TO THE DISHONORABLE JUDGES OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS
DECEMBER 1, 2023
PETITION FOR REDRESS OF UNLAWFUL TAKINGS
The undersigned petitioners, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, hereby petition this Court for redress of unlawful takings by the courts in violation of the non-delegation doctrine and the separation of powers doctrine.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
1. The non-delegation doctrine is a constitutional principle that prohibits Congress from delegating its lawmaking power to other branches of government, including the judiciary.
2. Law enforcement is the responsibility of the executive branch, specifically of law enforcement agencies. The judiciary’s role is to interpret and apply the laws that Congress has enacted, not to enforce them.
3. In recent years, there have been numerous instances of courts issuing levies, orders, and warrants that have violated the non-delegation doctrine and the separation of powers doctrine.
4. These unlawful takings have resulted in the seizure of property and assets from individuals with powers not delegated to the judiciary by the US Constitution, therefore makes these actions a Usurpation of power.
5. The petitioners are seeking redress for these unlawful takings, including the return of all property and assets that were seized illegally.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED
1. The non-delegation doctrine prohibits Congress from delegating its lawmaking power neither the judicial or executive branch.
2. Whether law enforcement is the responsibility of the executive branch, not the judicial branch. And law enforcement is not judiciary enforcement.
3. Whether courts have issued levies, orders, and warrants in violation of the non-delegation doctrine and the separation of powers doctrine by exercising legislative power in the issuance of any judicial written instrument and have law enforcement enforce said instruments as if they were law to be enforced.
4. Whether individuals have a right to redress for unlawful takings by the courts.
ARGUMENT
I. The Non-Delegation Doctrine Prohibits Congress from Delegating Its Lawmaking Power to the Judicial Branch.
The non-delegation doctrine is a well-established principle of constitutional law. In Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935), the Supreme Court struck down the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which authorized the President to establish codes of fair competition for industries. The Court held that the NIRA was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the President because it did not provide an intelligible principle to guide the President’s exercise of power.
The non-delegation doctrine applies equally to Congress’s delegation of power to the judiciary. In Keller v. Barger, 432 U.S. 816 (1977), the Supreme Court held that Congress could not delegate to the Court of Claims the authority to determine whether individuals were entitled to federal benefits. The Court explained that the delegation of such power would violate the separation of powers because it would allow the judiciary to exercise legislative functions.
II. Law Enforcement Is the Responsibility of the Executive Branch, Not the Judicial Branch.
The Constitution vests the executive branch with the responsibility of enforcing the laws of the United States. Article II, Section 3, Clause 3 of the Constitution provides that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This does not includes the responsibility of carrying out court orders, nor does it authorize the judiciary to directly enforce its own orders.
Law enforcement, agencies such as the FBI and the U.S. Marshals Service, are part of the executive branch. These agencies are responsible for investigating crimes, making arrests, not the enforcement of the judiciary and executing warrants. The judiciary does not have its own law enforcement arm, and it cannot directly enforce its own orders.
III. Courts Have Issued Levies, Orders, and Warrants in Violation of the Non-Delegation Doctrine, the Supremacy Clause and the Separation of Powers Doctrine and the United States Constitution.
In recent years, there have been numerous instances of courts issuing levies, orders, and warrants that have violated the non-delegation doctrine and the separation of powers doctrine.
For example, in Madison v. Marbury, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), the Supreme Court held that the Judiciary Act of 1789, which authorized the Supreme Court to issue writs of mandamus to compel executive officials to act, was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the judiciary.
Similarly, in United States v. Industrial Workers of the World, 252 F. 242 (D.C. Wash. 1918), the court issued a blanket injunction that prohibited members of the Industrial Workers of the World from engaging in any activities that might interfere with the war effort. This injunction was later struck down on appeal, as it was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the judiciary.
These are just a few examples of the many instances in which courts have issued levies, orders, and warrants in violation of the non-delegation doctrine and the separation of powers doctrine.
IV. Individuals Have a Right to Redress for Unlawful Takings by the Courts.
1)The petitioners seek redress for these unlawful takings, including the return of all property and assets that were seized illegally.
2)The petitioners also seek a declaratory judgment that the Non-delegation doctrine and the separation of powers doctrine have been violated.
3)The petitioners ask for an injunction against any Future attempts to exercise legislative power by the judiciary.
WHEREFORE, the petitioners respectfully pray that this
Court:
1. Grant redress for all unlawful takings by courts in
violation of the non-delegation doctrine and the separation of powers doctrine
2. Order the return of all property and assets that were seized illegally;
3. Declare that the non-delegation doctrine and the separation of powers doctrine have been violated; and
4. Enjoin the judiciary from using legislative power or delegating such power to any other branch of government.
6 comments
Shelby Boyce
NH family courts are violating numerous constitutional rights in collaboration with dcyf, Law enforcement and multiple other agencies contracted or just associated in the professional field to illegally remove children from the safety of their homes, inflicting severe abuse on the children as well as parents. Ignoring facts, laws, bullying, threatening, lacking proof, termination of rights without due process. The list goes on. NH families want justice and children returned immediately to start the very sensitive long process of healing what’s been shattered in years of separation and severe trauma to all involved. Crimes against humanity. Abuse & neglect from those in “power” deprivation of rights under the color law, religious freedom violations, special needs children harmed, illegal trespass, harrasment. Threatening, covered up facts and evidence. The list is a long one.
