Big, Fat Goodbye: Rule of Law Done Gone
By Mary W Maxwell, PhD, LLB

The other day, on tuning in to an official FBI video on Youtube, I was astonished to hear the narrator say “The FBI is the principal law enforcer in the United States.”

Of course it is no such thing. The Constitution says otherwise.
So here is a question: Which are you going to believe, the FBI or the Constitution? If you are patriotic, are you gong to draw yourself up to your full height and say “the Constitution”?

Power

I say you are no patriot if you do that. A patriot does not live in a dream world. A patriot understands power, and indeed knows that the Framers of the Constitution had the distribution of power on their minds at all times, back in 1787.

This is the situation as of today, November 18, 2015: the FBI has illegally taken over. And who are they? They work for the ‘cabal’ that runs the government. Most people have figured out that the CIA, too, works for the cabal.

We are in a police state. Crikey ! Has it finally come to this? Yes. We live in a police state. You can tell by the way the judges go along with it.

In a recent pivotal moment for American law, the aunt of “convicted Marathon bomber” Dzhokhar ('Jahar') Tsarnaev reported to the US District Court in Boston that the defense team had visited Tsarnaev’s parents in Russia. They got the parents to instruct their son to plead guilty, or else he would be harmed in jail.

Fathom it. And the judge in the case, Judge George A O’Toole, has not even made the aunt’s affidavit known to the public, much less acted upon it to get that kid out of jail pronto. Isn’t that absolutely stunning? Stunsville, USA.

The Wording of the Aunt’s Affidavit

And there’s more. Aunt Maret Tsarnaeva says that two federal employees visited the parents and her sister Malkan and told them that the defense team knows Jahar is innocent but has been intimidated to “go along.”

I’ll now give you the exact words of the April 17, 2015 affidavit, which Aunt Maret signed under penalties of perjury. (Attorney Jack Graham helped her write it.) Be sure you are sitting down -- and it may pay to have some Bourbon at the ready.

“I was not present at the meeting in Grozny on or about June 19, 2014, but my sister Malkan, who was present, called me by telephone immediately after the meeting concluded. She revealed to me then the details of the conversation ….

“She relates, and has authorized me to state for her that Charlene the independent investigator [sent by the feds with a social worker] stated flatly that the federal public defender’s office in Boston knew that Dzhokhar was not guilty as charged, and that their office was under enormous pressure FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES [my caps] and high levels of the government of the United States not to resist conviction.”

I’ll have mine on the rocks, please.

Calling All Constitutionalists

The title of this article says “the rule of law done gone.” As stated, I am in favor of admitting the fact that the rule of law has indeed ended, even if we wish otherwise.

For my money, when you have a judge who won’t act on an affidavit about a prisoner being coerced to plead guilty (even if only to “act on it” by taking steps to refute it), the rule of law has ended.

Oh, since when is only one case – among thousands – enough to make one think the rule of law has ended? Well, consider the fact that the Tsarnaev case involved a whole city in Massachusetts being in lockdown, with house-to-house military-style searches.

Consider also that the FBI took the older brother of Jahar into custody and murdered him. Consider that the police and the state governor, Deval Patrick, continued to publish lies about all this. (Not just lies but whoppers. Incredible, shameless whopperoonies.)

So, ye constitutionalists, what to do? I recommend you start by being realistic, and see that power has moved from the Constitution to an aggressive invader. If you claim anything less than that, you’ll later regret having wasted precious time.

Rule of Law and Violence

We have all let the Constitution fail. Ooh, the beloved parchment. Partly it’s because we were earnestly taught that rule of law is based on non-violence -- yet that’s plainly incorrect. In fact it’s ridiculous. Violence is the sine-qua-non backer of the rule of law.

During the time that we had rule of law (ah, wasn’t it great!), the law was always supported by the violence of the state. I mean the sheriffs, the cops, the judges, the prison guards. They en-FORCED the law. It doesn’t happen out of thin air.

Is The FBI a Backer of the Rule of Law?

As said above, an “official” FBI video at Youtube alleges that the Federal Bureau of investigation is our "law enforcer." No way, Jose. (God, what has happened to legal scholars that they did not send out the hue and cry over that one?)

In 1908, the US Attorney General’s Office allowed the establishment of a “bureau of investigation.” OK, that much is kosher. The Executive branch is justified in having such an office.

