ABUSE OF DISCRETION--INVISIBLE TREASON
by Kirk Brothers
CLICK HERE to return to Index
INTRODUCTION
Because the word "treason" has more than one meaning, we
must first define the term as we shall use it here.
The Constitution, in Article III, #3, defines treason
narrowly and specifically as levying war against the political
entity of the United States, by adhering to an enemy nation in
time of war so as to give them aid and comfort. The only man to
be tried for such treason was Aaron Burr--who was acquitted.
But "treason" as commonly used is defined by Webster's Dic-
tionary as "betrayal of a trust". It is synonymous with
treachery, or faithlessness. This excerpt will prove that, by
common usage of the terms, our Courts betray the trust of the
American people--and with malicious intent--and therefore are
"traitors" in the sense related to our use of "treason".
THE TRUST WHICH IS BETRAYED
Each and every law graduate, upon being admitted to the bar
of any Court, takes a solemn oath to uphold and defend the
Constitution of the United States.
Each and every Judge, upon being sworn into office, repeats
the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United
States.
Furthermore, each and every Federal employee, regardless of
job or professional level, takes the same oath--to uphold and
defend the Constitution of the United States.
Thus every Congressman, U.S. Attorney and Federal Judge has
repeatedly sworn to place the Constitution above all other
interests.
Americans have been led to believe that ritual oath is bind-
ing, and taken in good faith. But one of the best-kept secrets
in America is that clearly-written and long-established rights
implicit in the Constitution are routinely subverted to the inte-
rest of "political correctness". This we will prove--by the
standard of probable cause--by Court documents which have been
deliberately suppressed to conceal the facts in a test case on
Social Security.
CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE
The Memorandum of Law which we presented in our prior
Article is in fact a consolidation of Memoranda in the case of
RICHTER V UNITED STATES, which was tried by Judge Ralph W.
Nimmons, Jr. in Tampa District Court (Docket 94-725-CIV-T) and
subsequently re-heard by Judges Kravitch, Cox and Dubina in
Atlanta Circuit Court (Docket #95-2653).
The plaintiff--and subsequent appellant pro se in this
action--was a Libertarian who spent more than ten years on a
one-man crusade against "the system", and who gave his complete
file of Court documents and personal notes to us, in the hope
that they might be used to carry on his fight in the event of his
death.
If you found the task of rebutting his argument as
impossible as climbing Mount Everest on a pogo stick, you might
take solace in the fact that none of the U.S. Attorneys assigned
to the case, nor the Judges who read his papers, could find any
loopholes, either.
So they simply suppressed it.
Here now is the essence of the Government's one and only
relevant paper from the District Court proceedings. Plaintiff
had filed a Complaint including 16 pages of argument we have
already quoted and, when Defendant failed to respond in 21 days,
filed a motion for summary judgment, to force the issue to a
head.
THE GOVERNMENT'S DEFENSE
"Comes now the United States of America, by and through
counsel...[and] files its opposition to plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment. In addition, the United States requests the
Court to grant summary judgment in its favor...The grounds for
this request are set forth fully below. For the convenience of
the Court, a proposed order has been supplied."
(COMMENT: How convenient! The defense attorney will write
the judgment--all the Judge need do is sign it!)
"In his complaint, plaintiff seeks a refund of 'coerced pay-
ment of self-employment Social Security tax'...Plaintiff states
that the funds at issue were collected by levy or paid under
threat of levy. Raising a typical tax protestor type of
argument, plaintiff contends that the social security tax is
unconstitutional, but does not specify the provision of the
Constitution that has been violated."
(COMMENT: Plaintiff, who did not go to law school, thought
the Fifth Amendment foundation was so obvious that it was
not necessary to specify it. Our consolidated version used
it in its proper sequence. By the way, in what manner is
his a "typical tax protestor type" of argument?)
"Initially, the United States notes that the documents
attached to the complaint support a finding that the United
States issued levies to collect unpaid form 1040 Federal income
tax liabilities. This fact notwithstanding, the United States
will address the assertion that the collection of Social Security
tax violates the Constitution."
(COMMENT: The U.S. Attorney suggested that because the tax
was collected along with income tax, the two taxes were one
and the same--disregarding CLARKE V COMMMISSIONER already
cited. This vague suggestion is immediately referred to
as "this fact". You didn't miss anything--there wasn't any-
thing to miss.)
