"An assertion stands as fact unless and until controverted." I've had this issue up on the Net for years now in one form or another, without any attempt by anybody to controvert the assertion that Missouri's government is corrupt. This rewrite is in the form stipulated by Steven Buckley, http://www.whistleblower.com/mainpage.htm, except for its length. With apology to Mr. Buckley, huge issues take more than two pages to explain. This issue stands as a fact.

SUMMARY: ALL MISSOURI JUDGES ARE CONTEMPTIBLE

1. WHERE the problem is: Missouri's judiciary sits de facto only, and not de jure. VENUE: This issue must be decided in Missouri http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst/art-3.html - sec-2, but not by or before any Missouri judge, as it challenges the integrity of all of Missouri's judges.

2. WHY this is improper: Unconstitutional government is improper because of the thousands of lives given by patriots defending the Constitution. As shown infra, Missouri's judiciary self regulates, and have declared themselves independent of their sovereign, exceeding even the hubris of England's infamous Star Chamber Courts. As James Madison, in THE FEDERALIST #10 wrote, "No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity." http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/Federalist/feder10.html.

The Missouri Rules of Court, Rule 36.01(b) states, "If the contempt charged involves disrespect to or criticism of a judge, that judge is disqualified from presiding at the trial or hearing except with the defendant's consent." If they charge me with contempt, since I do not consent to their Jurisdiction, by their own Rule they have no Jurisdiction to judge the issue of my contempt. Do they play by their own Rules? http://www.sound.net/~duncan10/rq3601cr.htm NO!

The US Constitution, Article III, Section 2, states: "In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction." [emphasis added] http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst/art-3.html - sec-2, and self-licensing traverses this proviso.

3. WHAT happened (specifically): {These five a priori facts are known and fully known by all members of the de facto GOVERNMENT OF THE MISSOURI BAR http://www.sound.net/~duncan10/qx27esta.htm [Missouri Rule 7.], and when construed together manifest the truth. That the perpetrators acted and act purposely and knowingly goes to their "culpable mental state" RSMo. §562.016 http://www.moga.state.mo.us/statutes/c500-599/5620016.htm.}

1) There is and can be no such a thing as any self-issued license for Licensor and Licensee are always distinct, never one and the same person or body. All licenses are in some way regulatory, and self-issuance eschews all real regulation. [Cf.: "license" in any common or legal dictionary. NOTE: The regulation of Missouri's government is a right preserved inherently, solely, and exclusively to the people, Mo. Cons., Art. I, §3 http://www.moga.state.mo.us/const/A01003.HTM and cannot be both held "exclusively"and delegated to any governmental commission subject to such regulation as in Mo. Cons., Art. V, §24 http://www.moga.state.mo.us/const/A05024.HTM; "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" JUVENAL.]

2) All Missouri judges must be licensed to practice law, Mo. Cons., Art. V, §21. http://www.moga.state.mo.us/const/A05021.HTM

3) For an onus to lawfully repose in an office, such burden must be executable by the officer in charge, [Mo. Cons., Art. II, §1. http://www.moga.state.mo.us/const/A02001.HTM] i.e., "office" and "officer" are separate and distinct terms. Office can't sanctify officer, lest there be no checks and balances to our government which could allow the sovereign people to regulate it. [Mo. Cons., Art. I, §§1,3&4. http://www.moga.state.mo.us/const/T01.HTM]

4) The people most responsible, and accountable, for the duties of the Missouri Supreme Court are the de facto judges who preside therein. The office does nothing without the consent or express direction of its chief officers.

5) RSMo. §484.040 http://www.moga.state.mo.us/statutes/c400-499/4840040.htm purports to place the burden of issuing licenses to practice law upon the office of Missouri's supreme court whose chief officers are required to hold the same; evincing the patent absurdity of self-issued color of licenses. [Cf.: 1) through 4) supra.]

4. HOW to investigate/confirm: Just go on-line, click on the links, and read. The meaning of the terms, Constitutions, and Statutes are plain, unambiguous, and open to the understanding of all; else the whole of the general public is incompetent to understand them, incompetent to consent (grant license) to them or not, incompetent to vote at election for anything or anyone, and ever and always "Not guilty by reason of incompetence." needing a parental government rather than a servant one. Or as Daniel Webster put it, "It is, Sir, the people's Constitution, the people's government, made for the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people."

