The First Amendment Will Be Heard!

On November 12^th 2013 a new Judge ordered that my First Amendment Challenge go forward. Service was ordered on all the defendants. But it is still the challenge and the restoration of the commanded protection of the RIGHT OF REDRESS that has to be restored. It will still be until March before this case goes to the next step but at least now sense the Evil Judge McCorey si no longer on the case who knows.

In the end – I shall win! No Doubt!

Theodore Wagner

Constitutional Patriot

Andrea Lynn Crisel

    On Friday, October 18th 2013 Andrea Lynn Crisel will declared divorced. The government, the courts, the prosecutor Rhett DeHart, and even my own Public Pretenders Ann Briks Walsh, a Charleston, South Carolina (SC) Lawyer, Attorney, Andrew (Andy) Savage, III located in Charleston, South Carolina  and Guy Vitetta, Attorney at Law in Charleston South Carolina, all conspires to cover up the truth.

    It will all be on TheodoreWagner.com soon. I pray that every layer who conspires with the government to railroad their clients, that Father God damns them and their children to HELL!

    In the end - I shall win! The people will know!



                                                                                 Theodore Wagner
                                                                                  Constitutional; Patiot

Judges Oppress Challenge Again!

Status: I just checked on the status of these petitions. The Judges are just sitting on them. The FIRST AMENDMENT is so clear it is hard to see how the courts can turn a blind eye to this challenge. The Challenge can be seen at TheodoreWagner.com under “CONTENT”. Theodore Wagner vs. President Barack Obama, et al, No. 13-2006. An appeal of Theodore Wagner vs. President Barack Obama, et al, 3:13-cv-708.

Every Judge involved took an oath in the name of GOD to defend the integrity of the U.S. Constitution. The words in the Fifth Mandate of the FIRST AMENDMENT is to easy to under stand. These Judges are Complicit or Enabling the ongoing oppression of the right of redress.

If you believe in the integrity of the Constitution go to TheodoreWagner.com and click the contact page. I need your support.

See: The Advocate: USA Today - Justice in the Balance

advocateky.blogspot.com/2011/08/usa-today-justice-in-balance.html‎

o Cached

o Share

Aug 20, 2011 – A USA TODAY investigation documented 201 criminal cases across the nation in which federal judges found that prosecutors broke the rule

Judges Oppress Challenge Again!

Status: I just checked on the status of these petitions. The Judges are just sitting on them. The FIRST AMENDMENT is so clear it is hard to see how the courts can turn a blind eye to this challenge. The Challenge can be seen at TheodoreWagner.com under “CONTENT”. Theodore Wagner vs. President Barack Obama, et al, No. 13-2006. An appeal of Theodore Wagner vs. President Barack Obama, et al, 3:13-cv-708.

Every Judge involved took an oath in the name of GOD to defend the integrity of the U.S. Constitution. The words in the Fifth Mandate of the FIRST AMENDMENT is to easy to understand. These Judges are Complicit or Enabling the ongoing oppression of the right of redress.

If you believe in the integrity of the Constitution go to TheodoreWagner.com and click the contact page. I need your support.

Complicity. What is it?

I have had several disagreements about the duty of the court to honor their oath to defend the Constitution. Complicity is very easy to see. If you have a duty or a responsibility to do something and you don't then you are complicit. I am amazed at how many people say I am right but do not want to get involved. Why is that do you think? If you are an American you have a duty to stand up for the Constitution. Give me some help here. Why do you think a person would say I am right and not get involved?

TheodoreWagner.com

I ask any person who believes in the integrity of the US Constitution to check out TheodoreWagner.com and tell me what you think. We can restore the RIGHT OF REDRESS if we all work together. There is a lot of content that will be on the content page and I need help to improve it.

