Free news

FREE blog







Gun poll








14th Amdt

19th Amdt















What Do 3 Jews and 6 Catholics (and three women) Know About "USA"?

Nuttin' Honey


There's not a single person on the Supreme Court, not a ONE, not even Catholic Scalia, who understands a *single* thing that our Protestant (and mostly Unitarian) Founding Fathers spilt BLOOD to protect.  In 6 or 7 short decades they undermined EVERYTHING that the House of Israel had taken 5,000 years to develop, which enabled us to create the world's once-highest standard of living in less than two centuries--from 1776 to about 1966, or 190 years.  Catholics and Jews HATE Protestants, HATE Jesus, and HATE mostly the world's most impressive success story and will do anything to undermine the entire effort.  Not a single pristine principle enshrined in the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights remains: even the protection of private property by not allowing troops to be quartered in our homes has been undermined by a ruling which allows an entire citizen's house to be seized if a mere marijuana seed (which could have been placed their by government agents themselves) is found there.

England, the once great military and sea power, embraded the trinity by making it the state religion in 1774, and our swift response two years later, in 1776, to reject the trinity as the state religion, put us in the drivers seat and had them begging, hat in hand, to use our own blood and resources to save them from the nasty Germans.



The Supreme Court Rules Discrimination is REQUIRED

It Rules that any "class" which has been "historically discriminated" against can legally discriminate against the allegedly discriminating class.


February 1, 1996 -- 8:00 AM San Francisco TV

The Supreme Court ruled discrimination against one "class" by another "class" which was allegedly discriminated against historically, is acceptable. So by this twisted logic, it is OK for the 123 all-women's schools to remain open while the TWO (2) all-men's schools are shut down.

Do we need the Supreme Court making such "historical" decisions? HOW is this going to benefit society, the war between the sexes, women, education in the US, or even government?

It will benefit only ONE group -- lawyers! They will keep us tied up in endless litigation and legislation trying to implement such government-sanctioned discrimination.

WELL -- if it is OK for ONE "class" (i.e., males) to discriminate against another "calss" (i.e. females) because males have been historically discriminated against (which they have been), then, gentlemen, we have one heck of a lot of lost ground to recover and this Supreme Court DEMANDS,BY LAW, that we do it. Men HAVE been discriminated againt as class, so this message is that it is our honor-bound duty to discriminate vigorously and dynamicallly against women.

This is law! No matter how you interpret their definition of "class", men are in a "class" which is dynamically and aggresively and routinely discriminated against.

Let's just count the ways:

If you are aware of a statistic which illustrates that women are "discriminated against, would you provide it. Or is discrimination against women based only on anecdotes and media hype?

1) Women hold 65% of the country's wealth.

2) Women receive custody of 92% of the children of divorce and illegitimacy.

3) Men are convicted of crimes for which women are not equally charged, and receive longer prison sentences for equal crimes.

4) Men earn 42% more than women even though they are 50% to 300% more productive.

5) Men's suicide rate is five (5) times higher than women's.

6) Men's life expectancy is seven (7) years shorter than women's.

7) Men are discriminated against by affirmative action by design.

8) Men pay 80-90% of the taxes which support welfare and receive less than 5-10% of these benefits.

9) It is men, not women, who are drafted into the military and who are expected to fight in battle.

10) Men account for more than 95% of workplace fatalities.

Dear Friends of Freedom and Justice:

As we begin the new year of 1996, if someone asked you what the number one problem is that exists in our judicial system, what would your answer be? Would it be the *violation* and *depri- vation* of our *constitutional rights* that are so precious to each individual citizen? Do you personally think that *our courts are doing enough in protecting our individual constitutional rights*? Do you personally think that *some corrupted lawyers knowingly, intentionally, maliciously and illegally violate our constitutional rights*? Do you personally think that *some corrupted judges knowingly, intentionally, maliciously and illegally deprive us of our constitutional rights*?


There is a clear and very important distinction between the "violation" of our constitutional rights and the "deprivation" of our constitutional rights.

*VIOLATION* The "violation" of our constitutional rights occurs as a result of wrong conduct committed against us by lawyers, by employees of law enforcement agencies, by employees of subdivisions of government, by employees of organizations such as corporations, foundations, etc. and by fellow citizens, which wrong conduct is of a nature which "violates" rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Federal and State Constitution or secured by Federal or State law. The "violation" of our written constitutional rights can only be legally *remedied* by means of an *order of a court* of competent jurisdiction.

