Sun Sep 17, 2006 01:12

FWD FYI Via _Wndbear_ (mailto: Wndbear@aol.com  )


In 1765, John Adams saw what many colonists saw, that the Stamp Tax would
rob the colonies of all circulating coin. Also, that colonists would be
litigated before an Admiralty judge, such judge granted total immunity by the King.

There would be no jury.

Based upon this document, the Constitution was specifically written to NOT
grant any immunity to judges, and judges would only be able to hold their jobs
during times of good behavior.

Read how John Adams specifically called judicial immunity, unconstitutional.

No jury, unconstitutional.

The Stamp Tax, unconstitutional.

In 1772, The Massachusetts Royal Governor told the colonists of
Massachusetts, that judge would now be paid out of the customs revenues collected, and
not by vote of the People.

Do you know the TEA PARTY took place because the tea could not be unloaded
until the custom tax was paid.

Psssst, this is where the judges got their salary from.

How do you prevent judges from being paid in 1773?

YES, throw the taxables items in the water.

Bet you've never read the document below and have come to understand how it
applies to the Constitution.

Oh yes, are we any lesser people than John Adams to call laws


Instructions of the Town of Braintree to Their Representative,
October 10, 1765 by John Adams……………….

To Ebenezer Thayer, Esq.
Sir,In all the calamities which have ever befallen this country, we have
never felt so great a concern, or such alarming apprehensions, as on this
occasion. Such is our loyalty to the King, our veneration for both houses of
Parliament, and our affection for all our fellow-subjects in Britain, that measures
which discover any unkindness in that country towards us are the more
sensibly and intimately felt. And we can no longer forbear complaining, that many
of the measures of the late ministry, and some of the late acts of Parliament,
have a tendency, in our apprehension, to divest us of our most essential
rights and liberties. We shall confine ourselves, however, chiefly to the act of
Parliament, commonly called the Stamp Act, by which a very burthensome, and,
in our opinion, unconstitutional tax, is to be laid upon us all; and we
subjected to numerous and enormous penalties, to be prosecuted, sued for, and
recovered, at the option of an informer, in a court of admiralty, without a jury.

We have called this a burthensome tax, because the duties are so numerous
and so high, and the embarrassments to business in this infant,
sparsely-settled country so great, that it would be totally impossible for the people to
subsist under it, if we had no controversy at all about the right and authority
of imposing it. Considering the present scarcity of money, we have reason to
think, the execution of that act for a short space of time would drain the
country of its cash, strip multitudes of all their property, and reduce them to
absolute beggary. And what the consequence would be to the peace of the
province, from so sudden a shock and such a convulsive change in the whole course
of our business and subsistence, we tremble to consider.

We further apprehend this tax to be unconstitutional.

We have always understood it to be a grand and fundamental principle of the
constitution, that no freeman should be subject to any tax to which he has
not given his own consent, in person or by proxy. And the maxims of the law, as
we have constantly received them, are to the same effect, that no freeman
can be separated from his property but by his own act or fault.

We take it clearly, therefore, to be inconsistent with the spirit of the
common law, and of the essential fundamental principles of the British
constitution, that we should be subject to any tax imposed by the British Parliament;
because we are not represented in that assembly in any sense, unless it be by
a fiction of law, as insensible in theory as it would be injurious in
practice, if such a taxation should be grounded on it.

But the most grievous innovation of all, is the alarming extension of the
power of courts of admiralty. In these courts, one judge presides alone! No
juries have any concern there! The law and the fact are both to be decided by
the same single judge, whose commission is only during pleasure, and with whom,
as we are told, the most mischievous of all customs has become established,
that of taking commissions on all condemnations; so that he is under a
pecuniary temptation always against the subject.

Now, if the wisdom of the mother country has thought the independency of the
judges so essential to an impartial administration of justice, as to render
them independent of every power on earth,independent of the King, the Lords,
the Commons, the people, nay, independent in hope and expectation of the
heir-apparent, by continuing their commissions after a demise of the crown, what
justice and impartiality are we, at three thousand miles distance from the
fountain, to expect from such a judge of admiralty?

We have all along thought the acts of trade in this respect a grievance; but
the Stamp Act has opened a vast number of sources of new crimes, which may
be committed by any man, and cannot but be committed by multitudes, and
prodigious penalties are annexed, and all these are to be tried by such a judge of
such a court! What can be wanting, after this, but a weak or wicked man for a
judge, to render us the most sordid and forlorn of slaves? we mean the
slaves of a slave of the servants of a minister of state.

We cannot help asserting, therefore, that this part of the act will make an
essential change in the constitution of juries, and it is directly repugnant
to the Great Charter itself; for, by that charter, “no amerciament shall be
assessed, but by the oath of honest and lawful men of the vicinage;” and, “no
freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, or
liberties of free customs, nor passed upon, nor condemned, but by lawful judgment
of his peers, or by the law of the land.” So that this act will “make such
a distinction, and create such a difference between” the subjects in Great
Britain and those in America, as we could not have expected from the guardians
of liberty in “both.”

As these, sir, are our sentiments of this act, we, the freeholders and other
inhabitants, legally assembled for this purpose, must enjoin it upon you, to
comply with no measures or proposals for countenancing the same, or
assisting in the execution of it, but by all lawful means, consistent with our
allegiance to the King, and relation to Great Britain, to oppose the execution of
it, till we can hear the success of the cries and petitions of America for

We further recommend the most clear and explicit assertion and vindication
of our rights and liberties to be entered on the public records, that the
world may know, in the present and all future generations, that we have a clear
knowledge and a just sense of them, and, with submission to Divine Providence,
that we never can be slaves. Nor can we think it advisable to agree to any
steps for the protection of stamped papers or stamp-officers. Good and
wholesome laws we have already for the preservation of the peace; and we apprehend
there is no further danger of tumult and disorder, to which we have a
well-grounded aversion; and that any extraordinary and expensive exertions would tend
to exasperate the people and endanger the public tranquillity, rather than
the contrary.

Indeed, we cannot too often inculcate upon you our desires, that all
extraordinary grants and expensive measures may, upon all occasions, as much as
possible, be avoided. The public money of this country is the toil and labor of
the people, who are under many uncommon difficulties and distresses at this
time, so that all reasonable frugality ought to be observed.

And we would recommend particularly, the strictest care and the utmost
firmness to prevent all unconstitutional draughts upon the public treasury..

By John Adams. October 10, 1765…………….

Main Page - Monday, 09/18/06

Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]


messageboard.gif (4314 bytes)