"If we expect to be both ignorant and free,
we expect what never was and never will be."
 

(Thomas Jefferson)

The SCOTUS Justices now also fancy themselves as sociologists and psychologists. And, in their most pretentious moments, have advanced the notion that a certain class of individuals have suffered "psychological harm" whenever government has embraced the values of religion. Accordingly, they have established a new protected class. But the court's primitive notion of what constitutes psychology also promotes and bespeaks an abysmal ignorance. While psychiatry is a branch of medicine dealing with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mental and emotional disorders, the word psychology, correctly translated from its Greek origins, means "the science of the soul."

Any competent psychiatrist will acknowledge that mind is an endowment separate and distinct from that electrochemical mechanism upon which it gently rests. And, because the Justices don't know what they're talking about, they have been unable to explain to their subjects just how a moment of silence causes harm to the human soul. It is largely because the Justices have so clearly and consistently demonstrated ignorance of both science and religion that the extra-constitutional nature of their policy-making has been brought to intense light.

Indulging those who are somehow embarrassed by or uncomfortable with their own thoughts during a moment of silence deprives such individuals, and everyone else of healthy socialization challenges. And, on the sociological scale, the SCOTUS policies serve to impair an entire nation, for they attack the spiritual idealism the justices already lack. It was this very idealism that took that young earthly nation from one level of attainment to the next. And, unless the citizenry takes its nation back, as world competition heats up historians will likely have to account for the nation's loss of spiritual idealism during a near-term post-mortem phase.

Nowhere on Earth was the great experiment with freedom and democracy better exemplified than in the United States of America (USA). The country was cobbled together by the most diverse collection of individuals ever assembled for an uncommon cause. Fewer than half of the passengers traveling to the North American continent on the Mayflower were actually separatists seeking religious freedom in a new land. The rest - including such famous names as Myles Standish and John Alden - were economic emigrants who had signed onto the voyage in hopes of finding a better life for themselves in far-off "Virginia."

Initially neither group was large enough to form a colony on its own. So, born out of necessity and in the spirit of cooperation, they joined to sign the Mayflower Compact, the first document outlining a form of self-government in the New World.

In 1635, the Puritan government demanded that its members take an oath of allegiance to church and state; a requirement opposed by prominent Puritan clergyman, Roger Williams. Williams did not think that nonbelievers should be required to take such an oath. For his stalwart opposition, he was banished. He fled south with followers to form the colony of Rhode Island.

About one hundred years prior to the American Revolution, a pragmatic Lord Baltimore took note of England's victorious Puritan Parliament. He invited the Puritans to settle in Maryland. He promised them full religious freedom and hoped thereby to secure toleration for Maryland Catholics. As about one thousand Puritans accepted and made plans, Baltimore appointed Protestant William Stone to be his Governor.

In 1649, as the Puritans made their voyage, Maryland passed the Act of Religious Toleration. It acknowledged the Trinity, reinforced laws against blasphemy, and exacted penalties for profaning the Sabbath. It also took a firm position in protecting the rights of any who may find themselves in a religious minority just so long as they professed a belief in Christ. Extracted from the historical record that was earlier placed into evidence, we would offer the following:

… noe person or persons whatsoever within this Province, or the Islands, Ports, Harbors, Creeks, or havens thereunto belonging professing to believe in Jesus Christ, shall from henceforth bee any ways troubled, Molested or discountenanced for or in respect of his or her religion nor in the free exercise thereof within this Province or the Islands thereunto belonging nor any way compelled to the belief or exercise of any other Religion against his or her consent …

Against a backdrop of heresy trials and the European Dark Ages, Maryland's Act of Religious Tolerance then stood in bold contrast to the oppressive influence of theological arrogance. Though far from perfect with respect to minority rights, it was more inclusive than anything that had gone before. It protected the free exchange of ideas, while also protecting individual believers against intimidation and coercive labeling.

The freemen of Concord passed a resolution outlining the rights and liberties they thought important, including "liberty of conscience to all Christians (Papists excepted)." This occurred in 1774, barely a year before the Minutemen at Lexington and Concord fired "the shot heard round the world."

A few years later, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson beat back an effort in Virginia to use tax money in the name of "public morality." In the context of that time the support of church activities would have funded the Church of England in its competition against the insurgent Baptists. Madison and Jefferson then fought to pass the Virginia Bill for Religious Liberty, which became the inspiration for the First Amendment. That amendment has been interpreted, out of context, as prohibiting the inter-mingling of religion with government-sponsored education.

In 1787, when the nation was still operating under the Articles of Confederation, Congress enacted The Northwest Ordinance. The purpose of the Ordinance was to create a temporary government for the Northwest Territory (a huge swath of land that extended from the great lakes to the Ohio River valley), and to establish a procedure by which territories could apply for admission into the Union. The Northwest Ordinance received final House and Senate approval, and was signed into law by President Washington in the summer of 1789, the same summer in which the same Congress was formulating the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Article III of the Northwest Ordinance begins with this sentence:
Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.

George Washington, the first President, and John Adams, the second, spoke in equally strong terms concerning the importance of both religion and education.

Washington said:
"The best means of forming a manly, virtuous, and happy people will be found in the right education of youth. Without this foundation, every other means, in my opinion, must fail. - And let us with caution indulge the opposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

Adams said:
"Wisdom and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused generally among the body of the people, (are) necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties."

The Establishment clause of the United States Constitution was precisely worded by men who knew the language and carefully considered the initiative as well as its context. So why did SCOTUS ever have to go searching for the "intent" of the framers. And once engaged in that folly, why did they give more weight to one framer's letter to the Danbury Baptists then they gave to the collective will of Congress and the first President, as expressed through the Northwest Ordinance?

The framers understood what the justices deny, that religion is to values what science is to facts. In a world of competing ideas, Jefferson and Madison leveled the playing field by not subsidizing the Church of England over the Baptists. Specifically, the Establishment Clause is the embodiment of this particular wisdom. But such wisdom is apparently lost on the Justices of SCOTUS. Or is it something more sinister? Perhaps they don't want to acknowledge the true intent of the Establishment Clause for other reasons.

At first glance the simplistic reasoning and revisionist history proffered by SCOTUS would appear to be flawed interpretations rather than deliberate misrepresentations. That is until one recognizes that selective amplification, filtration and contextualization are the primary tools of modern day deceivers. At least one thing is painfully obvious. When the Court redefined religion in support of its secularization hypothesis, it departed from the agreed upon contract and amplified, with considerable distortion, the so-called "intent of the framers."

