We need to get an Executive Order Signed by the President

Proposed Executive Order which will, in effect, be an Emancipation Proclamation for the 21st Century
.........................................................

Executive Order to
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

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 :

saveourchildrenca@gmail.com

Exhibit  A -
  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.

Exhibit B -
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.

Exhibit C -
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.