Shelby Boyce
NH family courts are violating numerous constitutional rights in collaboration with dcyf, Law enforcement and multiple other agencies contracted or just associated in the professional field to illegally remove children from the safety of their homes, inflicting severe abuse on the children as well as parents. Ignoring facts, laws, bullying, threatening, lacking proof, termination of rights without due process. The list goes on. NH families want justice and children returned immediately to start the very sensitive long process of healing what’s been shattered in years of separation and severe trauma to all involved. Crimes against humanity. Abuse & neglect from those in “power” deprivation of rights under the color law, religious freedom violations, special needs children harmed, illegal trespass, harrasment. Threatening, covered up facts and evidence. The list is a long one.
Dominus Litis
TO THE DISHONORABLE JUDGES OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS
DECEMBER 1, 2023
PETITION FOR REDRESS OF UNLAWFUL TAKINGS
The undersigned petitioners, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, hereby petition this Court for redress of unlawful takings by the courts in violation of the non-delegation doctrine and the separation of powers doctrine.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
1. The non-delegation doctrine is a constitutional principle that prohibits Congress from delegating its lawmaking power to other branches of government, including the judiciary.
2. Law enforcement is the responsibility of the executive branch, specifically of law enforcement agencies. The judiciary’s role is to interpret and apply the laws that Congress has enacted, not to enforce them.
3. In recent years, there have been numerous instances of courts issuing levies, orders, and warrants that have violated the non-delegation doctrine and the separation of powers doctrine.
4. These unlawful takings have resulted in the seizure of property and assets from individuals with powers not delegated to the judiciary by the US Constitution, therefore makes these actions a Usurpation of power.
5. The petitioners are seeking redress for these unlawful takings, including the return of all property and assets that were seized illegally.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED
1. The non-delegation doctrine prohibits Congress from delegating its lawmaking power neither the judicial or executive branch.
2. Whether law enforcement is the responsibility of the executive branch, not the judicial branch. And law enforcement is not judiciary enforcement.
3. Whether courts have issued levies, orders, and warrants in violation of the non-delegation doctrine and the separation of powers doctrine by exercising legislative power in the issuance of any judicial written instrument and have law enforcement enforce said instruments as if they were law to be enforced.
4. Whether individuals have a right to redress for unlawful takings by the courts.
ARGUMENT
I. The Non-Delegation Doctrine Prohibits Congress from Delegating Its Lawmaking Power to the Judicial Branch.
The non-delegation doctrine is a well-established principle of constitutional law. In Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935), the Supreme Court struck down the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which authorized the President to establish codes of fair competition for industries. The Court held that the NIRA was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the President because it did not provide an intelligible principle to guide the President’s exercise of power.
The non-delegation doctrine applies equally to Congress’s delegation of power to the judiciary. In Keller v. Barger, 432 U.S. 816 (1977), the Supreme Court held that Congress could not delegate to the Court of Claims the authority to determine whether individuals were entitled to federal benefits. The Court explained that the delegation of such power would violate the separation of powers because it would allow the judiciary to exercise legislative functions.
II. Law Enforcement Is the Responsibility of the Executive Branch, Not the Judicial Branch.
The Constitution vests the executive branch with the responsibility of enforcing the laws of the United States. Article II, Section 3, Clause 3 of the Constitution provides that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This does not includes the responsibility of carrying out court orders, nor does it authorize the judiciary to directly enforce its own orders.
Law enforcement, agencies such as the FBI and the U.S. Marshals Service, are part of the executive branch. These agencies are responsible for investigating crimes, making arrests, not the enforcement of the judiciary and executing warrants. The judiciary does not have its own law enforcement arm, and it cannot directly enforce its own orders.
III. Courts Have Issued Levies, Orders, and Warrants in Violation of the Non-Delegation Doctrine, the Supremacy Clause and the Separation of Powers Doctrine and the United States Constitution.
In recent years, there have been numerous instances of courts issuing levies, orders, and warrants that have violated the non-delegation doctrine and the separation of powers doctrine.
For example, in Madison v. Marbury, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), the Supreme Court held that the Judiciary Act of 1789, which authorized the Supreme Court to issue writs of mandamus to compel executive officials to act, was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the judiciary.
Similarly, in United States v. Industrial Workers of the World, 252 F. 242 (D.C. Wash. 1918), the court issued a blanket injunction that prohibited members of the Industrial Workers of the World from engaging in any activities that might interfere with the war effort. This injunction was later struck down on appeal, as it was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the judiciary.
These are just a few examples of the many instances in which courts have issued levies, orders, and warrants in violation of the non-delegation doctrine and the separation of powers doctrine.
IV. Individuals Have a Right to Redress for Unlawful Takings by the Courts.
1)The petitioners seek redress for these unlawful takings, including the return of all property and assets that were seized illegally.
2)The petitioners also seek a declaratory judgment that the Non-delegation doctrine and the separation of powers doctrine have been violated.
3)The petitioners ask for an injunction against any Future attempts to exercise legislative power by the judiciary.
WHEREFORE, the petitioners respectfully pray that this
Court:
1. Grant redress for all unlawful takings by courts in
violation of the non-delegation doctrine and the separation of powers doctrine
2. Order the return of all property and assets that were seized illegally;
3. Declare that the non-delegation doctrine and the separation of powers doctrine have been violated; and
4. Enjoin the judiciary from using legislative power or delegating such power to any other branch of government.
Shirley Waage
These are great organizations that can keep you informed on current issues and make it easy to contact your legislators regarding them:
First Liberty, Alliance Defending Freedom, and ACLJ (American Center for Law and Justice.)
sandy price
My grievances are against Congress and all entities (3 letter unconstitutional offices) who has been unlawfully stripping us of our God given rights and Constitutional rights. They do not have the authority for the patriot act, prep act, cures act, Real ID act etc. They have committed treason and crimes against humanity. They do not have authority to force mankind into slavery to them or make us transhuman. This is satanic worship. They all need to be prosecuted accordingly.