MISSOURI'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL JUDGES: by Sanity Clause 12-8-97

I'm a rebel with a cause. That cause is a government within constitutional guidelines.

Missouri has categorically no constitutional (de jure) judges, and I can prove it!

Each of the facts below stands alone as incontrovertibly true, a priori if you will. Once it is seen that these facts relate, such correlation proves my case against Missouri's judiciary.

THE CASE STATED:

1) There is no such thing as a valid self issued State license of any kind. [This is because for a license to exist a Licensor must permit a Licensee to exercise a privilege. At law the terms "license" and "permit" are synonyms. A valid Licensor has power to regulate the exercise of the privilege he confers by his grant of license, and is responsible for executing such power of regulation under respondeat superior. In Missouri, by the expressed provisions of Missouri's BILL OF RIGHTS, namely, Mo. Cons., Art. I, §§ 1 &3, it is the people who permit the very existence of government and who have "the inherent, sole and exclusive right to regulate" it. "We, the people-" are the Licensers of government and cannot divest that responsibility upon our servants; not and retain our "exclusive right" to regulate it. Either "WE-" are in charge of our government {republic}, or it has charge of us {police state}.]

2) All judges in Missouri are required to be licensed to practice law. [Since amendment in 1945, the Missouri Constitution, at Article V, §21, has mandated that: "Every supreme, appellate, circuit, and associate circuit court judge shall be licensed to practice law in this state." Missouri's municipal court judges are required to be licensed to practice law by the court reform act of 1977.]

3) For a duty to repose in an office it must be executable by the officer in charge. [Mo. Cons., Art. II, §1, the separation of powers, provides for the necessary checks and balances {at least on paper anyway} to safeguard the sovereign people's liberty and other rights. The manifest distinction between "office" and "officer" is: the former is either a room in a building, or a burden of trust {example: It is the office of government to safeguard rights.}; while the latter is a person who works in such a room and/or is charged with such duties. Telling an office to do something is ridiculous, as only people can officiate.]

4) The people most responsible, and for that presumably accountable, for the duties of the supreme court of Missouri, are the judges who preside therein. [Who else?]

5) Humans are absolutely incapable of enacting self-executing legislation. [If there were such an authority available to human legislation, we would have no need of an executive branch to execute our laws, nor indeed for a judicial branch within which to adjudicate cases; because the legislation would accomplish the execution of law. The very thought of self-executing human legislation is preposterous!]

6) In America there is no lawful self-regulating body smaller than "the people" as a whole.

7) RSMo. §484.040 clearly and expressly states that licenses to practice law are to be issued by the Missouri supreme court, and regulated by the rules of that court. Which is unconstitutional and absurd for all of the reasons stated here above. This statute is the naked color of law at its worst.

CONSTITUTIONALITY:

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury vs Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803). "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491. "An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton vs Shelby County, 118 US 425 p. 442

THE BOTTOM LINE:

All Missouri court decisions since 1945 have been coram non judice (in the presence of persons who are not constitutionally qualified to be judges), but what is to be done? Where is the law when you need it? In exercise of my First Amendment right to free speech I am sending copies of this analysis, via snail-mail, to the Clerk of the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 1 First Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20543, as it is there that "original jurisdiction" rests pursuant US Cons., Art. III, §2; but because of their Rule 5 ADMISSION TO THE BAR, I hold little hope of adjudication there as those officers also have some explaining to do. Oh well, "Time makes more converts than reason." Paine.