Re: Fw: Why is injustice rampant in our democracy?

Mark Adams:


I write this in response to your oped piece  "Why is injustice rampant in our democracy?" at https://www.opednews.com/articles/Why-is-injustice-rampant-i-by-Mark-Adams-JD-MBA-Aristocracy_Citizens_Democracy_Democracy-170720-8.html



The word Democracy means MOB RULE, where the minority always loses at the hands of the majority and the majority generally suffers from ignorance, stupidity, and other forms of irresponsibility, and constitute the group least fit to govern a nation or lead  its people.  Democracies throughout history have devolved into anarchy, then dictatorship and tyranny.  "Democratic" means "pertaining to MOB RULE, and it suggests an exceedingly BAD form of government, a democracy.


Bouvier's 1856 law dictionary defines Democracy thusly:

"DEMOCRACY, government. That form of government in which the sovereign power is exercised by the people in a body, as was the practice in some of the states of Ancient Greece; the term representative democracy has been given to a republican government like that of the United States."

Right.  Some fools call the US government a representative democracy.  That makes my point.  Every student of history knows what happened to the democracy of ancient Greece.  And people within US borders do not enjoy universal suffrage.  Felons, aliens, children under 18, and those adjudged mentally incompetent may not register to vote or vote in any elections. So we do not have a democracy.



But Woodrow Wilson, in his WWI slogan "To keep the world safe for Democracy," helped to destroy the historical meaning of democracy and popularize it as a perversion in disguise.  Well, why not?  He was a socialist Democrat university professor before becoming President.


This messing with the meaning of Democracy has caused well-educated people like YOU to develop muddled thinking on the subject of Republic and Democracy characterized by your introductory remarks in the subject article you authored.  There in that title you presumed a fact not in evidence by casting our government as a democracy, a nature it does not and never did have.


The Constitution of the US (CUSA) and all the states characterize the corresponding governments as REPUBLICS, and the CUSA mandates this in Article IV Section 4:

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

By contrast with a Democracy, a Republic preserves the integrity of the affairs or rights of RESPONSIBLE citizenry having nexus to government.  It does this through responsibly separating the powers of government into branches, through balancing those powers to prevent any branches from subsuming the authority of other branches, and through limiting suffrage to responsible citizens. 



The 1928 Army Training Manual on Citizenship, TM 2000-25 elaborates on page 88:

The "blessings" which the citizen enjoys under our form of gov­ernment are secured through "liberty under law," the enforcement of which is their only safeguard.



The purpose of our Government is to protect (not to provide) the property of its citizens; to guard his person (not to provide his sub­sistence) while he acquires the means of livelihood; to give every citizen equal opportunity in his chosen work and assure him of equal standing before the law.



Our Government is the most nearly perfect of all in securing indi­vidual rights and insuring the blessings of liberty. In no other nation is equal opportunity and equal protection assured, with such equal division of reward for labor and services rendered.



117. The American philosophy of government.-The Ameri­can philosophy of government emphasizes that-



(1) Individual rights are sacred and it is necessary to establish a government in the protection of these rights.



(2) All the powers of government are derived from the people, who retain the supreme authority over all delegated powers of  government.



(3) Individual rights are not permitted to be exercised in the contravention of the rights of society. Individual liberty is always bounded by social obligations.



(4) Government is exercised for the purpose of protecting the individual in his rights.



(5) Governmental powers are delegated to the National, State, or local authority, and are limited in their exercise by provisions of the constitution as interpreted and defined by the Supreme Court.



(6) All rights not thus delegated are recognized as the inviolable right of the individual citizen and can not be usurped by any governmental power.



(7) The Government of the United States is not a democracy but a Republic.

The training manual goes on to compare the Democracy to the Republic:

Democracy:

• A government of the masses.
• Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression.
• Results in mobocracy.
• Attitude toward property is communistic - negating property rights,
• Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, preju­dice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
• Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy. 

Republic:

• Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.
• Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure.
• Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.
• A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.
• Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy.
• Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.
• Is the " standard form " of government throughout the world.

Clearly, the USA and the Several States are REPUBLICS, not democracies.


To WHOM, then, does the CUSA refer with its numerous guarantees of rights to "the people?"