By 1924 the bureau morphed its name into “the Federal Bureau of Investigation.” A man was appointed to direct it, J Edgar Hoover. It made out that there was trans-border crime such as gambling. And don’t forget, for a while there the US Constitution prohibited the sale of liquor (in an amendment that was later repealed).

As everyone now knows, J Edgar Hoover worked not for us but for ‘bosses,’ i.e., crime bosses. He even said “There is no organized crime.” So much for law enforcement!

It is well recognized that Hoover took a most important first step toward ending the rule of law. He established dossiers on every Congressperson and every president. That always gives the surveillor power over the surveilled, as everybody has some sort of sin or embarrassing skeleton in his closet.

From that point on, legal methods to dump Hoover were unlikely to be invoked. And non-legal methods didn’t occur either. He remained Director of FBI for 48 years.

FBI History

Still, the FBI did not “jump out of the cake” just yet, revealing that it was really a forcible entity against the rule of law. It played cool for a long time. It spent quite a bit of taxpayer money on public relations, telling the American folk that the FBI officers – “G-men” -- were there to help.

For instance, they helped with bank robberies. Which of us was smart enough to know that the FBI in fact DID some of those bank robberies? (See my book, Fraud Upon the Court.) When we hear of such things happening in other countries we smile and believe it.

When we ‘hear’ about a US agency being bad we don’t actually hear! It may land on the ear but does not sink into the brain. It is a forbidden thought. “Daddy” can’t be a baddy. We love our Daddy. This emotional protection can allow a government to get away with a lot.

What Belongs to the States versus What Belongs to “Caesar”?

The Constitution does not provide for a national police power. Per the Ninth Amendment, all powers not given to the feds – in Articles I, II, and III of the Constitution -- remain as powers of the states.

Just a reminder here: Congress, which is the legislative branch of the constitutionally created federal government, is not legally able to pass any laws that would change the allocation of the powers defined in the Constitution.

Thus, for example, the Constitution's list of 18 topics on which Congress is authorized to pass laws includes “Post Offices” and “regulation of trade with foreign countries.” It does not include “health” or “education.” Therefore, those two belong to the states. No passage of time (without a new amendment) alters that.

Education, Anyone?

Hmm but isn’t there a federal Department of Education? Yes there is but there should not be. The 50 states should have kicked up a fuss when this was established, but it seems that all 50 governors have been “bought” by the cabal.

Similarly, the citizens of the states accepted the feds’ illegal entry into the state-controlled area of education. Why? Because Congress cushioned it with money for the states. This is known as, or should be known as, The Big Lure: federal funding.

As to who let us down, I have already said: the state governors, the citizens, and the First Branch of government, i.e., Congress. The other two branches, Executive and Judicial, also failed us.

In the 1960s and 1970s, there were still some governors and Congresspersons fighting for strict constitutionalism, but no more. One apparent exception is Senator Rand Paul.

Going Too Far

Note that if Rand Paul goes too far, he will have a car accident or a heart attack. Many legislators, state and federal, have been bumped off by the cabal. It is standard office procedure and all politicians know it.

The media does not cover such things, or may paste them over with the “official narrative” -- such as that Senator Paul Wellstone, and his wife and daughter, died in a plane crash in 2002, owing to bad weather.

Ask: why wouldn’t the media look into foul play? Intrigue would sell copies of newspapers wouldn’t it? Must be that “the Fourth estate” also works for the cabal. What a pity, our own neighbors, the journalists, working against us.

The Sudden Emergence of Blue Power

How about our dear cops? I have a hunch (or is it merely a hope) that the Men in Blue think of themselves as for, rather then against, the people. But more and more they are being trained to fear us and have contempt for us.

In Paris last week, the cabal that runs the world followed its usual formula, setting up a terrorist to create mayhem. Consequent to the murder of more than a hundred people in Bataclan, a Paris stadium, police departments everywhere in the world, have been instructed to beef up.

Let me quote page 9 of The Advertiser, in Adelaide, Australia, November 17, 2015:

“Police [in Sydney] are being trained to shoot down armed attackers immediately, rather than ‘contain and negotiate,’ as the nation comes to grips with the potential for further terrorist attacks here.