"Social Security taxes are paid under the provisions of the
Federal Insurance Contributions Act...The Supreme Court has held
that the basic Social Security tax system is constitutional
[citations for STEWARD MACHINE CO. V DAVIS and HELVERING V DAVIS,
supra].
(COMMENT: So far, not a word about contract law, extortion,
and the meaning--or even existence--of UNITED STATES V
BUTLER)
"Moreover, the courts that have addressed specific constitu-
tional challenges to the Social Security tax have uniformly
upheld the tax. [Citations for U.S. V LEE and three minor
cases]... Accordingly, no issue of material fact exists and the
United States is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."
(COMMENT: The government's final citations included CELOTEX
CORP. V CATRETT and MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO. V
ZENITH RADIO CORP. We are not making this up to create the
impression the U.S. Attorney was incompetent. She was
merely clutching at straws.)
SUMMARY OF DEFENSE
The government's cross-motion for summary judgment ran two
and a half pages--about one page of which was devoted to headings
and signatures. Not one word was devoted to BUTLER V U.S. The
U.S. Attorney could find no answer, so filed a totally non-
responsive and irrelevant argument.
One might naively presume that such a one-sided case would
be no problem to any judge. In fact, it was no problem at all.
Several months later, Judge Nimmons ordered the Plaintiff to
show cause why his case should not be dismissed for lack of
prosecution under a local rule requiring the filing of a report
on a pretrial conference between attorneys for both sides (which
did not occur).
Plaintiff argued persuasively that the right to summary
judgement is a due process right created by Federal statute, and
may not be abridged by a local rule.
But the Judge's attempt to throw the case out on the
slightest pretext appeared to show prejudice, for which the Judge
should have reclused himself and had the case assigned to another
Judge. For a Judge to sit on a case in which he has a conflict
of interest is apparently an abuse of his discretionary powers.
Plaintiff therefore filed a motion with the Administrative
Judge seeking an order removing Judge Nimmons from the case on
grounds of abuse of discretion.
The Administrative Judge ignored plaintiff's motion.
Nearly a year after the complaint was filed, Judge Nimmons
issued his final order.
WHAT JUDGE NIMMONS RULED
"This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for
Summary Judgment...and the United States' Opposition and Cross
Motion for Summary Judgment...The Plaintiff has also filed for
Administrative Hearing on Question of Abuse of Discretion by
Trial Judge.
"In his Complaint...Plaintiff seeks a refund of 'coerced
payment of self-employment Social Security tax'...The Plaintiff
alleges that the social security tax is unconstitutional, but
does not specify the provision of the Constitution that has been
violated."
(COMMENT: Sound familiar? Did the Judge just land on Earth
from outer space, and has no knowledge of the Constitution
and the Fifth Amendment?)
"Social Security taxes are paid under provisions of the
Federal Insurance Contributions Act...The Supreme Court has held
that the basic Social Security tax system is constitutional [the
usual citations]. Moreover, the courts that have addressed
specific challenges to the Social Security tax have uniformly
upheld the tax.
"The basis of Plaintiff's argument is that Social Security
in toto is a coercive implied contract within the meaning of U.S.
V BUTLER and is thus unconstitutional...The Plaintiff concedes
that his position in 'overtly controversial' and 'bitterly
divisive'....The Plaintiff then proceeds to quote Justice
Brandeis in OLMSTEAD V UNITED STATES, Justice John Marshall in
MARBURY V MADISON, and Justice Robert Jackson in TERMINIELLO V
CHICAGO.
"The Court nevertheless finds that there is no legal basis
for the plaintiff's position and that he has failed to sustain
his burden on the United States' cross motion for summary
judgment."
THE CRISIS IN LEGAL ETHICS
Judge Nimmons' total disregard of Plaintiff's argument and
BUTLER--shown by his mentioning only three irrelevant quotations
of purely philosophical nature--is a widespread practice in
Courts. But if Judge Nimmons was not impressed by Supreme Court
writings on legal theory, you might find the quotations cited
above refreshing in their integrity. This is what Brandeis
wrote:
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to
protect liberty when the government's purposes are
beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to
repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The
greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachments
by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."