Clearly the "intent" is not as advertised by SCOTUS. And, by redefining religion the Justices can themselves violate the Establishment Clause to promote their pet "ism's," including humanism and moral relativism, with plausible deniability backed up by absolute judicial immunity. Where the carefully worded Establishment Clause protected the nation from any potentially domineering religion, the Supremes have formulated their own value proposition and are determined to run consistently afoul of legislative intent while driving out anything that challenges their prevailing megalomania.

This theft of religious liberty at the hands of Supreme Court Justices would have been the perfect crime were it not for the fact that they overlooked one detail. They were so caught up in their declarative constructs and pontifications that they neglected to obliterate certain historical artifacts. In a few moments we will cut through the obfuscations imposed by SCOTUS and reveal the extent to which the people were snookered by the Justices. But first we must explore further what can only be described as a power grab by one of the so-called equal branches of government.

What Jefferson described as the "wall of separation" between church and state was never intended by the other framers to be all that much greater than the separation between the three branches of government. And in this area too, SCOTUS is well afoul of constitutional imperatives. A constructionist court could not exist were it not for the weakness of the legislature with the acquiescence of, and in this case through the uninformed consent of, the governed. At this point, from the evidence placed into the record previously, I would highlight Sir Edmond Burke's Report to King George. Reading from the record:

"Permit me sir to add another circumstance in our colonies which contributes no mean part toward the growth and effect of this intractable spirit. I mean their education. In no country perhaps in the world is the law so general a study. All who read, and most do read, endeavor to obtain some smattering of that science. I've been told by an eminent book seller that in no branch of his business, after tracks of popular devotion, were so many books as those on the colonies. They have now fallen into a way of printing them for their own use. I hear they have sold as many of Blackstone's Commentaries in America as in England. General Gage states that all the people in his government are lawyers or smatterers in law, and that in Boston they have been enabled by successful chicane wholly to evade many parts of your capital penal constitution."

"The smartness of debate will say that this knowledge ought to teach them more clearly the penalties of rebellion, but my honorable and learned friend, the attorney general, will disdain that ground. He has heard as well as I that when great honors and great emoluments do not win over this knowledge to the service of the state, it is a considerable adversary to a government. If the spirit is not tamed by this happy means, it is stubborn and litigious. This study renders men acute, inquisitive, dexterous, prompt in their attack, ready in defense, full of resources. In other countries the people are more simple and are of a less mercurial cast. They judge of an ill principle only in government, only by an actual grievance. Here they anticipate the evil and judge the pressure of the evil by the badness of the principle. They honor misgovernment from a distance and snuff out the approach of tyranny in every tainted brief."

So what happened? When did those Americans lose the ability to recognize a "tainted brief" or the "badness" of a principle? For it now seems that even when they can define good practice, it's on a purely academic level. There is some major disconnect when it comes to real world applications.

Suppose, just suppose you were called upon to investigate a murder. In our hypothetical you have been given responsibility for presiding over a team to support this effort. Would you include a person on this team that had been recently fired from his job by the decedent? Now suppose this person, in addition to having motive, had clear opportunity and the means or connections to have the victim killed. Let's say you also hold a highly prestigious position with a prominent institution. Would you lend your good name to such an investigative team? What if the institution you worked for was known for being politically independent, would political pressure be a factor?

Ok, ok, maybe this isn't the most realistic example. Such a thing could never happen because if you were the Chief Justice for the Supreme Court of the United States, you'd be presiding over an independent judiciary. And if, in fact, the now deceased President had removed Alan Dulles from his job as Director for Central Intelligence, he'd be disqualified from holding a seat on the Commission, right? Certainly, in such an event, you would never allow the good name Warren to be associated with the appearance of impropriety, or to be placed on such a tainted work product. After all, the public would have to have the attention span of a gnat to let you get away with that.

But average citizens have been largely conditioned to behave as subjects of the state. Most of these dues paying dependants rarely participate in the democratic process, except by periodic invitation. Many see democracy as not working and their sense of ownership is diminished with each and every election cycle. Of course there are compensations for this loss of equity.

Parents and marketeers have created the current culture of indulgences. But rather than educate constituents on fundamental fairness, politicians lull the electorate into complacency or stir them up for political purposes. They have promoted unrealistic expectations of disproportionate representation even while they champion other interests. And, more often than not, they advance a sense of entitlement that is not only unsustainable, but also de-coupled from any sense of duty.

To be more specific, it is increasingly clear that the government of the United States no longer operates as three equal branches. Composed mostly of lawyers, the legislature has failed to provide a proper statutory framework for many important areas of law. Where it is unable to reach consensus, or lacks the moral courage to put closely held values on the record, it defers to case law thereby avoiding the glare of the spotlight and accountability. The same dynamic applies to the executive branch as it has also failed to provide real moral leadership on so many of the most important issues of the day.

We look to this process of unraveling the promise by first understanding the inter-dynamics of the three branches of this North American government. Politicians, be they executive, legislative or judicial, often broach major issues by stealth. Issues will of course present themselves without regard to government responsiveness. So, by default, elected officials offload controversial decisions to courts. Where Congress is expressly prohibited from making any law that abridges certain constitutional rights, the Supreme Court is more than willing to do so, through its unchecked and arbitrary assumption of ever increasing power.

Legislators usually will not criticize the courts because most are lawyers by training and no one wants to ask the career ending question. Representatives often yield their legislative responsibility to the judiciary out of convenience and because it is less visible and less vulnerable to political upheavals. After all, how many citizens entering the voting booth even know the names of their judges, much less the decision records?

While legal experience is an asset to moving ahead within the legislature, lawyer-politicians also know they are just one election away from having to practice law within the same bar and before the very same judges whose power they might otherwise curtail through properly crafted legislation. This failure to effectively bracket the sometimes esoteric and purely personal "values" of individual judges and the legal fraternity is especially dangerous in light of historical precedent and the larger democracy implications.

Voter indifference insures that the citizenry will not take control. Controlled access and the fear of being cut out of the loop compromises the media. Religious institutions have effectively disbarred themselves; their range of permissible speech and activity is now defined and circumscribed by federal regulators. Religionists are seemingly content with relative impotence as long as they are able to enjoy tax exemptions "granted" by the government.

Coercive tax policies for religionists, exclusives for the good behavior of journalists and false euphoria for the electorate combine to favor shadow government. With each clash the chasm between Church and State widens and each compromise serves to eclipse and undermine the State's internal separation of powers. As the country turns its back on founding principles, it tries to cling to a confused and narrow disintegration of Truth. This occurs, in large part through the type of re-contextualization we have witnessed.

