本帖最後由 awepp 於 2017-7-19 08:29 編輯
Ignoring the Constitution The case of Tatum vs. Laird, heard before the Supreme Court in 1974, is a case in point. It involved the Army intelligence collecting aparatus,which was developing a list of names of persons whom the Army felt were troublesome.The Supreme Court held that the making of lists of this type did not, of and by itself, present any injuries. The minority opinion in that case was that the injury, in the case with a program such as this made people afraid to use their freedom of speech for fear of being sent to jail for it. But majority did not buy that argument. 忽視憲法 1974年,最高法院聽取了Tatum vs. Laird的這個一恰當例子,裡頭提到了陸軍情報收集機構,發展出一份清單,記載著那些讓陸軍感到麻煩的人之名字。最高法院認為製作這樣的清單,本身並不造成任何傷害。在那案件,少數人的意見:這些計畫造成民眾害怕因使用他們言論自由,而被關進監獄裡。但大多數人並不買單。 The difference between that case and this case - although we also have the computer program - is that we have something much further past that point;the concentration camp guard program and the Civil Affairs program for the taking over of all functions of our government. In light of that, the federal judge said that this is not an injury. As a matter of fact, the U.S. Attorney alleged that even if people were placed in concentration camps, if they were all treated the same they would still not have the right to go to federal court. 此案與那案件的不同處在於-雖然我們也有計算機程序-我們有一些比以前更進一步的措施;集中營看守計畫,以及接管所有政府職能的民政計畫。按照聯邦法官所說的,這不算是傷害。事實上,如照聯邦檢察官所謂的那樣,甚至當民眾被抓進集中營,如果受到所有該得的照料時,他們依然沒有權力去上聯邦法院。 On the 20th day of September, I filed a memorandum to notify the magistrate and the federal judge that I had discovered that the federal government had a program for number of years to suspend our constitutional right of the writ of habeas corpus. This information substantiated the complaint. Habeas corpus is the name of that legal instrument utilized to bring someone before a judge when that person is being illegally imprisoned or detained so that he (or she) may obtain his (or her)freedom. The Constitution states that the writ of habeas corpus shall never be suspended. 9月20日,我提交一份函件通知裁判官及聯邦法官,關於我發現聯邦政府有個計畫數年的程序,中止憲法人身保護令的權力。該資料證實了這訴狀。人身保護令是個法律文件名稱,被用來給予某人自由,避免在判決前就受到非法監禁及拘留。憲法規定人身保護令不得中止。 magistrate跟judge的差別是州跟聯邦? I found the disturbing information in a report: 94-755, 94th Congress, 2nd Session Senate, April 26, 1976, entitled "Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans Book II." On page 17-d, entitled "First Amendment Rights," the report states that more importantly "the government surveillance activities in the aggregate, whether expressly intended to do so, to deter the exercise of First Amendment rights by American citizens who become aware of the government's domestic intelligence program." 我發現一個令人不安的訊息在一份報告上:1976年4月26日,94-755,第94屆大會,第2次參議院會議,標題"情報活動及美國人權力 第二冊。"在17-d頁,標題"第一修正案權力",報告陳述說最重要地"政府在總體作監視活動,無論是否明確地打算這麼做,阻止那些美國公民行使第一修正案權力,那些開始注意政府在國內的情報計畫的人。" Beginning on page 54, it is stated that, beginning in 1946 - 4 years before the Emergency Detention Act of 1950 was passed - the FBI advised the Attorney General that it had secretly compiled a secret index of potentially dangerous persons. The Justice Department then made tentative plans for emergency detention based on suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Department officials deliberately avoided going to Congress. When the Emergency Detention Act of 1950 was passed, it did not authorize the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. But shortly after passage of that act, according to a bureau document,Attorney General J.H. McGraf told the FBI to disregard it and to proceed with the program as previously outlined. 從54頁開始,它陳述說,1946年開始(1950年,通過緊急拘留法案),FBI通知司法部長說,它已經秘密完成一個秘密指標,來表示某人的潛在威脅。司法部在這之後擬定一個試驗計畫,基於中止基本人權(人身保護令)的緊急拘留。部門官員故意避免去國會。當1950年的緊急拘留法偷過後,它並沒授權中止人身保護令。但在通過後,很快地,根據局文件,司法部長J.H. McGraf告訴FBI,說無視它,並照之前的綱領繼續完成計畫。 