Axiomatically, the term "the people" in the US Constitution means RESPONSIBLE people who have a nexus to government.  In the early days of our nation, only free white propertied men 21+ years of age could vote or hold public office.  That restriction reasonably guaranteed responsible electors and government officers.


Since those early days, Democrats and other socialists have nearly destroyed the American republic by empowering  ever more irresponsible people with undeserved and unwarranted suffrage under the myth that all men (and now women and children, welfare recipients, indigents, the abysmally stupid, and the utterly irresponsible) are created and stay equal, which, of course, they are not and do not.


Around a year ago I explained in some detail precisely why governments gutted petite and grand jury powers and destroyed the right of private prosecution of crimes.  Read all about it here:


https://bobhurt.blogspot.com/2016/07/why-government-destroyed-jury-powers.html


In summary thereof, I offer the following:


Prior to the Civil War, state constitutions like Florida's 1838 Constitution acknowledged the power of the Grand Jury to  investigate all felonies and prevent wrongful prosecutions by government or private prosecutors, and the power of the Petite Jury to judge both law and fact of the case at issue.

At the end of the Civil War, the Caucasian men running governments of the US and several States apparently felt appalled at the notion that Legislatures had handed suffrage to ignorant, feckless Negroes, Mexicans, and non-tribal Amerindians.  They knew that Negroes registered to vote could populate juries and prosecute crimes.  So, they decided to strip powers away from associated quasi-government activities - petite and grand juries, and criminal prosecutions. 



They reasoned that Americans could not trust Negroes to perform their jury/prosecution functions without using those functions as a platform to express hatred for Caucasians generally and against former overlords in particular.  In other words, they believed no Negro jurors would indict or convict a fellow Negro and they would wrongfully convict people just for being Caucasian.  And we now have proof of the soundness of their concern -  the mixed-race jury refused to convict Negro O.J. Simpson, so he runs free to gloat over having gotten away with stabbing to death his Caucasian ex-wife Nicole Simpson and her Caucasian boyfriend Ron Goldman.


Since the civil war era's 15th Amendment guaranteeing that governments cannot deny suffrage on the basis of race, matters have worsened.  The 19th Amendment prohibited denial of suffrage 0n the basis of sex (gender), so now WOMEN can vote and sit on juries.  The 26th Amendment gave suffrage to CHILDREN age 18+. Most in those categories have little if any nexus to government or have more than a vague idea of what the Constitution provides or means.  And everyone of any sense knows that a child's brain has not fully developed till age 25, so it is plain crazy to let people under 25 enjoy full suffrage.


THAT, Mark Adams, explains the sorry state of our government.  Legislatures have foolishly handed suffrage to irresponsible people, so NATURALLY we have panderers and irresponsibles running government.  And, NATURALLY nobody of good sense will trust irresponsible electors to wield unfettered jury and prosecution powers.


Through the murk of unwarranted suffrage sabotaging the American republics, it becomes clear...  Somehow America's educators and parents have failed to imbue the people with an acute awareness that liberty comes ONLY at the cost of commensurate responsibility.



The solution, in order to restore jury powers and right of private prosecution, lies in first restoring sanity to our system of suffrage by eliminating irresponsibles from the electorate and the government by Constitutional amendment.  The Amendment should require a minimum IQ and education, a high passing score on a comprehensive constitution competency test, financial self-sufficiency, and a history of demonstrable respect for law and the rights of others as prerequisites for swearing an oath to support the Constitution.  Since one must swear that oath to register to vote or take government employment, those demonstrations of responsibility above will become a standard prerequisite for all who would enter the electorate or government service.



Meanwhile, please stop referring to our governments as democracies, lest you cause people like me to suffer a malevolent gas attack.

--

⚓ Bob Hurt 👓 Blog 1 2   f   t  ✉ Email     📞 (727) 669-5511 ☕ 2460 Persian Drive #70 ✈ Clearwater, FL 33763 USA ＄ Donate  to Law Scholarship ✔  Subscribe to Lawmen E-Letter 🔨 Learn How to Win in Court ⚡ Mortgage Attack to Beat the Bank

On 2017-07-22 11:21, Deb Caso wrote:

-->

Hi,
Thought you might like this article Mark wrote.


I liked the site he wrote to here also. Some great comments to read also.
If you have time , take a look!


God bless America.