        Thank all of you who have helped.
                                                                                     Theodore Wagner
                                                                                      Constitutional Patriot

TheodoreWagner.com

Yesterday I published or tried to publish the site TheodoreWagner.com  . This site is dedicated to restoring the right of redress to the FIRST AMENDMENT. I need help as I still am not very computer savvy. I just filed another appeal in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal trying to compel the courts to give redress to any of my FIRST AMENDMENT challenges. All I am asking for is the test in USA v Butler to be performed on all laws that are used to oppress the right of redress. I need every Constitutional Patriot to stand up for the integrity of the Constitution and demand that redress of this challenge be given a Full and Fair Redress on the record.


                                                                            Theodore Wagner
                                                                            Constitutional Patriot

US Attorney Bill Nettles aids in conspiracy against Constitution

                On June 17^th 2013 and again on June 29^th 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

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

                On the 13^th 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!

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.

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!

THE RIGHTS OF THE ONE

Theodore Wagner

Every day I see another case of the courts conspiring against the rights of the singer person in the Ninth Amendment. Why do the people not come together to defend our Constitution from oppression?                                                              The Ninth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny of disparage other retained by the people.” 

The right of the one people is protected in the Ninth Amendment. Until the people understand the courts do NOT have the authority they are using they will continue to abuse their power! 

THOU SHALL NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS!

“Thou shall bear fall witness against thy nabor.” is the Ninth Commandment of GOD. This commandment is the reason we had the oath in court, “Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, So help you GOD.”

The Ninth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny of disparage other retained by the people.”   I ,Theodore Wagner retain the unalienable right endowed on me by GOD to have the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth spoken about me, most especially, by my own government. I can prove the government through SA. Cynthia McCants and Det. William Crews did knowingly and intentionally bear false witness against me under oath to GOD. I can prove the court knew this, and did aid in and did facilitate a cover up by using Laws made by Congress to oppress redress of my challenge.

This is one of the challenges I have before the court right now the court refuses to address titled “I challenge the court’s authority to oppress the Commanded Protection of the Ninth Amendment and petition for a test as presented in U.S.A. vs. Butler, 297 US 1.”  It is a constitutionally protected right that my government will not bear false witness against me. I have, as all Americans have, the right to grieve by petition in court that my government did bear false witness. That they did produce a false stigma that is causing my harm. There is no way the government or anyone can say there is not an ongoing harm and damage that permanently affects a person’s life by false stigma.

To those of us who have not given our Souls to the Evil ONE, these truths are self-evident: that all persons are created equal, that we are all endowed by OUR CREATOR with certain unalienable rights, that among these, but not limited to, are Life, Liberty, and, the personal pursuit of happiness. Among these certain unalienable rights endowed on us by Our Creator, are those commanded protections of the Ten Commandments of The Creator.

Just because a person, or Regime, has closed their hearts off from The Creator, or given their soul to the Evil ONE as to refuse to swear the Oath “SO HELP ME GOD”, does not Void the Unalienable Right I retain through the Ninth Amendment to have the Truth, the whole Truth, and Nothing but the Truth presented about me.

The courts have ruled in the last few years that the government has the right to bear false witness and the courts protect prosecutors who do so.

1.   See: The Advocate: USA Today - Justice in the Balance

advocateky.blogspot.com/2011/08/usa-today-justice-in-balance.html‎

o Cached

o Share

View shared post

Aug 20, 2011 – A USA TODAY investigation documented 201 criminal cases across the nation in which federal judges found that prosecutors broke the rule

This is only samples of what I am trying to end. Prosecutors will continue to conspire against constitutional rights until this challenge is heard. Please help me end this oppression. I need your help!

JUDGES ARE NOT PROTECTED!

                Judges are not protected from oppression of Constitutional rights. I had someone again tell me that judges cannot be sued. It is the judges using sophistry who say they cannot be sued. They base this on the King’s Law where whatever a representative of the King did as the Supreme Power was the Supreme Law of the Land and he is immune and cannot be held accountable. What they leave out is that even under the King’s Law when a representative of the King went beyond the authority given to them by the King he could be held accountable and you could sue him.

