Amicus Curiae Brief — Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
Supreme Court brief1986
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
oa
*
No. 84-495
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OCTOBER TERM 1984
RICHARD THORNBURGH
Ve
AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS AND
GYNECOLOGISTS, PENNSYLVANIA SECTION
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AMICUS
CURIAE, WITH BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE, BY THE
LEGAL DEFENSE FUND FOR UNBORN CHILDREN
ALAN ERNEST
P.O. BOX 2471
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20013
(703) 435-1460
Counsel
BEST AVAILABLE COPY
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AMICUS
CURIAE BY THE LEGAL DEFENSE FUND FOR
UNBORN CHILDREN
The Court is moved for leave to file the
atteched brief amicus curiae by The Legal
Defense Fund for Unborn Children.
The amicus brief is not in support of
either party. The purpose of the amicus
brief is to defend the constitutional right
to life of the unborn, which the parties
have not done.
The amicus demonstrates that Boe v. Wade,
410 U.S. 113 (1973) is a mistake of law.
Although amicus addresses no arguments to
the issues raised by the parties, the facts
and authorities presented by the amicus
disposes of all the issues raised by the
parties.
Alan Ernest
Counsel
CONTENTS
Interest of Amicus cur 1a 11
Summary of ArguMent...ccccccccsccccesessesl
Arqu nenn 3
1.
ROE V. WADE IS VOID, BECAUSE THE
SUPREME COURT HITLER-LIKE DECREED
KILLINGS TO BE “LIBERTY” WHICH HAD
BEEN DEMOCRATICALLY DEFINED TO BE
“MURDER.” THE DECREE THAT “MASS MURDER
IS LIBERTY" IS THE ULTIMATE LAWLESS
e ..
11.
ROE V. WADE IS VOID BECAUSE THE COURT
USED FALSE EVIDENCE, AND UNCONSTITU-
TIONAL BURDENS OF PROOF, TO INFER THAT
"THE WORD PERSON, AS USED IN THE
POURTEENTH AMENDMENT, DOES NOT INCLUDE
THE UNBORN.” THE UNIVERSAL WORDS “ANY
PERSON," AS USED IN THE CONSTITUTION,
DO INCLUDE THE UNBORN... .. A 1138
111.
ROE V. WADE IS VOID BECAUSE THE
SUPREME COURT USED UNCONSTITUTIONAL
AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURES TO EFFECT AND
MAINTAIN THE ROE v. WADE KILLINGS...38
IV.
DUE PROCESS OF LAW HAS COMPELLED THE
U.S. SUPREME COURT TO CONFESS IN COURT
THAT IT IS GUILTY OF CRIMINAL
EXTERMINATION, INCLUDING MASS MURDER,
AND TO ADMIT THAT ROE v. WADE, 410
U.S. 113 (1973), IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
AND ee eee ee ee eee eee ee eee eee eee
reer eeee eee eee eee eee es
-i-
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases:
Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308.......46
Clarke v. State, 117 Ala. 1 6
Cohen v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264. 20
Dartmouth College v. Woodward,
4 Wheat. 310... . 6 6 06 % „ 20,21, 30
Dred Scott v. Sanford, 19 How. 393... 16
Goldberg Vv. Kelly, 397 U.S. EE |
Gulf, Colo. and 8. Fe Mv. Ellis,
165 U.S. Be 60800060060600 60000006 c00000N4"8
Hamilton v. United States,
26 App. D.C. eee eee elle
Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409. 36,42
In Re Gault, 387 U.S. lesesccccseceseseee4l
Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137.........48
Mills v. Comm, 13 Pa. 611. gz 22
Passenger Cases, 7 HOW. 282. 48
Regina v. West, 20 & K 78664 ꝑ 3,4,
Ross v. Oregon, 227 U.S. 150. 10, 32
Santa Clara v. So. Pac. RR,
118 U.S. ee eee ee eee
Screws Ve United I
State v. Reed, 45 Ark. 333 „2
State v. Slagle, 83 N.C. 544444kk . 22
-ii-+-
Sturges v. Crowninshield,
4 Wheat. „eee eee eee ee ee ee ee eee nenne
United States v. Altstoetter, 3 Trials of
War Criminals Before the Nuremberg
Military Tribuanls (195117 17, 43, 33
United States v. Hale,
422 U.S. DED ssc cee Be oheeedseocoses cone ne
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 19,34
Texts:
Archbold, Complete Treatise on Criminal
Procedure, Pleading and Evidence (1860)...6
R. Berger, Government by Judiciary: The
Transformation of the Fourteenth
Amendment (197 44
J.P. Bishop, Commentaries on the Criminal
Law (4th ed. 1663) 607
W. Blackstone, Conment ar ies 3
E. Coke, iir ..
Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln
(Basler ed. 1933j)j . 11,16
T. Denman, M. D., Introduction to the
Practice of Midwifery (180) 25
Hawkins, Pleas of the Croon 3
H. Hodge, M.D., Principles and Practice
of Obstetrics (1660ʒů 2 23
O. . Holmes, The Common Law (19633) 132
Model Penal G0. .. e eee eee eee ee ee ee 0
McCormick, The Law of Evidence (1972). 46
-iii-
G. Orwell, 1984 MTYTTTTITITITITITITITITT TT |.
R. Perkins, Criminal Law
(2d ed. 1969) 3 I0, 52, 53
Plato (Jowett transl. 194). 46
P. Ramsbotham, M. D., Principles and
Practice of Obstetric Medicine (1856)....26
. O. Russell, Treatise on Crimes and
Misdemeanors (4th ed. 1865) 9000000000000 00
A. Speer, Inside the Third Reich (1970). . 48
A. Taylor, Manual of Medical Jurisprudence
(Penrose Am. ed. 6th ed. 1866 (4, 7
A. Velpeau, M.D., Complete Treatise on
Midwifery (4th Am. ed. 18544)ĩ 25
FP. Wharton, Treatise on the Criminal
Law of the United States (187) 28
F. Wharton, Treatise on the Law of Homicide
in the United States (1655) 67
F. Wharton, Criminal Law and Procedure
(12th ed. 1957). . . 6 0 %% %% ell
Wigmore, Evidence (Chadborn Rev. 1972) . 46
U.S. Constitution and Statutes:
Fourteenth Amendment- "Any Person"....18-37
Pifth Amendment- "Any Person"......+++18-37
Fifth Amendment- Due Process 38-44
18 U. 8. c. § 2(222ãũ 3637,42
-iv-
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
October Term 1984
RICHARD THORNBURGH
V.
AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS AND
GYNECOLOGISTS, PENNSYLVANIA SECTION
AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF BY THE LEGAL DEFENSE
FUND FOR UNBORN CHILDREN
INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE
The interest of the Legal Defense Fund
Por Unborn Children is to defend the right
to life of unborn children under the U.S.
Constitution. The parties have not done
this. This brief does not support either
party.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
Boe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is
void. It is no law at all.
In Boe v. Wade, the Court decreed: “MASS
MURDER IS LIBERTY." This is the ultimate
lawless act. In his novel, "1984," Orwell
described how a tyranny defrauded its
subjects into obedience with the
"doublethink" slogan, “FREEDOM IS SLAVERY."
Although this science fiction may appear
improbable, the Supreme Court has defrauded
this nation into obedience with the
ultimate fraud, "MASS MURDER IS LIBERTY."
And due process of law has compelled the
U.S. Supreme Court to admit in court that
Boe v. Wade is void. This is the legal
equivalent of the express overruling of Boe
v. Wade by the Supreme Court.
Moreover, the universal words “any
person,” as used in the Fifth and
Pourteenth Amendments to the U.S.
Constitution, do include the unborn.
Boe v. Wade must be expressly overruled,
so this national scheme of criminal
extermination in violation of the U.S.
Constitution can be stopped. This disposes
of all the issues raised by the parties.
K—dũ2ũ4ẽ——ßß .
ARGUMENT
I.
ROE v. WADE IS VOID, BECAUSE THE SUPREME
COURT HITLER-LIKE DECREED KILLINGS TO BE
"LIBERTY* WHICH HAD BEEN DEMOCRATICALLY
DEFINED TO BE “MURDER.” THE DECREE THAT
"MASS MURDER IS LIBERTY" IS THE ULTIMATE
LAWLESS JUDICIAL ACT.