Marshall's words in a landmark case established the
principle of judicial review of legislative acts.
"The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and
that those powers may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the
Constitution is written. To what purpose are powers
limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to
writing, if these limits may, at any time, be surpassed by
those intended to be restrained? The distinction between
government of limited and unlimited power is abolished, if
these limits be not binding upon those on whom they are
imposed. It is a proposition too plain to be contested,
that the Constitution controls any legislative act repugnant
to it."
Jackson's comments on his Supreme Court colleagues was
terse:
"There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its
doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will
convert the constitutional bill of rights into a suicide
pact."
What is blatantly apparent from this case is that a
government lawyer can win a case without having a case at all--
when the power of the government is in question. There is, of
course, a charade of concern for Constituional rights, but only
when a plaintiff alleges that some NON-GOVERNMENTAL power is
being abused.
If, for example, a militant feminist wishes to "crash" an
all-male military academy where she is clearly unwelcome, she
will prevail, on the narrow grounds that such schools are
supported by public money. Courts do not consider the practical
reality that females are genetically inferior to males as combat
troops.
Obviously, in time of war, when as many men as possible must
be deployed in a fight to the death, womens' auxiliaries may
serve in non-combat capacities--and do essential support jobs
very well. But, to anyone with the brains of an angleworm, the
thought of an army of Amazons conquering an army of big, strong
men with no estrogen problems is ludicrous. But Judges will hear
such cases, listening gravely like wise owls--and give a fair
ruling (based on political correctness) for the one reason that
such a suit is no threat to the political power structure.
We were all taught that the Constitution separates the
powers of government into three branches which, presumably, are
to serve as watchdogs over each other. The legislative branch
enacts statutes which the executive branch enforces. The primary
purpose of the judicial branch is to guarantee to all Americans
that government STAYS WITHIN ITS LIMITS. The Constitution itself
compels only the Federal government to comply with the Constitu-
tion, but since the 14th Amendment was enacted, all states are
likewise compelled to protect the Federal rights of each and
every American.
Our great Chief Justice, John Marshall, in MCCULLOUGH V
MARYLAND (an 1819 landmark case) wrote for all judges to read,
"We must never forget that it is a CONSTITUTION we are
expounding." Where are our John Marshalls in today's mob of
political activists in black robes? The term "judicial ethics"
appears to have become a classic illustrative example of the
term, "oxymoron". The very Judges who were supposed to be
watchdogs have become lap-dogs.
Let us quickly list the violations of the Constitution which
were blatantly committed by Federal Judges in our test case.
First, Judge Nimmons' ruling was non-responsive to the ques-
tion asked. It was also arbitrary, and at least capricious--if
not frivolous--in its profession of ignorance as to what Consti-
tutional right was infringed.
Judge Nimmons' decision violated the rule of stare decisis,
which in brief means that Supreme Court rulings are binding upon
each and every other court in the United States, until such time
as the Supreme Court may reverse its prior ruling. Obviously,
only the Supreme Court may reverse the Supreme Court.
Judge Nimmons was apparently prejudiced, as seen in his
specifying that plaintiff's position was overtly controversial
and bitterly divisive--and his clumsy attempt to dismiss the case
on a non-existent pretext of lack of prosecution.
The fact that Judge Nimmons himself ruled on the question
addressed to the Administrative Judge concering Nimmons' alleged
abuse of judicial discretion is further evidence of lack of
impartiality--and the Administrative Judge was clearly a party to
it. Because these errors in judicial conduct were deliberate
rather than accidental, the evidence of abuse of discretion is
even more compelling.
Now, what Constitutional rights were infringed?
Obviously, the Court abridged plaintiff's Fifth Amendment
right to property, of which he may not by deprived by the crime
of official extortion.
In addition the Court denied plaintiff's statutory relief
under 26 U.S.C. 7422 to sue the United States for a tax refund,
and thereby his legal standing to ask a Court to answer a BUTLER
question.
Furthermore, the Court denied plaintiff's Common Law right
to consensual contracts, and the inviolable rule that a coercive
contract may not be upheld by any Court of Common Law.
