), the Supreme Court
held that state courts cannot issue rulings that contradict the
decisions of federal courts, citing the Supremacy Clause, and
overturning a decision by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Specifically,
the court found it was illegal for state officials to interfere with the
work of U.S. Marshals enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act or to order the
release of federal prisoners held for violation of that Act. The Supreme
Court reasoned that because the Supremacy Clause established federal
law as the law of the land, the Wisconsin courts could not nullify the
judgments of a federal court. The Supreme Court held that under Article
III of the Constitution, the federal courts have the final jurisdiction
in all cases involving the Constitution and laws of the United States,
and that the states therefore cannot interfere with federal court
judgments.
In Pennsylvania v. Nelson, 350 U.S. 497 (1956) the Supreme
Court struck down the Pennsylvania Sedition Act, which made advocating
the forceful overthrow of the federal government a crime under
Pennsylvania state law. The Supreme Court held that when federal
interest in an area of law is sufficiently dominant, federal law must be
assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject; and a
state law is not to be declared a help when state law goes farther than
Congress has seen fit to go.
In Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), the Supreme Court held that the U.S. Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate.
In Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1
(1958), the Supreme Court rejected attempts by Arkansasto nullify the
Court's school desegregation decision, Brown v. Board of Education. The
state of Arkansas, acting on a theory of states' rights, had adopted
several statutes designed to nullify the desegregation ruling. The
Supreme Court relied on the Supremacy Clause to hold that the federal
law controlled and could not be nullified by state statutes or
officials.
In Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624 (1982), the Supreme
Court ruled: "A state statute is void to the extent that it actually
conflicts with a valid Federal statute". In effect, this means that a
State law will be found to violate the Supremacy Clause when either of
the following two conditions (or both) exist:[8]
Compliance with both the Federal and State laws is
impossible"State law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and
execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress"
In 1920, the Supreme Court applied the Supremacy Clause to
international treaties, holding in the case of Missouri v. Holland, 252
U.S. 416, that the Federal government's ability to make treaties is
supreme over any state concerns that such treaties might abrogate
states' rights arising under the Tenth Amendment.
The Supreme Court has also held that only specific,
"unmistakable" acts of Congress may be held to trigger the Supremacy
Clause. Montana had imposed a 30 percent tax on most sub-bituminous coal
mined there. The Commonwealth Edison Company and other utility
companies argued, in part, that the Montana tax "frustrated" the broad
goals of the national energy policy. However, in the case of
Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana, 453 U.S. 609 (1981), the Supreme
Court disagreed. Any appeal to claims about "national policy", the Court
said, were insufficient to overturn a state law under the Supremacy
Clause unless "the nature of the regulated subject matter permits no
other conclusion, or that the Congress has unmistakably so ordained".[9]
However, in the case of California v. ARC America Corp., 490 U.S. 93
(1989), the Supreme Court held that if Congress expressedly intended to
act in an area, this would trigger the enforcement of the Supremacy
Clause, and hence nullify the state action. The Supreme Court further
found in Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530U.S. 363 (2000),
that even when a state law is not in direct conflict with a federal law,
the state law could still be found unconstitutional under the Supremacy
Clause if the "state law is an obstacle to the accomplishment and
execution of Congress's full purposes and objectives".[10] Congress need
not expressly assert any preemption over state laws either, because
Congress may implicitly assume this preemption under the
Constitution.[11]
Preemption can be either express or implied. When Congress
chooses to expressly preempt state law, the only question for courts
becomes determining whether the challenged state law is one that the
federal law is intended to preempt. Implied preemption presents more
difficult issues, at least when the state law in question does not
directly conflict with federal law. The Court then looks beyond the
express language of federal statutes to determine whether Congress has
"occupied the field" in which the state is attempting to regulate, or
whether a state law directly conflicts with federal law, or whether
enforcement of the state law might frustrate federal purposes.
Exhibit D -
The judicial tyranny of which Thomas Jefferson and Pattrick Henry warned has come to pass.
Signing this Executive Order will solve that Monumental Problem.
The judicial tyranny of which Thomas Jefferson and Pattrick Henry warned has come to pass.
Signing this Executive Order will solve that Monumental Problem.
No comments:
Post a Comment