In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decreed
killings to be “liberty” which had been
democratically defined to be “murder” since
long before adoption of the Pourteenth
Amendment.”
men the Pourteenth Amendment was
adopted, an abortion was murder if the
child was “born alive." And a child could
de "born alive“ long before viability.
A. The English Common Law
The English common law, as stated in the
works of Coke, (3 Inst. 50), Hawkins,
(1 Hawkins Ch. 13, s. 16) and Blackstone,
(4 Bl. Com. 198) defined an abortion, in
which a quick“ child died after being
"born alive," to be “murder.”
Thus, under the common law, an abortion
of an unviable child, a child too immature
to survive outside the womb, who died after
being born alive, was “so horrible an
of tense“ and “this is murder." 3 Inst. 50.
v. West, 2 C & K 784 (1848) followed
Coke, Hawkins, and Blackstone, and ruled
that an abortion was murder if the child
i
In 1857, the American Medical Association
began a two year study of all the abortion
laws in the United States. The 1859 report
stated the law of murder throughout the
United States, as follows:
"If a person, intending to procure
abortion, does an act which causes the
child to be born earlier than its
natural time, and therefore in a state
much less capable of living, and it
afterwards die in consequence of such
premature exposure, the pocese who by
this misconduct brings t child into
the world, and puts it in a situation
in which it cannot live, is guilty of
murder.” Reported in A.S. Taylor,
infra page 7, at 462. ‘emphasis added)
was born alive, even though the child died
because it was too immature to survive
outside the womb.
The indictment for murder alleged that the
defendant had inserted a “certain pin
upward into the womb" of a pregnant woman
for the purpose of producing the abortion
of a quick“ child; and that this resulted
in the child being 1 * born and
brought forth alive from and out of the
womb." wire) v. Heat, 2 C & K at 784-85.
The child died shortly afterward. A
"medical witness” had testified:
It was a healthy child; but that, being
born at that period of gestation, it was
impossible that it ould live any
a Ee es
Yet, in 1973, this is the very killing
which the U.S. Supreme Court decreed to be
"liberty." See photo, infra A-1.
In the plainest terms, the U.S. Supreme
Court decreed: "MASS MURDER IS LIBERTY.*
considerable length of time separated from
the womb of the mother. It was incapable of
maintaining a separate and independent
existence." Beginag v. West, 2 C & K at 786.
The judge, relying on Coke and Blackstone,
instructed the jury that if the child were
"born alive," the abortion was murder,
even though the child were not viable:
"The prisoner is charged with murder; and
the means stated are, that the prisoner
caused the premature delivery of the
witness Hensen, bY using some instrument
for the pu e of procuring abortion; and
that the child so prematurely born was, in
cons nee of its premature birth, so weak
that it died.... I am of opinion (and I
direct in point of law), that if a
person intending to procure abortion does
an act which causes the child to be born so
much earlier than the natural time, that it
is born in a state much less capable of
living, and afterwards dies in consequence
of its exposure to the external world, the
person who by her misconduct so brings the
child into the world, and puts it thereby
in a situation in which it cannot live, is
8 of murder." Regina v. Weat, 2c é& K
at 768.
The case of da v. Hest, supra, was
Many people would be astonished to learn
that this case for the unborn is the very
case they would have to present for
themselves if their own right to life were
challenged in a federal court.
cited by the leading English writers as the
correct statement of the law of murder.
See, 1 J. . Archbold, A Complete Treatise
on Criminal Procedure, Pleading and
Evidence 783 (Waterman Am. ed. 7th ed.
1860); 1W.O. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes
and Misdemeanors 671-672 (4th ed. 1865);
A.S. Taylor, A Manual of Medical
Jurisprudence 516 (Penrose Am. ed. 6th ed.
1866). An abortion which resulted in an
unviable child being born alive was murder.
B. THE AMERICAN. LAW OF MURDER IN 1868
The common law is the dictionary for the
state and federal homicide statutes;
American courts used it to construe the
meaning of their murder statutes. Hamiiton
Clarke v. State, 117 Ala. 1 (1898). 7
By the time the Fourteenth Amendment was
adopted in 1868, the leading American legal
authorities had specifically cited Begina
v. Hest, supra, as the correct statement of
the law of murder.
As Wharton explained the law, A Treatise on
For example, take almost any group of
persons, such as the insane, or invalids,
or Jews. Suppose it were claimed in
federal court that it is “liberty” to
deliberately kill members of these groups,
as well as the unborn.
What factual, non-argumentative evidence
the Law of Homicide in the United States 93
(1855):
"If a person intending to procure abortion,
does an act which causes a child to be born
so much earlier than the natural time, that
it is born in a state much less capable of
living, and afterwards dies, in consequence
of its exposure to the external world, the
person who by this misconduct, so brings
the child into the world, and puts it
thereby in a situation in which it cannot
live, is guilty of murder.”
American authorities agreed that this was
the correct statement of the law of murder.
2 J.P. Bishop, Commentaries on the Criminal
Law 365 (4th ed. 1868); A.S. Taylor, Manual
of Medical Jurisprudence 462, 517 (Penrose
Am. ed. 6th ed. 1866). This was the
uncontradicted view in the United States
when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted.
C. THE LAW OP MURDER AND THE MEANING OP
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
If the ple who framed and adopted the
Pourteenth Amendment had condemned the
taking of a crying infant from its mother's
7
1
could be found to establish their right to
life under the U.S. Constitution?
As the case for the unborn shows, it
would do no good to object that no one ever
heard of a “liberty” to deliberately kill
the insane, or invalids, or Jews - or to
object that such killings had thereto been
defined as criminal.
womb and leaving it to die, as murder, then
it is certain that they did not intend to
exclude the lives of these children from
the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment
so they could be deliberately killed with
impunity from criminal statutes.
If the ye who framed and adopted the
Amendment had condemned the deliberate
killing of Jews to be murder, it is certain
that they did not intend to exclude Jews
from the protection of the Constitution so
it would be liberty“ to deliberately kill
Jews with impunity from criminal statutes.
Changing the names of the victims does not
change the legal result.
But by seizing upon viability, the Supreme
Court decreed the same killing to be
"liberty" which the American people had
universally defined to be murder. It is a
naked decree without any investigation
whatever into the law of murder. In its
ignorance, the Court decreed: "Mass Murder
is Liberty."
Since the universal words “any person" in
- —
And the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments
merely state that they protect the life of
"any person." So, as with the unborn, the
Amendments do not expressly refer to the
insane, or invalids, or Jews; and their
legislative histories do not appear to
specifically refer to the insane, or
invalids, or Jews.
the Pourteenth Amendment must include ali
rsons whose lives were protected by the
aw of murder when the Amendment was
adopted, the lives of these children were
specifically guaranteed by the Amendment.
And since personhood under the Constitution
does not just fade away with time, like
some magic disappearing ink, then the lives
of these children are still protected by
the fourteenth Amendment. Roe v. Wade is
void.
D. THE HYSTEROTOMY ABORTION
UNDER ROE vy. WADE
A common way to perform abortions under
Boe v. Wade is by hysterotomy.
Vv. Edelin, 359 N. E. 2d + (Mass. 1976). os
hysterotomy is essentially a caesarean, in
which a live but unviable child is taken
from the womb and left to die. HEARINGS ON
THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS ON
ABORTION, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL
AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE COMMITTEE
ON THE JUDICIARY, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
As with the unborn, the murder laws don't
expressly refer to the insane, or invalids,
or Jews; and their legislative histories,
to the extent they have any, do not appear
to specifically refer to these groups.
‘fhe principle in the Declaration of
— — — — H—— —— —— D rer rrr rer tr
94th Cong, 2d Sess., Ser. 46, Part 1, at
391 (1976).
As established by medical testimony at
these 1976 House abortion hearings, "With
few exceptions, babies aborted by this
method will all move, will all breathe, and
some will cry.... Almost all were born
alive." Id., at 397.