The principles of context were introduced to the people of Earth by John Wycliffe in the fourteenth century. He outlined an approach to understanding scripture that should also prove useful to students of statecraft. He wrote:

"It shall greatly helpe ye to understand scripture if thou mark not only what is spoken or written, but of whom, and to whom, with what words, at what time, where, to what intent, with what circumstances, considering what goeth before and what followeth."

As one presidential candidate was fond of saying, "the Devil is in the details." To this we would simply add that the details are in the case law. SCOTUS, has a history of competitive, ideologically motivated jurisprudence. Their anomie initiative is largely based upon anecdotal evidence of societal change. All judges employ personal values and their own principles in making constitutional choices. The same political process that produced the secularization hypothesis produced the current class of judges. And, even though the hypothesis contains the seeds of its own misconstruction, SCOTUS still views the secularization of society as a positive long term trend that will eventually result in the elimination of religion as a public influence.

The onetime standard bearer now spends much of its time presiding over the normalization of deviance. Accordingly, the constructionist court is heavily vested in secularization and the ancient laws have been removed from courthouse walls across the nation. No doubt the judicial definition of religion will continue to morph, hiding the court's convoluted reasoning while serving an incoherent jurisprudence. By current definition however, the inalienable rights endowment described in the Declaration of Independence must, in the view of the court, be a source of psychological torment to atheists.

Squelching the "Endowed by their Creator" language would be politically problematic, even for a supposedly independent Judiciary. But SCOTUS has already shown its willingness to misrepresent the facts in supporting its abandonment of "de-facto establishment" as a guide to church/state relations. The intellectual integrity deficit is not only pervasive, but the flow-downs are traceable directly back to the nations highest court and from there map to the Lucifer Manifesto.

In the movie Devil's Advocate a young lawyer asked "why the law?"
The devil's answer: "Cause it gets us into everything, it's the ultimate back stage pass."

Post offices in Texas have been forced to remove small "In God We Trust" signs because they violate a law concerning electioneering posters. South Carolina Judge William Bertlesman ruled that license plates bearing the slogan "Choose Life" are unconstitutional. And then there was Judge Alfred Goodwin's effort to excise the phrase "One nation under God" from the United States Pledge of Allegiance.

When Roy Moore, an Alabama Circuit Judge displayed a small handmade wooden plaque of the Ten Commandments on his courtroom wall, he was sued by the American Civil Liberties Union. Shortly after his election to the Alabama Supreme Court, Chief Justice Moore installed a monument in the Rotunda of the Alabama Judicial Building. The monument of the Ten Commandments includes many references to God in American Law and History, like the Pledge of Allegiance, the National Motto, the National Anthem and the Oath of all Public Officials.
Moore was sued again and, in a move highly symbolic of the judiciary's obfuscation tactics, the monument was briefly walled off from public view by a plywood partition. "This is an example of what is happening in this country: the acknowledgment of God as the moral foundation of law in this nation is being hidden from us." Moore said in a statement.

As Justice Moore put his office and reputation on the line to acknowledge that the rights and freedoms we all enjoy are gifts from a loving God, SCOTUS avoided the issue and refused to hear arguments on Moore's Certiorari petition as well as his Writ of Prohibition and Mandamus. For his actions in courageously defending Alabama's right to display the Ten Commandments, Moore was removed from the bench by the unanimous decision of his cowering colleagues.

The Judicial Inquiry Commission, which filed the complaint against Moore, said that the justice violated the code of judicial ethics by failing to:
" Uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary;

" Observe high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary might be preserved;

" Avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety;
" Respect and comply with the law;
" Conduct himself in a manner promoting public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary;
" Avoid conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice so as to bring the judicial office into disrepute.

Moore, though, asserted that a level of inconsistency rests in the nation's judiciary. "We've got to stop the hypocrisy in this country," he said. "We've got to stop courts that will open with 'God save the United States and this honorable court' and then say (we) can't acknowledge God. We've got to stop judges who put their hand on the Bible and say, 'So help me God,' and then go into court and deny the very Creator God upon which this nation and our laws are founded."

"The nation must stand up to the actions of courts," Moore said. "Unless we do, the public acknowledgment of God will be taken from us - 'In God We Trust' will be taken from our money and 'One Nation under God' from our pledge. - There is a basic philosophical difference in this country of what law is," Moore said. "Law is not an order of court, and we've got to get that straight. If we follow the rule of man and not the rule of law, we're disregarding everything we're sworn to uphold."

These cases underscore the Screwtape process described by C.S. Lewis as it applies in an institutional setting. As these cases slowly wind their way up to the US Supreme Court, it is expected that the fundamentals of law will again be denied unless there is a reawakening of the electorate.

The Justices will do whatever the Justices want to do.

The game we're witnessing is called Gospel Quash. It is usually played in an enclosed room that is referred to as "open court." This is worthy of note because the presiding judge not only regulates the size of the public, but also controls the viewpoint. The judge can move the jury in and out of the courtroom at will and control the use of cameras and microphones. The right to a jury trial is, at face value, protected. But the judge is the gatekeeper. Nothing reaches the hearing of the jury unless the judge authorizes it. It is the judge who determines what the jury and the public sees and hears through the highly selective amplification, filtration and contextualization we've come to recognize. Then there is the phenomenon of the directed verdict, which further diminishes the value of a jury. It all begs the question, why have a jury? The short answer is; as scenery for the public.

Back stage, in certain highly coveted low profile cases, and in accordance with any prevailing collegial spirit, fellow judges along the avenue of appeals can mask unmeritorious reasoning through an under the table transaction known as the unpublished mandate. SCOTUS has fortified this cloaking devise as one part of an array of self-serving conveniences, foremost among these, the Doctrine of Absolute Judicial Immunity.

This extra-constitutional doctrine is a throwback to times when elsewhere the King and the Pope regarded themselves as infallible. It also brings the first commandment, "You shall have no other gods but me," into striking relief. Where the framers of the Constitution were meticulous about acknowledging God as they went about the task of ruling, SCOTUS Justices have demonstrated an air of superiority and absolute immunity that is derived from their real god: Themselves as supported by their unconstitutional Doctrine of Infallibility.

Who's going to challenge them? The inattention of the electorate and the impotence of the congress notwithstanding, the court has dishonored itself through an inability to be integrity centered. The Wayward Supremes have held that, even in cases of malice and corruption, judges are immune from civil liability for judicial acts. In this way the court has defined the injudicious act as a judicial act and has thereby become the champion of the injudicious judicial act.

