Friday, June 28, 2013

US Attorney Bill Nettles aids in conspiracy against Constitution


                On June 17th 2013 and again on June 29th 2013 I did send very explicit notices of grievances to the U.S. Attorney Bill Nettles in South Carolina. I have included all the cases that can be found in the postings of this blog sense I started it including OLMSTEAD v. UNITED STATES, 277 us 438, Decided June 4, 1928. Another person in government spits on their oath to GOD and Country for Government power.
                “When these unlawful acts were committed, they were crimes only of the officers individually.  The government was innocent, in legal contemplation; for no federal official is authorized to commit a crime on its behalf. When the government, having full knowledge, sought, through the Department of Justice, to avail itself of the fruits of these acts in order to accomplish its own ends, it assumed moral responsibility for the officers’ crimes. … And if this court should permit the government, by means of its officers’ crimes to effect its purpose of punishing the defendants, there would seem to be present all the elements of a ratification, If so, the government itself would become a lawbreaker.
                Will this court, by sustaining the judgment below, sanction such conduct on the part of the Executive? The governing principle has long been settled. It is that a court will not redress a wrong when he who invokes its aid has unclean hands. The maxim of unclean hands comes [277us 484] from courts of equity, but the principle prevails also in courts of law. Its common application is in civil actions between private parties. Where the government is the actor, the reasons for applying it are even more persuasive. Where the remedies invokes are those of the criminal law, the reasons are compelling.
                The door of a court is not barred because the plaintiff has committed a crime. The confirmed criminal is as much entitled to redress as his most virtuous fellow citizen; no record of crime, however long, makes one and outlaw.  The court’s aid is denied only when he who seeks it has violated the law in connection with the very transaction as to which he seeks legal redress. Ten aid is denied despite the defendant’s wrong. It is denied in order to maintain respect for law; in order to preserve the judicial process from contamination.  The rule is one, not of action, but of inaction. It is sometimes [277 us 485] spoken of as a rule of substantive law. But it extends to matter of procedure as well. A defense may be waived. It is waived when not pleaded. But the objection that the plaintiff comes with unclean hands will be taken by the court itself. It will be taken despite the wish to the contrary of all the parties to the litigation. The court protects itself.
                Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent, teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself;  it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means – to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal – would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this court resolutely set its face.”
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES

               ARTICLE Vl, CLAUSE 2, SUPREME LAW.
                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, and any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
                ARTICLE Vl, CLAUSE 3, OATH OF OFFICE.
                The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Offices, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any office of public Trust under the United States.
               
                5 USC § 3331   Oath of office
                An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath; I,AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God” This section does not affect other oaths required by law.
                28 USC § 453    Oaths of justices and judges
                Each justice of judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office: “I, ---, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as --- under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

                Federal courts cannot countenance deliberate violations of basic constitutional rights. To do so would violate their judicial oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. 28 U.S.C.S § 453 (1976)

South Carolina Constitution (1895)     Author: S.C. Const. art. III, s 26
Members of the General Assembly, and all officers, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, and all members of the bar, before they enter upon the practice of their profession, shall take and subscribe the following oath: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I am duly qualified, according to the Constitution of this State, to exercise the duties of the office to which I have been elected, (or appointed), and that I will, to the best of my ability, discharge the duties thereof, and preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of this State and of the United States. So help me God."

Article. II. , Section. 1. , The President shall;
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."


                One day someone will stand with me to defend the U.S. Constitution.
                                                                                                                 Theodore Wagner
                                                                                                                  Constitutional Patriot

Friday, June 14, 2013

WILL THE FBI SPIT ON THEIR OATH TO GOD AND CONSTITUTION?


                On the 13th of June 2013 I went to the FBI office at 1671 BELLE ISLE AVE, MOUNT PLEASANT, SC. to file a complaint against Judge Joseph R. McCrorey , Judge G. Ross Anderson, Jr., and Judge Michael Duffy along with others who are complicit or enabling this ongoing conspiracy to oppress the commanded protection of the First Amendment that states,
Congress shall make no law respecting the right of the people peaceably to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
This time I went in and presented the grievance to two FBI agents that acknowledged that they had taken the oath as commanded in the US Constitution just like the judges I was filing the complaint against. I was clear that they had taken an oath to GOD to defend the US Constitution and not any government entity that is conspiring against it.
 ARTICLE Vl, CLAUSE 2, SUPREME LAW.
                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, and any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
                ARTICLE Vl, CLAUSE 3, OATH OF OFFICE.
                The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Offices, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Admiration, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any office of public Trust under the United States.
                5 USC § 3331   Oath of office
                An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath; I,AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God” This section does not affect other oaths required by law.
                28 USC § 453    Oaths of justices and judges
                Each justice of judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office: “I, ---, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as --- under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
I was very clear that I have been demanding a full and fair redress of my challenge as presented in USA v Butler, 297 US 1, which states, “The Constitution is the supreme law of the land ordained and established by the people. All legislation must conform to the principles it lays down. When an act of Congress is appropriately challenged in the courts as not conforming to the constitutional mandate the judicial branch of the Government has only one duty, -to lay the article of the Constitution which is invoked beside the statute which is challenged and to decide whether the latter squares with the former. All the court does, of can do, is to announce its considered judgment upon the question.”
                I also gave them a copy of Marbury v. Madison, 5 us 137in the fifteen pages of evidence which states,
“If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery, To prescribe, of to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.
It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank.
Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United Stated confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”
As is stated in  OLMSTEAD v. UNITED STATES, 277 us 438,
“When the government, having full knowledge, sought, through the Department of Justice, to avail itself of the fruits of these acts in order to accomplish its own ends, it assumed moral responsibility for the officers’ crimes. … And if this court should permit the government, by means of its officers’ crimes to effect its purpose of punishing the defendants, there would seem to be present all the elements of a ratification, If so, the government itself would become a lawbreaker.”
                Soon I will call the special agent I filed my grievance to see if the FBI is going to be complicit and enable the facilitation of this ongoing conspiracy against GOD and the US Constitution to continue. I made sure I gave the agent the address to this blog so they will know I shall never give up! I am a PATRIOT and I love my country. I find it very disturbing to see my president, judges, Congress, and the American people who are willing to conspire against The Almighty GOD and the US Constitution. I do so hope that the FBI will use their authority under 18 usc § 242 to compel the judge to end this ongoing conspiracy to oppress the FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT OF REDRESS!