When the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted,
these hysterotomy abortions were murder.
E. ROE v.. WADE. AND. MISTAKE. OF. LAW
The constitutional provisions against ex
laws do not apply to judicial
decisions which are a mistake of law. Ross
v. Oregon, 227 U.S. 150, 161 (1913). And
mistake of law is no excuse for breaking
the law. R. Perkins, Criminal Law 920 (2d
ed 1969). The limited affirmative defense
vf reasonable reliance on an official
judicial opinion, thereafter determined to
be a mistake of law, does not apply to
homicide cases. Model Penal Code, Tentative
Draft #4, Comments Sec. 2.04, at 138.
Since Roe v. Wade is a mistake of law, mass
murder is being perpetrated in the United
10
—
Independence, that all people are "created"
equal, and endowed with an unalienable
right to life, having been sneered out of
court in Roe v. Wade, now provides no
assurance for anyone. The Court so
perverted the Declaration of Independence
as to amount to just this: "All men are
created equal, except those created to be
murdered for the convenience of others."
States under guise of law. The Roe v. Wade
hysterotomy killings, by definition under
the law of murder when the Fourteenth
Amendment was adopted, and thus also
constitutional law, violate the murder
statutes throughout the United States.
The Supreme Court decreed mass murder to be
liberty without any examination of the law
of murder; it was a naked decree. And as
Abraham Lincoln warned, "(I)t is an
established maxim in morals that he who
makes an assertion without knowing whether
it is true or false, is guilty of
falsehood; and the accidental truth of the
assertion, does not justify or excuse him.
1 The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln
384 (Basler ed. 1953). Since Lincoln's day,
this "maxim in morals" has also been a
textbook definition of perjury. 3 Wharton's
Criminal Law and Procedure 673 (12th ed.
1957).
And year after year the U.S. Supreme Court
has deliberately adhered to its decree that
11
So, what factual, non-argumentative
evidence is there for the insane, or
invalids, or Jews to protect themselves
from a judicial decree that it is "liberty"
to deliberately kill them with impunity
from criminal statutes?
* 88 8 G — * — * ——
"Mass Murder is Liberty“ in the very teeth
of challenges that these children were
being murdered in violation of the
Constitution and laws of the United States,
and of the States. See amicus curiae brief
of The Legal Defense Fund for Unborn
Children, filed in Akron v. Akron Center
For. Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. 416
(1983).
This is deliberation and premeditation
unparalleled in the legal history of the
world. The Justices responsible for these
killing may be facing the death penalty in
very many states.
It may be that the judges responsible for
these murders did not believe that they
were breaking the law. But, as Justice
Oliver Wendell Holmes once wrote:
"Ignorance of the law is no excuse for
breaking it....It is no doubt true that
there are many cases in which the criminal
could not have known that he was breaking
the law, but ... the lawmaker has
determined to make men know and obey.” O.W.
Holmes, The Common Law 41 (Little Brown
paperback 1963).
Boe v. Wade is not going to protect one
12
The case for the unborn is the case for
many others; it is this same body of
factual evidence which many people must
ultimately rely upon to establish that
their right to life is protected by the
U.S. Constitution.
If the people who framed and adopted the
Pourteenth Amendment had condemned the
deliberate killing of Jews to be "murder,"
then it is certain that they did not intend
tc exclude the lives of Jews from the
single judge from the law of murder,
because it is a mistake of law. Mass murder
is not liberty. These children were
murdered in violation of the Constitution
and positive criminal statutes.
F. CONCLI'SION
Is government of laws founded upon
evidence, or the mere naked decrees of men
holding office for life?
Since the U.S. Constitution is "the supreme
law of the land,“ and the evidence proves
that the lives of these children are
protected by the U.S. Constitution, Roe v.
Wade is void.
13
protection of the U.S. Constitution so it
would be "liberty" to deliberately kill
Jews with impunity from criminal statutes.
And merely changing the names of the
victims would not change this conclusion.
Since the people who framed and adopted
the Fourteenth Amendment had condemned the
taking of a crying infant, whether viable
or not, from its mother's womb and leaving
it to die to be "murder," it is certain
that the framers did not intend the
Amendment to create a "liberty" to
deliberately kill these children with
impunity from criminal statutes. It is
certain that the lives of these children
are protected by the U.S. Constitution.
Since the right to life protected by the
Constitution does not just disappear with
time, as whitewash weathers off an aging
fence, it is certain that the lives of
these children are still protected by
14
— — — a - -
the U.S. Constitution. And since the
Constitution is the "supreme law of the
land," it is certain that Roe v. Wade is
void; it is not law.
The thousands of "born alive“ abortions
since 1973 can be prosecuted as murder.
If the Court had decreed it "liberty" to
deliberately kill Jews, it wouid rightly be
denounced as murder. Judges may have more
sympathy for other victims, but changing
the names of the victims from "Jew" to
"unborn" will not change the legal result.
In his novel "1984," Orwell described how
a tyranny defrauded its subjects into
obedience with the doublethink“ slogan
"FREEDOM IS SLAVERY." Although this science
fiction appears improbable, yet, the U.S.
Supreme Court has defrauded the American
people into obedience with the ultimate
falsehood: "MASS MURDES IS LIBERTY."
When judges decree that "MASS MURDER IS
LIBERTY," then it can not be pretended that
15
it is any longer the government of the
United States — or any government of
constitution and laws.
Abraham Lincoln ridiculed the Dred Scott
decision by reducing it to its plainest
terms: "That if any one man, choose to
enslave another, no third man shall be
allowed to object."2 In Boe v. Wade, the
Court invented an even more astonishing
falsehood, "That If any one man, choose to
murder another, no third man shall be
allowed to object."
The U.S. Supreme Court has Hitler-like
asserted to legalize mass murder. By
2. 2 Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln
462 (Basler ed. 1953). In Dred. Scott v.
Sanford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 451 (1857),
the U.S. Supreme Court held that the word
"person," as used in the Constitution, did
not include Negroes. While the Court did
not assert a liberty“ to deliberately kill
Negroes, the Court did rule that "the right
to property in a slave is distinctly and
expressly affirmed in the Constitution,"
and Congress could not prohibit slavery in
the federal territories.
16
—̃ ͤ— —ELX
changing the names of the victims, the
Court has duplicated the conduct of "the
supreme judge“ of Nazi Germany.°
The evidence shows that the U.S. Suprene
Court is committing mass murder under the
guise of law; the dagger of the assassin
has been concealed beneath the robe of the
jurist. Roe v. Wade is void.
3./ The Nuremberg court described how
Hitler was "the supreme judge" of Nazi
Germany. United States v. Altstoetter,
3 Trials of War Criminals Before the
Nuernberg Military Tribunals 1011 (1951).
This “supreme judge" decreed deliberate
killings to be legal which had been defined
as criminal. At Nuremberg, the Nazi judges
cldimed that they could not be held
accountable for complicity in extermination
and murder, since they had acted within the
authority of the decrees of "the supreme
judge.” United States v. Altstoetter,
supra, 983-85. But the Nuremberg Court
held, "The dagger of the assassin was
concealed beneath the robe of the jurist."
United States v. Altstoetter, supra, 985.
By changing the name of the victims from
"Jew" to "unborn," the Supreme Court has
duplicated the decree of "the supreme
judge" of Nazi Germany. But changing the
name of the victims will not change the
legal result. Roe v. Wade is murder.
17
eo 4
—ͤ—ũ—ä— ́ . — — 2 — — —ñmꝛ— —ä—6ñ466 ò ͤẽ7.el§ -- ——————ßÄ—v — ——B —6 ——U— ̃ᷓ ᷣͥ ꝗQv—
II.
ROE v. WADE IS VOID BECAUSE THE COURT USED
F.\LSE EVIDENCE, AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL
BURDENS OF PROOF, TO INFER THAT "THE WORD
PERSON, AS USED IN THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT, DOES NOT INCLUDE THE UNBORN."
THE UNIVERSAL WORDS "ANY PERSON," AS USED
IN THE CONSTITUTION, DO INCLUDE THE UNBORN,
The Court used fabricated evidence in Roe
v. Wade, and unconstitutional burdens of
proof and persuasion, to infer "that the
word person, as used in the Fourteenth
Amendment, does not include the unborn."