Now we know that it is painful for you to follow SCOTUS logic just as it is painful for us to subject you to it. But it is essential to any understanding of their modus operandi. The Supreme Court of the United States has actively engaged in this willful and deliberate deception through a persistent disintegration of truth. It has taken upon itself the right to decide who gets college tuition assistance, what speech is permissible in the public square and which petitions fall within the scope of a right to petition. By narrowly redefining the domain of values to suit its own purposes, it can characterize the Ten Commandments, not as the historical embodiment and foundation for law, but as a narrow tradition. In this way the Supremes have enabled and actively promoted the moral relativism and the circular references that have resulted in such disharmony and judicial inconsistency throughout the land.

At the heart of the New World opportunity were soil conditions that favored religious growth. But today that soil is so compacted; the country has no coherent definition of religion. With a tolerance for some religions and denial about a de facto preference for the ones that don't challenge individual righteousness, the country has lost its spiritual idealism through an unhealthy and distorted concept of tolerance that effectively masks a most devastating affliction.

The United States has actively courted a variety of opportunistic infections and it has attracted a disproportionate number of so-called leaders who think freedom of religion means freedom from religion. Indeed, religion is thought to have no real place in the deliberative process where mature, though imperfect, value systems are routinely dismissed in favor of no viable alternative. The now lethargic value proposition of the New World lacks the spiritual idealism that once characterized a region on the forefront of progressive religious evolution.

Religionists have been bluffed out of their place at the table, have given up much ground through a failure to engage, to work the soil and to be part of the deliberative process. As if learning nothing from the Parable of the Sower, today's retail religionist largely avoids the hard work of soil amendment and essential conditioning. Moral courage is seldom required of those who occupy a comfortable mission field, the spiritual equivalent of a low maintenance ornamental garden.

These comfort levels are often secured at the expense of the Gospel. Corporate model churches have become fashionable. This is where ministers become administrators. Truth is crystallized into creedal formulas where it speedily dies and its power to transform is effectively neutralized. The Body ceases to be a unified whole and its parts compete against, rather than complement one another. Boundary lines are drawn and procedures are put in place to support a self-righteous exclusivity that runs well afoul of the "Love one another" mandate delivered by Our Universe Sovereign.

When Gospel resources are thus redirected, their effect is seriously diminished and evil is often the result. We've previously considered the positive influence of Martin Luther as he launched the protestant reformation at Wittenberg. Now, in the current context, consider his advocacy of an exclusive State Church in light of the blueprint he left for Adolph Hitler.

Much like SCOTUS, Luther denied the early foundations of law. He wrote: "Moreover, since priesthood, worship, government - with which the greater part, indeed, almost all, of those laws of Moses deal - have been at an end for over fourteen hundred years already, it is certain that Moses' law also came to an end and lost its authority. Therefore the imperial laws must be applied to these imperial Jews. Their wish to be Mosaic Jews must not be indulged. In fact, no Jew has been that for over fourteen hundred years."

I am quoting from Luther's tract titled Concerning the Jews and Their Lies:

"What then shall we Christians do with this damned, rejected race of the Jews? Since they live among us and we know about their lying and blasphemy and cursing, we cannot tolerate them if we do not wish to share their lies, curses and blasphemy…. We must prayerfully and reverently practice a merciful severity…. Let me give you my honest advice:

" First… to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom.
" Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed.
" Third, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb.
" Fourth, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them.
" Fifth, I advise that safe conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, tradesman or the like. Let them stay at home.
" Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them, and put aside for safekeeping.
" Seventh, I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hand of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow."

Some four centuries later, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter stated that the history of liberty is in no small part the history of procedure. Frankfurter would know. As one of three prominent Jews who helped to shape Roosevelt's New Deal policies, the Justice was early on privy to, and in apparent denial about, information concerning the treatment and pending extermination of Jews in Nazi Germany. Frankfurter had a reputation for intervention behind the scenes to correct instances of bias in the United States. When confronted with gruesome detail about the situation in Germany however, Frankfurter told one young witness, in a soft voice filled with resignation, "I am unable to believe you."

Denial is not uncommon. The Nazi holocaust seems like "ancient history" to the current generation of leaders. As terrorism takes the stage, new high profile threats are everywhere. As indiscriminate bombings dominate the news, an almost imperceptible erosion of civil liberties seems barely newsworthy and goes largely unacknowledged.

A false consciousness of liberty and the illusion of representative democracy prevail. Participatory democracy cannot succeed without an informed citizenry. Those idealistic forebears, in laying the foundation for rights now largely taken for granted by current generations, possessed uncommon wisdom. Now, as the crowning insult to those who laid down their lives for their fellows, freedom secured through the blood, sweat and tears of past generations is squandered by inattentive, self-indulgent masses.

We began these arguments by saying that "Much of what was foundational is no longer deemed desirable." We made the charge that "An impetuous leadership has dismissed mature and dependable systems of values for poorly defined baser sets." We also made reference to an adulterated concept of liberty through the routine divorce of rights and responsibility. And we said we are concerned with the "flow-downs, the fallout," and the effect upon the innocent child.

Most of what we have highlighted thus far has been a broad-brush view of what's been happening on earth with continued special emphasis on one evolving democracy, the United States. I believe we have accurately represented Lucifer's strategic overview and that of Our Sovereign. Now we will get to some of the details. We will focus on Lucifer's legacy through some of the tactical moves that depend, more than anything, upon what that country's framers called the "easy emoluments of statuteable plunder."

Lucifer is no longer walking the planet. His devotees no longer have direct access to his wicked counsel though they do have his manifesto. We are now entering a theatre of operations that is the Spiritual warfare equivalent of Where's Waldo. We're going to look for that devil in the details. And you will have opportunity to decide if certain procedures are Satanic ritual derived from Luciferian thought or just innocent lapses in judgment. You will decide if Lucifer had the means, the motive and the opportunity to squelch or obfuscate constitutional questions of exceptional importance to all of humanity.

At one time Lucifer commanded great respect by means of his brilliant personality. The fact that he wore jeweled robes certainly didn't hurt his ability to overawe the material mind. Both were gifts of beauty. And both were corrupted in such a way as to support his peculiar form of persuasion. Lucifer exhibited his ingratitude, and through time the gifts of God were trampled under foot. The folly of casting one's pearls before the unappreciative is not uncommon and, as the unmitigated selfishness of this privileged son ran unabated, he was eventually seen for just what he is, unappreciative - the very personification of ugliness. Though in his wake the people of Earth were left dazed and confused, individuals on high are no longer impressed by the parade or with his adornment, only his motivation and the lack of merit within his argument.

