The U.S. Constitution is the anchor of American government. The great freedoms, rights and protection afforded us in that magnificent document are believed to be sacred and inspired by most Americans. There will always be a threat to such a document by would-be tyrannical leaders. That threat can be overt and we can plainly see it happen or it can be a subtle threat which comes a day at a time. It is always the subtle threat that should concern us most. That will come through gradual special interest, special privilege and special distinctions of class that will challenge the very meaning of the constitution. Our two most cherished privileges, Equal protection of the laws and due process are constantly being re-defined by the ruling class of lawyers comprising the American judicial system from the lowest court to the highest court in the land.

When we examine the American Judicial system closely, we clearly see the evolution of a dominant special privileged class, taking away due process along the way. This privileged class dominates our entire justice system today with their own rules, laws and disciplines even if those rules contradict the due process clause of the U.S. constitution. This dominant culture has laid the unequal and heavy hand of oppression upon the citizenry of this nation. We are faced with a real conflict between the contemporary lawyer meaning of "equity and justice" and the intent of "due process" under the U.S. constitution.

It would probably be safe to say that not a day passes in this nation without scores of lawyer-judges making a ruling "case law" (the judges opinion based upon a prior judges opinion) which is in total conflict with the Bill of rights of the U.S. constitution. Many of those case law rulings will conflict with the USC XIV amendment. Any complaint of this nature, even on appeal will be dismissed with the time worn legal phrase of "judicial discretion". The constitution becomes more deeply buried each year under the landslide of thousands of these "case law" rulings in the state and federal district courts by lawyer-judges. It would be an economic and time impossibility for thousands of these rulings to ever reach the U.S. Supreme Court to be tested upon the grounds of constitutionality. Only a fraction of cases involving the issue of civil rights violations could ever reach the U.S. Supreme Court for a test. Even when the issues reach that tribunal who is judging the issues? You guessed it, nine more lawyers with robes!

Since we do not live under a system of codified law, we then live under a system of modified law. Any system of law which permits thousands of lawyer-judges to make rulings which become "case law" is ultimately going to reach the point of no return in the justice system. Today our justice system has become a maze of "case law" rulings, many of which are totally out of harmony with the U.S. Constitution. Many court rules on the face could be considered unconstitutional. Lets take an example. I once filed an appeal pro se (self representation) with a state appellate court. The judicial system by it's very design is a denial of access to pro se litigants. If the system cannot badger you into paying a ransom to a lawyer to represent you for access to the system, then the harassment begins. In this specific case, I was immediately notified in writing that I would be held to the same standards as "a practicing attorney". That rule is designed to deny individual access to the system without a lawyer. Pursue that rule out to an end result and you will quickly discover the whole premise is totally unconstitutional! Just one more example. The jury system which has been the cornerstone of our entire legal system for decades is endangered by the volume of rules and instructions that actually are designed to shape a jury verdict.

It could be argued and rightly so that thousands of case law rulings by lawyer-judges is a direct assault on the constitution. The language under the constitution is very clear. Under the constitution, only the federal and state lawmaking bodies will pass the laws under which citizens are governed. Yet, lawyer-judges will take those laws and change and fashion them to their own interpretation, thus creating a new law by the judiciary. Is this unconstitutional? In addition the judiciary have set their own rules of law to govern the legal system and all who pass through the system. Many of those rules enhance the concept of a "closed lawyer system" making business for itself. A case in point? The state of New Mexico leads the nation in DWI fatalities and related crimes. In Albuquerque, New Mexico on Christmas eve, 1992, the lives of a young mother and her three daughters were terminated by an alleged DWI driving in the wrong lane on a freeway. An immediate outcry focused upon the legislature to pass new and stiffer laws. What was the trial lawyers response? The legislature should stay out of the picture, the trial lawyers association said. Why? Simply because the legislature might pass laws requiring mandatory sanctions and penalties. If this happened, hundreds of lawyers would experience a diminished income if they could no longer go into the courts, represent these DWI's and get them back out on the street so their next victim could be targeted! Is this a system of equal protection of laws under the U.S. constitution?

The framers of the constitution did not envision our judicial system becoming based upon thousands of volumes of case law rulings by lawyer-judges, nor did they envision the system becoming the base of a dominant lawyer culture in America. In fact early American colonists did not want lawyers in their system of government. Their vision of a lawyer-less system is obvious! There is not one mention of "lawyer" in the U.S. Constitution. The constitution gives no requirement for someone to be a "lawyer" to be a judge. There is no requirement for someone to be a "lawyer" to be the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme court. There is no mention of "lawyer" needed to represent someone in court. The only mention is a right to "counsel", which could be your brother, sister, aunt, uncle or anyone else. So what happened? The lawyer dominated justice system has redefined that sentence in the constitution and have determined that the word counsel is indeed "lawyer". There is no mention that if someone acts as counsel and is not a "lawyer" that other lawyers can prosecute that individual for practicing law without a license. Listen to a lawyer judge attempt to redefine the word "counsel" and they will take you all the way back to the twelfth century in England to make that redefinition.

