new-logo25Chuck Frank


“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ~ James Madison, Federalist Papers 47, 30 January 1788.


Only in America: George Orwell’s novel, titled 1984 reveals “double speak” and massive surveillance which is now being used 99% of the time. “Double speaks” expanded version = elections, secret files, lies, fabrications, censorship, false flags, propaganda, trashed e-mails brought back to life, mainstream media blackouts, Google censorship, political correctness, disinformation, and finally, “secret justice”, (i.e. when bogus “national securityGetImage issues” prevent a Jury investigation or evidence from being introduced to a judge.)

And this is all done in the name of bogus legalism intended to increase the power of government and their job security. I call it Babylon revisited.

We the people are the public and they have the right to know the truth and especially so when there are hundreds and hundreds of state and federal agencies which exalt their “lordship” but regularly hide behind their own major corruption which may include other lives and livelihoods being lost due to the purposeful intent of government agencies and their mission which is meant to coverup their own unlawful deeds.

And when the federal courts and judges get involved, more often than not, they will favor their own, which is the government.

Therefore, it is expedient that the American people be protected from a common occurrence that happens when courts traditionally use a tactic claiming that there is a “national security issue” while
shielding government corruption.   Consequently, by blocking key incriminating evidence, government becomes insulated from wrong doing on a regular basis.

The “Fast and Furious” debacle is a perfect example.

Although the Freedom of Information Act was passed in order to prevent government stonewalling, in numerous court cases, this act is worthless when a private person such as an investigating journalist or a whistleblower is denied key information which would expose unlawful and secret government agendas.

Finally, in court proceedings, when these instances arise , there is a clear infringement of due process for the common rights of the people who seek justice. One of governments weakest, but regular defenses is that by allowing secret federal evidence to be submitted, it will, in the end, compromise national security and “likely cause irreparable harm” even when it wouldn’t.  But then, what about the irreparable harm that will be inflicted upon a common person who will lose their legal battle because of evidence that is blocked by a federal judge?

Here is a case in point.

“Robert J. Maxwell had the most bizarre experience of all. He sued the First National Bank of Maryland for constructive discharge after he refused to assist in an illegal arms transaction by a bank customer whom he determined to be a CIA front. Maxwell claimed he was so threatened by the CIA because of his resistance, that he became ill and had to leave his job. A federal judge in Maryland not only prohibited Maxwell from questioning his bank employers about the CIA relationship, but indicated that Maxwell, himself, “could not testify” as to his own personal knowledge of the customer’s status and the events surrounding the loss of his job. If there was nothing to hide, then the judge should have looked at all of the evidence.

If we don’t allow citizens with grievances to pursue remedies in the courtroom, how do we ensure those who are wronged will ever receive justice?  As Chief Justice John Marshall declared in Marbury v. Madison, citing common law tradition and Blackstone’s Commentaries, the entire legal system could crumble “if laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right.  Preserving the right to a fair trial is particularly crucial when the government is a party to legal action, for if there is one fear the framers of the nation’s legal system shared, it was a fear of despotism.”  To put it another way, it is “unlimited power.”

Americans learned this lesson firsthand after decades of arbitrary British colonial rule. While common law guaranteed jury trials to British subjects, it did not apply to the colonies. That is why the Founders wrote the jury trial guarantee into the Bill of Rights.

As Justice Byron White, a man known as neither a great liberal nor an enemy of the political establishment, noted some two centuries later:

Those who wrote our constitutions knew from history and experience that it was necessary to protect against. . . judges too responsive to the voice of higher authority. The framers of the constitution strove to create an independent judiciary but insisted upon further protection against arbitrary action. . . . The jury trial provisions of the Federal and State Constitutions reflect a fundamental decision about the exercise of official power–a reluctance to entrust plenary powers over the life and liberty of the citizens to one judge or to a group of judges.”

Despite the Constitution’s Framers’ intent, the United States does not have a government consisting of three coequal branches. Rather, Americans suffer under a judicial tyranny.

Parts of this article were taken from; Secret Justice: When National Security Trumps Citizen Rights, Frank Askin Spring 1994

For more on this subject see House of Lords: America in the Balance
America in the Balance, Legal Insulation, pages, 67 to 72.
Author, Charles W. Frank, Tate Publishing, Copyright 2009