5.WHO knows about this: All of Missouri's de facto judiciary is colorable and know it full well; else they are all incompetent in office, which is just as bad. Each and every other state issued license is executed by and through the executive magistracy, except the so-called "license to practice law." RSMo. §484.040, has traversed the separation of powers, Mo. Cons., Art. II, §1. http://www.moga.state.mo.us/const/A02001.HTM, since its inception in 1899, through numerous revisions; therefore, I presume that everyone in America charged under oath with knowing and enforcing the law knows justice and constitutionality are jokes in Missouri. Too, ignorantia legis neminem excusat.

6. ADDITIONAL Info: {The following list is exemplary, and by no means definitive.}

1) By knowingly receiving their salaries under the false pretense of illicit color of licenses, Missouri's judges commit CLASS "C" Felony Stealing http://www.moga.state.mo.us/statutes/c500-599/5700030.htm. Racketeers!

2) By knowingly holding office, and executing their duties of office, under the false and deceitful pretense of illicit color of licenses, Missouri judges and attorneys commit perjury of oath, Title 4 USC §101, http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/4/101.html codified at Missouri Rule 8.15, http://www.sound.net/~duncan10/qx2815oa.htm. Another felony!

3) No "decided law" in Missouri has proceeded de jure since Missouri's judiciary began the colorable practice of self-licensing in 1945. Missouri's government is an open fraud.

4) Anyone aiding or abetting Missouri's judiciary in this iniquity by action or inaction is equally guilty of conspiracy (con's-piracy?) to racketeer, at the least, silence being the voice of complicity.

5) Missouri is, de facto, a quasi-judicial, colorable, self-licensed oligarchy, and for that reason lacks the "Republican Form of Government" prescriptively guaranteed to every State by the US Constitution at Article IV, Section 4, http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst/art-4.html - sec-4. The responsibility of honoring this promise, i.e., executing the supreme Law of the Land http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst/art-6.html rests squarely upon this Nation's Chief Executive http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst/art-2.html - sec-1, but color me cynical.

6) The existence of Missouri's commission on retirement, removal, and discipline of judges, Mo. Cons., Art. V, §24 http://www.moga.state.mo.us/const/A05024.HTM manifestly annuls the "original Jurisdiction" proviso of the US Constitution, Article III, Section 2 http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst/art-3.html - sec-2, and being repugnant thereto is void prima facie and ab initio, Mo. Cons., Art. I, §3 http://www.moga.state.mo.us/const/A01003.HTM and Mo. Cons., Art. I, §4 http://www.moga.state.mo.us/const/A01004.HTM. [16^th American Jurisprudence, 2^nd, §256.]

7) Missouri's de facto judiciary not only eschews regulation by their sovereign via self-licensing, annulling the checks and balances built into our Constitutions; but have openly and expressly declared their "Independence" via Canon 1, http://www.sound.net/~duncan10/qxcn1aju.htm. [NOTE: Canon Law is ecclesiastical at its root… Where is the ACLU when you need them?] [HISTORICAL NOTE: When the Framers of our government declared "Independence" from the Crown on July 4^th, 1776, King George III attacked us! http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/declaration/decmain.html]

In closing: This writing is for educational purposes only and not meant to provide any rationale for any violence by anyone. The foundation of patriotism is the rational belief that our Constitutions and laws apply equally to all, i.e., that the statement, "No one is above the law." is a true one; or is it? No, the foundation of patriotism in the US of A is blind faith completely devoid of rationale. The laws of our land do not apply equally to all. In the Case of BRISCOE v LAHUE 460 US 325, 75 L Ed 2d 96, 103 S Ct 1108 our prescriptively servant US Supreme Court effectively and for all intents and purposes licensed perjury in regard to police testimony, and even the US Senate has in effect proclaimed our President immune to the felony charge of perjury. So much for the notion of honest government. I like idea of Whistleblower.com http://www.whistleblower.com/mainpage.htm as a place to vent my angst, but I expect the "powers that be" will prefer voluminous sophistry in open conspiratorial collusion to any honest address of the issues above. I just can’t believe no one but me has seen all this happening in the century it has been happening.

Sanity Clause, a.k.a., Bruce Woodruff Kurt, http://www.sanityclause.com/.