IN THE CAUSE OF HUMANITY

-vs-

THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT;
DOCTORS OF ABORTION;
MOTHERS OF ABORTION;
ET AL.

CHARGES:

CRIMES OF WANTON SLAUGHTER AGAINST HUMAN BABIES,
AMOUNTING TO WILLFUL, PREMEDITATED INFANTICIDE,
RESULTING IN AND ACCRUING TO UNSPEAKABLE ACTS
OF VIOLENCE AGAINST THE CONSCIENCE OF HUMANITY

SPECIFICATION OF CHARGES:

That on or about January 22, l973, the United States Supreme Court did willfully and deliberately, with malice aforethought, conspire, connive, and conduce to create legislation, decrees and pronouncements aimed at and designed to commit and cause to be committed the wanton, capricious, and frivolous dismemberment, strangulation, and untimely demise of tiny infant babies in the wombs of human mothers. That the wanton, capricious and frivolous dismemberment, strangulation, and untimely demise of tiny infant babies in the wombs of human mothers has been committed in the United States, since January 22, l973, more than 30 million times, all contrary to the peace, dignity, conscience, and well being of all humanity. That the direct and proximate cause of these untimely deaths is the unlawful, unprecedented legislation, decrees and pronouncements precipitated by the United States Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade, created as law and enacted on January 22, l973.

ARGUMENT:

There is no tribunal, gathering of men, or constitution of thinking and reasoning, whether voted into office by general assent of the people, or otherwise appointed by majority rule, that may lawfully and morally determine that any segment of humanity does not constitute humanity, and therefore may legally be exterminated at the whim of any other individual(s). For precedence I cite the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials held in Germany after World War II, wherein defendants were not allowed to plead legality as a defense for their actions in obeying orders to exterminate Jews during that holocaust. The Nuremberg judges ruled that, when crimes against humanity have been committed, the fact that the acts were legal and lawful under indigenous law, was not a defense. It was ruled and established as a general law of humanity itself, that, when the act contemplated constitutes a crime against humanity, ONE MUST OBEY ONE’S CONSCIENCE, NOT THE LAW. Obeying the law instead of one’s conscience, in an instance of crimes against humanity, even in peacetime, could and does constitute a most heinous crime for which the only appropriate punishment, eventually, may be death.

Therefore, it follows that the creators of a "law" that urges, encourages and otherwise causes individuals to commit crimes against humanity are equally as guilty as the perpetrators who commit the acts. United States Supreme Court Judges are criminals in this tradition. And so is every judge of every court in the United States who has ruled on the precedent set by the United States Supreme Court, and paved the way for the slaughter of helpless, innocent baby human beings in the wombs of mothers, in violation of the inalienable right to life that each slaughtered baby holds just by reason of being human.

Operating under the color of law, but without a shred of constitutionally lawful, or humanly moral authority whatsoever, to wreak mass devastation on innocent, helpless human babies in the womb, the U. S. Supreme Court deliberately and maliciously violated express contrary provisions of United States Constitutional Law, and natural laws of humanity, that so far exceeded the Court’s lawful jurisdiction as to constitute willful mass murder and unspeakable crimes against humanity itself. The United States Constitution expressly provides that every individual human being has the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That before these rights can be supervened, there are express constitutional requirements of "due process of law" that must be overcome, which exist as ABSOLUTE BARRIERS even to the U.S. Supreme Court, and to ALL government actions. Among others, due process of law requires the assistance of counsel for the defense of the individual whose constitutional right to life is in imminent jeopardy of being overcome by government forces. This means that each and every human unborn baby in peril of being slaughtered has the absolute constitutional right to be represented by counsel to defend him or her BEFORE he or she is slaughtered. To this, the U. S. Supreme Court scoffed: "No problem. We simply rule that human babies as yet unborn are not ‘persons,’ or ‘individuals’ under the protections of the ‘due process’ clause of the Constitution. Unborn babies are things, as property is a thing. Next case." Down came the whimsical gavel of five men, not laws, in unconscionable horror and death by torture upon the babies of humanity, to resound through the consciences of decent human beings for all time to come, never to be forgotten, never forgiven, not even assuaged or salved.

Each mother who has slaughtered her baby  for frivolous reasons ,  for no other purpose than what amounts to opposing nature , has committed a crime against humanity in the same tradition of the military officer that stood trial in Nuremberg for crimes against humanity following the Jewish Holocaust.

Each doctor who has slaughtered a baby in the womb  for frivolous reasons  contrary to nature is guilty of committing a crime against humanity each time he or she commits the act.

Every government official sworn to uphold the United States Constitution, including the President of the United States, who does not protect the lives of human unborn babies, is guilty of committing crimes against humanity each time a baby in the womb is slaughtered under the aegis of Roe vs. Wade.