The evidence proves that the universal
words “any person,“ as used in the
Amendment, do include the unborn.
A.
The Court admitted that if the unborn
were "a person, within the language and
meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment," then
the case for a liberty“ to kill the
unborn, as claimed in Roe v. Wade, of
course, collapses, for the fetus right to
life would then be guaranteed specifically
by the Amendment." Roe v.Wade, 410 U.S. at
156-157.
18
B.
The terms of the Fourteenth Amendment
("nor shall any state deprive any person of
life ... without due process of law")
(emphasis added) are “universal in their
application, to all persons ... without
regard to any differences." Yick Wo v.
Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 (1886). The
universal words "any person“ make no
distinction between born and unborn
persons, and on their face admit of no
exceptions whatever. Thus, on their face,
the universal words "any person" include
the unborn, as everyone else.
C.
The holdings of Chief Justice John Marshall
prove that the Supreme Court has no lawful
power to construe an exception to universal
terms, such as "any person," unless:
1. the Court can show that “the absurdity
and injustice of applying the provision to
the case, would be so monstrous, that all
19
an
mankind would, without hesitation, unite in
rejecting the application“; 1 and
2. the Court can prove that had this
particular case been suggested [to the
framers], the language would have been so
varied, as to exclude it, or it would have
been made a special exception."2
Chief Justice Marshall founded
the universality of the Supreme Court's
_ jurisdiction on these very rules.3
1. Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat.
122, 203 (1819). Before the Court can
exclude the unborn from the universal words
"any person," so they can be deliberately
killed with impunity from criminal
statutes, the Court must prove that
including the unborn, within the universal
terms any person“ would be "so monstrous,
that all mankind would, without hesitation,
unite in rejecting the application."
2./ Dartmouth College v. Woodward,
4 Wheat. 518, 644 (1819). The Court had to
prove that if the case of the unborn had
been suggested to the Framers, they would
have changed the Amendment to read: "Nor
shall any state deprive any person, except
unborn. persons, of life ... without due
process of law."
L Coben v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 378-
380, 422-423 (1821).
20
The Court bore an extraordinary burden
before it could imply an exception to the
universal terms "any person“ so millions of
persons could be deliberately killed with
impunity from criminal statutes.-
4,./ The truth of this extraordinary burden
can be demonstrated by applying it to
various cases. Before the Court can imply
an exception to the universal terms "any
person," so that Jews could be deliberately
killed with impunity from criminal laws,
the Court would have to prove that "the
absurdity and injustice” of including Jews
within the universal terms "any person"
would be "so monstrous, that all mankind
would, without hesitation, unite in
rejecting the application." Sturges v.
„ Supra. And the Court must
prove that if the case of the Jews had been
suggested to the framers of the Fourteenth
Amendment, "the language would have been so
varied, as to exclude it." Dartmouth
v. Woodward, supra. The framers
would have changed the Amendment to read:
"No state shall deprive any person, except
Jews, of life without due process of law."
These same burdens must apply to anyone
whose personhood may be challenged,
including the unborn. Thus, the Court bore
the heaviest burden in constitutional
interpretation in order to imply an
exception to the universal terms "any
person" so that millions of unborn children
could be deliberately killed with impunity
from positive criminal statutes.
21
D.
The Supreme Court fabricated false evidence
in Boe v. Wade to imply that "the word
person, as used in the Fourteenth
Amendment, does not include the unborn."5
~
5./ SUMMARY. OF. FALSE. EVIDENCE
When the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted
in 1868, over three-fourths of the
ratifying states had already enacted
criminal statutes which made abortion at
any stage of gestation a crime unless it
were necessary to save the life of the
mother or child. Within a few years, these
_ Statutes were universal.
In those few states still controlled by the
common law on abortion, it is not possible
to state with any assurance that the law
was any different than in those states with
abortion statutes. Some state supreme
courts had ruled that the common law made
abortion a crime throughout gestation.
Mills v. Comm, 13 Pa. 631 (1850); State v.
Aan 83 N. C. 544 (1880); State v. Reed,
45 Ark. 333 (1885). And those state
supreme courts which ruled that abortion
prior to quickening was not a common law
crime were immediately overruled by their
legislatures which made abortion at any
stage of pregnancy a crime. Comm. v.
Parker, 50 Mass. 263 (1845), was
immediately overruled by Mass. Acts &
Resolves ch. 27 (1845). State v. Cooper, 22
N.J.L. 52 (1849), was immediately overruled
by N.J. Laws at 266 (1849). Abrahams v.
Foshee, 3 Iowa 274 (1856) was overruled by
the next legislature, Iowa Rev. Laws, tit.
XXIII, ch. 165. art. 2, sec. 4221 (1860).
{continued on next page]
22
The people who framed and adopted the
Fourteenth Amendment had already
democratically defined the deliberate
killing of the unborn to be a crime. The
Supreme Court knew it could not imply an
exception to the universal terms "any
person" to decree "MASS EXTERMINATION,
DEMOCRATICALLY DEFINED TO BE CRIMINAL, IS
LIBERTY." So the Supreme Court fabricated
evidence to make it appear that those 19th
century abortion statutes were not intended
Any theory of a liberty“ to deliberately
kill the unborn faced an impossible
contradiction: How was it possible that
the people who adopted the Fourteenth
Amendment had enacted criminal statutes to
protect the lives of the unborn, but at the
same time, without a single word of
explanation, intended to imply an exception
to the universal terms “any person" so
there would be a liberty“ to deliberately
kill the unborn with impunity from their
criminal statutes? This absurd contra-
diction wrecks Roe v. Wade.
To resolve this fatal contradiction, the
Court fabricated the hypothesis that when
the criminal abortion statutes were first
enacted, the laws were not intended to
protect the unborn life, but were only
23
to protect the lives of the unborn. The
purpose of the falsification was to make it
appear that this nation had always deemed
abortion to be “liberty,” and not crime.
The Supreme Court perpetrated the Orwellian
crime of falsifying the legal history of
the United States to make criminal
extermination appear to be "liberty."
If the Court had decreed it liberty“ to
deliberately kill Jews, and fabricated
evidence to make it appear that the
American people had always deemed it
intended to protect the mother. This
hypothesis was falsely fabricated and used
as follows:
A.
The Supreme Court first asserted, "When
most criminal abortion laws were first
enacted, the procedure was a hazardous one
for the woman." Boe v. Wade, 410 U.S. at
148. This is asserted as fact.
The only authority cited by the Supreme
Court to prove this assertion of fact was a
20th century medical history book,
Haagensen and Lloyd, A Hundred Years of
Medicine 19 (1943), cited in Roe v. Wade,
Supra, at 148 n. 43. But, this book merely
described the hazards of major surgery in
general prior to Lister's discovery of
antiseptics. The book did not even mention
24
liberty, and not crime, to kill Jews, then
it would rightly be condemned as murder.
Judges might have greater sympathy for
other victims, but changing the name of the
victims from "Jew" to "unborn" will not
change the legal result.
the abortion operation.
The 19th Century obstetric authorities
throughout the Western world prove the
Court's assertion of fact to be false.
These 19th century obstetric authorities,
based on their own experience in performing
abortion, and from hundreds of cases
reported from around the world, declared in
their obstetric textbooks that the abortion
operation, the operation of artificially
evacuating the fetus from the womb, was
"perfectly safe" to the mother, 2 T.
Denman, M.D., An Introduction to the
Practice of Midwifery 96 (1802) (English
physician); or “experience has proved that
the dangers of the operation are reduced to
@ small matter," A.L.M. Velpeau, M.D., A
Complete Treatise on Midwifery 530 (4th
American ed. 1852); or "to the mother there
is very little danger." H.L. Hodge, M.D.,
The Principles and Practice of Obstetrics
293 (1864) (American physician). The 19th
century obstetric authorities prove the
— Court's assertion of fact to be
alse.