Now the same standard must be applied to the courts of earth and the public discourse. Citizens have long accepted, at face value, a peculiar "wisdom" proffered by judges not only robed by the people, but in whom their elected representatives have vested excessive discretion. Fortunately it takes far more than prestige of office to advance, even the illusion of, integrity. To the extent that absolute power does corrupt absolutely, we need to look even more closely for the after effect of the Immunity Doctrine.

Ruling in accordance with a counterfeit wisdom depends largely upon the dumbing-down of those who would be subjects. Where fashion sits, the light is sometimes harsh. And playing mirror, mirror on the wall is just no fun at all when stark contrasts interfere with self-admiration. Who's the fairest of them all is not a question today's earthly courts want answered by any means. To them, the problems associated with their substitution of false for true wisdom is largely a matter of contrast control.

In truth the court has put every other god before Absolute Deity. There is a definite purpose behind revisionist history and the banishing of the Ten Commandments from the public enclave. We have seen the results of Martin Luther's devaluation of these in the context of the Nazi Holocaust. Accordingly, as the ancient laws are removed from courthouse walls the results are clearly foreseeable. The post-mortem on American jurisprudence has begun. And the first casualty, along with the command "You shall not bear false witness," is truth.

In judicial proceedings witnesses are sworn to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Then they often watch helplessly as half-truth is extracted and re-contextualized to paint one falsehood after another. The first duty of a witness is to demand the opportunity to give complete answers in accordance with his or her oath. We submit that, upon being forced to run afoul of such an oath, of being denied the opportunity to tell "the whole truth" or to give complete answers, a witness has the solemn duty, even at the risk of contempt, to retroactively renounce that oath.

We've seen that trial strategies are often selected on the basis of what a jury will believe, not on what constitutes truth. What to include in pleadings, whether to play the race card or employ the insanity defense is now simply a matter of permissible spin with a wink and a nod from the bench. What is the value of a judiciary, a process of adjudication or, for that matter a judge that does not depend fully and finally upon Truth?

In light of the truth decay, the injudicious judicial acts and their highly selective intolerance of religion, we again turn our attention to the state level and the former state of religious toleration. Right now in Maryland a baser set of values has emerged to take the place of, what was once regarded as traditional values. The new values system is generally not well defined and those in power steadfastly refuse to define, or be accountable for it.

So much of what is procedural would never stand for the light of day. The courts have become a forum for the systematic disintegration of truth. And all three branches of government in that state clearly intend to keep playing this esoteric system of values close to the vest for reasons we are about to examine. Here we will consider the demise of citizen participation in one small state for the purpose of understanding what's happening all across one troubled union of states.

Before we get into the details of this unpleasant but necessary illustration we want to make clear that the average citizen of Maryland is hard working, well motivated and basically good just like those in other parts of their nation. This state is of particular interest because it was the cradle of religious toleration and is a great prize to the devotees of Lucifer.

What we will show here is the state and federal context, the principle target of the attack and also the extent to which these people have been defrauded. How perilously close they are to losing their voice. And how, in light of "you shall not steal," certain "inalienable rights" are incrementally, systematically and deliberately stolen from these citizens as they are lulled into a sense of well being by their government.

Marylanders possess a grand heritage and a keen sense of right and wrong. What they lack is quality information from their representatives and their press. It is ironic that one of the best-educated populations on the planet is treated as though they are among the most poorly educated and disinterested.

Maryland's elected officials are largely reactionary. For example, when it was revealed that a prostitute had been servicing a Montgomery County Judge in chambers, there was prolonged debate about whether he should be removed. When a Circuit Court Judge concluded a rape trial by saying "it takes two to tango," elected officials again engaged in strong rhetoric, but little more. It was only when another judge from the same circuit granted custody of a minor child, to a mother convicted of murdering that same child's sibling, that the court's statutory authority was subject to some token modifications.

Still, as we have seen in the latter case, the next higher court actually refused to disturb what it termed the "wide discretion" vested in a lower court judge. Only when the case became a national embarrassment to the state and a favorite topic among talk radio callers and hosts did the highest state court agree to review the case and opine that the first reviewing tribunal failed to use its "collective common sense."

We submit that in such an unusual custody case, state intervention was fully justified. But, we are also convinced that, had it not been for the public outcry, "collective common sense" would not have prevailed. Did the High Court in this case see the light or just feel the heat?

Religion was never an opiate to Maryland's early inhabitants. The state boasts no poppy fields but rather features an abundance of battlefields. Much of the blood that nourished Maryland gardens was given unselfishly by solders laying down their lives to establish or defend basic freedom on behalf of all people. What a pity that within just a few hundred years after so many died to establish the nation's constitution, citizen participation is just too much trouble for many descendants of these fallen heroes.

Now we will review the apathy and immunity effects in light of our most sacred trust, that of child rearing. We've seen how human society's basic organizational unit is the family and we have defined the nuclear family, for the purposes of this discussion, as the child with the two natural parents. Though there are many noble variations on the human family, these are largely compensations for failures of nature. Of course, since an advanced society does not ultimately place its faith in nature, such disadvantages can and must be overcome. Without aspiring to nature we have learned, in looking at the higher orders, to respect it in the absence of something clearly superior. All else being equal, children who have benefited from the nurture of two loving natural parents will always have a clear and distinct initial advantage over their less fortunate peers.

The Supreme Court of the United States once termed the right to rear one's child "essential" in the 1923 case Meyer vs. Nebraska. It is one of the "basic civil rights of man," So said the court in 1942 with Skinner vs. Oklahoma. And in 1953 the Supreme Court held that Child rearing constitutes a right "far more precious ... than property rights." That case was May vs. Anderson.

At one time Maryland courts also protected the bond between parent and child. For example, the same Circuit Court with the unenviable record of having advanced the custody to a murderer case, heard arguments in 1977 by the Montgomery County Department of Social Services (MCDSS) in the case Montgomery County versus Saunders.

In that case the Government was arguing against returning a child to the custody of his mother, not because of any alleged or then current parental unfitness, but because the agency was enamored with the fashionable idea of reducing custody determinations to an exercise in basic algebra.

A+T=C. Age + Time = Custody. This formula was supposed to yield greater "judicial economy." The Judge in this case, John C. Tracey, was not interested in avoiding the hard work of adjudication. The subject child, Christopher, was still calling Rebecca "mother." Tracey returned Christopher to his mother and, as expected, MCDSS appealed, but MCDSS lost. The Appeals Court included, in its published opinion, the following quote from the 1963 book Collective Bargaining and the Arbitrator. I quote:

"One may illustrate the essential idea by a spider web, pull a strand here, and a complex pattern of adjustments runs through the whole web. Pull another strand from a different angle, and another complex pattern results."

