1. I am a thorn in the side of the GOVERNMENT OF THE MISSOURI BAR and have been for many years. My political writings are obviously meant to be another wrench in the cogs of their status quo. Therefore, the questions arise: "What repercussions should I expect from my adversaries for the stance I've taken?" "Can I expect to be jailed for my contempt, or sued for libel or defamation?" "Will they shoot me?"
2. When I oppugn the integrity of a seated "judge" in open court, and am jailed for it in violation of Missouri Rule 36.01 (b) http://www.sound.net/~duncan10/rq3601cr.htm, said judge invariably comes off smelling like the skunk he is in the press. [I called one so-called judge "a perfidious biased son of a bitch" and he told the press, "If I have to look it up, he goes to jail." Meaning he jailed me and then looked up why!] Missouri's commission on retirement, removal, and discipline of judges of course does nothing; but then, as explained infra, it isn't a lawful body anyway. The bastards have gotten wise to this tactic of mine, i.e., educating the public by letting them make fools of themselves; so now they just arrest me temporarily to intimidate the rest of the people in the court gallery, and turn me loose after the rest of their victims are gone. I'm not talking about a criminal proceeding here, just the unlawful extortive revenue scam commonly known as "municipal traffic court." I haven't hurt anyone or stolen from anyone, and it has never been alleged that I have. Civil disobedience is not a "Crime."
3. My right to freedom of the press under the First Amendment to the US Constitution is not absolute. At the very least I could become the defendant in a Civil suit for liable, or a petition for an injunction in Equity could be brought before a court of competent jurisdiction seeking to compel me to cease and desist my criticisms. Ooops, just who it is that would be the proper Party Principal to bring the action against me? The US Constitution, Article III, Sec. 2, Clause 2, says: "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." in no uncertain terms http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst/art-3.html - sec-2 (emphasis supplied). Now, just exactly who is that? Missouri's Constitution, Art. I, §8, states: "That no law shall be passed impairing the freedom of speech, no matter by what means communicated: that every person shall be free to say, write or publish, or otherwise communicate whatever he will on any subject, being responsible for all abuses of that liberty; and that in all suits and prosecutions for libel or slander the truth thereof may be given in evidence; and in suits and prosecutions for libel the jury, under the direction of the court, shall determine the law and the facts." (Euphemism emphasized.). http://www.moga.state.mo.us/const/A01008.HTM
4. Now, we know that because of the express provision of Missouri's Constitution, Art. I, §3, http://www.moga.state.mo.us/const/A01003.HTM Missouri's government may not, in form or function, be "repugnant to the Constitution of the United States." But we also know that that prescriptive promise may be betrayed, which is the reason for our constitutional checks and balances. So again, considering both Constitutional Jurisdiction statements above: "Who would judge an action brought against me?" Would it be my adversaries, or the sovereign people?
5. As Ben Franklin said, "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." It is not enough to blindly trust that Missouri's jury proviso supra is not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, the reason why it is not repugnant must be stated, i.e.; a claim of manifest truth must be verifiable.
6. Diagramming the first sentence of Article III of the US Constitution shows a manifest distinction between the "one supreme Court" of vested right, and the "inferior courts" the US Congress is permitted to "establish." This is not a mere personal opinion; most everyone educated in public schools has learned to diagram a sentence. Too, the people holding the sovereignty of the US, we obviously have jurisdiction over our servants. An independent jury is a microcosm of "the people" as a whole, and as such by all rights should be the final check and balance, the real "one supreme Court" in place to prevent our government from getting out of hand; at least that's my take on it. The Framers must have realized it was a logistic impossibility for the "one supreme Court" to be other than an independent jury in their time, for then as now, the need for the sovereign people's exercise of "original Jurisdiction" over their prescriptively servant "public Ministers and Consuls," http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst/art-3.html - sec-2 was often far too immediate to admit of delay. This is jury nullification in action, not vigilantism. This should be the sovereign people ruling, instead of being ruled by an elected or appointed aristocracy. This should be the sovereign people's right to cry, "Bad Behavior!" and oust their servant judiciary from office when they give license to perjury as in the Case of BRISCOE v LAHUE 460 US 325, 75 L Ed 2d 96, 103 S Ct 1108 as they may hold office during "good Behavior" only, US Cons., Art. III, Sec. 1 http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst/art-3.html#sec-1. [NOTE: The dissenting justices were grossly derelict in their sworn duty in not calling for the ouster of the rest. Such silence voiced complicity in the collusion. Bad Behavior all around! There is no baby at risk of being thrown out with that bath water. I say get rid of them all, not a one of them is working to uphold the public trust!]
7. I keep harping on BRISCOE (ib.) because it is the single most contemptible piece of flagrant aristocratic sophistry I have ever seen. Claiming empowerment by the public trust, our supposedly servant Court holds that expedience is more important than verity. That's what it boils down to when you strip away all the sophisticated high sounding speech. The end has learned to justify the means. Office now sanctifies the holder of it to the point that even oaths sworn before God are of no force or effect; and "We, the people of the United States," are spoz'ta trust in that?