The Court also willfully denied plaintiff's Common Law right
to an impartial Judge who gives a ruling which is responsive to
the legal question put before the Court--and the protection of
the rule of stare decisis.
But, most importantly, the Court denied these identical
rights to 266 million other Americans whose rights also on
trial--and were likewise summarily, callously and maliciously
denied. This is betrayal of trust on a colossal scale. But it
gets worse.
Plaintiff appealed to the Atlanta Circuit Court, rearguing
the material argued below, now including the obvious Fifth
Amendment matter, and the Government continued to "fudge" as it
had below.
WHAT THE APPEALS COURT SAID
"In this appeal, appellant...argues that the Social Security
tax system is unconstitutional....Because the Supreme Court in
HELVERING V DAVIS [usual citation] held that the Social Security
tax system was constitutional, [appellant's] claim is meritless.
We, therefore, affirm the district court's grant of summary judg-
ment in favor of the government."
On the top of the cover page is the notation: DO NOT
PUBLISH.
And that is all. Not a word about BUTLER, or the REAL
question put before the Courts.
HOW THE COVER-UP WAS DONE
Why was this judicial outrage never reported in the news?
Very simple. The mass media are always prejudiced against
cases brought by laymen who are forced by circumstances to act
without a lawyer. In addition, the legal question asked was
deliberately misstated by the Judges in their respective rulings.
In plain words, the Judges LIED--but their malicious brush-off
created the false impression that there was nothing of interest
in the papers.
Most pro se cases are without merit, and most pro se plain-
tiffs write abominable papers. In such cases, Judges are
justified in giving a very terse ruling, and legal reporters for
the news media generally trust Judges to be fair.
So if a pro se plaintiff tries to take his case to the
media, claiming gross abuse of discretion, who will believe him?
He lost a case and, because he had no lawyer, his argument is
discredited because he is assumed to be incompetent, and too
stupid to know it. His complaints of unfair treatment are
dismissed as "sour grapes". He lost his case, so of course he's
complaining!
The psychology of the situation and the experience of
newsmen with similar test cases--in which the plaintiff's
argument was truly without merit--blind the average legal
reporter to the fact that nothing ever written by any Judge was
carved in stone by the finger of God, and therefore is not open
to honest question.
Our great Libertarian writer, Thomas Paine, had to find a
free-thinking printer to publish his three classic political
pamphlets: COMMON SENSE, THE RIGHTS OF MAN, and THE AGE OF
REASON. In our case, no newspaper, news service, or TV network
was open-minded enough--or interested enough--or competent
enough--to see any news value in our attempts to publicize this
test case. In short, the truth was suppressed--until now.
We have made numerous references to Common Law rights and
rules, of which most American laymen are totally ignorant.
Because a general knowledge of a few basic historical facts and
legal principles is essential if one is to understand our next
Article, let us quickly review the most important ones here.
SOCIETY VERSUS GOVERNMENT
In COMMON SENSE, written in 1776, Thomas Paine in his intro-
duction states that a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong
gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and causes most
people to resist change. Time, he said, makes more converts than
reason. We of THE REVOLUTIONARY RIGHT feel that our time is run-
ning out, and if we Americans do not start using our intelligence
instead of emotions in deciding grave political and social ques-
tions, we will have no one to blame but ourselves for the
downfall of our nation.
On page 1 of COMMON SENSE, Paine writes to the effect that
most people are ignorant of the difference between society and
government, or too stupid to care--and persons who don't know, or
care, about these vital facts, will screw things up badly (this
is a free paraphrase).
Let's get the two concepts straight.
Society is essentially a very good thing. It's the sum
total of all voluntary associations by means of which individuals
work in a cooperative manner to achieve mutual benefits. The
process of working together is technically a "trans-action",
which implies a good-faith contract. Consensual contracts and
their counterparts, voluntary associations, are the basis of all
societies everywhere.
But every society includes some rotten apples who will
cheat, lie or injure (even kill) to achieve selfish ends. To
protect the honest members of society from the rotten apples,
government is necessary. Government in the final analysis is law
and order--police power. A thief must be forced to repay what
was stolen--a murderer must be forced to pay the penalty, whether
imprisonment or death. But when one tries to combine the
benevolent aims of society with the coercive and punitive power
of government, one creates a Frankenstein monster with a bizarre
life of its own.