Social engineering at the nuclear family level is still very much in vogue at the MCDSS, but the courts of that day exhibited true wisdom and were reluctant to intrude. Today those same courts hard sell a counterfeit wisdom as they habitually intrude, especially in divorce cases.

While divorce is an unfortunate but necessary social safety valve, Maryland has installed the equivalent of a pump, fueled with monetary incentives. The state now allows individual judges to establish religious principle in the form of judicial precedent, to elevate purely personal evaluations to the level of absolutes in accordance with circular references, moral relativism and as a matter of habit. The current judiciary has proven itself to be a malevolent, predictable force in Maryland family life condemning little ones to a mode of living where they are taught maintaining relationships is just too much trouble.

The marriage statutes call for a ceremony to be superadded upon execution of a marriage contract. The preamble for the civil ceremony prescribed by the state reads: "We are gathered here in the presence of these witnesses to join this man and this woman together in matrimony. The contract of marriage is a solemn one and not to be entered into lightly, but thoughtfully and seriously and with a deep realization of its obligations and responsibilities."

Even while these ceremonies are conducted within Maryland courts of law the same judiciary has undermined the institution of marriage. And inconsistency has become the technique for plausible deniability. While the Constitution of the United States clearly prohibits laws that impair the obligations of contract, Maryland case law equates the contractual obligations of marriage with fleeting affection and holds that there is no cause of action for what they term "alienation of affection."

Thanks to the de-facto devaluation of marriage and higher than average divorce rates, the state engages in a steady chipping away at the sacred bond between parent and child through the neglected statutory framework whereby custody decisions are made. One turn of the millennium effort for comprehensive reform, The Best Interests of Children Act of 2000, died in committee. Other important legislation has failed because the House Judiciary Committee has, at times, been unable even to produce a quorum for such important legislation. Still, deadbeat is a term somehow reserved for parents.

This is pivotal. A key example of how legislative bodies have failed to put their values on the line. By not defining and not protecting marriage as a contract, and as they pay lip service to the best interests of children, the Judiciary, the Legislature, the Executives and the unbridled divorce industry have systematically brought instability to every child's nurturing environment. Children that have not lost a parent fear losing one. And because judges arbitrarily and routinely terminate parental rights in such incrementalist fashion, the state operates well under the radar screen of most constitutional scholars and with no coherent system of values.

At this point we need to be reminded of just how the devaluation of family serves the cause of Lucifer. Gospel Quash is a continuously running game. It has many variations, though each uses reality skew to achieve its goal of eliminating at least one parent from the life of a child. This is the way it works in Maryland and several other states.

In Maryland and elsewhere the contract of marriage often leads to a union that gives rise to interested third parties, the children. Not only has the contract that best protects their interest been undermined at every opportunity by an insatiable and expansionist divorce industry, the children are almost always without representation in cases involving custody. Nevertheless, the system makes much ado about the best interests of the children and has created a best interests fiction. These interests, as defined by a mostly self-serving system, are said to govern, giving the court a "justification" for selectively setting aside parental rights while, more often than not, putting asunder the rights of children as well.

Maryland's family law article provides that "parents are joint natural guardians of their minor child" In practice however; the state and federal courts have allowed just about every Tom, Dick and Principality to intrude on the parent/child relationship. And, there is absolutely nothing to limit these intrusions to divorce cases. Why would a confusing and conflicting array of case law be preferred by anyone over well-crafted legislation? As we continue, keep asking yourself: Who benefits?

Let's briefly return our attention to the SCOTUS agenda. The second casualty in the interest of contrast control is fidelity. By eliminating the commandments against covetousness and adultery from courthouse walls, the Supreme Court of the United States and some state courts have facilitated a moral inversion. They have sent clear signals that to impair the obligations of contract and to violate or betray the integrity of relationships is now ok. In so doing, Maryland Courts have advanced their best interests fiction. Despite strenuous denials, these courts have been the great enablers of family destabilization and parental alienation.

The nation's highest court has become the supreme scofflaw, Maryland's highest court is unable to distinguish between contractual obligation and fleeting affection. In this regard the court of public opinion has rightly held they both lack the "collective common sense" of first year law students.

The third casualty of the SCOTUS mirror is familial integrity. By removing "Honor thy father and mother" from courthouse walls, the courts have helped promote the fashionable idea that relationships with parents are entirely optional. Through the introduction of additional Boolean operators to its adulterated parenting philosophy, the courts have established their own religion. Their new commandments "Honor thy mother or father," "Honor thy mother not father" and "Honor thy father not mother."

From deep within the arena of moral relativism the Ten Commandments are seen as far too absolutist. If the high court is to be operated as a den of iniquity, and thereby serve the cause of Lucifer, these "offensive" commandments must be removed.

The courts are well able to advance other doctrines that are internally inconsistent and detrimental to children. For example, with rights conferred only at birth, a child can legally be greeted with a blow to the head as it traverses the birth canal. This is regarded as a partial birth medical procedure while at the same time a father killing his wife can be charged with her murder as well as that of the unborn child. A stillbirth due to neglected pre-natal care may be considered cause for a manslaughter charge against the mother.

The defect of intellect that could produce such a confusing and conflicting array of case law is directly traceable to the accountability deficit. The framers wrote "Congress shall make no law …" because the courts were never authorized to make law. The framers, though weary of the power of judges they characterized as "foreign potentates," clearly did not anticipate that the legislature would shrink from its responsibility, just as the judiciary became more constructionist. Let's revisit the state example.

Family law in Maryland has devolved into a system of patronage composed of those who deride and those who preside. During their first visit to a divorce attorney, each parent gives their so-called advocate a sense of scope, including insight on available financial resources. The number of potential billable hours is quickly deduced. And, unknown to any steer-able parent, a course of action and the level of contention is often set at this juncture. Attorney advice and predictions are usually conditioned by the business mathematics.

In states such as Maryland, parents quickly learn that one parent can effectively veto joint custody through non-cooperation. And, depending upon whether the particular judge has a demonstrated maternal or paternal preference, the percent chance of win is predictable. What parents don't realize until after the damage is done is the extent to which trial lawyers, judges and ancillary service providers are incentivized within a system like Maryland's.

To emerge victorious in contested custody cases, the goal is to prove the other parent unfit. The court takes, what amounts to, a snapshot of the parents at their worst, least cooperative, most reactive and most competitive moment. This is usually in the context of a contested divorce where living truth is murdered in a triangulation of crossfire. As it is with quarreling children, if provocation goes unnoticed, the reactive parent appears to be the offender.