A few sentences later, on page 55, it states, "With the security index, use broader standards to determine potential dangerousness than those described in the statute." And, unlike the act, Department plans provided for issuing a master search warrant and a master arrest warrant. This is the center importance; it is the same thing that I am alleging in federal court. And yet the magistrate chose to ignore these facts also. 在55頁,稍後的幾句話寫道,"藉由安全指標,得到與法規相比,更廣闊的標準來決定潛在危險性。"且與法令不同,部門(司法部?)計畫提供發佈一個大師級搜索令及大師級逮捕令。這就是問題的核心;這是我在聯邦法庭提出的同件事。然而裁判官也選擇無視這些事實。 We have government officials not only ignoring the will of Congress, but going the opposite of what the Constitution provides by planning illegally for the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. In addition, as mentioned before, the master search warrant and the master arrest warrant are forms fed into the computer,which print the names and addressses on them from the tapes previously prepared by the intelligence-gathering program. 我們有政府官員不僅無視國會意願,也有站在憲法的對立面上的計畫(藉由中止人身保護令的非法計畫),此外,如先前所提,大師級搜索令及大師級逮捕令,是以表格方式輸入電腦,而表格提供了名字及地址,這些資料又來自磁帶,由情報收集計畫所收集而來。 根本就是稜鏡計畫.... As you are arrested, your home will be searched and anything found there may be confiscated. This program has existed since 1946, up to and including 1973, and without proper access to judicial discovery techniques, it can't be determined whether the same plan now exists under the same name or under another name right now. 當你被逮捕,你家將被搜索,然後任何他們發現的東西將會沒收。這計畫自從1946年存在,直到包含1973年,它很難透過司法調查手段發現,這就無法確定是否現在存在同樣計畫,在同名字下或改成其他名字。 This memorandum was filed on September 28 to make the court aware of the danger that our rights of freedom of speech and lawful assembly are in.But the court, on September 30 - after this notification was received - dismissed the case. However, in keeping with the practice of federal courts in Houston of actively participating in the obstruction of justice, I was not notified of the dismissal until the 6th of October - which gave me just 2 working days to submit any further motion in a 10-day period before time starts running for the appeal. 這函件在9月28號提交,提醒法庭注意,我們言論自由及合法集會是在危險的情況下。但法庭在9月30號-在收到這通知後-駁回這案件。然而在休士頓聯邦法院,多人參與阻撓正義後,10月6號我被通知駁回訴訟-它們給我只有2天時間,去提出任何未來的議案,在開始上訴的前10天。 What I have just said regarding the federal courts in Houston is not only my opinion; the HOUSTON CHRONICAL, surprisingly, published an extensive document severely criticizing the federal courts in Houston for making up their own rules as they go along with the proceedings, as well as commenting on the communist-like Supreme Court attitude of the judges and the court personnel. My experience here has been that the court has returned to me almost every document that I have filed. Then after a big argument, they reaccept the document, stating that they just made a mistake. In reality, the power structure doesn't want these types of cases in any federal court. 我在休士頓聯邦法庭上所說的,不僅是我的意見;休士頓紀事報,出奇地,發布一個廣泛文件,嚴厲批評休士頓聯邦法院,在訴訟上製造自己的規則,以及評論最高法院法官及法庭人員態度跟共產黨一樣。法庭退回了幾乎所有我提出的文件。然後在一場巨大爭論後,他們重新接受這些文件,並稱他們只是犯了一個錯誤。事實上,權力結構不想這類案件出現在聯邦法院。 Summary of Evidence On the 8th of October, I had submitted a request for finding the facts in the filling which had been established by the evidence presented: 證據總結 10月8號,我已提出一個要求,關於為下列已經證明過的事件找出事實。 1. The 300th Military Police POW Command is located at Livonia, Michigan. 300憲兵戰俘指揮部,位於密西根州,利沃尼亞。 2. The Department of the Army has stated that said Command exists per se the Geneva Convention of 1949, a treaty of the U.S., Article IV thereof under the title relative to the treatment of prisoners of war and protection of civilian persons. 陸軍部已宣稱的,1949年的日內瓦公約存在指令,一個美國簽署的條約,第4條標題,戰俘對待及平民保護。 3. However, no such title exists in the Geneva Convention per se. 然而,日內瓦公約本身並沒有如此標題存在。 4. Nevertheless, there are separate titles, one of which is: (a)Multilateral Protection of War Victims/Prisoners of War; (b) Multilateral Protection of War Victims/Civilian Persons. 還是,它是單獨的標題,一個是(a)多邊戰爭受害者/戰俘保護(b)多邊保護戰爭受害者/平民。
