- Delivering Truth Around the World
Custom Search



Smaller Font Larger Font RSS 2.0


A Judge's Perspective

Law, Ethics & Values In America: A Christian Nation


1/18/95 #2   HATONN


Now, about judges and are they all corrupt?  No, but every year there are less and less "good" ones left anywhere around your nation.  As with the recent "Jason Brent" (Berkowitz), ex-municipal judge in Mojave [see last week's Front Page story], (now "practicing" unlawfully on the citizens of Tehachapi, California--unless YOU take a stand, you will be fitted into the plan of annihilation at the hands of these intruders.

Oh, yes indeed, you have "alien intruders" alright who plan to "depopulate" the planet.  In the process, they will "dispatch" (KILL OFF) the aged, infirm, and stupid.  By "stupid" it means anything under the level of guidelines set forth by your High-I.Q. Society, Mensa, to which Jason Brent belongs and through which organizations his world depopulation plan has been set forth.

Well, he handled it a bit differently with Ekkers--he first made sure every law was broken from the bench and GAVE AWAY THEIR HOME TO THE RTC AND CONTINUES HIS CONNECTIONS THROUGH GEORGE GREEN TO TOTALLY DESTROY THEM.  HE MANAGED TO GET THEM TO LOSE EVERYTHING THEY EVER HOPED TO EARN AND LITERALLY WAS MOVING THEM INTO THE STREET UNDER ORDER OF HIS COURT!     THIS is what you are coming to, America--it is ALREADY under way so don't think it is a "fluke" to be made passage through, somehow, and things will return to Constitutional Law.  No--these are the Parasitic FLUKES which infect and infest every fiber of your globe and the hosts, therefore, are about to pay the ultimate penalty for being the banquet table--annihilation and enslavement.

From ANTISHYSTER news magazine, Vol. 4, No. 4, Dec. 1994 (and there is no way I can push this journal hard enough!), c/o PO Box 540786, Dallas, Texas 95354-0786. Ph. 1-800-477-5508.  Office: 1-214-418-8993, Annual fee for six issues: $30.00.  Three issues (6 months) $20.00. Please call for any further information required or desired.



by Judge J.J. Bossel

Judge J.J. Bossel graduated from Ohio State University and the University of Michigan Law School, taught Constitutional Law at Capital University Law School, and retired as a Municipal Judge from Wapakoneta, Ohio.  He is also a retired Army Colonel, who served with the Fourth Infantry in the D-Day assault on Normandy's Utah beach during WWII.  He and his wife of fifty-two years have three grown daughters, and two grand-daughters.

(If you think it's remarkable that an article by a retired judge appears in the AntiShyster news magazine), wait till you see the author of the next article "Judicial Corruption".  As Bob Dylon said, the times, they are a-changin'.)


In 1962, the majority of the Supreme Court rules in Engle vs. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, that there was a "Constitutional wall of separation of church and state."  But Justice Stewart dissented, saying: "This phrase [separation of church and state"] is nowhere to be found in the Constitution."  [H: Furthermore, this COULD only at best refer to the "church" not God/Christ or even other religions.  There is, after all, a "church" for every religion, so to be selective in that "doctrine" of "church" COULD NOT BE.]

Nevertheless, for more than thirty years, in cases involving state laws promoting religion within their own states, the Supreme Court has insisted that the Constitution declares there is a "separation of church and state".

Using the "separation of church and state" language, the Court has prohibited school prayer, reading the Bible aloud, a minute of "silent meditation" in one state, posting the Ten Commandments in Kentucky school hallways, and the placement of the manger scenes in all state public places.  Result?  There has been endless confusion among the nation's school boards, administrators, and teachers as to how to apply this unconstitutional legislative addition to the Constitution.

At the time of the Engle decision (1962), I was teaching Constitutional Law at Franklin Law School, so I had to be sure what to teach my law students.  Was it true that the Constitution contains the "separation of church and state" phrase, or did Justice Stewart speak the truth when he said it was not in the Constitution?

I studied the Constitution and its amendments and, Lo and Behold, I found that Justice Stewart had told the truth.  The phrase "separation of church and states" is simply NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION.

If that's true, then what lawful relationship, if any, exists between our Constitution, our government, and God?


First of all, America is a Christian nation.  That was the conclusion of the United States Supreme Court over 100 years ago in The Rector, et al., vs.. The United States, 143 U.S. 226 (1892).  That case concerned an employment contract in which a New York church hired a British minister to serve as church pastor.  The Federal government argued that the contract violated a Federal law regulating the importation of foreign labor.  The lower Court agreed and fined the church-wardens and vestrymen $1,000 each.  On appeal, the United States Supreme Court reversed the lower Court and returned the fines to the churchmen.