ORIGINS OF LAW
As Paine observed, government either comes FROM the People,
or AT the People. Either sovereign power lies in the People, who
delegate some of their rights to government--as a trade-off for
the benefits of law and order--or sovereignty resides in govern-
ment, which might condescend to bestow a few privileges upon the
mob.
In some cultures, a Priesthood rules by a pretense of Divine
Authority--which Paine calls Government by Superstition. More
commonly, a Monarch of some kind holds power by a pretense of
Divine Right.
In many countries where a monarchial tradition survives,
laws were originally dictated by an all-powerful leader per force
of conquest. English law as we know it began with the reign of
William the Conqueror. In feudal times, the King's power was
often delegated to minor "nobles" in numerous domains, who
granted various rewards to their vassals in return for an oath of
allegiance. The "rights of the Lord" often included the
privilege of deflowering every virgin bride in his domain on her
wedding night, before she slept with her husband. So much for
the rights of the so-called nobility.
In 1215 King John of England, facing a threat of rebellion
by his nobles, signed the Magna Charta, liberalizing law
according to the concept of Natural Law--law based on needs which
are common to all humans. Common Law guarantees all our tradi-
tional rights of due process--the presumption of innocence, the
right to an unbiased Judge--the right to trial by jury, etc.
But the heart and soul of Common Law is the rule of stare
decisis (points decided), which provides as an inviolable
principle that, once a point of law has been decided by a Court
of Common Law, it is binding upon all subsequent Courts of Common
Law, provided that all facts in the later case(s) are identical
with the facts in the landmark (precedent-setting) case.
Stare decisis guarantees that justice will be uniform.
Obviously, if the same legal question may elicit different
answers from different Courts, there is no rule of law, but only
rule of men.
Common Law has been the law of England to this day, and,
because England has no written constitution, judicial rulings
under Common Law provide a tradition upon which England relies.
The rulings of Common Law were first compiled in definitive form
in 1765-69 by Sir William Blackstone in his classic Commentaries.
When English colonists migrated to the New World, they
brought Common Law with them. When King George suspended their
Common Law rights in retaliation for the Boston Tea Party and
other acts of rebellion, colonists responded with three legal
documents:
1) The Articles of Confederation, by which the 13 autonomous
colonies joined to form the United States of America;
2) The Declaration of Independence, proclaiming the freedom
of the United States from English rule;
3) The Virginia Enactment, establishing Common Law as THE LAW,
IN AND OF the United States.
Therefore, even before we had a Constitution, Common Law and
American Law were one and the same. They still are.
The Revolution began.
Question: during the Revolution, where was our nation's
government?
Answer: there wasn't any.
Society, in a pinch, can function quite well without govern-
ment--for a short period of time--because government is secondary
to society, and not the other way around. But it should be
obvious that if there be no Constitutionally-authorized
government, the police power of a nation is maintained only by
default--as computer operators use the word.
GOVERNMENT BY DEFAULT
During the Revolution there was no time for political
activities, so the 13 states fell back on Common Law, and
continued to function as they had under their charters as
colonies under English rule. Common Law protected all rights of
due process; civil and criminal cases continued to be heard
(perhaps swifter than usual), and the rule of stare decisis
guaranteed uniformity of legal decisions.
But as soon as the Revolution was over, the 13 states held
conventions to create their individual Constitutions, while the
Articles of Confederation were felt sufficient for the federal
government.
Unfortunately, it wasn't that easy. The existence of 13
different types of money--the proliferation of outrageous laws
(e.g., any person from Rhode Island caught in Massachusetts could
be branded on the forehead with a "B" for Blasphemy)--and the
outbreak of minor revolts against the new government (Shays'
rebellion being the catalyst)--proved the Confederation to be so
weak as to invite a quick demise unless something were done to
strengthen it.
Hence the Constitution of 1787. It established our central-
ized bureaucracy with certain exclusive powers, while others were
to be retained by the several states. The success of the Feder-
alists in establishing our government was--as we shall prove--
very much of a mixed blessing.