“Acting New South Wales Police Commissioner Nick Kaldis confirmed the change to FBI-style training yesterday. Mr Kaldis also said that a Paris-style attack ‘could’ occur in Sydney. He said: ‘What happened in Paris may in a twisted way inspire others to do similar.'”

Who Gives the Marching Orders?

This should raise this initial question: Who tells each police group to beef up? In a state such as Florida, for example, would it be the mayor of Orlando, the sheriff of the county, the governor of Florida, or the president of the United States? I am asking who should, not who did, give the advice.

I know the Constitution well enough to know that it's not the president’s job. However, I haven’t time to research each of the 50 states, to see which level within the state has the appropriate control of police forces.

Pretend for a moment that a given state’s constitution assigns that power to a Board of Police Controllers Then, of course, the police today should carry out the orders of that Board.

How about a police force taking orders, in an informal and professionally approved way, from a national private body such as (I’m making this up): “American Union of Law Enforcement Officers.” Would that seem sensible to you? After all, those guys would be well up on the profile of terrorist incidents.

I can only hope you replied “Mary, did you forget to take your meds today?” As any constitutionalist knows, the point of having a constitution is to tell us where the power should be. If your state’s constitution does not say “Follow instructions from the police union,” then you had better not do so.

Once Was Magna Charta

I mention this for new Americans (‘new’ by youth, or by immigration): We have a constitution with 27 amendments ranging in date from 1789 to 1992. The first 10 amendments are called the Bill of Rights.

Over the years, many points of the Bill of Rights got clarified by the US Supreme Court, as it adjudicated a specific case. You can find these binding interpretations by googling for “US Constitution annotated.” Fun reading, believe me!

Let me paraphrase the Bill of Rights (Note: I’ve written a song about it, in my book “Prosecution for Treason,” which is a free download). Roughly: “I am a free man. No bully-faced idiot of a government is going to interfere with my privacy or my political preferences or my desire to speak out. Got that, jerks?”

Do not be embarrassed that it sounds pugilistic. Pugilism is the name of the game. Truculence, even. Bellicosity. Call it what you will. “Put up your dukes.” The idea is to let any “king” know that the people have made up their minds, and will have a go at the king, or his servants, if they don’t respect “our wishes.”

In fact, in 1215, King John of England was cowed into signing a document, the Magna Charta, that said (in almost these words): “I agree that if I fail to respect your rights (such as a right to trial by jury), you can come to my house and grab my stuff. You can harass me. Just keep your mitts off my wife.”

(Don’t believe me? Look it up.)

Pow!

Note: I’m not recommending “Pow, right in the kisser” as the norm. I’m saying that a populace can make a deliberate decision to keep oppression at bay. Since that arrangement goes against the normal workings of power, they have to think up ways to resist the persons who would oppress them.

That method could be Pow, right in the kisser -- or maybe a court case. As mentioned, court cases are no longer working.

No level of government appears to me to be cooperating with persons who complain either about ultra vires police powers or about the setting-up of false ‘terrorist’ scenes, such as at the Boston Marathon.

If you mail a letter to the New York legislature, asking for an inquiry into 9-11, you will have wasted a postage stamp. It is actually that bad. So we have lost the rule of law. (Even the Academy does not want to help out!)

Is it time for Pow? I have to say it’s not an attractive thought to me. I am a girl and could not give anyone a knuckle sandwich. I mean I lack the strength. I don’t lack the motivation. I have the normal human instinct to preserve my life.

As I see the torture situation getting worse, as I hear of teachers losing their jobs for encouraging kids to think, as I watch videos of police “taking down” a suspect (which is now standard practice, completely at odds with the Bill of Rights), I feel that violence would be justified.

Tell me I’m wrong. Show me how to reduce, non-violently, the current violence of the “law enforcers.”

Show me how the barons who cooked up the Magna Charta got it wrong when they said the correct response to the king’s violating their rights would be for them to “distress” the king.

In the video below, I entertain the notion that our state governors could use their militias to fight off invaders, even when those invaders are posing as legal agencies of law enforcement. I long for your feedback.

--Mary Maxwell’s latest book is Fraud Upon the Court (Trine Day Press). She can be contacted at her website maryWmaxwell.com. The link below is to a recent article at GumshoeNews.com in Australia where she hangs out.

http://gumshoenews.com/2015/11/17/what-is-behind-the-paris-attacks/