Deb

---

From: Mark Adams <markadamsjdmba@hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 11:26 AM
To: Judicial Reform
Subject: Why is injustice rampant in our democracy?

If you want to know which of our Constitutional rights were stolen in order to convert our democratic republic to an aristocracy masquerading as a democracy, see https://www.opednews.com/articles/Why-is-injustice-rampant-i-by-Mark-Adams-JD-MBA-Aristocracy_Citizens_Democracy_Democracy-170720-8.html

Article: Why is injustice rampant in our democracy? www.opednews.com Could the rights which were designed to establish democratic control over our government and ensure liberty and justice have been stolen? If you wonder, take a quick look and find out?

Mark A. Adams JD/MBA

Debunking Rod Class flimflam regarding his 2nd Amendment Rights

I do not know who authored the comments below, but the author seems to want to cast Rod Class as a delusional fool and criminal instead of as the freedom-fighting hero and law expert whom Rod Class sees smiling back at him in his bathroom mirror.  I cannot argue with the assessment, but I consider it exceedingly disingenuous and cowardly to write such an anonymous and carping criticism.  Nevertheless, I appreciate the work that the author put into making his point that only a fool will pay any attention to legal theories coming from Rod Class. 

Beyond doubt, Rod Class has demonstrated incompetence at managing some of his personal legal affairs.  It seems axiomatic to conclude that the patriots who heed the legal theories of Rod Class do so at their peril.

Bob Hurt

-------- Forwarded Message --------

Subject:	Rod Class
Date:	Thu, 27 Jul 2017 12:44:12 -0500
From:	Larry Becraft
To:	Bob Hurt

I was asked to send this to you:

ROD CLASS (THE KING OF HOAXES WHO HAS LOST 73 CASES IN A ROW) NOW FRAUDULENTLY TAKES CREDIT FOR THE SUCCESS OF HIS ATTORNEYS IN GETTING THE SUPREME COURT TO CONSIDER A NEW LEGAL QUESTION THAT CLASS NEVER KNEW ABOUT AND NEVER RAISED ANYWHERE AT ANYTIME. http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=48361&cmd=tc (See Episode 1004, Dated 05-26-2017).

 

BACKGROUND: Class was charged with "CARRYING" "DANGEROUS WEAPONS" in his vehicle onto "UNITED STATES CAPITOL GROUNDS", a FELONY. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2757756755752158953&q=%22which+will+or%22+%22defining+a+firearm%22+%22capitol+buildings%22+%22on+the+grounds%22+%22expel+a+projectile+by+the+action+of+an+explosive%22+%22is+designed+to%22++%22any+weapon%22+%22%5Bor%5D+a+dangerous+weapon%22+%22may+not+carry%22+%22carry%5Bing%5D%22+&hl=en&as_sdt=40003 (SEE BOTH SECTIONS OF HIGHLIGHTED TEXT).

 

Class entered into a plea deal whereby he would plead GUILTY to the FELONY charge against him in exchange for the prosecutor recommending a light sentence to the judge. As part of the plea deal, CLASS WAIVED ("GAVE UP") HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL, first in the plea agreement itself and again in open court. Thereafter, Class realized that his GUILTY plea to a FELONY (in the plea deal) would make him ineligible for his conceal and carry permit from the State Of North Carolina (which does not allow CONVICTED FELONS to have such permits). So, Class VIOLATED the terms of his own plea agreement (in which he WAIVED his right to appeal) AND FILED AN APPEAL OF HIS CASE ANYWAY.

 

In his appeal, Class raised a number of amateur legal theories. Class also MISTAKENLY claimed that the statute that he was convicted of violating HAD ALREADY BEEN DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL and he MISTAKENLY claimed that under the "full faith and credit" clause, he was authorized by his North Carolina conceal and carry permit him to "CARRY" handguns/firearms into Washington, D.C. AND onto United States Capitol grounds (which behavior, unknown to Class, ACTUALLY VIOLATED the terms his conceal and carry permit from that state). BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, CLASS NEVER KNEW TO RAISE (AND DID NOT RAISE) THE ISSUE OF WHETHER HE COULD FILE AN APPEAL OF HIS CASE IN THE FIRST PLACE (a right that he had TWICE unconditionally WAIVED, first in his plea deal and again in open court).