From this snapshot, snap judgments are formed and, as the courts only think they possess superior wisdom in such cases, all of their conclusions regarding such matters are suspect. Insidious maneuvers are calculated to further divide the parents and to impeach the covenant, the parent and their right to petition. Each is blunted, corrupted and distorted in a way that serves, not the interests of children, not the interests of citizens, but the insatiable appetites of a parasitic system of patronage.

The State's de-facto preference for sole custody sacrifices good results for design efficiency. It stands in stark contrast to lip service and usually results in the disenfranchisement of one otherwise "fit-and-proper parent." The initial "decision" is often capped with an award of attorney fees to the victor and designed to disadvantage the potential Appellant. Also common is the imposition of disproportionate support obligations.

With an oppressive thump on the equity scale, support enforcement occurs at the expense of the state but access enforcement occurs at the expense of the frustrated parent. Such parents often conclude that access is unenforceable or they are unable to endure sustained combat as the price of continued involvement. Beyond doubt, the state has become the de-facto enabler of parental alienation.

The vanquished is further disadvantaged through the tax code and what is known as the material change in circumstances trap. This means that unless the vanquished has substantial resources and unless some arbitrarily set threshold proving a change in circumstances is reached, once the court takes its initial snapshot and a custody decision is made, there will be little chance of success through subsequent proceedings for modification. Through so-called procedures in equity, the state has empowered judges to protect the system and to impose penalties on those seeking to protect their children from, what amounts to, a state sponsored religion. The judicial priesthood is adept at masking the results.

As those vested in the system pat themselves on the back and say "we've served the best interests of a child today," that child's nurturing infrastructure is often discarded as an empty, it's life supporting plasma having been consumed by a system that serves, first and foremost, its own interest.

The child is thus deprived of a nurturing infrastructure that is balanced and diversified in the name of a slothfulness termed "judicial economy." Such "economy" is the haven of the most ethically lazy, socially indifferent, morally unprogressive and spiritually indolent judges. These deadbeats of the highest order abandon moral values and presume to repudiate spiritual goals for whole societies as they undermine the best interests of all children. This so-called economy is also the key to profitability for divorce attorneys, for once the deal is done and there's nothing left to attach, with no time wasted it's on to the next client, the next chug-a-lug.

Now for those who don't think it could possibly be as bad as all that, we will now zoom-in further to examine this scenario, as well as more of the incentives, in even greater detail. As we do, consider the words of former U.S. President John F. Kennedy, I quote: "The rights of every person are diminished when the rights of one person are threatened."

Maryland case law states that in matters of custody the court shall examine the sincerity of a parent's request, the capacity of parents to communicate and reach shared decisions affecting the child's welfare, the psychological capabilities of the parents, the potential for psychological or emotional injury to the child and the potential disruption of a child's social and school life. In divorce cases involving adultery the court must determine if the relationship has had a detrimental affect on the child. The court should examine the totality of the situation in the alternative environments and avoid focusing on any single factor.

The trial courts are also admonished to be aware of what they term lollipop and rescue syndromes. The child's own wishes may be consulted and given weight if he or she is of sufficient age and capacity to form a rational judgment. The state's high court has held that, and I quote "It is not the whim of the child that the court respects, but its feelings, attachments, reasonable preference and probable contentment."

That's quite a snapshot!

By what stretch of even the most overactive imagination, by what miracle of legal education and by what level of megalomanic delusion is a human judge competent to make these determinations? How can the State of Maryland, without regard to their personal success as parents or spouses, justify imposing the values of individual judges on children and families?

Such mandates are impractical as well as immoral, appellate opinion notwithstanding. The State Judiciary does not justify itself but rather covers its failures through unpublished mandates. And there is virtually no objective follow-up that could potentially reveal the long term detrimental affects on children or that might serve as an indicator to the quality of wisdom as it's applied. The Maryland Judiciary clearly does not favor any type of independent audit that would lead to exposure of the best interests' fiction.

In contrast to Maryland and other states that have failed to evolve joint custody, those states with a demonstrated preference for joint custody have recognized the folly of allowing one uncooperative parent to veto it. Such family friendly courts have put the children first and have clarified their intentions with respect to the child's nuclear family in no uncertain terms.

In 1992 the Court of Appeals for the State of Kentucky heard Chalupa v. Chalupa. Judge Schroder, wrote for the majority, and I quote:

"A divorce from a spouse is not a divorce from their children, nor should custody decisions be used as a punishment. Joint custody can benefit the children, the divorced parents, and society in general by having both parents involved in the children's upbringing.... The difficult and delicate nature of deciding what is in the best interest of a child leads this Court to interpret the child's best interest as requiring a trial court to consider joint custody first, before the more traumatic sole custody. In finding a preference for joint custody is in the best interest of the child, even in a bitter divorce, the Court is encouraging the parents to cooperate with each other and to stay on their best behavior. Joint custody can be modified if a party is acting in bad faith or is uncooperative. The trial court at any time can review joint custody and if a party is being uncooperative, modify the custody to sole custody in favor of the reasonable parent. Surely, with the stakes so high, there would be more cooperation, which leads to the child's best interest, the parent's best interest, fewer court appearances and judicial economy. Starting out with sole custody would deprive one parent of the vital input."

In 1993 the Court of Appeals for the State of Georgia heard a case in the interest of A.R.B., a child. In a unanimous opinion, presiding Judge Dorothy T. Beasley stated:

"Although the dispute is symbolized by a 'versus' which signifies two adverse parties at opposite poles of a line, there is in fact a third party whose interests and rights make of a line a triangle. That person, the child who is not an official party to the lawsuit but whose well being is in the eye of the controversy, has a right to shared parenting when both are equally suited to provide it. Inherent in the express public policy is a recognition of the child's right to equal access and opportunity with both parents, the right to be guided and nurtured by both parents, the right to have major decisions made by the application of both parent's wisdom, judgment and experience. The child does not forfeit these rights when the parents divorce."

In states with a rebuttable presumption of joint custody, parents get the idea early on that cooperation truly serves the best interests of their children. In contrast to Georgia and Kentucky, certain states provide the means for sole custody by contrivance. Especially where one parent has a clear advantage due to a judicial bias. When governments presume to regulate a fundamental familial relation they intrude on the natural family with so-called procedures in equity that are often far from equitable.