5. Nevertheless, Article IV of both titles does not provide for the creation of any military programs for concentration camps. 還是,第4條兩標題都沒有提供,創建任何集中營的軍事計畫。 6. Whether Mr. Fennerin, of the 300th Military Police POW Command, has stated that the purpose of the Command is for the detention of foreign prisoners of war and enemies the United States. 是否Fennerin先生說過,300憲兵戰俘指揮部,該指揮部的目的是拘留外國戰俘及美國敵人。 7. Further, Article III, concerning civilian persons, makes the treaty applicable to conflicts occurring soley within the territory of the United States that are not of an international character, which is capable of including any type of conflict in its description whether it be civil war or guerilla activity or anything else.The text states: "In case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the high contracting parties, each party to a conflict shall be bound to apply to the minimum of the following provisions." 此外,第3條,關於平民,條約適用於美國國內衝突,而非一個國際形式,描述的是內戰或游擊戰或其他。條文說:"武裝衝突不是一個國際形式,而是發生在其一高締約方的國土,每個參與衝突團體應受接下來條款受限,以最小化。" 8. Department of the Army Field Manual FM 41-10, Civil Affairs Operations of Civil Affairs Organization lists, as one of its functions, the assumption of full or partial executive, legislative and judicial authority over a country or an area and there is no specific exclusion of the United States as such a country or area. 陸軍部現場手冊FM 41-10,民政組織們的民政事務行動,其一的功能,奪取一個鄉村或地區的全部或者部分的行政、立法、司法權力。而它沒有具體將美國的某鄉或某地區排除在外。 9. Said manual defines country along certain geographical population basis, county, state regions and national government. 手冊基於某地理人口,定義鄉、州、國家政府。 10. Said organization has, in fact, conducted practiced takeovers of local and state governments in the continental United States, including, but not limited to the state of New Jersey. 事實上,組織已經練習接管地方、州政府在美國大陸,包含,不限定紐澤西州。 11. Said organization includes in its study outline, on page j-24, a section on concentration camps and labor camps. 組織在其研究綱領,第24頁,一個章節關於集中營及勞改營。 12. Said organization includes in its operations composite service operations and psychological operations organizations. 組織在其行動包含複合服務行動及心理行動組織。 13. Said psychological operation, working with the U.S. Public Health Service, is prepared to operate any and/or all mental health facilities in the Unites States as tools of repression against outspoken but nonviolent political conduct of the United States citizens in conjunction with all the above, which is to be used for the same purpose. 心裡行動與美國公共衛生服務一起工作,準備運轉所有美國心理健康機構,作為一個工具,對付直言不諱但非暴力的美國公民,與上面所述連結,為達到相同目地。 14. Further, the Department of Justice, in conjunction with this program,has had plans for the suspension of writ of habeas corpus since the year of 1946;said plan depriving persons being detained under this total program any means for protection against tyrannical political repression. 此外,司法部與這計畫相連結,因1946年,中止人身保護令;企圖剝奪個人對抗獨裁政治壓迫時的保護。 The plaintiff requested that the court make findings of fact and draw conclusions of law, consistent therewith, as shown by the evidence on record before the court. The effect of this request is that the case must go back to the district judge for further consideration. I mentioned that is appeared that all this planning for concentration camps was to be directed against anyone, regardless of his polictical persuasion of ideology, who exercised freedom of speech against the established power structure of international bankers and multinational corporations.But, with Proposition 13-type movements threatening to reduce taxes throughout our nation. I foresee an activation of emergency programs so that the parasites on the federal take will continue to receive their checks. 原告要求法庭找出真相及對法律作出結論,一如我在開庭前示出的證據(紀錄上)。這要求的影響是,這案件必須重回到地方法官作進一步考慮。我提到所有這些為了集中營的計畫都是針對每一個人,不管他政治思想、那些使用言論自由反對權力結構(國際銀行家、跨國公司)的人。但隨著第13號提案(Proposition 13)威脅著降低財產稅在我們州。我預料會觸發一個緊急計畫,所以那些聯邦的寄生蟲將繼續收取他們的支票。 ------------------------------------------------------------- 喵的....要被預防性羈押了。我先進去,接下來就是看文章的各位了....
不知道台灣憲法有沒有人身保護令? 如果有,某前總統的遭遇不知是否已經違憲? |