Men and Women are not Infallible;
Judges are Men and Women;
Therefore, Judges are not Infallible.

I suppose this sentiment of mine could be considered contempt of court - meaning, of course, an arbitrary ruling that one is in contempt of the proceedings - that is, if I were in court.

Actually, criminal contempt means basically any disruptions that opposes the proceedings or the power of the court. It is meant to punish as well as coerce (cause under duress or force through intimidation and threats) compliance. With who? Why, the Judge most often.

This often means in a court of law that one of man�s basic rights is squelched the right to speak whether his opinion is in agreement with another person or not. The person holding such power over other people is the Judge in any courtroom proceeding.

It doesn�t mean squat if the judge is as dumb as a box of rocks, a failure as an attorney, whether he knows anything meaningful or not - he is the judge and his power over other people is God-like. And, well observed by anyone who has been in courtrooms, judges believe themselves to be God-like.

It is this power I hold in contempt. The vivid recalling of the first time I went to court probably formed much of the foundation for my heartfelt contempt. I had received a parking ticket because about a half-inch to one-inch of my front bumper extruded over a yellow curb denoting a �no-parking zone�. I was determined to plead my case rather than cough up the $2.50 fine had I admitted guilt and just paid the fine at the police station.

As I sat there waiting for the process of traffic court to begin, a man exited the what I presumed were the judge�s chambers. His hair was gray and all messed up and stuck out much as Einstein�s but not as neat. His suit was rumpled as if he had slept in it. His �white� shirt was yellowed and appeared to need laundering. His tie was not fully tied and was not centered.

But, the courtroom person who sort of acts as a gopher and swears in people and the like suddenly said, "All rise ..." This person who appeared to be a drunken wino pulled out of an alley just minutes earlier was the JUDGE. Right then, I thought , "Oh, darn." The result was a bad experience I never got over. I was ruled guilty because I was a college student and he couldn�t just let college students get by with taking over the town.

Rather ruefully, when people say anything about having to go to court, or I read of people going to court, I still picture this man with utter contempt, not only of him but of any system that allows such a man to stand in power over others.

I am also sure this experience clouded my perception of other judges and the entire judicial system. There must be those who do their jobs properly. Of course, anymore it is increasingly difficult to find one that does - at least in terms of justice.

Most of us are just laymen when it comes to law. But, although we may not be experts, we do have accurate perceptions of justice which is no more than fair play and equity. There isn�t anything fancy about it.

What is fancy, though, is how the law is manipulated. To make one point quite clear - if any two people read and interpret a law differently, it is null and void for vagueness. I didn�t just come up with this - the Supreme Court ruled it.

Judges do not have the power to interpret law. The bottom line is it is up to the people to determine the meanings of law. It must say what it means and mean what it says. It is that simple. If there is an interpretation problem, then the ruling must be in favor of the citizen, not the government.

You see, it must be this way to stop manipulation of law by attorneys and, of course, the courts, which mean the judges. Far too often it is not facts that determine the ruling of a court case but which attorney most appeals the most to the jury or, in the cases of being judged just by a judge, what the judge thinks or what his own biases dictate him to rule, not necessarily what the written law states.

You would think that a case against a citizen who is law-abiding that every bit of evidence in his favor would be permitted. But, too often, especially in cases involving the IRS and gun control, this is not done. The judge doesn�t always accept evidence that might go against the IRS or the government and its quest for gun control. And Congress in supporting this has even passed �frivolous� filings and suit laws.

In the case of IRS cases, however, there is one indisputable piece of evidence. Article I, Section 9, Clause 4, states quite clearly the US Government may not lay a direct tax without apportionment. This was never repealed and, thus, it remains in effect.

Also, the statutes covering the imposition of tax on persons lacks a very important clause. That clause is one that makes any citizen of the 50 States with domestic earnings liable for federal (and, hence, state) income tax.

It doesn�t matter, or shouldn�t anyway, what any attorney for the government states, nor what the judge believes; the fact is no American citizen owes the US Government any kickback whatsoever from their earnings because the Supreme Law of the Land states this and every State in the Union accepted this.

Thus, every citizen who has ever paid the government anything because of earning money based on his property, his labor, has been ripped off. If a court ever decided in favor of government, it helped the government rip off the citizen and that, Folks, is conspiracy or coercion at the highest levels.

Of course, both government and the IRS conspire to rip off citizens but courts are supposed to administer justice. Juries in cases of tax cases must be informed of facts, not suppositions and misleading, completely false, information by so-called �tax experts�.

As for gun control, the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States recognizes the God-given inalienable right of every citizen of this nation the right to keep and bear firearms. It takes it out of the realm of the federal and state governments since no state may make a law repugnant to the Constitution.

The only involvement the federal government may have is if the person is transporting firearms and selling them across state or national lines. If the necessary excise tax has been paid, the BATF/IRS/Customs does not have any further jurisdiction over any firearm owned or sold by any individual.

The government may not regulate what firearms are owned by a citizen as its only power is to regulate commerce concerning the firearm, meaning whether or not is has excise, duty, or impost tax due on it. My owning firearms is simply not in the realm of commerce between nations or the many states (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4).

Furthermore, no State has the power to stop me from carrying a loaded firearm if I desire to do so. That is repugnant to the Constitution and my inalienable right to keep - AND BEAR - arms. It doesn�t matter if all other citizens of Missouri don�t want to carry firearms since my inalienable rights are not based on the majority but are my individual rights. They are not privileges which may be voted away by the majority nor by the state legislature.

So, why do I hold courts and the justice system in contempt? Well, the answer is plain. Far too many courts (nearly all) hold the Supreme Law of the Land and the inalienable rights of the individual in contempt and rule unconstitutionally in favor of the government or its bogus agencies. Yes, bogus. The IRS/BATF is not an agency but is nothing more than a trust set up to collect due excise taxes on commercial products or privileges requiring such a tax.

Applying the rules for collecting this tax to law abiding citizens of the 50 States who do not fall into the category of conducting an interstate or international commercial enterprise is contemptible. Any judge who allows it to occur is not interested in justice but dispenses injustice, or allows it to happen.

And, yet, citizens of this nation allow these thieves in suits and robes to do just that.

Now, bear with me on this. The proceedings in a courtroom is to serve justice, correct. Criminal contempt is anything that opposes this, correct?

Therefore, any judge or jury or attorney who does NOT insist on the Supreme Law of the Land, or laws as written, being enforced is in opposition to the intent of the proceedings. This applies in IRS cases against citizens of the 50 States with domestic earnings only and in cases of gun control laws of the US Government being applied non-jurisdictionally to citizens not involved in interstate or national commerce or doing so legally.

Thus, they are guilty of "Criminal Contempt". All American citizens should hold these courts and government participants acting against the citizens of this nation in contempt. And, for once, unite by the multitudes and take action by demanding Congress take appropriate actions to remedy the problems.

Ed Lewis is another welcome addition to KeepAndBearArms.com's growing team of Featured Writers. Mr. Lewis' archive can be found at http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com/Lewis.