 

The Court Of Appeals received Class' amateur appellate brief and the entire court file from the trial court below (which contained Class' PSYCHIATRIC records). Both PROVED that Class was ILLITERATE, UNEDUCATED and MENTALLY ILL. So, as the trial court had done below, the Court Of Appeals also hired, AT THE GOVERNMENT'S EXPENSE, a law firm for Class and ordered it, in writing, to "act on Class' behalf". Because Class wanted to represent himself on appeal, the Court of Appeals "humored" Class by calling the law firm that it hired to represent Class an "amicus curiae" ("friend of court"). But, the reality is that this law firm was under written court orders to represent Class as his law firm on appeal, regardless of the terminology used. Class' law firm DID NOT TAKE CLASS'' CASE "FREE" AS A MATTER OF "PRINCIPLE". IT TOOK CLASS' CASE FOR THE MONEY! And, lucky for Class.

 

Class' law firm immediately realized that Class had MISTAKENLY FAILED to raise the "THRESHOLD QUESTION" of WHETHER HE COULD EVEN FILE AN APPEAL OF HIS CASE IN THE FIRST PLACE (after TWICE waiving that right, in the plea agreement and again in open court). Without addressing and disposing of this legal issue, THERE WOULD BE NO APPEAL. But, Class did not know this. So, Class' law firm "COVERED" FOR HIS' MISTAKE by raising this omitted legal issue for him (thereby saving the entire appeal). Unfortunately, the Court Of Appeals held that Class HAD WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL.

 

In response to this adverse ruling, Class' law firm filed an appeal to the Supreme Court. CLASS WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM (AND WILL NEVER BE SO INVOLVED). The SOLE QUESTION in this new appeal before the Supreme Court is WHETHER A PERSON (ANY PERSON) CAN FILE AN APPEAL challenging the constitutionality of a statute WHICH THEY HAVE ALREADY PLED GUILTY TO VIOLATING. THIS IS THE ONE AND ONLY ISSUE ON APPEAL. See SECOND PAGE, MARKED PAGE "i", BOTTOM PARAGRAPH. http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/16-424-brief-of-petitioner.pdf . THIS ISSUE IS A NEW LEGAL ARGUMENT THAT CLASS NEVER KNEW TO RAISE (AND DID NOT RAISE) ANYWHERE AT ANY TIME. Class' amateur legal theories ARE NOT NOW (AND WILL NEVER BE) BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT TO CONSIDER. ONLY REAL LAW CONCEIVED AND PRESENTED BY CLASS' LAW FIRM (NOT ROD CLASS) WITH BE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT TO CONSIDER.

 

THE HOAX: Class FRAUDULENTLY CLAIMS that the Court Of Appeals hired his law firm to represent him because his amateur "paperwork" WAS SO GOOD. Class also FRAUDULENTLY CLAIMS that his law firm and other interested parties who joined in the current appeal did so to "BACK UP' his amateur "paperwork". But, none of this so.

 

THE TRUTH: The Court Of Appeals hired Class' law firm to represent him because his amateur "paperwork" WAS SO BAD! Further, the Court Of Appeals HAD PROOF in its own files that Class was FUNCTIONALLY-ILLITERATE, UNEDUCATED AND MENTALLY ILL. FACT: COURTS DO NOT PROVIDE ATTORNEYS TO LITIGANTS WHO ARE CAPABLE OF REPRESENTING THEMSELVES. COURTS ONLY PROVIDE ATTORNEYS TO LITIGANTS WHO ARE INCAPABLE OF REPRESENTING THEMSELVES (as was the case here). Further, the other interested parties who joined in the current appeal DO NOT "BACK UP" Class' amateur "paperwork" either! Instead, they ONLY "BACK UP" CLASS' LAW FIRM IN ITS ENTIRELY SEPARATE LEGAL ARGUMENT WHICH CLASS NEVER KNEW ABOUT AND WHICH CLASS NEVER RAISED ANYWHERE AT ANYTIME.

