Home page Declaration of James T. Kimball Condensed JTK Declaration Rigged Convictions Across the US Torture and Death Camps Across the US
Lawless Authority Kills Millions Lawless Authority News Updates Government Employee Immunities Corrupt Evil Government Employees Law and Attorneys
Proposed Constitutional Amendment 10 Commandments Factor Bureau of Prisons (BOP) Is Nuclear Energy Total Destruction? FDA Death by Deprivation
GHI/MRI Citizen Liberty Coalition AIDS/HIV - is there a cure? Cancer - is there a cure Infectious Diseases is there a cure?
neurological diseases - is there a cure? is the US Guilty of Terrorism?? No Justice - No Constitution Dictatorship Cradle to Grave

Free James Kimball

Trial By Jury And Grand Jury ABOLISHED By Supreme Court

The
        Constitution
                                 is
                                        DEAD

Make no mistake, the Constitution is dead

1. The New Year ; started with hope and optimism for the thousands of political Federal prisoners; identified and labeled as constitutionalists. Categorized and red flagged by higher echelon Government officials, as enemies of THEIR Government; these Constitutionalists have been placed in Federal prisons all across the United States (unlawfully) with many more destined for the same fate within the next 2 years.

2. Flashes of Al Pacino ; come back from the Godfather as Supreme Court Chief Justice Rehnquist asked President Bush to place his hand on the family BIBLE, and swear to uphold the Constitution. Chief Justice Rehnquist asked President Bush to place his hand on the family BIBLE; and swear to uphold the Constitution; while Chief Justice Rehnquist just 8 days earlier on January 12, 2005, butchered and killed the U.S. Constitution. The same as Micheal Corleone had arranged the deaths of all his enemies while he was at a christening in the Godfather. Chief Justice Rehnquist was much bolder than Corleone. Justice Rehnquist had killed the Constitution 8 days before having President Bush swear to uphold a Constitution that Justice Rehnquist negated.

January 12, 2005 was doomsday for our Constitution

Worse than the September 11, 2001 attacks killing thousands.

YES

How did Justice Rehnquist and four other
Supreme Court justices do it????

3. They did it January 12, 2005, and here’s how they did it:

On January 12, 2005; a day that the history books will soon declare; was the end of the U.S. Constitution; and the catalyst that removed any resemblance of real justice within the United States; while being the substantive force that lead to the demise of the United States, as a free country in the free world.

4. Five justices on the Supreme Court; on January 12, 2005 published their horrifying decision in a combined case which has already been memorialized by the legal world and referenced simply as: the Booker and Fanfan decision. Easier referenced as just; Booker and Fanfan. In this combined decision, 5 justices found that it was time to eliminate everyone’s right to a trial by jury; along with everyone’s rights to be charged with a crime by a jury (grand jury); and do away with an indictment. FACT!!!!!!

 

No mistake here! That’s exactly what they did!!

 

Lets look at What these slick legal beagles did to all US citizens

 

Read very closely! Remember: We’re dealing with pure corruption

5. The simplest way to fully explain what these five justices did Jan. 12, 2005 is to put forth an example as follows:

Example of one actual case of the thousands of political prisoners

  1. Jim was indicted by a grand jury for fraud and other related crimes to the same fraud. (Jim’s real name will be revealed at the end of this true case of thousands.) Because Jim knew he was innocent he plead not guilty of the fraud related charges and requested a trial by jury. Jim was well advised that he could not win by hundreds involved in the legal profession because he was an activist; advocating constitutional rights for everyone , not just the rich and powerful. The trial would be rigged in Tampa, Florida, as would his appeal; as Jim was apprised. However, the penalty for Jim’s crime if convicted was probation; because that’s what the law stated . At the time Jim was sentenced, the law (called guidelines, judges must follow in sentencing everyone) clearly stated that the trial judge could only lawfully sentence Jim to probation if a jury found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt; which of course, they did.
  1. After Jim was found guilty of the charges the grand jury had indicted Jim on; the court dismissed Jim’s trial jury and scheduled Jim to be sentenced a few months later, upon the findings of Jim’s trial by jury, beyond reasonable doubt.
  1. Just prior to Jim being sentenced; the Government prosecutor; via a probation officer, surprised Jim; by advising Jim they have eleven (11) more alleged criminal charges against him. Jim was also advised that these charges were not found by Jim’s grand jury nor any grand jury and that Jim was not going to receive his requested trial by jury beyond reasonable doubt. And that Jim’s trial judge would be finding on these new charges by a preponderance of the evidence, at the judge’s discretion.