Every act against a baby as described above is an individual act of horror against humanity, each of which deserves the maximum punishment to which humanity is capable of exacting.

AUTHORITY TO PROSECUTE CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY:

Obviously, at this time in history, no document of this nature has the power to prosecute. But it may be that one day in the not too far-flung future, all of these criminals may be brought to justice, including Judges of the United States Supreme Court. This may be brought about by acts of nature, hurricane, tornado, earthquake, flood, and other such disasters, which might cause the normal order of government to break down. Or, war, insurrection, revolt, civil war, and causes of this sort may bring about a return to more primitive forms of government. In such an instance, even Judges of the United States Supreme Court may be tried for the crimes they have perpetrated against humanity, and then be punished appropriately. A document of this nature might then assume force and effect.

CONCLUSION:

In the day and time previous to July 4, l776, after which the "Isles of America" revolted against the cruel tyrannies of The King, and threw off the yoke of that government oppression, there was no constitutional law in America. What the King spoke was the Law of the Land. Even what the King’s officers said that the King said was law. The lives and fortunes of Americans were subject to the whims and caprice of men, rather than grounded in sound principles of law and order arrived at in a democratic process under the watchful eye of a constitution with absolute rules of order that no few individuals (in principle) may skewer for selfish purposes and threaten to subvert the general welfare.

After a struggle to the death against the King of England, America founded a system of laws designed to promote the general welfare of "We, the People." To guard against individual subversion of the laws, and to hold a steady course aimed to promote "the general welfare," the Constitution of the United States was established as The Supreme Law. But our founding fathers did not stop here. They said, in effect, "A constitution is meaningless unless there is a watchman to keep the helm." To hold vigil, the U.S. Supreme Court was appointed, each of its nine members for life, so that all of the mandates of the constitution might be held pristine throughout the generations. But, a human flaw crept in: even though the judicial body is, in principle, equal to each of the other bodies (the executive and legislative,) the judicial is supreme over all, because it alone holds the power of interpretation of the constitution. Any act of government whatsoever may be vetoed or affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court, under the color of "interpretation." And it does not require a vote of the nine; it only takes a vote of five (5.) Five men may overcome any law whatsoever in the United States by wielding the scepter of the "interpretation" provision of the constitution. It is an awesome power to entrust to five (5) individuals--for the rest of their natural lives. Might they become senile? This happens to many elderly people.

However, regardless of the amount of power entrusted to the U.S. Supreme Court majority, there was not commended ANY power to overcome the constitution itself. According to the U.S. Constitution, it alone is the supreme law of the land; IT is Law, even above the Five. The only power the U.S. Supreme Court has, under the U.S. Constitution, is the power to interpret constitutional provisions. The U.S. Supreme Court does not have the power to enact legislation, to pass laws, to create new laws where none previously existed. It particularly does not posses the grant of power to alter the constitution itself, not even for a purpose that the Court clearly perceives would benefit the overall welfare of "We, the People." Even if the U.S. Supreme Court conceives that society is on the verge of total collapse, the Court may not legally and lawfully and morally create a rule of law that is not embodied in the constitution, even if the Court is firmly convinced that creating such a law would "save society." Legislation is the unique property and constitutional power of the Legislative branch of government, (a body that has been voted into office by regular constitutional processes.) Let the Court veto the legislation if it does not like it--the power of interpretation is a broad one--but let not the Court ENACT legislation where none existed before. TO ENACT LEGISLATION IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACT OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT AND A SUBVERSION OF ITS AUTHORITY, A USURPATION OF THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF. It is also an assumption of absolute Lordship by what can be five elderly men.

In Roe vs. Wade, a "right of privacy" that is found nowhere in the U.S. Constitution was superimposed on the constitution in an act of raw judicial power, standing entirely alone, in no way contemplated previously by any law or constitutional enactment. These five men usurped the U.S. Constitution, simply because they could, flexing court power as a weightlifter and bodybuilder might do in a show of muscular superiority. This "flexing of court muscles" has committed the unspeakable: frivolously purposed infanticide to the tune of more than thirty million human babies in the United States thus far, and billions to come. No human mind can comprehend the enormity of this horror. All of these people are and will forever be absent from interactions with humanity--all of their would-be accomplishments forever erased, aborted as they were aborning.

Humanity has the absolute right to demand that every individual who has participated in the mass destruction of human unborn babies be punished to the fullest extent of humanity’s ability to inflict punishment, whenever and in whatever manner it is possible to so impose, without regard to the offender’s status in government or position in life. Whatever means are appropriate to achieve this end are lawful, correct, and proper. All of humanity has the unmitigated right to total outrage at this time. And the outrage has the right to be expressed in whatever manner is appropriate to the cause, in or outside of government, by whatever means are commensurate. This Holocaust against human babies must be stopped at the earliest moment.

 

Email us at Savbabys@alaweb.com