EQUAL PROTECTION? This illegal grab of power by all branches of government is called usurpation. It is: "to seize and hold (a position, power, etc.) by force or without legal right." As you can see, this is exactly what has been happening in our great country. A law professor, Raoul Berger of Harvard University, made the statement: "On the contrary, it is never too late to challenge the usurpation of power. . -- Usurpation -- the exercise of power not granted is not legitimated by repeti- tion." A great many people realize this but those in government wouldn't be overjoyed for you and I to know it. And they would be even less happy when we take the action that the professor recommends. As he says, just because a practice has been going on for a long time does not make it legal. If it was against the law when it started, no amount of talking or usage will make it within the law now. Ignoring of our Constitution and the assuming of powers we did not grant has to be stopped. Carved in the stone face on the Supreme Court building is the statement: "Equal Protection Under the Laws." Compare that statement with the state of our protection today. It's apparent that it was carved a long time ago. Their decisions today just serve to justify some government action, not to protect a citizen's rights. Let's see, what did their oath say? That they will "administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and the rich.. " Perhaps they are administering justice without respect to persons and that's how they now use their power only to justify some governmental action? This is equal protection under the laws? Can you think of any rich and/or powerful person who gets the same justice as the average citizen? How about some members of Congress who ignore (break) the law and nothing is done to satisfy justice? How about Nixon? There was no right for Ford to issue that pardon. How about Spiro Agnew? (Spiro who?) Our ex-vice president pleaded guilty to tax evasion. Anything happen to him? No! How about a Kennedy who swam away from his car and didn't report the incident for over eight hours? What if that were you or I? Does that oath mean they can disrespect any person they choose and then administer justice as they define it? Equal protection indeed. This is el toro caca and their duty is still to protect the American citizen from illegal and unlawful practices by the government. We have the absolute right to demand and expect protection from the judicial branch, not persecution. The issue of the independence of federal judges is of importance to us. If they are not independent of the other two branches of government, we can't expect protection from  them if their opinion will go against some other part of government. If they are not independent, we get into what is called 'collusion' which is "acting together through a secret understanding." The law dictionary is more specific in it's definition: "A secret combination, conspiracy, or concert of action between two or more persons for fraudulent or deceit- ful purpose." Look at what's been going on lately . . . with the beginning of the so called tax rebellion, the Internal Revenue Service, way back in 1973, has been conferring with federal judges on the necessity of handing out prison sentences in tax cases. This has been revealed in IRS memos which were received through the Freedom of Information Act. The minutes of a meeting of IRS officials show that they have been conferring with US attorneys and judges to point out the problems they are having with 'tax protestors.' One recommendation of the memo was to "Wage a campaign to educate U.S. attorneys and federal judges with the importance of prison sentences on cases." This is just one area where the "secret combinations" are going on that we know of . . . In how many other areas is our central govern- ment conducting the same type educational campaigns for U.S. attorneys and federal judges? I guess the recommended prison sentences does not apply to an ex-vice president. Is there any way a citizen could feel they are being afforded the protection of a judicial branch in a situation as we have it today? Hardly. There would be only one in a hundred judges that could make an honest decision after all the brainwashing by the other branches of government. This could easily be defined as "action of two or more persons for a fraudulent or deceitful purpose." The very definition of collusion! And judges are to make impartial decisions? Alexander Hamilton, in The Federalist Papers, had some strong words on the function of the judicial branch of our new government that judges are to be interpreters of the law and "It is impossible to keep the judges too distinct from every other avocation than that of expounding the laws. It is peculiarly dangerous to place them in a situation to be either corrupted or influenced by the executive." With that statement in mind, to what branch of govern- ment does the Internal Revenue Service belong? Why, to the executive of course! As was pointed out, an adverse decision can be appealed to the next higher level of the judicial system. If the answer of the higher court is the same, in face of signifi- cant constitutional challenges, better check the definition of the word collusion again. It is a bit suspicious to note decisions in these so-called case law books that are on similar issues around the country all with the same decisions, even to many words  being similar. These generally seem to occur after the judicial system has had its annual conference. Strange? Is this where our socially redeeming issues are discussed? The nature of the decisions certainly suggest at least that. It was reported in a book on American Jurisprudence that the Supreme Court now wants to become involved in the area of foreign affairs. Can you imagine the nerve of these people? They must figure they have been able thus far to invade any area they desire and their next target is to be foreign affairs. Where do they find the authority for this trespass on powers reserved to another branch of the central govern- ment? Did the people authorize it? Now the new chief justice, in a speech before a national meeting of the Bar Association, (his fraternity buddies) asks members to help stop this trend to 'federalize' crimes. He insists the courts are now overworked and by making more crime a federal issue, the courts will be overwhelmed. Aw... makes you want to cry! Why doesn't he request the Congress eliminate all federalized crimes for which they have no authority to try? One area we can point to that shows clearly the judicial branch is amending the Constitution by decree to violate Article V (Amendment process), is concerning the writ of habeas corpus. The Constitution is plain and definite . . . "The Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." Congress is the only branch of government given power in the Constitution to suspend the Writ. The judicial department does it all the time by refusing to consider the petition, refusing to grant the writ, refusing to act on the petition or requiring specific forms to apply for a writ, etc. Of course, their argument is that they are overworked and underpaid so they have to concentrate on important issues which is a load of hogwash. The Writ cannot be suspended and if it is, it is only the Congress who has the authority to do so! There are basic requirements spelled out in our Constitution which must be followed and not changed by edict by a branch of our govern- ment which has no right to make a law. WHEN YOU REGISTER, PLEASE LET ME KNOW WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT A MONTHLY NEWSLETTER.