The Supreme Court's 1892 Rector decision was based on an extensive search of historical public documents pertinent to the founding of this nation.  Starting at the beginning--with the Royal Commission to Christopher Columbus granted by Ferdinand and Isabella of Castile in 1492--the Court noted that these monarchs humbly called upon God, "for His assistance in discovering some islands or continents in the ocean".

The Court next considered the grant made in 1584 to Sir Walter Raleigh from, "Elizabeth, but the Grace of God, Queen of England, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith," etc.  That grant authorized Sir Walter to enact statutes to govern his proposed colony provided that "they be not against the true Christian Faith now professed in the Church of England."

The Court looked at the first Charter to Virginia by King James  [H: Humnnn--?]  in 1606 and read, "We...graciously accepting their desires, for the furtherance of so noble a work, which may, by the providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the Glory of His Divine Majesty, in propagating of Christian religion to such people who as yet live in darkness and miserable ignorance of the True knowledge and worship of God."

Continuing its search, the Court wrote, "The celebrated compact made by the Pilgrims in the Mayflower in 1620 recites, in part,'...having undertaken for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian faith, DO, BY THESE PRESENTS, covenant and combine ourselves together...' ".

Looking at the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut for its provisional government in 1638-1639, the Court read, "Forasmuch as it hath pleased Almighty God by the wise disposition of His Divine Providence... do for ourselves and our successors... enter into combination... together... to maintain and preserve the purity and liberty of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus, which we now profess."  [H: But you have to remember, readers, that two things are afoot here.  First of all, the "pilgrims" were leaving England to GET AWAY FROM THE PERSECUTION OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.  Second: The insistence of a national "religion", be it of whatever nature--BECAME ELIMINATED BY THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF AND FREEDOM OF RELIGIOUS RIGHTS.  You see, the above names someone called "Jesus" which is not the intent of "Christ" in any valid context.  Those who believed that a man named "Jesus" was a/the Christ is quite another.  So the intent of the Constitution was to ensure that all men UNDER GOD could worship freely any Christ (or other) being.  However, since the nation's LAWS were based on the Laws of Nature (Creation) AND the godly and freedom-intended LAWS OF GOD, the intent was to maintain, through that LAW, freedom, equality, and liberty of EACH and ALL.  You will find, I remind you, that there was to be NO NATIONAL RELIGION!  YOU DO, NOW, HOWEVER, HAVE A CONGRESSIONAL RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE JEWISH NOACHIDIC LAWS AS YOUR NATIONAL RELIGION!!]

The Court continued: "The Declaration of Independence (1776) recognizes the presence of the Divine in human affairs with these words, in part, 'that all men are created equal, and they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.  We, therefore... appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions... and for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our Sacred Honor.' "

"Even the Constitution of the United States (1787), which is supposed to have little touch on the private life of the individual, contains in the First Amendment a declaration common to the Constitutions of all the states as follows: 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. ' "

Regarding state constitutions, the Court wrote, "If we examine the constitutions of the various states we find... a constant recognition of religious obligations.  Every Constitution of every one of the forty-four states contains language which either directly or by clear implication recognizes a profound reverence for religion and an assumption that this influence in human affairs is essential to the well being of the community."

The Court concluded, "There is no dissonance in these declarations.  There is a universal language pervading them all.  These are not individual sayings--declarations of private persons; they are organic utterances--they speak the voice of the entire people.  These and many other matters which might be noted, add a volume of unofficial declaration to the mass of organic utterances, that this is a Christian Nation."  [emph. add.]

While the question has seldom been presented to the Courts, we find that in Updegraph v. Com Serg & R, 394, 400, it was decided that, "Christianity, general Christianity, is and always has been a part of the common law of Pennsylvania... not Christianity with an established CHURCH, and titles and spiritual courts; but Christianity with liberty of conscience to ALL men."  [emph. add.]

What may be said then, as to Law, Ethics, And Values in this Christian Nation?  The answer is loud and clear:

The law of these United States is based upon the law given by Almighty God to Moses--the Ten Commandments.  This law is the basis of the civil and criminal law of all fifty states.  It prohibits certain human behavior or misbehavior for the purpose of maintaining a quiet and civilized nation.

Nevertheless, since the Engle case in 1962, the United States Supreme Court has insisted that there is a "separation of church and state" clause in the Constitution and thereby seized UNCONSTITUTIONAL JUDICIAL POWER to restrict State Laws that promote (or merely allow) religion.

How did the Supreme Court do it?  By twice unilaterally amending the Constitution: first: to include the phrase "Separation of Church And State"; and second, to change the 1st Amendment to effectively read, "Congress (and the state legislatures) shall make no law, respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."


The only Constitutional restriction on religion is found in the First Amendment reads in part, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Note that this Amendment says nothing about state laws of a religious nature... only "Congress" is prohibited.