                In America, The Supreme Law of the Land is the U.S. Constitution. A judge takes an oath to defend the integrity of the Supreme Law as presented below. When a judge goes beyond the power and authority invested in him by the Constitution he loses his immunity and can be sued. That is one of the safeties of the Constitution to protect the people from judges being able to protect the government misuse of power. When a judge puts himself above the Supreme Law of the Land and willing to use GOD’S name in vain to protect the government’s oppression of the Constitution he has lost all immunity just as if he had conspired against the King.

                This is one of the points I am trying to restore to the safeties of the Constitution. As long as the people turn a blind eye to the oppression of the integrity of the Constitution and the safeties in it that protect us the government will continue to erode our great Constitution. Judges are not immune when they use their power to oppress the Constitution.

               

                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.”

                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)

Contoversy

       It would seem that even when the presentation would be considered controversial no one cares about their unalienable rights. I have approached a number of people since yesterday and told them of yesterdays post. They had an opinion but still did not want to get involved. What will it take for people to stand up for their right of redress? Any ideas.

NIGER! DON'T DRINK THAT WATER!

                Thank GOD for the Right of Redress in the FIRST AMENDMENT that protected the Right of the People to challenge the EVIL of the Government’s right to make a Law that says one group of people was less than human. If it were not for the right of the people peaceably to petition the government for a redress of grievances and those brave enough to stand up to an evil law that said one group of people were not allowed to drink from the same place as a white man this evil might still exist.

                Last night I was trying to find someone to sign my petition to demand the court give redress to my challenge of Laws made in violation of the First Amendment command “Congress shall make NO LAW respecting…the right of the people peaceably…to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” A black man told me that I should let it go. That if the government makes a law, it the law and you have to obey it. If it had not been for the right of Redress and the brave people who stood up to the oppression of the equal rights of the oppressed then we would still have that evil today. The government has made laws that give the government the right to bear false witness against me and deny me the right to grieve it.

                President Bush made laws that make it unlawful to challenge the telecommunication companies from conspiring to violate the fourth Amendment with unlawful wire tapping, “FISA Amendments Act of 2008”.  President Clinton made the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) that gave the court’s the power to oppress and deny the Privilege of Habeas Corpus, a constitutionally protected right. There is literally hundreds of Law made by Congress made in violation of First Amendment mandate I have invoked in my challenge.

The US Constitution is the Laws of the United States which shall be make in Pursuance thereof, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land: and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby.

                Every judge takes two oaths, and to defend the integrity of the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic;…that ends “So help me God.”  They bind their soul and their HONOR to their oath to defend the integrity of the Constitution.

                The fifth mandate of the FIRST AMENDMENT is a command that is clear and unambiguous.

“Congress shall make no law respecting…the right of the people peaceably…to petition the government FOR A RESRESS of grievances.”

                I have repeatedly made a Lawful challenge of several laws used to oppress the grievance process under 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.”

As judges they know Marbury v. Madison, 5 us 137.

“The oath of office, too, imposed by the legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words: “I do solemnly swear 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 all the duties incumbent on me as, according to the best of my abilities and understanding agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States.”

Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United Stated, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?

If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery, To prescribe, or 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.”

I repeatedly challenge Laws that are repugnant of this First Amendment mandate only to have them and all persons in government refuse to HONOR their oath to defend the integrity of the Constitution. Judge Joseph R. McCorey, Email: mccrorey_ecf@scd.uscourts.gov and George Ross Anderson, Jr, Email: ganderson_ecf@scf@scd.uscourts.gov both refuse to HONOR their oath and give redress to this challenge. They would rather conspire against GOD and Country to facilitate the ongoing oppression of the Constitution than give a Full and Fair Redress on the record as their duty would require.

I have made this challenge over and over. The courts have repeatedly called this challenge an objection or use other forms of sophistry to obfuscate the challenge. Butler is clear that the court has only one duty. To lay the FIRST AMENDMENT mandate I have invoked above next to the FISA Amendment Act, the FTCA, the AEDPA, and all other laws made by congress respecting the right of the people to peaceably to petition the government for a redress of grievances. This challenge will VOID all laws made by Congress to oppress redress. Please help me compel the courts to answer this challenge. I welcome all adversaries of the U.S. Constitution to challenge this argument. I need all those who believe in the integrity of the Constitution to help me. We can restore this right!