 

WHAT THOSE INVOLVED DO NOT YET KNOW:

 

1. Class WAS ACTUALLY ON PROBATION at the time of his ARREST in this case for a previous North Carolina CRIMINAL CONVICTION (which PROBATION was conditioned upon Class NOT POSSESSING ANY "WEAPONS" OF ANY KIND for a year AND "NOT COMMITTING AN OFFENSE IN ANY JURISDICTION" for a year). Lincoln Cty [North Carolina] Gen. Ct. Of Justice, Dist. Ct. Div. Case No. 13CR050407. Thus, Class WAS IN ILLEGAL POSSESSION of "WEAPONS" at the time of his ARREST in this case (not even considering his additional violation of FEDERAL laws). SO, CLASS WAS NOT A "LAW ABIDING CITIZEN" AT THE TIME OF HIS ARREST, as he fraudulently contends.

 

2. Class SHOULD NOT HAVE HAD a conceal and carry permit from the state of North Carolina in the first place. This is because Class was ALREADY A CONVICTED FELON before applying for such a permit from that state (and that state DOES NOT issue such permits to CONVICTED FELONS). N.C.G.S. 14_415.12(b)(3). http://ncleg.net/gascripts/statutes/statutelookup.pl?statute=14-415.12 . Specifically, in 2001, Class was CONVICTED in Ohio of the FELONY POSSESSION (in his car) a fully-loaded, ILLEGALLY-SAWED-OFF Springfield shotgun. Ct. of Common Pleas, Tuscarawas Cty, Ohio, Case No. 2001 CR 12 0298. Ironically, Class WAS ALSO ON PROBATION at the time of that FELONY ARREST for a previous Ohio gun-related CRIME (which constituted another PROBATION VIOLATION). Canton [Ohio] Mun. Ct., Case No. 1999CRB05550). Further, Class DID NOT fit any exception to the statute and WAS NOT eligible for the "restoration" of his firearm rights (so as to be issued such a permit from that state). N.C.G.S. 14_415.4 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (j). http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-415.4.html . Thus, Class apparently obtained his conceal and carry permit from North Carolina by FRAUD and therefore should not have had such a permit in the first place. None of the foregoing facts (in paragraphs 1 and 2) have yet been disclosed to any court involved in this case.

 

3. Unknown to Class, IT WAS ALSO ILLEGAL for him to have "CARRIED" handguns or firearms onto United States Capitol grounds UNDER HIS OWN CONCEAL AND CARRY PERMIT FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA. Unknown to Class, his permit from that state EXPRESSLY FORBADE CLASS FROM POSSESSING OR CARRYING HANDGUNS OR FIREARMS ON ANY FEDERAL PROPERTY WHERE SUCH WEAPONS ARE NOT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW. N.C.G.S. 14_415.11(C)(4). http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-415.11.html . And see here, at page 21, numbers 4. http://www.ncdoj.gov/getdoc/32344299-a2a7-4ae5-99fd-9018262f64ac/NC-Firearms-gun-Laws.aspx . So, contrary to Class' understanding, his having a North Carolina "conceal and carry" permit DID NOT constitute a "defense" to the federal charges against him in this case (under the "full faith and credit clause" or otherwise).

 

4. Even if Class had a "second amendment" defense to "CARRYING" three loaded handguns and one fully loaded rifle onto United States Capitol grounds, Class HAD NO "SECOND AMENDMENT DEFENSE" to "CARRYING" THE OTHER "DANGEROUS WEAPONS" onto United States Capitol grounds WHICH WERE ALSO PROHIBITED BY THE SAME FEDERAL STATUTE (one machete, fourteen knives and daggers, one illegal switch blade, three axes, etc.).

 

5. It is true that Class may not have realized that he had driven and parked his vehicle (loaded with "DANGEROUS WEAPONS") on United States Capitol grounds. Thus, Class may not have had "mens rea" (knowledge of wrongdoing) in connection with his driving and parking his vehicle (loaded with "DANGEROUS WEAPONS") on United States Capitol grounds. But, Class DID HAVE "MENS REA" ABOUT BEING ON PROBATION AT THE TIME AND THAT HIS PROBATION MADE HIS POSSESSION OF ANY "WEAPON" AT THE TIME ILLEGAL. Further, Class also HAD "MENS REA" ABOUT HIS FRAUD UPON THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A CONCEAL AND CARRY PERMIT FOR WHICH HE WAS NOT LEGALLY ELIGIBLE, itself an additional CRIME. N.C.G.S. 14_415.4(l) (this is an "L"). http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-415.4.html