*DEPRIVATION* Therefore, since the only "legal remedy" for the "violation of our written constitutional rights" is by means of "an order of a court of competent jurisdiction," it is a fact that only a judge can "deprive" us of our "written constitutional rights." It is also a fact that *only a judge can protect and enforce our written con- stitutional rights.* If a judge either refuses or fails to protect and enforce our written constitutional rights, *then in such case our constitutional rights become merely words written on a piece of paper and are of no more value or benefit to us as an individ- ual citizen.* It is our prayer that this fact "be ever present in a judges consciousness and conscience." Justice Harry Lee Anstead, Nova Law Review, Volume 18, Number 2B, page 1278


Suppose *a judge is corrupt and either refuses or fails to protect and enforce our written constitutional rights?* Can an individual citizen sue a corrupt judge for money damages? The *United States Congress* says *YES!* The *United States Supreme Court* says *NO!* Who is right? More importantly, *what should be right?*


In the *United States Code* the *United States Congress* says that *a judge can be sued for money damages for deprivation of a citizen's constitutional rights. We now quote *42 U.S.C. 1983* verbatim as passed by the *United States Congress* as follows:

"1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights

"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia" (R.S. 1979; Pub.L. 96-170, 1, Declaration of Independence. 29, 1979, 93 Stat. 1284.)

The above-quoted federal law as presently contained in our present *United States Code* as *42 U.S.C. 1983* first became a part of our body of federal law as *1 of the Ku Klux Klan Act of April 20, 1871*. To a reasonable person the congressional intent and purpose should be very clear. In the year 1871 and prior years a *condition of lawlessness* existed in certain of the States, under which *people were being denied their constitutional rights*. Congress *intended to provide a remedy* for the wrongs being perpetrated. In the year 1871 the members of the *United States Congress* were aware that *members of the judiciary (judges) were implicated in the condition of lawlessness* that the *statute was intended to rectify*. In fact, in the year 1871, *the courts were in many instances wholly corrupted* as to the impartial adminis- tration of law and equity and *the United States Constitution was being defied by judges*.


The statute is *not* ambiguous. *42 U.S.C. 1983* is *not* ambiguous. The *United States Congress* clearly *intended* that "EVERY PERSON" who caused the "deprivation" of "constitutional rights" "shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law." We repeat, *the statute is *not* ambiguous. "EVERY PERSON" to us simple, reasonable citizens means just what it says, "EVERY PERSON" which the *United States Congress* clearly *intended to include judges and lawyers*. Yes, "EVERY PERSON," including *judges and lawyers,* must respect the constitutional rights of "EVERY PERSON" who is a citizen of the United States.


The *United States Supreme Court* says *NO*, a citizen *cannot sue a judge for money damages for depriving a citizen of constitutional rights*. In a long line of cases the *United States Supreme Court* has held that *judges are immune from liability for damages for acts committed within the their judicial discretion*. In the case of *Pierson v. Ray,* 87 S.Ct. 1213 (1967) the *United States Supreme Court* at page 218 in part held that:

"This immunity applies even when a judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly ------."

Further, in *Pierson v. Ray the *United States Supreme Court* held that when the *United States Congress* passed *42 U.S.C. 1983* Congress did not *intend* to include judges in the phrase "EVERY PERSON." In *Pierson v. Ray, Mr. Justice Douglas courageously wrote a blistering dissent from which we quote in part from page 1222 as follows:

"Yet despite the repeated fears of its opponents, and the explicit recognition that *the section would subject judges to suit*, the section remained as it was proposed: it applied to "any person." There was no exception for members of the judiciary*. In light of the sharply con- tested nature of *the issue of judicial immunity it would be reasonable to assume that the judiciary would have been expressly exempted* from the wide sweep of the section, if Congress had intended such a result. "The section's *purpose* was *to provide redress for the deprivation of civil rights*. It was recognized that *certain members of the judiciary were instruments of oppression* and were *partially responsible for the wrongs* to be remedied. The parade of cases coming to this Court shows that *a similar condition now obtains in some of the States. Some state courts have been instru- ments of suppression of civil rights*. The methods may have changed; the means may have become more subtle; but *the wrongs to be remedied still exists."*

At footnote 6 on page 1224 of *Pierson v. Ray*, United States Supreme Court Justice Douglas reasons that:

"A judge is liable for injury by a ministerial act; to have immunity the judge must be performing a judicial function. ---The presence of malice and the intention to deprive a person of his civil rights is wholly incompati- ble with the judicial function. *When a judge acts intentionally and knowingly to deprive a person of his constitutional rights he exercises no discretion or in- dividual judgment; he acts no longer as a judge, but as a "minister" of his own prejudice."*