 Please sign my petition:"The oppression of the RIGHT OF REDRESS in the FIRST AMENDMENT: A Full and Fair Redress on the record of challenge of Laws " on Change.org.

It's important. Will you sign it too? Here's the link:http://www.change.org/petitions/the-oppession-of-the-right-of-redress-in-the-first-amendment-a-full-and-fair-redress-on-the-record-of-challenge-of-laws?share_id=aGeIHISkma&utm_campaign=signature_receipt&utm_medium=email&utm_source=share_petition

I welcome all comments of those who believe that government should have the right to oppress the rights of the people and the people should have the right for a full and fair redress on the record.

You Have No Rights!

    Today I was trying to get someone interested in the First Amendment. He argued that the Constitution is nothing more than a prop. He kept repeating that "You don't have any rights!" I kept saying, " It is because people like you don't have the balls to stand up for your rights! " He said the courts will do what they want and there is nothing I can do about it. He is wrong. Sooner or later I will find one person who believes in the integrity of the Constitution. Then we will find four. In the end they will answer the question. No doubt!

Scared to confront the government?

   I am very disturbed that everyone seams to be scared to confront the government's unconstitutional use of power. I will never give up the quest to restore the right to a full and fair redress. I need to find some other people who believe in the U.S. Constitution.

Giving up your liberty

   "THEY WHO CAN GIVE UP ESSENTIAL LIBERTY TO OBTAIN A LITTLE TEMPORARY SAFETY,DESERVES NEITHER LIBERTY NOR SAFETY."  Benjamin Franklin

   The right to challenge government oppression is one of the most important rights we can have. That is why our founding fathers placed it in the first Amendment with a command to Congress that "Congress Shall Make No Law Respecting" the right of redress.

    Why are the people willing to give up this right? The government are unconstitutionally tapping your phones without a warrant and made a law that says you can't grieve it. My challenge will restore the right to a full and fair redress of our grievances. The Constitution needs your help!

Let every violation of the Constitution be reprehended

Precedents are dangerous things; let the reins of government then be braced and held with a steady hand, and every violation of the Constitution be reprehended: if defective, let it be amended, but not suffered to be trampled upon whilst it has an existence.  "George Washington"

    Judge McCrorey and Judge Anderson violate their oath to GOD every time they trample on the IDEALS of the Constitution and egnor my lawful challenge of the laws they are using to oppress the truth. But it also looks like the people are willing to let it happen. Go to  //wh.gov/JgyP to help stop the oppress of the FIRST AMMENDMENT.

Judge McCrorey conspires to oppress lawful challenge

                I just sent a copy of the Email I have been sending out today to Judge Joseph R. McCrorey at mccrorey_ecf@scd.uscourts.gov and to Judge George Ross Anderson, Jr at ganderson_ecf@scd.uscourts.gov   . As they have been complicit in oppressing this FIRST AMMENDMENT challenge as presented in USA v Butler, 297 us 1 from the beginning it is clear they do not care about their oath to GOD in 5 usc -3331 or their oath to defend the US Constitution. The Butler supra is clear.

“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.”

As judges they know Marbury v. Madison, 5 us 137.

“The oath of office, too, imposed by the legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words: “I do solemnly swear 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 all the duties incumbent on me as, according to the best of my abilities and understanding agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States.”

Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United Stated, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?

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.”

It is clear that Judge McCororey and Judge Anderson as well as all who have seen my challenge and turn a blind eye are complicit or enabling the facilitation of this conspiracy. The fifth mandate I invoked is unambiguous “Congress shall make no law respecting…the right of the people peaceably…to petition the government FOR A REDRESS of grievances.” They know the only duty they have is to place the mandate I have invoked next to the law or authority I have challenged and rule whether the two square up. But they use sophistry to facilitate the ongoing oppression of this provision of the US Constitution to avail themselves to the ill-gotten fruits of this conspiracy.

In the end, I shall win. The people shall know!