We must first note that the Bill of Rights--an afterthought
to which many Federalists were opposed (including James Madison,
of all people)--does not create any rights. It merely acknow-
ledges and guarantees each and every pre-existing right under
English Common Law, of which all former colonists had expert
knowledge. Yet it is often argued by Government lawyers in
Constitutional test cases, that a particular right is not
protected, because it is not specifically cited in the Bill of
Rights. This is sheer pettifoggery by shysters, which Libertari-
ans deem unworthy of government lawyers who are sworn to uphold
the Constitutional rights of every citizen. But such arguments
have won cases against civil rights, notably the Second Amendment
right to bear arms.
DEMOCRACY OR REPUBLIC?
It is our observation that our government-controlled
schools, where pebbles are polished and diamonds are dimmed for
the sake of conformity to "correct" social attitudes, do a
miserable job of teaching such vital first principles as the
difference between a democracy and a republic. It is our opinion
that most Americans have a vague idea there's not much differ-
ence, because both democracies and republics hold periodic elec-
tions in which the people vote.
This is mis-education, for motives which will become clear
in our next Article. Suffice it to say that democracy means that
the people make their own laws by direct participation in the
political process.
Democracy in the United States still exists in New England
town meetings, where the residents enact local regulations by a
process of debate and voting for the fairest option.
What's wrong with democracy?
Very simple: when a majority rules, a minority has no rights
--only whatever privileges may be bestowed by the majority. Take
ancient Athens, for example.
Athens was a city-state, and a true democracy. It was a
center for the arts, a model of education in philosophy (the
names of Socrates, Aristotle and Plato come to mind)--yet they
had slaves. Aesop, whose fables are still read by children (and
adults for sophisticated reasons) was a slave. The majority of
Athenians wanted to own slaves, so that's the kind of laws they
passed.
In short, in a democracy, the power of government is
virtually unlimited, and any numerical majority may impose any
kind of oppressive laws against any minority.
In contrast to this unfair arrangement, a Republic is
government, not by the people themselves, but by elected
representatives--and the people who establish the republic first
agree on a Constitution which LIMITS THE POWER OF THEIR REPRESEN-
TATIVES!
The people who draft a Constitution are called the Framers,
and the document they write must be ratified by a majority of the
people of their nation. That is what happened in 1787 and
ensuing years. Unfortunately for us, however, the Framers of our
Constitution made ONE MAJOR LEGAL BLUNDER in writing it, which we
shall expose in our next excerpt.
Two of our 20th-century Supreme Court Justices had truly
great minds and made inspired comments which we feel we must
quote here. Louis Brandeis, in OLMSTEAD V UNITED STATES (277
U.S. 438, 478 (1928) wrote:
"They [the framers of the Constitution] conferred, as
against the government, the right to be let alone--the most
comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by civilized
men."
And Justice Robert Jackson, in AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS
ASSOCIATION V DOUDS, 339 U.S. 382, 442 (1950) wrote:
"It is not the function of our Government to keep the
citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the
citizen to keep the Government from falling into error."
Again we might ask, "Where are the Brandeises and Jacksons
to be found in present-day Courts?" The answer is, "There aren't
any." This we must change, and damn fast, or our monuments of
government will lie, like the statue of Ozymandias, in a desert
where, boundless and bare, the lone and level sands stretch far
away.
SUMMARY
This manifesto builds a chain of reasoning by which we hope
to galvanize the American people out of their apathy and docility
toward our national crisis. Each Article is based upon the
preceding material, so it is vital that we understand, and agree
on, what has been said before.
So far we've given you the good news that Social Security is
a blatant example of official extortion--a CRIME committed
against every American BY THE GOVERNMENT through its tax agency,
the Internal Revenue Service.
In addition we've documented the cheering fact that our
Federal Judges routinely suppress any Constitutional question
which would threaten the power structure which they are supposed
to hold in check. We remind you that every Judge swears to place
the Constitution above partisan politics--but the facts show that
virtually every Judge is a hatchet man for his party machine.
In addition, we've laid foundation for our third Article by
briefly reviewing the concepts of society versus government,
democracies versus republics, the origins of American law in
Common Law, and a few historical facts (such as government by
default) which most Americans have forgotten--if they were ever
taught them in the brainwashing institutions known as the
American public schools.
If all the good news up to this point has raised your
spirits and hopes, you'll be ready for the bad news.