What!! Wait a minute: The US Government can’t do that to Jim . The 5th Amendment guarantees every citizen in the United States the right to be charged for any crime against the United States by a Grand Jury and for the Grand Jury to place such charges within an indictment.

Not only that: The 6th Amendment guarantees every citizen a trial by jury if requested. Jim had requested a trial by jury. The U.S. Government and Jim’s trial judge at his discretion is not going to violate his oath ; sworn to uphold the Constitution, then deliberately violates Jim’s 5th and 6th Amendment rights, and accept these new charges not in Jim’s indictment. AND refuse Jim’s 6th Amendment request for a trial by jury beyond reasonable doubt that Jim already requested. Or, at the very least; if Jim’s judge is going to violate Jim’s 5th Amendment right, and not allow a Grand Jury to find these new charges and present them in an indictment to Jim; at the very minimum Jim’s trial judge will offer Jim his right to a trial by jury, beyond reasonable doubt. Jim’s judge will not convene court on new charges and take it upon himself to make a finding on such charges by a preponderance of the evidence; and not offer Jim an option of a trial by jury on the new charges.

Surprise
  1. That’s exactly what Jim’s trial judge did . Even though Jim’s trial judge knew; and stated on the record at the time Jim was sentenced in 2000; that the Supreme Court had just stated that he (the judge), must adhere to the Constitution on these new charges by stating: “a person has a right to be – to know what they’re charged with and to be convicted of that charge by a jury beyond reasonable doubt.”

Jim’s trial judge knowing and stating on the record that he knew Jim was entitled by the Constitution to be indicted by a Grand Jury and entitled to a trial by jury; took it upon himself to deny Jim those rights and found Jim guilty of 8 of the 11 new charges by a preponderance of the evidence. Jim’s judge increased Jim’s sentence from probation to 13 years in Federal prison.

Is there something wrong here????

Was that justice????

  1. The Supreme Court in the 2000 Apprendi case: told all the judges across the United States that had been doing exactly what had been done to Jim; in the example; under the guise of enhancements, you can’t do that anymore: It’s blatantly unconstitutional!!

Oh yes! – It’s unconstitutional
(Screams the Supreme Court in 2000)

  1. What did the Federal judges do? After they misconstrued the meaning of the word enhancements and deprived US citizens of the 5th and 6th Amendment rights for 14 years; falsely imprisoning thousands?? A vast majority of Federal judges turned right around (like in Jim’s example) and found a reason to misconstrue the Supreme Court’s orders in the Apprendi 2000 case. The Federal judge’s continued right along working hand in hand with the Federal prosecutor and probation officers across the United States to be rid of the Constitutionalists, such as Jim; that were attempting to expose some Federal judges for what they were. Some Federal judges would not continue to falsely imprison the citizens by depriving them of the right to grand jury indictment and trial by jury. However, the vast majority did falsely imprison tens of thousands of constitutionalists such as Jim over the next 4 more years.

Did the Supreme Court try to stop these judges from the unlawful unconstitutional acts??

NO! Why not??

  1. Nobody knows exactly : What we do know, is that hundreds, possibly thousands of writs were presented to the Supreme Court, from the years of 2000 to 2004 to free these political prisoners arguing the exact same issues of the legality raised in the Apprendi case in 2000. The Supreme Court turned them all down refusing to hear the Constitutional rights violations put forth. This writer personally saw a writ presented to the Supreme Court with the exact same issues put forth in the Apprendi; and the Booker and Fanfan case; presented to the Supreme Court in 2000 which the Supreme Court refused to hear.

Remember: What is on this web link under #7. The Supreme Court stated in Cohen v. Virginia, 6 Wheat, 264, 5L.Ed. 257, and then repeated by the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Will, 449 US 200, 66 L.Ed. 2d 406 F.N. 199 (1980), that any court; (to include itself); that does not hear a constitutional issue when brought before them is:

Treason to the Constitution

6. Finally the Supreme Court, after watching “their” lower courts violate their orders in the Apprendi case in 2000 for 4 years unlawfully incarcerating tens of thousands more people in the US; the Supreme Court took up the constitutional challenge of the US Government’s illegal activities in a case called Blakely, 124 S.Ct in 2004.