The Supreme Court never revealed the
"hazardous" abortion "procedure" to which
it was referring. Actually, the 19th
25
The lives of the unborn must be protected
by the Fourteenth Amendment. The framers
used the universal terms “any person,"
without any exceptions. And no exception
may be implied. The people had already
enacted criminal statutes to protect the
century physicians generally used the
ancient method: “the membranes of the ovum
are punctured,” which permitted “the
discharge of the vaters, which induced the
"action of the uterus" to "come on,” which
resulted in the expulsion of the fetus from
the womb. 2 Denman, supra, at 99. One 19th
century physician traced this operation
bac’: almost 2000 years. F. Ramsbotham,
M. P., The Principles and Practice of
Obstetric Medicine 724 (4th ed. 1856).
Consequently, the 19th century physicians
were generally using an ancient abortion
procedure which they described as not
hazardous to the life of the woman.
The Supreme Court did not examine even one
Single 19th cent ty obstetric textbook. And
the medical textbooks prove its assertion
of fact, "Wien most criminal abortion laws
were first enacted, the procedure was a
hazardous one for the woman," to be false.
Since abortion was not dangerous to the
life of the mother, the only motivating
purpose the abortion statutes could have
had was to protect the lives of the unborn
from destruction by abortion, even safe
abortions by physicians. Had it been the
purpose of the legislators to only protect
lives of the unborn. No court can imply an
exception to the universal terms "any
person“ to decree: "MASS EXTERMINATION,
DEMOCRATICALLY DEFINED TO BE CRIMINAL, IS
LIBERTY." So the universal words "any
person,” as used in the Fourteenth
Amendment, do include the unborn.
the mother, they would have only required
abortions to be performed by physicians,
which were known all over the western world
to be safe to the mother.
B.
The Supreme Court next asserted: "Abortion
mortality was high.” Boe v. Wade, 410 U.S.
at 149. This is asserted as fact.
The Supreme Court asserted "Abortion
mortality was high" without any authority
to support it. It is a naked assertion. The
19th century obstetric authorities prove
this assertion of fact to be false. The
medical authorities expressly asserted that
the abortion operation was not hazardous to
the life of the mother.
The purpose of this assertion is to go
beyond the mere theory that abortion was
hazardous to the mother, and imply that the
carnage was so great as to call for
legislation to protect mothers from the
medical profession.
But the obstetric texts prove the Court's
assertion, “Abortion mortality was high,"
27
E.
Not only are indispensable parts of the
Supreme Court's evidence fabricated and
false, but the Court also unconstitu-
tionally reversed the burdens of proof and
persuasion, as set out in the rulings of
Chief Justice John Marshall.
to be a false statement of fact.
Ce
Upon these two false assertion of fact, the
Court falsely infers that "a State's real
concern in enacting a criminal abortion law
was to protect the pregnant woman, that is,
to restrain her from submitting to a
procedure that placed her life in serious
jeopardy." Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. at 149.
This is a false inference, drawn from false
assertions of fact.
Moreover, the 19th century treatises on
criminal law state that these criminal
abortion laws were intended to protect the
lives of the unborn. 2 F. Wharton, A
Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United
States 200-203 (7th ed. 1874). There is
none to the contrary. If the purpose of
these laws had been to protect the mother,
and not the child, these writers would
certainly have noted it.
Since abortions by physicians were known
all over the western world to be safe to
the mother, the motivating purpose of these
abortion laws could only have been to
protect the lives of unborn children from
28
Instead of placing the burden on the
advocates of the killings to prove that
including the unborn within the universal
terms “any person" would “be so monstrous,
that all mankind would, without hesitation,
unite in rejecting the application," the
Court unconstituticnally reversed the
burdens of proof and persuasion. The Court
destruction from abortions. That
legislatures prohibited safe abortions by
physicians, despite the great danger to the
mother from abortions by criminals, shows
“heir great respect for unborn life.
D.
From the false inference that the criminal
abortion laws were not intended to protect
the lives of the unborn, the Court falsely
inferred that, likewise, the framers of the
Fourteenth Amendment did not intend it to
protect the lives of the unborn, “that the
word ‘person,’ as used in the Fourteenth
Amendment, does not include the unborn."
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. at 158. This false
conclusion is drawn from a false inference
which is drawn from false facts.
The Supreme Court bore the burden of
— that the absurdity and injustice of
including the unborn within the universal
terms “any person“ would be "so monstrous,
that all mankind would, without hesitation,
unite in rejecting the application."
Sturges v. Crowninshield, supra. And the
29
placed the burden on the unborn to prove
with "assurance" (which means to make
certain and put beyond doubt) that they
were persons within -:he universal words
terms “any person, or the unborn would be
excluded from the terms “any person" so
they could be deliberately killed with
impunity from criminal statutes.
The Court reversed the burdens of proof
Court had to prove ut if the case of the
unborn had been presented to the framers
and adopters of the Fourteenth Amendment,
"the language would have been so varied, as
to exclude it." Dartmouth College v.
Woodward, supra.
But, the Court could not cite even one 19th
authority that expressly agreed with its
conclusion that “the word person, as used
in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not
include the unborn," much less one who
asserted that there was a liberty“ to
deliberately kill the unborn with impunity
from criminal statutes.
The legal history demonstrates that the
people did intend the Amendment to protect
the unborn: they used universal language
most appropriate for the purpose; and,
the people had already enacted criminal
abortion laws to protect the unborn in
fact. The universal words "any person,” as
used in the Fourteenth Amendment, must
include the unborn.
30
in the following manner:
First, the Court declared a “liberty” to
deliberately kill the unborn with impunity
6
from criminal statutes.
Second, subsequently, the Court looked to
see if the lives of the unborn were
„
protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Third, the purpose of first decreeing a
"liberty" to deliberately kill the unborn,
before the Court even looked to see if the
lives of the unborn were protected by the
Constitution, was to impose the “compelling
state interest" test on the unborn. This
placed a very heavy burden on the unborn
E. Boe v. Wade, 410 U.S. at 153.
L Boe v. Wade, 410 U.S. at 156-157. The
Court assumed the very thing which was to
be ete by evidence. By the Court's own
admission, if the lives of the unborn were
protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, then
the alleged "liberty" to kill the unborn
"of course, collapses.“ But, the Court
decreed a “liberty” to kill the unborn,
before it even looked to see if their lives
were protected by the Constitution. It is
analogous to a court finding an accused to
be guilty before it heard the evidence.
31
to prove that their right to life was
protected by the const i tut ion.
Fourth, the Court stated that the evidence
did not prove “with any assurance” that the
lives of the unborn were protected by the
U.S. Constitution. This confirms that the
Court placed the burden on the unborn to
prove with “assurance” that their lives are
protected by the Constitution.
Finally, the Court ruled that the unborn
had not met their burden of proof and the
unborn could be deliberately killed with
impunity from criminal statutes.
This process is analogous to a court
first adjudging the accused in a criminal
B./ Boe v. Wade, 410 U.S. at 156. As its
compelling state interest, Texas claimed
that the lives of the unborn were protected
by the Fourteenth Amendment, and that the
purpose of their abortion statute was to
protect the lives of the unborn. Thus, a
heavy burden of proof was placed on the
defenders of the abortion statute to prove
that the universal words any person,” as
used in the Fourteenth Amendment, do
include the unborn.
3,/ Boe Ve Wade, 410 U.S. at 157.
32
case to be guilty, before it even heard
the evidence, then placing the burden on
the accused to prove himself innocent
beyond a reasonable doubt, or be hanged.
The burdens used in Roe v. Wade are
unconstitutional, and savagely criminal.
If the Court first decreed a “liberty” to
kill Jews, and then placed the burden on
the Jews to prove with “assurance” that
their lives were protected by the U.S.
Constitution, it would rightly be condemned
as murder. Judges may have more sympathy
for other victims, but changing the name of
the victims being killed from "Jew" to
"unborn" will not change the legal result.
Rather, under the rulings of Chief
Justice Marshall, the burden was on the
Court to prove with “assurance” that the
unborn were not included within the
universal terms “any person,” or they would
be included.
The evidence for the unborn is far
33
stronger than for other groups which the
Court has judicially recognized to be
11
included within the terms "any person."