It is obvious that case law rulings by lawyer-judges have taken us away from the basic constitutional concept. It is equally obvious that lawyers have taken us a long way from the intent of that great legal document designed to protect the people. Indeed were it not for those of us who focus upon the constitution and the rights and freedoms afforded in that document, even in the courts, we could become totally enslaved to the mass of faulty case law developed by the dominant lawyer culture in the land.

As we review our constitution, let us keep in mind the very reason for its existence. The constitution is a "people charter", designed by the people and for the protection of the people from the Government. It is also obvious the main thrust and intent of the constitution was to protect the people from any dominant ruling class, including the heavy hand of any government body.

While the constitution drafted in Philadelphia in 1787 was to guide the nation, the bill of rights or amendments (the first ten) to that constitution added in 1791 are vitally important to each citizen in these United States. Other amendments added after the original ten happened over a period of one hundred eighty years, with the twenty sixth amendment being added in July, 1971.

Many of the articles and amendments of the constitution have to do with structure, rules and administration of the federal government and its relationship with the states. We will review here only those amendments known as the bill of rights having such importance in the lives of citizens in their relationship with government. All amendments and wording of the constitution is important and any seeming illusion to diminished importance by omission is strictly unintentional.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

COMMENTARY: The American Judicial system has become a closed membership club of lawyers and lawyer-judges. Free speech is suppressed by the rules set by the lawyer-based system. Many pro-se litigants speaking out on their own behalf have been ordered by a lawyer-judge not to appear again in "their" court. Publishers, writers and paralegals continue to be politically persecuted under the guise of judicial prosecution for their free speech in informing consumers on procedures in legal matters. State Attorneys General zero in on left-handed charges of "deceptive trade practices" avoiding a direct collision with 1st amendment rights. Litigants on a witness stand in any given court on any given day can be and are questioned by lawyers where the question clearly requires an explanatory answer. As the explanatory answer is about to be given, the lawyer will ask the lawyer-judge to order the witness to just answer the question yes or no. Nine out of ten times the lawyer-judge will order the witness to simply answer yes or no! This is clearly unconstitutional suppression of free speech in favor of a court rule. It is obvious also that a yes or no answer will often result in the redesign or redefinition of truth which is exactly what the lawyer intended.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

COMMENTARY: Watch for this one to be eventually redefined by the government and judiciary until only felons and other criminals have the right to keep and bear arms. Incidentally, Webster's dictionary defines the word "bear" as "to carry". Why are we now fighting in the states for concealed weapons laws when in fact it is our right under the U.S. Constitution?

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

COMMENTARY: The "discovery" process carried on by the lawyers in the judicial system is a mockery to this right of the people. In the discovery process no person is secure in their papers, effects or information when the unreasonable search and seizure process is begun by lawyers and winked at by the lawyer-judges. Even more obscene is the fact that many lawyers use this coveted time consuming "discovery process" as a vehicle to gain more fees from their clients.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property to taken for public use without just compensation.

COMMENTARY: Not a day passes in this nation that some unsuspecting litigant in the judicial system is deprived of liberty or property without due process of law. Some have even been deprived of life by some ambitious lawyer prosecutor. The federal forfeiture law violates the last sentence of this article as scores of innocent victims have stood helplessly by as their property is confiscated by government. Court records will show that people are tried in the courts without a presentment of an indictment. The double jeopardy clause has been so redefined by lawyer rules that it is a big joke! No greater violation of the double jeopardy clause exists than may be found in the American judicial system of laws and rules. In the American judicial system, one may be tried and found not guilty in a criminal trial for murder and the lawyers will take that same defendant pronounced "not guilty" and move him into a civil trial in a wrongful death lawsuit for money. A bastion of lawyers can redefine this scenario in a thousand ways until the millennium but it is still double jeopardy!

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.

COMMENTARY: Here we find that the accused shall have the right to assistance of "counsel". Where does this article say that counsel has to be a lawyer licensed by the state bar? Try to act as counsel for anyone in a court of law today and see how quickly you will be prosecuted by the lawyer dominated prosecutorial branches for unauthorized practice of law without a license! Compare rights afforded under this article with the lawyer rules today and there will appear to be translation in two separate languages.

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

COMMENTARY: The rights afforded under this Article are fast becoming a joke in the Judicial system. The article states the right of trial by jury shall be preserved! It does not say that any court rule can terminate your right to a jury. There are however many court rules that can terminate your right to a jury, not the least of which is the fee set by the court if not paid. Juries are being overturned even by the presiding judge as if members of a jury were just along for the ride. Juries are the backbone of the judicial system but the lawyer-judges are causing them to fast become an endangered species.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

COMMENTARY: Cruel and unusual punishments are relative! What is cruel and unusual punishment to one may not be to another. Many judges pass out sanctions in their courts like handing out all day suckers. Many of these sanctions easily qualify as cruel and unusual punishment. The federal drug forfeiture law represents excessive fines for many who are victimized by this law. You simply can be at the wrong place at the wrong time with no connection or knowledge at all concerning a drug raid and easily lose your automobile or even your home.