7. The Blakely case was a state case the Supreme Court took regarding the majority of judges across the country misconstruing the word (enhancements) and depriving each US citizen their right to a trial by jury; and to be charged for a crime by a Grand Jury. The state guidelines that allowed (enhancements) were in essence a duplicate of the Federal guidelines that allowed (enhancements). In the Blakely case in 2004; the Supreme Court more clearly stated what they had found in Apprendi in 2000. That it is unconstitutional and unlawful to deprive a U.S. citizen of his constitutional rights to be charged by a grand jury, or allowed a trial by jury by any court.

Exactly what are these illegal enhancements Federal Judges have been misconstruing for now 19 years??

8. The Supreme Court clearly defined illegal enhancements:

Illegal enhancements are: any alleged criminal charge put forth by the Government against any defendant in which the defendant; never admitted, was not in the defendant’s indictment or was not found by a trial by jury beyond reasonable doubt. If any judge did what was done to Jim in the example previously; the judge was acting unlawfully and directly against the Constitution. Clearly stated in the Blakely case early 2004. The Supreme Court in Blakely stated the judge (such as in Jim’s case) has no authority to sentence Jim on such charges.

After Blakely what did they Federal judges do??

9. Very few Federal judges; let a few political prisoners out of prison for their unlawful sentences they had given them. The vast majority of the Federal judges did nothing, claiming that Blakely was a state case and didn’t apply to Federal cases and judges. Even though the enhancements were basically the same.

Wait a minute: are 80% of the Federal judges across the United States stupid?? Or just blatantly corrupt falsely imprisoning people?

10. A 15 year-old Freshman in high school would clearly understand; that if the Supreme Court ruled; that if a state court did not allow a defendant his right to be indicted by a grand jury; or be found guilty by a trial jury, it was a violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights and they must vacate or re-sentence the defendant and would apply to all Federal courts.

Why then would any Federal judge in the United States say:

This doesn’t apply to us

Let’s see: It wouldn’t be because 80% of these good honest previous lawyers are now Federal judges sitting on District and Appellate courts throughout the United States that have been caught unlawfully sentencing political prisoners to exceedingly long terms in prison for now 19 years; and refuse to confess, would it????

What Federal judges appear to be saying is: We are the power; we don’t have to abide by the Constitution. Who’s going to stop us! Not the United States Government. Not the Supreme Court. Nobody , because if we ban together we are unstoppable. We are the law and, no one else, and we’ll put anyone we wish in prison for any reason we wish at our discretion . The Constitution be damned.

A judicial conspiracy????

11. It would appear: that in the months that followed, the Supreme Court’s order in Blakely; and before the doomsday decision by the Supreme Court Jan. 12, 2005 in Booker and Fanfan; there were high echelon meetings between the 80% (of the good, honest, trustworthy, lawyers, upholding everyone’s constitutional rights – Oops, I meant, Federal judges from a district and circuit courts around the United States. Putting pressure of the Supreme Court and Congress; to change the Supreme Court’s mind in Blakely when they decide the upcoming Booker and Fanfan case.

This 80% group of lawyers/Federal judges would not conspire to kill the Constitution would they??

Of course they would: They had deliberately been murdering the Constitution knowingly; for 19 years. It was time for the complete kill.

12. In actuality; this very large group of lawyers, politically appointees to judge-hood , or should I say dictator-hood, didn’t have to listen to anyone ; to include the Supreme Court.

After all: they didn’t listen to the Supreme Court; in 2000 in the Apprendi case, and deliberately misconstrued the meaning of what the Supreme Court said; AND just did it again, in Blakely keeping tens of thousands of political prisoners in prison, illegally and unconstitutionally. Additionally, these honest, reputable, ethical lawyers outnumbered the Supreme Court justices 70 to 1.

These lawyers – Federal judges wouldn’t violate their oath to God.

Would they?? Every Federal judge’s oath: 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 duties incumbent upon me as ___________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. SO HELP ME GOD.