Reasonable citizens agree with Mr. Justice Douglas that a judge who acts as a *"minister of his own prejudice" should be liable for suit in a civil action. As Mr. Justice Douglas correctly wrote in *Pierson v. Ray*, "the methods may have changed; the means may have become more subtle; but *the wrongs to be remedied still exists."*

*DYKES v. HOSEMAN (case one)*

On *October 11, 1984* the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit located in Atlanta, Georgia "*shook up*" judges all across America by releasing their opinion in *Dykes v. Hoseman* 743 F.2nd 1488 (11th Cir. 1984) wherein a panel of three (3) judges held that, where a judge performs a judicial act affecting the rights of a party over whom he knows he has no personal juris- diction, the judge may be liable to such party for money damages. The news media announced the decision of the 11th Circuit all across America. Judges from all across America began to pressure the 11th Circuit to change their decision as announced in *Dykes v. Hoseman*. The 11th Circuit yielded to the pressure and agreed for the entire court to *reconsider Dykes v. Hoseman en banc.*

*DYKES v. HOSEMAN (case two)*

On *November 18, 1985* the 11th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, Georgia rendered a second decision in *Dykes v. Hoseman*, 776 F.2nd 942 wherein the court en banc reversed the three (3) judge panel's decision in case one, *Dykes v. Hoseman*, 743 F.2nd 1488. All judges on the 11th Circuit yielded to the pressure of their fellow judges except *The Honorable Joseph W. Hatchett* who couragously wrote a scholarly dissenting opinion from which we now quote in part from pages 954-955 as follows:

"---The en banc court holds that judicial immunity is complete, unqualified, and without exception. According to the majority, judicial immunity even protects a judge who acts without subject matter jurisdiction, without personal jurisdiction, and who unlawfully *conspires* with a party *to violate another party's federal con- stitutional rights. --- With the filing of the majority opinion, this important enactment for the protection of citizens of the United States may as well read: "Every person, [except a judge in Florida, Georgia and Alabama] ---" *Judges in these former states of the confederacy *will be able to deal willy nilly with the rights of citizens without having to account for willful uncon- stitutional actions*. This important congressional enact- ment is amended by this opinion to apply only to state officials in the legislative and executive branches. It is another whittling away of section 1983's application. I respectfully dissent. --- In a state with a political climate which is hostile to freedom of association, *a judge could repeatedly inter- fere with constitutional rights without being held accountable*.--- It is difficult to understand how *every person* in the United States may be held accountable in damages for conspiring to violate another person's federal consti- tutional rights, *except those persons trained in con- stitutional guarantees, charged with interpreting the constitution*, and *oath bound to deal fairly with parties to litigation."

The prophesy of Judge Hatchett is being fulfilled daily as judges all across America *"deal willy nilly with the rights of citizens without having to account for willful unconstitutional actions*. *The United States Congress* should revisit *42 U.S.C. 1983* and make clear that *Judges can be sued for depriving a citizen of constitutional rights. Who makes the laws America lives by? The *United States Congress* or *The United States Supreme Court?*


We here at *The Corruption Chonicles* express our thanks and sincere appreciation to the *Honorable Judges and Honorable Lawyers* who are *honest* and who are walking in the way of *integrity*. We fully support you and we urge you to take very aggresive action and *fulfill your DUTY,* by *reporting any and all corrupt judges and corrupt lawyers who commit unprofessional conduct or criminal acts. "We The People"* are *demanding that corrupt judges and corrupt lawyers be cleaned out and removed from our judicial system.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

posted by [email protected] (Ted Pedemonti)




jewn McCain

ASSASSIN of JFK, Patton, many other Whites

killed 264 MILLION Christians in WWII

killed 64 million Christians in Russia

holocaust denier extraordinaire--denying the Armenian holocaust

millions dead in the Middle East

tens of millions of dead Christians

LOST $1.2 TRILLION in Pentagon
spearheaded torture & sodomy of all non-jews
millions dead in Iraq

42 dead, mass murderer Goldman LOVED by jews

serial killer of 13 Christians

the REAL terrorists--not a single one is an Arab

serial killers are all jews

framed Christians for anti-semitism, got caught
left 350 firemen behind to die in WTC

legally insane debarred lawyer CENSORED free speech

mother of all fnazis, certified mentally ill

10,000 Whites DEAD from one jew LIE

moser HATED by jews: he followed the law Jesus--from a "news" person!!

1000 fold the child of perdition


Hit Counter


Modified Saturday, March 11, 2017

Copyright @ 2007 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party