8. Rhetoric has been the refuge of the defeated wit for thousands of years. In the first century A.D. a satirical Roman rhetorician and poet by the name of Juvenal quipped, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" ["Who will watch the watchers?" or "Who shall guard the guards themselves?" or literally "Who has custody of the custodians?"] Missouri's Founders answered Juvenal's rhetoric, stating that the people have "the inherent, sole and exclusive right to regulate the internal government and police thereof," http://www.moga.state.mo.us/const/A01003.HTM; or in other words, having usurped the sovereignty of King George III to ourselves collectively, we, as a free and independent people http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html, have claimed dominion over our government. Q.E.D.
9. But what of the euphemism emphasized in paragraph 3 supra, that "the court," meaning obviously the seated "judge," shall direct the jury? It is a contradiction in terms to say that a servant may direct his master, especially when the judiciary itself is a Party Principal http://www.sound.net/~duncan10/qxcn1aju.htm. The Constitution is a prescription for the government the sovereign people want, not necessarily a description of any government extant http://www.sanityclause.com/Prescrip.htm, and may not directly contradict itself without abandoning its stated purpose. But, that a prohibition exists is no impairment unless and until it is executed. Example: the power of legislature granted the Missouri Supreme Court is spoz'ta be limited by the separation of powers http://www.moga.state.mo.us/const/A02001.HTM and "The rules shall not change substantive rights, or the law relating to evidence, the oral examination of witnesses, juries, the right of trial by jury, or the right of appeal." http://www.moga.state.mo.us/const/A05005.HTM, but the prescriptive prohibitions have done nothing to prevent Missouri's courts from effectively changing juries from a sovereign body to a regulated entity by deciding how they should be instructed, ad hoc arbitrary and whimsical judicial determinations of what evidence the jury may see, and denial of my right of appeal. This is a willful usurpation of the people's sovereignty, and being thus "repugnant to the Constitution of the United States." http://www.moga.state.mo.us/const/A01003.HTM should be of no force or effect, but, sadly, that is not the case. The de facto situation is that in Missouri jurors are selected, without exception, from among a class of people who have chosen to give up their constitutional rights in order to exercise a privilege under license from the State. In short: Missouri jurors are not free and independent people, but regulated entities beholden to one of the parties for a grant of privilege; ergo, biased ab initio. So again: "Who would judge an action brought against me?" Is the independent jury of peers mandated by Magna Carta http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/magnacarta/ as stipulated by RSMo. §1.010 even available? http://www.moga.state.mo.us/statutes/c000-099/0010010.htm Or am I a voice crying in the wilderness?
10. Whether at law by Civil action for libel or slander, or in Equity for injunction to gag my criticism, the issue of the credibility of the judiciary is inherently, solely, and exclusively the people's to decide. De jure, my adversaries would have to adduce my writings before an independent jury of my peers and convince them that I am in the wrong, and this they dare not do. The way I see it, the judiciary is damned if they do, and damned if they don't. De facto, they try to write me off as a crackpot, and I can't bring the issue of a corrupt judiciary before that very judiciary expecting an honest judgement, verdict, and remedy, either at Civil law or in Equity.
11. The cat is out of the bag, aired in open public Forum here on the World Wide Web. Think about it: 1) The legislature is no place to seek remedy. Their unconstitutional Acts are one root of the problem; 2) The commission on retirement, removal, and discipline of judges, http://www.moga.state.mo.us/const/A05024.HTM Missouri Constitution, Article V, Section 24 (created in 1945 while most of the brains of this State were off fighting WW2) is, a) repugnant to the "original Jurisdiction" proviso of the US Constitution, ergo, void, and, b) an appointed [not elected] Executive body existing in direct traversal of the express proviso of the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 2, http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst/amend.html - 14sec-2, ergo more unconstitutional "guards guarding the guards" good-ol'-boy double talk; 3) The Missouri Governor's approval of RSMo. §484.040 shows he is part of the problem http://www.sanityclause.com/Under.html;and, 4) The Internet is an open public Forum where issues are aired, and we all know Big Brother watches what is published here closely, so they cannot claim to be ignorant of what I have written….
12. The failure of the judiciary to openly respond to my open criticism at any time is an admission of guilt. They still have a right to a remedy before an independent jury if they honestly feel wronged by what I write. But if they do, any "independent jury" will certainly damn them as soon as they read what I've written.

Bottom line: Unconstitutional government is a travesty, not a mere technicality. I don't want a plug nickel for my efforts. All I am asking for is the understanding of my readers. My motivation is my respect for the blood shed by patriots protecting the Constitution for the United States of America against "all enemies, foreign and domestic."

May 3rd, 1999. Sanity Clause