Friday, June 7, 2013

Our Constitutional Rights

Our Constitutional Rights
I watched as they oppressed
            the right to bear arms.
But I did nothing,
            because I did not own a gun.
I watched as they oppressed
            the right to privacy.
But I did nothing,
            because I did not see them oppressing mine.
I watched as they oppressed
            the right to effective counsel.
But I did nothing,
            because I could afford to buy mine.
I watched as they oppressed
            the right to petition.
But I did nothing,
            because I had no grievance then.
I watched as they oppressed
            the people’s pursuit of Happiness.
But I did nothing,
            because I was in the majority,  they were not oppressing mine.
I realized they were oppressing
            my constitutionally protected rights and I protested!
But I could do nothing,
            because while they were oppressing my Unalienable Rights, I DID NOTHING!

The Constitution does not give us our unalienable rights, it protects them from oppression!
                                                                                                             By:  Theodore Wagner
                                                                                                                     Constitutional Patriot
                                                                                                                      November 2008
                The reason the government is making all these laws so they can tap our phones without a warrant and many other oppressions id because the people refuse to stand up for the Right Of Redress. The people in government from President Obama all the way to every judge in the states took an oath to defend the US Constitution.
                [3][4] We start with the premise that the rights to assemble peaceably and to petition for a redress of grievances are among the most precious of the liberties safeguarded by the Bill of Rights. These rights, moreover, are intimately connects, both in origin and in purpose, with the other First Amendment rights of free speech and free press. “All these, though not identical, are inseparable.”
Thomas v Collins, 323 US 515,530, 89 L ed 430, 440,65 S Ct 315 (1945). See De Jonge v Oregon, 299 US 353, 364, 81 L ed 278, 283, 57 S Ct 255 (1937). The first Amendment would, however, be a hollow promise if it left government free to destroy or erode it’s guarantees by indirect restraints so long as no law is passed that prohibits free speech, press, petition, or assembly as such. We have therefore repeatedly held that laws which actually affect the exercise of these vital rights cannot be sustained merely because they were enacted for the purpose of dealing with some evil within the State’s legislative competence, or even because the laws do in fact provide a helpful means of dealing with such and evil. Schneider v State, 308 US 147, 84 L ed 155, 60 S Ct 146 (1939); Cantwell v Connecticut, 310 US 296, 84 L ed 1213, 60 S Ct 900, 128 ALR 1352 (1940)          
                [6][7][8] We think that both the Button and Trainmen cases are controlling here. The litigation in question is, of course, not bound up with political matters of acute social moment, as in Button but the First Amendment does not protect speech and assembly only to the extent it can be characterized as political. “Great secular causes, with small ones, are guarded. The grievances for redress of which the right of petition was insured, and with it the right of assembly, are not solely religious or political ones.
And the rights of free speech and a free press are not confined to any field of human interest. “ Thomas v Collins, supra, at 531 89 L ed at 441. And of course in Trainmen, where the litigation in question was, as here, solely designed to compensate the victims of industrial accidents, we rejected the contention made in dissent, see 377 US, at 10,12 L ed 2d at 95, 11 ALR3d 1196 (Clark, J.), that the principles announced in Button were applicable only to litigation for political purposes. See 377 US, 8, 12 L ed 2d at 94, 11 ALR3d 1196. UNITED MINE WORDERS OF AMERICA, District 12, Petitioner vs. ILLINOIS STATE BAR ASSOCIATION et al., 389 US 217, 19 L Ed 2d 426, 88 S Ct 353, (1967)
                We can restore the Right of Redress. We only have to demand the court give redress to one of the challenges I have put before the courts. One day it will happen. No Doubt.



Saturday, June 1, 2013

U.S. Military Conspires against GOD


                It is true! Again I got into a discussion with a veteran who said that he swore an oath to protect this country. I told him he was wrong. He swore an oath to GOD do defend the US Constitution. He got all upset until I showed him a copy of the oath he sore.

CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES

               ARTICLE Vl, CLAUSE 2, SUPREME LAW.
                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, and any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
                ARTICLE Vl, CLAUSE 3, OATH OF OFFICE.
                The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Offices, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Admiration, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any office of public Trust under the United States.
               
                5 USC § 3331   Oath of office
                An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath; I,AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God” This section does not affect other oaths required by law.
               
                Yet not one person who swore an oath to GOD to defend the integrity of the US Constitution will help me demand that the courts honor their oath to defend the US Constitution. The people of the military have turned their back on GOD!