Compulsive tinkers have encroached in ways they are not willing to acknowledge, but clearly understand. And, they have violated the most basic tenet of sound tinkering, which is to keep all the parts. States that have failed to evolve joint custody together with gender neutrality have engaged in a systematic deprivation of rights against an entire class of citizens. In light of what is known about homes with absentee fathers or mothers, this is clearly a moral inversion, a serious offense subversive of good order.

Executives, legislators and the electorate share responsibility with a judiciary that has lost sight of its onetime role as the standard bearer. As confusion reigns, caseloads increase. Mediocre judges become senior judges who, in the opinion of the Supremes, enjoy absolute judicial immunity, the only remaining absolute in their very special world. This bears repeating again and again, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that judges are immune from civil action, even for acts of malevolence and corruption.

The wayward high court does not differentiate between the judicial act and acts that are arguably in-judicial. Justices have demonstrated a general lack of interest for the issue of judicial integrity and chose to place the interests of friends and colleagues well ahead of the fundamental rights of United States Citizens. Through summary dismissals that are a clear violation of the judicial oath, courts thereby avoid concerning themselves with annoying questions pointing to pervasive judicial corruption

These are questions you must answer. Are they simply educated fools, or do they have an overriding agenda? Does the United States enjoy equal justice for all and an independent judiciary as advertised, or are judges also just one more product of political process? Before you answer, consider again the turn of the millennium national election and the series of court decisions that fell precisely along political lines accompanied by an extraordinary amount of "justification" in the form of court opinions. Also, take note that this was a very rare, high profile case of interest to the largest public. With so much light on them, good behavior was all but assured. All of this serves to underscore the principle that sunlight remains the best disinfectant.

In low profile cases however, reviewing tribunals, both state and federal, routinely issue unpublished mandates thus denying the public the opportunity to see their courts in their most defining moments. It is these buried transactions that enable governments to pacify and sometimes to defraud citizens. Amendment One to the U.S. Constitution specifically prohibits Congress from making any law abridging the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances. In contrast, the Judiciary has granted itself the right to suppress questions of exceptional importance. Abridging the Right to Petition has become black art. Lawyers are trained to fear the career-ending question and the intemperate rage of senior judges. Petitions are routinely dismissed before any hearing, for failure to state a non-frivolous claim even when the claims are anything but frivolous. The Courts have clearly demonstrated that such questions are of little interest where maintaining the illusion of honor is involved.

Justices have used every bureaucratic device to avoid, obfuscate and cowardly suppress the petitions of an entire class of citizens. Advocates and government officials sworn to protect the general population routinely bluff citizens out of their most fundamental rights. With each new occurrence deniability becomes less plausible. No honest person, knowledgeable in this area, denies that there are lawyers engaged in conspiracies against rights and that there are judges, sworn to uphold the constitution as their first duty, that are not above imposing deprivations of rights.

The courts quash any effort to focus public attention on the judiciary's unconstitutional behaviors. It is the courts themselves that have weakened the system of judicial accountability. We have all witnessed judges that would minimize the serious and gravity of perjury as well as the subornation of perjury. Reckless indifference to the problem of corruption is pervasive and their motivations, with respect to maintaining the status quo, are clear.

Everyone understands and appreciates the Judiciary's discomfort and its reluctance to hear petitions that call into question the integrity of fellow members of the bar. Even so, it is clear the immunity doctrines do not serve the public interest.

Should a judge engaged in the slow, careful and deliberate process of adjudication enjoy absolute freedom from liability for malpractice when an over-tasked emergency room physician does not?

The only justifications offered by the federal courts clearly demonstrate that the self-interest of the court and those of career advocates govern, despite all pretenses to the contrary. The citizenry is not sympathetic to the cause of corruption. The question remains if the public, once fully informed, will be tolerant of a court that, by its own actions and dereliction, has brought such dishonor upon a once respected institution.

Petitions are dismissed for having the wrong typeface while constitutional questions are characterized as frivolous. Judges have treated the whole body of law as though it's a buffet from which they can pick and choose in a self-indulgent manner, placing their personal interests and the career interests of their colleagues ahead of their respective duties in accordance with their oaths of office. The willingness to suppress questions presented on appeal and the habit of obsessing on minutia while ignoring essential principles is not without historical precedent. The courts of ancient times were said to have strained at gnats while swallowing camels. We submit that the sophistries and motivations of those cloaked in absolute power have not changed in thousands of years.

The people of this earthly nation are just now coming to the realization that they have the duty to get focused, to correctly discern the merits of each and every proposition put forth by their public "servants." And to regain control. The electorate is just beginning to recognize that peer pressure and the current political climate are such that elected officials are mostly concerned with running afoul of political correctness standards, and that these so-called standards are often set by vocal minorities and special interest groups.

In formula politics, the moral compass is seldom, if ever, consulted. In fact, morality itself is denounced by certain constituencies as "politically incorrect." Where fashion sits, immoral decisions are characterized as "properly amoral." So-called leaders are seen by citizens as reeds in a political wind, as tripping all over themselves to avoid moral questions in a pathetic attempt to conform to these fleeting "standards."

Yates, in his poem the Second Coming, said "The best lack all conviction and the worst are full of passionate intensity." In accordance with this belief, the Judiciary is confident that citizens will continue to tolerate what amounts to a state sponsored religion that is in direct violation of the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. But by this perfidy the judges have aroused the indignation of a virtuous, loyal and affectionate people.

Waiting armies of Citizen Litigators are thriving in light and see that the effects of acquiescence are not tolerable. They have rightly concluded that to accept is to deserve and are willing to go to extreme, at times self-sacrificing lengths, to expose the unmitigated selfishness of jurists who seek to suppress constitutional questions for their own purposes. There is a long line of citizen litigators in training who are unimpressed by any masquerade usurping the authority of true justice and equity.

These true citizens are not members of any bar and they serve without conflict of interest. They are therefore free to champion the true interests of their fellow citizens. They are an unruly lot and often hated by judges for such careers are not in the hands of these judges. And accordingly, the career-ending question has bounced back with an attitude. It is they who will expose the pseudo-judicial hucksterism that has so corrupted these earthly courts.

The founders did not regard themselves as God's equal and certainly did not believe their work product to be superior to His. In contrast to today's courts, the framers strove, not to displace, but to complement the wisdom of the ages. Because the Wayward Supremes lack the spiritual idealism characteristic of the founders, they have a great handicap in divining the intent of the framers.

As the rudderless ship of state runs its course, it has adopted a moral relativism that is the navigational and mathematical equivalent of a circular reference. Why? Who benefits from the absence of a true reference standard? Keep that question uppermost in your minds as we continue to move forward through these arguments and as you move forward through your deliberations.