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

COMMENTARY: This Article has little meaning to a lawyer-judge applying case law rulings. Try to raise the issue of other rights not enumerated in the Constitution in the presence of a lawyer-judge and you will be immediately lectured with a judicial condescending pitch.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

COMMENTARY: Try to use this article in a court of law and tell the lawyer-judge about some of your rights reserved under this article and his answer will cause you to believe you are not reading from the same document.

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

COMMENTARY: The judicial system with its dominant lawyer culture has all the earmarks of involuntary servitude. Try to gain access to the system except through the payment of a ransom to a lawyer regardless of whether you can afford one and you will quickly gain the meaning of involuntary servitude.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

COMMENTARY: In the judicial system there is a rule called "attorney privilege". There is no rule called "litigant privilege". The very existence of privilege for one and not the other suggests the abridgement of privilege. When ones' privileges under the law have been abridged, this suggests a lack of due process of the law and denial of equal protection of the law. If a lawyer can come into court offering lies and deceit and is covered by a rule called "attorney privilege" and a litigant is punished under the laws of perjury for the very same thing, then this is denial of equal protection of the laws and a lack of due process. When an individual attempts to gain access to the equity and justice system without a lawyer and the system holds that individual to the same standards as a licensed, trained, practicing lawyer this is clearly not equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according the their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. 

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United Stats, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Section 2. The congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Lawyers are "word merchants" and your argument of a violation of civil rights under the constitution will quickly bring a response that the black you believe you see is really a shade of gray.

There is little argument that the U.S. supreme court is the ultimate guardian of the constitution and is the official interpreter of that important document. While we all live under the U.S. Constitution, ultimately the constitution is what the supreme court says that it is! Unlike the executive and congressional branches of government, the Supreme Court does not have to be subject to political pressures of society. The nine justices that comprise the Supreme court do not run for office, they are appointed. Even though the constitution does not lay down a qualification that a member of the Supreme Court has to be a lawyer, all members of that body are lawyers and has been so controlled for decades.

Politically, the justices have each been labeled liberal, conservative or moderate in their decisions. These labels come from society. Special interest groups, activists, the public media and the political parties will take each justice and develop a label based upon his or her political leanings or rulings.

Since the U.S. Constitution is what the supreme court says it is, it becomes important to know the direction a candidate for the Supreme Court has taken on social issues of the day. Obviously since all are lawyers, and most have been judges, there is a public record which will largely divulge the candidate's stand toward certain social issues touching upon our freedoms and rights under the constitution.

Even more important are two other considerations. First and foremost man is a political animal and he most definitely will have his own political leanings. Those political leanings can translate into a decision that is sometime political rather than logical and legally analytical. There is wisdom however in staffing the U.S. Supreme Court by appointment. There is really no economic or political pressure on any individual in that body to vote one way or the other. Their job and status is not in jeopardy! This is the vast difference between the U.S. Supreme Court and the lower echelons of the American Judicial system where so much politics abound. The second important consideration is the dominance of this highest court in the land with all lawyers. There is a strong argument against lawyer dominance in any area of our society and certainly in the highest echelons of government. We can now see that danger in the halls of the U.S. Congress where lawyer dominance runs as high as 65% in the U.S. Senate. It is highly probable that Congress could triple their efficiency and productivity without all the lawyers whose chief forte is wordy, time manipulation. This type of mindset is easily translated into thousands of new, unneeded, burdensome laws. Ultimately the most important law for American citizens is embedded in the U.S. Constitution. The Judicial system has all but buried that important document with volumes of "case law" rulings which has in theory if not in fact become the law of the land. All legal reform efforts must begin with the constitution as the guide.

________________________________

YOU CAN DO IT YOURSELF WITHOUT A LAWYER
WITH THESE FOUR VOLUMES-SAVE LAWYER FEES!
______________________

Tells you how with Sample court Pleadings! File your own bankruptcy-divorce-name change and more! File your own complaint-claims! File your own motions & answer complaints! File your own appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court! Know what to do next when you lose in any court. It is your Constitutional right in court to represent yourself - save thousands of dollars in legal fees and costs. How to sue your adversary then settle before going to court!

THESE THREE VOLUMES ON CD IS ALL YOU NEED TO REPRESENT YOURSELF IN COURT WITHOUT A LAWYER!
$79.95
SAVE $25.00 NOW ON CD
FREE BONUS LIMITED OFFER
51 GREAT LEGAL SECRET REPORTS $29.95 VALUE

ORDER HERE

VISIT THE SELF HELP LAW PRODUCT & SERVICE CENTER