The U.S. Supreme Court has defied the
express words "any person” in the
12
Pourteenth Amendment, and their spirit,
lL./ The Court was so sure that
"corporations" were included within the
universal terms “any person" that it
forbade any oral argument to the contrary.
Santa Clara v. SQ. Pac. RR, 118 U.S. 394,
396 (1886). And the Court held that
"strangers and aliens" were included within
the terms "any person“ by merely observing:
"These provisions are universal in their
application." Yick Wo v. Hopkins, supra, at
369. No evidence whatever was required.
12./ The uncontradicted scientific medical
evidence in Roe v. Wade showed that the
unborn child is "alive." The heart begins
"pulsations at 24 days." And “brain waves
have been noted at 43 days.”
The Court has recognized that, while the
Declaration of Independence is not law in
itself, yet it is 'the thought and the
spirit, and it is always safe to read the
letter of the Constitution in the spirit of
the Declaration of Independence." Gulf.
Colo. 4 S. Fe Ry
v. Ellis, 165 U.S. 150,
159-160 (1896).
The undisputed scientific evidence proved
that the unborn child has been created“
and thus endowed with an "unalienable"
right to "life." Thus, the universal terms
34
and the plain intention of its framers and
de and condemned to death millions
of victims whom the Constitution of the
United States endeavors to preserve.
The evidence proves that the universal
‘words “any person,“ as used in the Pour-
teenth Amendment, do include the unborn,
And the universal words "any person," as
used in the Fifth Amendment, must also
"any person,” as used in the Amendment,
must also include the unborn. The right to
life of the unborn is guaranteed, not just
by the spirit of the Declaration of
Independence, but by the express words of
the U.S. Constitution.
Roe v. Wade corrupted the Declaration of
Independence to read: "All men are created
equal,- except those created to be killed
for the convenience of others."
13./ The people who adopted the Fourteenth
Amendment not only used the express and
universal terms (not "any person“ could be
deprived of life without due process of
law) without any distinction between born
or unborn life, but those people had
already enacted criminal abortion statutes
to protect the lives of the unborn in fact.
35
14
include the unborn.
And the unborn are also protected from
judicial extermination by 18 U.S.C. § 242.”
Since the U.S. Constitution is "the
supreme law of the land,“ and its universal
terms "any person," as used in the Fifth
— *— — ee U i
14./ As the Court reasoned in Bolling v.
Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954), if the
Fourteenth Amendment prohibits racially
segregated schools in the States, then it
would be “unthinkable” that the Fifth
Amendment permitted them in the District of
Columbia. By the same reasoning, since the
killings are prohibited in the states by
the Fourteenth Amendment, it is
"unthinkable" that the Fifth Amendment
could permit them in the District of
Columbia. Regardless of the evidence
relevant to the Fifth Amendment, the
purpose of a subsequent amendment is to
amend. Hunter v. Underwood, .. U. 8.
85 L Ed 2d 222, 231 (1985).
1. The history of 18 U.S.C. § 242 shows
that it was intended to protect all persons
whose lives were guarded by the Fourteenth
Amendment. Screws v. United States, 325
U.S. 91, 98 (1944). Since the universal
words “any person,” as used in the
Fourteenth Amendment, do include the
unborn, their lives are also protected by
18 U.S.C. § 242. “Even judges ... could be
punished criminally for willful
deprivations of constitutional rights on
the strength of 18 U.S.C. § 242." Imbler
V. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976), 47 L Ed
2d 128, 142 (1976).
36
and Fourteenth Amendments, do indisputably
include the unborn, it is also indisputable
that Boe v. Wade is unconstitutional and
void. Boe v. Wade is no law at all.
And any judge who follows Boe v. Wade,
and permits the killings to continue, will
be guilty of complicity in a national
scheme of criminal extermination in
violation of the Constitution and laws of
16
the United States.
16./ Since 18 U.S.C. § 242 protects the
lives of the unborn from extermination by
federal judges, any judge who willfully
permits these Roe v. Wade killings to
continue can be prosecuted for complicity
in a national scheme of extermination, in
violation of the Constitution and laws of
the United States. And the death of each
unborn child can be punished with life
imprisonment. Since judges have willfully
exterminated millions of victims by Roe v.
Wade, judicial liability under this one
statute is unparalleled in the legal
history of the world.
37
111.
ROE V. WADE IS VOID BECAUSE THE SUPREME
COURT USED UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND CRIMINAL
PROCEDURES TO EFFECT AND MAINTAIN
THE ROE v. WADE KILLINGS.
The Supreme Court willfully used
unconstitutional procedures to effect the
Roe v. Wade killings.
1 The Court willfully used the following
unconstitutional procedures, despite
objection, to effect Boe v. Wade:
A. Denial of Assistance of Counsel
Counsel did not especially represent the
unborn in the District Court in Boe v.
Wade. And the Supreme Court denied a
request by an original party to allow
counsel to especially represent the unborn
in the Supreme Court. Thus, counsel did not
represent the unborn at any stage of the
original proceedings.
B. Denial of Prior Notice
The District Court did not even look to
see if the lives of the unborn were
protected by the U.S. Constitution; this
question was argued for the first time
after the case reached the Supreme Court.
And the Supreme Court gave the parties no
prior notice of the constitutional
standards, or the burdens of proof, or the
evidence, which the Court used to infer
that the lives of the unborn were not
protected by the Constitution. The first
time the parties had notice was when Roe v.
Wade was published, and the victims were
already condemned to death. An original
party objected that it lacked the prior
notice needed to defend the unborn.
[continued on next page]
38
And the Supreme Court subsequently
decided many abortion cases on the merits,
but, despite objection that the process was
unconstitutional and criminal, willfully
used unconstitutional procedures to
maintain the Boe v. Wade killings:
1. The Supreme Court willfully refuses to
allow retained (no cost to taxpayers)
C.
The Court used some secret evidentiary
process, not open to the parties, to find
evidence to infer that the lives of the
unborn were not protected by the U.S.
Constitution. An original party objected
that it had not had opportunity to cross-
examine the Court's evidence in a judicial
proceeding.
D. Denial of Right i —
An original party asked permission to
cross-examine the evidence which the Court
used to infer that the lives of the unborn
were not protected by the Constitution. But
the Supreme Court would not allow its
evidence to be cross-examined.
E.
An original party asked 1 to
present evidence under the new
constitutional standards which it had not
seen before to show that the lives of the
unborn are protected by the Constitution.
But the Court refused to allow it. And the
killings commenced.
39
counsel to represent the victims being
111107
2. The Supreme Court willfully refuses to
allow its evidence in Boe v. Wade, which it
used to infer that the lives of the unborn
are not protected by the U.S. Constitution,
2./ Some of the cases are: Colautti v.
Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, motion to allow
counsel to represent the unborn denied 437
U.S. 902; Anders v. Eloyd, 440 U.S. 445,
motion to allow counsel to represent the
unborn denied 439 U.S. 890; Bellotti v.
Baird, 443 U.S. 622, motion to allow
counsel to represent the unborn denied 439
U.S. 1065; v. Exeiman, affirmed
440 U.S. 941, motion to allow counsel to
represent the unborn denied, 440 U.S. 941;
V. Zboaraz, 448 U.S. 358,
motion to allow counsel to represent the
unborn denied 444 U.S. 1030; Harxsis v.
McRae, 448 U.S. 297, motion to allow
counsel to represent the unborn denied
445 U.S. 941; H. L. v. Matheson, 450 U.S.
398, motion to allow counsel to represent
the unborn denied 445 U.S. 959;
Vv. Virginia, aes ent Fee Ed 2d 755,
motion to allow counsel to represent the
unborn denied 73 L Ed 2d 1364; Planned
Parenthood of Kansas. City v. Ashcroft,
— U.S...» 76 L Ed 2d 733, motion to allow
counsel represent the unborn denied 73 L Ed
2d 1364; Akron Center. for. Reproductive
Health v. Akron, 462 U.S. 416, motion to
allow counsel to represent the unborn
denied 73 L Ed 2d 1364.