13. Their discussions with other corrupt judges, Congress people and Supreme Court justices would have been very similar to the following:
  1. The Supreme Court cannot find it unconstitutional for us to deliberately misconstrue the guideline word “enhancements” depriving the tens of thousands of US citizens their right to be indicted by a grand jury and found guilty by their choice of a trial by jury! Because if the Supreme Court does; it will expose us; as corrupt attorneys/judges; false imprisoning thousands of political prisoners. A decision like that will undermine the entire corrupt judicial system we have installed over the last 20 years. We could lose our jobs and control over the people and even be tried for “treason” to the Constitution. We must stop the Supreme Court or all 500 of us here are in Big Trouble.
  1. Get a hold of every Congressperson you can and tell them if the Supreme Court confirms their Blakely decision in the Booker and Fanfan case we could lose our jobs, or worse. Advise them that the vast majority of people we’ve unlawfully put in prison for a long time are political prisoners; many Constitutionalists. They are libel to sue for their false imprisonment which will expose us more and may expose some Congress people for allowing us to imprison these activists unlawfully. Since you know what we’ve been doing for years; you need to reach other Congress people that aren’t involved and tell them :
  1. That these upstanding judges that have violated their oaths and unconstitutionally imprisoned these tens of thousands of prisoners, did it because the people of this country wanted to rid the streets of career criminals. These are bad people; that these expert judges determined were dangerous people. Use the scare tactic first. Then hit them with: these tens of thousands of dangerous criminals will sue the United States for false imprisonment and deplete the United States financially and you in Congress may have to cut back on the war effort you are now spending trillions of taxpayer’s dollars on. You most certainly don’t want to cut back on your war efforts to finance a bunch of hardened criminals. They did you and the public a favor; by their decision to get rid of these people out of society for a long-long time.
  1. Now, we need you people in Congress to do these fine upstanding judges a favor seeing they did one for you ridding the streets of the unwanted. Get a hold of every Congress person, judge and news reporter and tell them to be quiet about what’s going on, we don’t need the public to get the wrong impression about our “Pillars of Justice.”
  1. And if you know, or know anyone who knows, one of the justices on the Supreme Court get this message to them as fast as you can. Do not allow the release of the tens of thousands of political prisoners in the Booker and Fanfan decision you are making; as the repercussions could undermine our entire judicial system. Violate the Constitution and your oath to GOD if you have to; but don’t let them out!

It would be fair to say: for the next 3 months; discussions similar to what were aforestated, went on behind closed doors in the highest officials’ offices in Washington, D.C. and around the United States.

Doomsday
January 12, 2005

14. The Supreme Court on a 5-4 vote stated the same as they always had; it was unconstitutional and unlawful for any judge to find any person guilty without their changes being within a grand jury indictment, or receiving a trial by jury, if the person had not admitted the changes.

Great! They upheld the Constitution

NO NO NO NO they didn’t

15. It was a two part Supreme Court decision .

In the first part the Supreme Court said: the unlawful enhancements not in an indictment, not found by a jury were unlawful, but they “refused” to state it would retroactively apply to the tens of thousands of political persons that had been unlawfully imprison for years. The Supreme Court would not say it; so the 80% or more of the corrupt District Court and Appellate Court judges, that unlawfully imprisoned all these political Constitutionalists could merely say: Well if the Supreme Court didn’t say it! It is not retroactive, and we will not let them out!

Hold it. STOP

16. Common sense says : If it was stated by the Supreme Court it was unlawful in 2000 then again in 2004, and again in 2005 it most assuredly was unlawful 20 years ago, also. In addition seeing they all knew it had been unlawful for 19 years since the sentencing guidelines were put in, to not correct and undue their unlawful acts of unlawful imprisonment; would be to condone the continuation of them by not releasing them from their unlawful imprisonment. So what did these hundreds of corrupt Federal judges do?? They said we don’t care, even if we did unlawfully put them in prison, and the Supreme Court has stated we did, “ So what”, leave them there. I’m not letting them out!

What was unlawful/unconstitutional in 2000 and again unconstitutional in 2005 was “unlawful and unconstitutional” 20 years ago

If the public buys this corruption and propaganda it’s the end of a free country.

17. In the second half of Booker and Fanfan : the Supreme Court made the worst horrifying decision ever made, in the history of our country. The Supreme Court stated; that the enhancements that they had just determined to be unlawful ; were now lawful if instead of calling them enhancements ; call them relevant conduct.

This is discussed in full; on the next link #9 on this web link. We will discuss each Supreme Court justice. How they voted! What they stated! We will let you decide which ones are totally corrupt. Which ones are totally incompetent. And which one was the Judas that swung the vote in the 5-4 decision to do away with everyone’s Constitutional rights to be indicted by a Grand Jury and to have the right to trial by jury, beyond reasonable doubt.

Your own answers will “shock” you

Oh! I almost forgot! The person’s name that was used for the true example herein, in #5 as Jim was:

James T. Kimball

And who was James T. Kimball’s trial judge?

Richard A. Lazzara of Tampa, Florida

Pure corruption
Previous Page
Back to top
print this page