CORRECT ABUSE Now let's look into the process of how we can protect ourselves from this brand of justice. All federal judges, that is, ones who are selected by the president and approved by the senate hold their offices during "good behavior." This is what is known in government circles as an 'Article III' judge. These are the judges who are supposed to be completely free from any influence of the other two branches of government. Other judges who are not Article III judges include bankruptcy judges, immigration judges, magistrates, tax court judges which come under Article I (congressional) control. Any judge who is appointed for a specified period is not an Article III judge. However, when Article III judges are being coached by the executive branch (IRS) and have become a rubber stamp for approving unconstitutional governmental actions, they are no longer free from influence. Let's get into the definition of good behavior. The dictionary defines it as: "To conduct ones self well or to do the right thing." Pretty simple . . . Any school child should have been able to define that one. The law dictionary says much the same: "orderly and lawful conduct." However, when we speak of federal judges and good behavior, we have to get into lawful conduct. Their oath specified that they will administer justice to the poor and to the rich and will faithfully and impar- tially discharge and perform all duties agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States. The key to impeachment are the words agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the US. A law of the US is one which fulfills constitutional requirements. Any law out of sync with the Constitution is not a law of the US. Any law which is a violation of the Constitution, and is upheld, is a violation of the judges oath and therefore can't be considered good behavior. Congress gave judges 'dis- cretion' but this will not cover up a constitutional viola- tion. Nor will it cover up a violation of a valid US law. If a law is agreeable with the Constitution and a judge violates such a law, it's not good behavior. If a federal judge upholds a law which is not valid under the Constitu- tion, it does not fit into the definition of good conduct. Not even the Congress can give a judge the latitude to break their oath or the Constitution nor a valid law. This is in the area of malconduct which Hamilton in the Federalist Papers called the basis for impeachment. The law dictionary defines malconduct as "Ill conduct, especially dishonest conduct, or, as applied against officers, official misconduct." For malconduct, Hamilton said that they are likely to be impeached by the House of Representatives and tried by the Senate; and, if convicted may be dismissed from office and disqualified from holding any other. Federal judges will be quick to point out that they are following the rules of civil or criminal procedure. However, if their action violates the Constitution or a valid law, court rules must fall. These court rules are usually proposed, written or rewritten at judicial conferences or with special committees established for that purpose. These rules then go to the Supreme Court for revision or agreement and then are submitted to Congress for their approval. All authority for operation of the judicial system must come from Congress. It's clear how many lawyers are in Congress "taking care of their brothers in the legal profession." Any law, any rule, any regulation must conform to the power which we have delegated to the national govern- ment. There are no exceptions to this! Now, let's look at what is probably the proper procedure to follow . . . We have to go to the House of Representatives with our complaint against a federal judge. Start with your own representative and file your complaint as a Petition For Redress of Grievances. The subtitle should be "Request for Impeachment of a Federal Judge." Cite the violations of the Constitution or laws of the United States with which you are accusing the judge. There is a copy on file at the end of this book. Print it out on any printer and you have your petition. Send a copy to the House Judiciary Committee. Simply address it: House Judiciary Committee, US Congress, Washington, D.C. 20515. They are required by the Constitu- tion (Art I, Sec 2, cl 5) to investigate the complaint and you must insist that the requirements of the Constitution be followed. Cite that particular Article, section and clause as authority for impeachment. Send all your papers by certified mail so no one will be able to say they have never received your complaint. If you hear nothing in a reasonable time, follow it up with more letters. Call your representative when they are in town and ask about your petition. Don't be surprised if you do not receive an answer, they will be resistant to changes in their power structure. There is no question that you will have to be forceful but be firm. I don't believe anyone has to be disrespectful. I was once told that you can catch more flies with honey than you catch with salt. And, I have found it to be true. How you handle that aspect of your complaint is entirely up to you. If it wasn't true that they are working for you, they wouldn't be coming home every so often and begging you to vote for them and send them back to the funny farm! Send a copy to your Senators also. Since they will be required to try the case of impeachment, (Art I, Sec 3, cl 5) it will help your cause if they are made aware in advance. You also may pick up some valuable help along the way. Be firm in your conviction and honest in your charges against the judge. If the judge has broken a law, spell it out. If there is a constitutional violation which you can cite, give it to them. Above all, put your entire complaint down in your own words, don't make it sound like it was something in a form letter you are following. The more simple it is written, the easier it will be for Congress to understand it. When these people are flooded with complaints, something will be done. You might also send a copy to your local newspapers and generate some local pressure on the people in Congress who are supposed to be upholding the Constitution. You will never know if someone else reads about your petition in the newspaper that they may also have a strong complaint against the same judge in another area of viola- tions and it could only strengthen your complaint. There is much work to be done but it a necessary task if we are to restore our original form of government. Wouldn't it be reassuring if we knew the judicial branch was in fact independent of the other two branches of government and had not been coached to their actions by the executive or legislative branches of government? I feel it would be appropriate here to bring up another point about federal judges that I wish the readers would consider. That is this business of judges holding their appointments for life. Because of the course of events in recent years, it might be a good idea now to get the Congress to approve another amendment to the Constitution. That federal judges be appointed for a specified period, let's say six years. They then would have to go through reappointment by the president and reconfirmation by the Senate with the provision for input from the people when confirmation hearings are to be held. It would give us some say-so on appointment of people who are supposed to be the protectors of American citizens. If the Congress would approve such an amendment, it would then have to be sent to the states for ratification and that is where we come in. The Framers of the Constitution felt that the appoint- ment of judges for life (or during good behavior) would insure that they would remain independent. We can safely say that this has not been true. Of course, the Founders admitted they were not infallible so they established the amendment process. Today, when we can point out a failure in their wisdom, it is up to us to change that error and amend the basic document. All the delegated powers came from us and they still come from us! Let's insist that these powers be followed to the letter. Our rights in the Constitution cannot be stepped on by the judicial branch of the government anymore than they can be ignored by the others. These rights are not subject to the will of the judges and lawyers, they are absolute! WHEN YOU REGISTER, PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN A MONTHLY NEWSLETTER. SEE THE SALES PITCH CHAPTER.