40
3
to be confronted and cross-examined;
3. The Supreme Court willfully refuses to
allow evidence to be presented on behalf of
the victims being killed to establish their
right to life under the U.S. Constitution. *
The Supreme Court's own rulings on due
process of law show these procedures to be
5
unconstitutional.
3./ See cases, supra note 2. The evidence
in Boe v. Wade, vsed to infer that the
lives of the unborn are not protected by
the Constitution, has never been cross-
examined, despite the charge that the Court
fabricated its evidence.
. See cases, supra note 2.
5./ Even in civil proceedings, where
crucial deprivations are threatened, such
as loss of welfare, due process guarantees
(1) prior notice of the factual and legal
bases; (2) the right to be represented by
counsel; (3) the right to confront and
cross-examine adverse evidence; (4) the
right to present evidence. Goldberg v.
Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 268-271 (1970); Ia Re
Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967).
If the Constitution would not permit a
court to condemn even one single Jew to
death in a criminal case, but deny all
these procedural rights, then neither can
any court condemn any or all Jews in
the United States to death, but deny all
these procedural rights, by calling it a
41
Since the deprivation was willful, these
procedures are also criminal.°
These are essentially the same procedures
cited by the Nuremberg Court as part of the
evidence to convict the Nazi judges of
— aia aati — —
civil proceeding, and decreeing that the
lives of Jews are not protected by the U.S.
Constitution, and it is "liberty" to
deliberately kill Jews with impunity from
criminal statutes.
If the process used to effect and maintain
the Boe v. Wade killings, were used to
decree it liberty“ to kill Jews, it would
rightly be denounced as murder. But
changing the names of the victims being
killed, does not change the legal result.
Any victim is entitled to all the
procedural protections described in
Goldberg v. Kelly, supra, before any court
can decree that the victim's life is not
protected by the U.S. Constitution, and the
victim can be deliberately killed with
impunity from criminal statutes.
CL “Even judges ... could be punished
criminally for willful deprivations of
constitutional rights." Imbler v. Pachtman,
424 U.S. 409 (1976). The deprivation was
willful because the Court repeatedly denied
all these procedural rights in the teeth of
the objection that the denial was
unconstitutional and criminal. Thus the
deprivation of these procedural rights was
criminal.
42
complicity in extermination and murder.’
If the Supreme Court had used these
procedures to decree it "liberty" to
deliberately kill Jews, it would rightly be
cOndemned as murder. While judges may have
more sympathy for another category of
victims, changing the names of the victims
from "Jew" to "Unborn" will not change the
legal result.
Having decreed that "MASS MURDER IS
LIBERTY," the Court now maintains the
killings by criminally refusing to allow
truth to work in its Court.
It is notorious that truth is not
permitted to work in the proceedings in the
U.S. Supreme Court, and that the Court
2./ “In many instances they were denied the
right to introduce evidence, to be
confronted by witnesses against them, or to
present witnesses in their own behalf. They
were ... denied the right of counsel of
their own choice, and occasionally denied
the aid of any counsel... (T)he accused
learned only a few moments before the trial
of the nature of the alleged crime for
which he was to be tried.”
United States
v. Altstoetter, supra, at 1046-47 (1951).
43
falsifies history to achieve its ends.°
The Su rene Court has made a murderous
mockery of due process of law.
The use of these procedures, to exciude
millions of victims from the protection of
the U.S. Constitution, so they can be
deliberately killed with impunity from
etiminal statutes, is unconstitutional, and
makes Boe v. Wade void.
L “The Court... has flouted the will of
the framers and substituted an
interpretation in flat contradiction of the
original design .... Such conduct impels
one to conclude that the Justices are
become a law unto themselves. ... It
perilously resembles ... Hitler isn.“ R.
Berger, Government by Jadiciary: The
Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment
408, 412 (Harvard Univ. Press 1977).
"Court had adjourned in the real
world.... (T)hey [the Justices] began to
invent a country suited to their
purposes.... They have falsified the
American past ... and no one in charge
seems prepared to do anything about it. T.
Landers, To A Traditionalist, Mr. Ron
Sounds So Good, The Wall Street Journal,
editorial page, December 27, 1984.
44
DUE PROCESS OF LAW HAS COMPELLED THE U.S.
SUPREME COURT TO CONFESS IN COURT THAT IT
IS GUILTY OF CRIMINAL EXTERMINATION,
INCLUDING MASS MURDER, AND TO ADMIT THAT
ROE v. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), IS VOID.
Por the 85th time, the U.S. Supreme Court
is accused in its own court with criminally
exterminating millions of victims in
violation of the U.S. Constitution, and 18
U.S.C. § 242.
Por the 6ltb time, the U.S. Supreme Court
is accused in its own court with mass
murder in violation of state and federal
statutes; -
Por the 65th time, the U.S. Supreme Court
is accused in it own Court of using
unconstitutional and criminal procedures to
effect and maintain the Boe v. Wade
killings. >
But, the U.S. Supreme Court has never
denied the charges, much less attempted to
1. Charges based on evidence, supra p. 3.
2./ Charges based on evidence, supra p. 18.
3./ Charges based on evidence, supra p. 38.
45
prove the charges to be false.
These facts are unparalleled in the legal
history of the world.
Under this Court's own rulings, its
silence year after year, while the victims
are being killed, is an admission that the
4
charges are true.
"Pailure to contest an assertion,
however, is considered evidence of
„ Under “the tacit confession rule,"
McCormick on Evidence, § 161, 270, failure
to deny a charge is tantamount to a
confession that the charge is true. Also
4 Wigmore, Evidence, § 1071-1072 (Chadborn
rev. 1972). “Underlying the rule is the
assumption that human nature prompts an
innocent man to deny false accusations and
consequently a failure to deny a rticular
accusation tends to prove belief in the
truth of the accusation." McCormick, supra,
§ 161. The Supreme Court has consistently
affirmed this rule. (1) be Court has
consistently recognized that ... silence in
the face of accusation is a relevant
fact.... Silence is often evidence of the
most persuasive character." Baxter v.
Palnisiane- 425 U.S. 308, 319 (1976).
And t rule is ancient. As Socrates cross-
examined at his trial over 2000 years ago:
"you are silent and have nothing to say.
But is this not rather disgraceful, and a
very considerable proof of what I was
saying?" "I may assume that your silence
gives consent." Apology in Plato 41, 45
(Jowett transl. 1942).
46
acquiescence only if it would have
been natural under the circumstances
to object to the assertion in
question.” United States v. Hale, 422
0.8. 171. 176 (1975).
The circumstances leave no doubt that due
process of law has compelled the U.S.
Supreme Court to confess that the charges
are true, and that Boe v. Wade is void.
First, the evidence makes it clear as
daylight why the Court is silent in the
face of the charges: the charges are proved
to be true.” No denial is possible.
Second, the charges were made in cases
filed pursuant to the Constitution and laws
of the United States. The judges had a
legal duty to attend to allegations that
Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided:
*(I)ts opinion — the construction
of the Constitution is always open to
discussion when it is supposed to have
been founded in error, and that its
The Supreme Court decreed killings to
be liberty“ which the people had
democratically defined to be “murder.”
This is mere historical fact; no denial is
possible. The decree that “Mass Murder is
Liberty“ is the ultimate lawless act.
47
judicial authority should hereafter
depend altogether on the force of the
reasoning by which it is supported."
The Passenger. Cases, 7 How. 282, 470
(1849).
In view of their oath, when judges “close
their eyes on the Constitution", and
"condemn to death those victims whom the
Constitution endeavors to preserve,” it is
worse than solemn mockery, it is "crime."°
6./ Maxbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 179-
180 (1803). Chief Justice John Marshall
wrote that for judges to swear to support
the Constitution as the supreme law of the
land, but then "close their eyes on the
constitution," and "condemn to death those
victims whom the Constitution endeavored to
preserve" was worse than “solemn mockery,"
it is a "crime."
Where there is an affirmative duty to act,
the deliberate omission to do that duty,
which results in death to others, can be
prosecuted as homicide. Perkins, Criminal
Law 604 (2nd ed. 1969).