The Tenth Amendment reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The Amendment confirms that the power and right to make laws promoting religion are reserved to the states because there is no provision in the Constitution prohibiting the states from passing laws promoting religion.

Whether the states, like Congress, were also bound by the 1st Amendment's prohibition "respecting the establishment of religion" was considered by Congress just after the Civil War. Rep. Blaine introduced the following proposed amendment using language almost identical to the existing First Amendment.

"No State shall make any law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  [emph. add.]

However, the Congress of the Civil War era did not wish to limit the States (as the Constitution limits Congress in the 1st Amendment), and so, approximately 120 years ago, they rejected the Blaine amendment.  [H: Let us pause here and look at the Blaine amendment.]  Editor's note:  The Blaine amendment was an important event because 1. it was proposed after the 14th Amendment was ratified;  2. it's proposal implies that, originally, the states were NOT bound by the U.S. Constitution with respect to the "establishment" and "free exercise" of religion (if they were, why propose the amendment?); and  3. Congressional refusal to support the Blaine amendment had little or no intention of using that amendment to extend the powers of the federal government (including the Supreme Court) over the states (the 14th Amendment power grab came later in our nation's history).

How, then, could the Supreme Court declare in the 1962 Engle case that it was unconstitutional for New York state law to require New York children to say the following prayer in school?:

"Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our Country."

The Court simply said: "The establishment clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment are operative against the states by virtue of the 14th Amendment".

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment reads: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.  No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."  [H: Now you have compounded the problem, however, for herein you have just established a DIFFERENT UNITED STATES citizenship.  Twice the lie does not truth make!]

But where in the 14th Amendment is there anything about religion?  Nowhere in that amendment is there any mention of religion.

A "before and after" view of the change made by the Court in the Engle case will show this change:

1st Amendment before the change: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

De facto 1st Amendment after the change: "Congress (and the state legislatures) shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

This change was supported in 1963 in the "school prayer" case of Abington School District vs. Schempp, 374 U.S. 215 where the Court said: "The 1st Amendment 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof' has been made wholly applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment."

The Engle and Abington decisions amended the 1st and 14th Amendments but, lawfully, are no more than "proposed amendments" and never became law because Congress and the states never adopted those changes.  [emph. add.]


Instead of unilaterally changing the 1st Amendment with the Engle and Abington cases, the Supreme Court should have withheld its ruling and requested that, as per Article V of the Constitution, Congress and the States amend the existing 1st Amendment--something the Supreme Court COULD NOT LAWFULLY DO.  [H: Does it become more understandable WHY A PRESIDENT APPOINTS, FOR LIFE, MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME COURT?  THEY WILL RULE ANY WAY THEY ARE TOLD TO RULE AND IT BECOMES THE LAW OF THE LAND UNLESS COUNTERED BY THE STATES AND CONGRESS.  IF YOU GET CONGRESS INCLUDED IN "YOUR SCHEME" THEN THE STATES ARE SIMPLY NOT CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE EQUATION--VOTES WILL BE TAKEN IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT WHILE CONGRESS IS IN RECESS AND OTHER SUCH CUTE TRICKERY.  IT HAS HAPPENED CONSTANTLY FOR OVER A CENTURY WITHOUT OBJECTION FROM MORE THAN THE TINY FEW WHO KNEW BETTER.  There are hardly any of those left any longer!]

Article V of the U.S. Constitution describes the amendment procedure: 

"The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments... or, on the Application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, shall call a convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either case shall be valid... as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the Several States, or by Conventions in three-fourths thereof... "

Note that all the powers of Amendment are strictly reserved to Congress and the state legislatures--no court, supreme or otherwise, can lawfully amend the Constitution.  The Supreme Court has only the authority to say what the Constitution means... it CANNOT CHANGE WHAT IT SAYS.

The U.S. Supreme Court, as a branch of the National Government, is bound to observe and obey its own declarations of principles of Constitutional law limiting the Court's "construction" of the Constitution.  This principle was declared in Reid vs. Covert 354 U.S. 1 (1957).

"The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to ALL branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined."

Reid also declared a second principle that no Court's "construction": or, "interpretation" of the Constitution can amend the Constitution in a manner not sanctioned by Article V.  Only Congress and the States can amend the Constitution under Article V.  "It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives or those who created the Constitution... let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement (treaty) without observing Constitutional prohibitions.  In effect, such construction would permit amendment of the document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V."  This case appears to have significant relevance to the two other Treaty articles ("Treaties: A Source For Federal Municipal Power" and "Objective: To Make Nature Warship a State Religion").  [H: This refers to other articles in this same issue of AntiShyster.]


Nevertheless, the Supreme Court ignored the lawful amending procedures in Article V.  Instead, it unilaterally changed the First Amendment to take jurisdiction over the state law case, and has followed with similar lawmaking decisions to this date.

How did the Courts amend the Constitution in a manner not sanctioned by Article V?

Answer:  By "re-constructing" the Constitution in the Engle vs. Vitale case (supra), to include the phrase "Separation of Church And State".

The Engle majority "interpreted" the 1st and 14th Amendments and ruled that the "separation of Church and State" is included in the Constitution.  The Supreme Court's majority called it a wall of separation despite the fact that, as Justice Potter Stewart said in his dissent, "This language 'Separation of Church and State' is NOWHERE TO BE FOUND IN THE CONSTITUTION."

By effectively adding the phrase "separation of Church and State" to the Constitution, the Court violated its own previous declaration in the Reid case.  By changing the Amendment's religion clauses to include State laws, Supreme Court unlawfully amended the U.S. Constitution in a manner not sanctioned by Article V.


It is time for the lawful legislatures of the Federal and State governments to stop the Supreme Court's "legislation".

In 1962, the Supreme Court acted unconstitutionally in the Engle case by including the phrase, "separation of church and state".  That inclusion constitutes a judicial amendment to the Constitution in clear violation of Article V.  Therefore, the phrase, "separation of church and state" is NOT a lawful part of the Constitution.

Until "separation of church and state" is adopted by the Congress and States, the phrase is no more than a proposed amendment; proposed by the Supreme Court, and enforced by the Supreme Court even though it is not a valid legislative amendment.  [H: While at the same time you have a total REMOVAL of the original 13th Amendment with replacement so YOU-THE-PEOPLE would never KNOW that attorneys with titles (Esquires) could NOT serve in any judicial capacity or in any capacity with any of the nation's legislatures.  Does anyone find that "CONVENIENT" FOR THE LAWYERS AND CORRUPT-INTENDED JUDICIAL SYSTEM AS A WHOLE?  My, my, they can just come forth and rewrite the Constitution, put it into law and enforce the unconstitutional laws and you never know what happened to you and your nation!  I also pick up the moaning and groaning of the readers as to "How much do you think we citizens can do?"  Well, it is your nation and your lives--so I guess ever how MUCH YOU WANT TO DO TO BRING YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL COUNTRY back from the insipidly insidious PARASITES, Flukeyou, and Screwyou-pinworms.  The name of the Anti-Christ game, readers, is to take your world by deceit and subterfuge through the SECRET SOCIETIES OF THE ONE WORLD ORDER--NOT "NEW"--JUST TERRIBLE IN EITHER INSTANCE.]

What can be done to stop the Supreme Court's unconstitutional lawmaking?  There is only one constitutional remedy which can correct an erroneous or unconstitutional decision by the Supreme Court: Congress and the States MUST AMEND THE CONSTITUTION.  [H: Well, here I bow to the Judge's opinion--but remember something, citizens, you DO NOT NEED MORE AMENDMENTS TO YOUR CONSTITUTION--YOU NEED YOUR CONSTITUTION AS IT WAS WITH ITS BILL OF RIGHTS--NO MORE.  AND, YOU NEED TO STRUCTURE "YOUR" GOVERNMENT ON THOSE LAWS--WHEREVER YOU WISH TO STRUCTURE IT--BUT OBVIOUSLY, OUTSIDE THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND SEPARATE FROM THE CRIMINAL SYSTEM YOU NOW HAVE.]

I (the judge), propose the following Amendment:

"The Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the 1st Amendment shall apply ONLY TO CONGRESS, exactly as stated by the Founders, and shall not apply to the States, [unless and/or] until Congress and the States shall make it apply to the States, by acting under Article V of this Constitution, the only lawful way provided to amend this Constitution."

A new constitutional amendment could restore the First Amendment as originally intended by the Founders and thereby restore the states' former jurisdiction over First Amendment cases arising under State law.  Afterward, intra-state issues of religious freedom would be decided by the fifty State Supreme Courts under the fifty State Constitutions.

This article is reprinted with permission from the September, 1994 issue of Media Bypass magazine, published monthly, annual subscriptions $29.95. To subscribe, call 1-800-4-BYPASS.



I want to offer CORRUPTION IN THE COURTHOUSE by Chief Justice, 5th Court of Appeals, Texas, Charles McGarry, but this writing has become too lengthy to attach it hereto.  It is most IMPORTANT to get the information in this day of suggested Rambo gun-toter activities.  You CHANGE THINGS BY FIXING THE LAW BEING BROKEN AND RECONSTRUCTING YOUR REAL LAWS.  BALLOTS IN TRUTH AND NOT BULLETS--MUST BE THE FOCUS--FOR THERE ARE NO CITIZEN GUNS BIG ENOUGH TO CONFRONT WHAT WILL COME AGAINST YOU NOW.  Salu.


Source:   CONTACT: THE PHOENIX PROJECT, January 24, 1995, Volume 7, Number 13, Pages 11-13.

Transcribed into HTML format by R. Montana.