The only Nazi to plea guilty at Nuremberg
cited this law. When he was warned of
Auschwitz, Speer wrote that "I did not
investigate - for I did not want to know
what was happening there.... [F]rom fear of
a@iscovering something which might have made
me turn from my course, I closed my eyes."
A. Speer, Inside the Third Reich 375-76
(1970). This "deliberate blindness” was
complicity in criminal extermination.
Pederal judges are guilty of crime when
48
Third, the Court's steadfast silence,
year after year, in the face of the scores
of accusations that it is guilty of mass
murder, is unparalleled in the legal
history of the world, and it is the very
circumstance which the Court itself has.
cited as making confession by silence
more trustworthy. ’
Fourth, not only has the Court's silence
persisted in the face of repeated
accusations, but the Court's silence has
persisted even in the teeth of warnings
that under its own rulings, its silence in
the face of the charges was being taken as
an admission that the charges are true, and
they close their eyes on the evidence, and
permit victims to be executed, whom the
Constitution endeavors to preserve.
2./ Concerning the Court's continuing
silence year after year: “Silence gains
more probative weight where it persists in
the face of accusation, since it is assumed
in such circumstances that the accused
would be more likely than not to dispute an
untrue accusation." United States v. Hale,
422 U.S. 171, 176 (1975).
49
Roe v. Wade is a mistake of law. 8
Fifth, the charges described the most
corrupt judicial system which the human
mind can imagine, that:
(1) judges had criminally exterminated
millions of children in violation of
the Constitution and laws of the United
States, and of the States;
(2) the United States was being ruled over
by a tribunal of murderers;
(3) due process had compelled the tribunal
of murderers to confess in its own
court to guilt of mass murder; and
(4) the tribunal of murderers was
maintaining its murders by keeping
truth from working in the courts of the
United States.
6 ä —
B./ “THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS CONFESSED
IN COURT TO GUILT OF CRIMINAL
EXTERMINATION, INCLUDING MASS MURDER, AND
THIS IS THE LEGAL EQUIVALENT OF THE EXPRESS
OVERRULING OF ROE v. WADE." Amicus curiae
brief by the Legal Defense Fund For Unborn
Children, filed in Akron v.
for. Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. 416
(1983).
50
Never in the legal history of the world
was it more imperative to deny charges if
they were untrue.
Thus, when judges, under solemn legal
duty to uphold the law, are accused of mass
murder in their own court year after year,
and the evidence is laid out in court, and
pictures of the dead are shown to the
judges, but year after year, while the
victims are being killed, the judges do not
deny the charge, much less attempt to prove
it false, then not only a 2000 year old law
of evidence, but the solemn legal duty
imposed by a government of laws, condemns
this silence as a confession that the
charge is true; and their decree is void.
The immediate practical result is that
due process has compelled the U.S. Supreme
Court to admit that Boe v. Wade is a
mistake of law. Truth has worked in the
U.S. Supreme Court in the only manner in
which it was permitted to work. Under our
51
government of laws, the Supreme Court was
met in court with the truth, and due
process has compelled the Court to admit,
in the most emphatic manner which the human
mind can imagine, that Boe v. Wade is void.
Any judge of the United States who
closes his eyes on these facts,
unparalleled in the legal history of the
world, and permits the Boe v. Wade
killings to continue, knows he is guilty
of complicity in criminal extermination,
including mass murder, in violation of the
Constitution and laws of the United States,
and of the states.
* — * — ain Ge,
3./ The Supreme Court asserted to legalize
killings which had been defined as criminal
by pes tive statutes. Since Boe v. Wade is
a mistake of law, all the killings since
1973 can be criminally prosecuted. The ex
post facto provisions of the Constitution
do not apply to judicial decisions which
are a mistake of law. Boss v. een, 227
U.S. 150, 161 (1913). The general rule is
that mistake of law is no excuse for
breaking the law. R. Perkins, Criminal Law
920 (24 ed. 1969). The limited affirmative
defense of reasonable reliance on an
official judicial opinion, thereafter
determined to be a mistake of law, does not
52
In the face of facts unparalleled
in the legal history of the world, our
government of laws will permit only one
conclusion: the U.S. Supreme Court was met
in court with the truth, and due process
apply to homicide cases. Model Penal Code,
Tentative Draft No. 4, Comments Sec. 2.04,
page 138. Perkins, supra, at 928.
Thus, the law applied at Nuremberg applies
to this case. Obedience to the unlawful
orders of judicial superiors is no excuse
for complicity in criminal extermination.
v. Altstoetter, supra, at
983-985 (1951).
The Nuremberg court described how “the
supreme judge" of Nazi Germany had decreed
criminal killings to be legal. At
ey the Nazi judges claimed that
they could not be held accountable for
complicity in extermination and murder,
because t were bound to the decrees
of *the supreme judge." But the Nuremberg
court rejected that defense since obedience
to the orders of superior 1 4 is no
defense in homicide cases: dagger of
the assassin was concesled beneath the robe
of the jurist." United States v.
Altstoetter, supra, at 985.
To illustrate the true status of Boe v.
Wade, su e a lawyer had accused “the
supreme 12 of Nazi Germany of mass
murder 50 times in court, but the “supreme
judge“ never denied the charge, much less
att ed to prove it false, and permitted
the killings to continue Could any court,
53
of law compelled the Supreme Court to
admit, in the most emphatic manner which
the human mind can imagine, that Boe Vv.
Wade is unconstitutional and void.
ä
called upon to try the Nazi j s for
complicity in murder, have perm tted those
judges the defense that the silence of “the
supreme judge” proved that the killings
were lawful? That such silence — the
Nazi judges could permit the killings to
continue without question? This is too
criminally monstrous for any sane person to
dare to insist upon.
The law makes a mortal distinction between
killing and not killing which no judge can
safely ignore:
l. N — who stops the Boe v. Hage
killings, and makes a mistake of law,
can only be overruled on l;
2. But any judge who allows t killings to
continue, despite the objection that the
Supreme Court decreed “Mass Murder Is
Liberty," and makes a mistake of law,
can be prosecuted for complicity in mass
murder, and be sentenced to death.
The law of capital murder is a hard school,
where lessons are taught only one time, and
mistakes of law are not forgiven.
Due process has compelled the Supreme Court
to overrule Boe v. Wade. Any judge who
elects to ignore the facts and take part in
a national scheme to mass murder little
children, rather than to allow truth to
work in court, must deliberate) hazard the
death penalty. Many states still punish
mass murder with the death penalty.
54
CONCLUSION
The anicus demands that the Court
expressly overrule Boe v. Wade, and stop
the killings which it perpetrated.
Due process of law has already compelled
the U.S. Supreme Court to admit that Roe v.
Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is void.
The U.S. Supreme Court has perpetrated
one of the giant criminal exterminations in
the peacetime history of the world.
Since the limited affirmative defense of
reasonable reliance on an official judicial
decision, thereafter determined to be a
mistake of law, does not apply to homicide
eases, the court should expressly overrule
Roe v. Wade, not only to stop the killings,
but also to protect unsuspecting persons
from taking part in murder and criminal
extermination, and sharing the Court's
awesome criminal liability.
Alan Ernest, Counsel
55
BEST AVAILABLE COPY
IE CLC —
The photograph, supra A-1, shows a second
stage abortion by prostaglandin. Such abor-
tions not uncommonly result in the child
being born alive.- This Court would be
guilty of murder for such killing. There
have been thousands of such killings under
Roe v. Wade; and witnesses live to tell.
If the child were born dead, the Court
would be guilty of criminal extermination.
As the Court studies the face of this
victim of Roe v. Wade, let it contemplate
that a government of laws shall be
restored, and call the killers to account.
L Eloyd v. Anders, 440 F. Supp. 535, 538
(1977). There are about 140,000 second
stage abortions each year. All the common
second stage abortion techniques -
hysterotomy, prostaglandin, and even salt
poisoning - can result in the child being
born alive. Jefferies and Edmonds,
Abortion: The Dreaded Complication, The
Philadelphia Inquirer, August 2, 1981.
2./ Since the universal words "any
person," as used in the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments, do include the
unborn, their lives are also protected from
judicial extermination by 18 U.S.C. { 242.
A-2
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.