IS THE CONSTITUTION DEAD?

Although the Constitution guarantees the Blessings of Liberty to We the People, most of the laws affecting us today are actually rules and regulations promulgated by state and federal agencies.

Legislatures create the bureaus and the bureaus churn out the web of regulations which fill upwards of 80,000 pages of fine print in the Federal Register each year - freedom-stealing rules with the force of law the size of all the phone books from every city in the country bound together in one volume.

And EACH AND EVERY YEAR these pages are piled on top of those from all preceding years.

When a Citizen is brought before an agency for rule violations, my experience has been that Constitutional protections are often surrendered.

Justice exists primarily for those who are well capitalized and willing to commit many years to the exhaustion of administrative remedies.

This disturbing trend began in the late 1940s when laws defining crimes against the state and the number of agencies began to proliferate. Over the ensuing decades, increasing numbers of victimless crimes were upgraded to felony offenses until today it has even become a felony to publish an unlicensed book in the United States.

For example, I publish a bi-annual investment book, "The $upertrader's Almanac". On July 30, 1997, a group of small financial publishers and I, represented by "The Institute for Justice", filed a class-action lawsuit in Washington, D.C which, I am immensely proud to say, bears my name, Taucher v. CFTC (1:97CV01711(RMU)).

Our suit sought First Amendment protection of our right to publish without first having to register our speech with a government agency.

Also joining our suit were a number of subscribers who sought the right to RECEIVE our uncensored opinions.

As I have stated in the "Burning the Books" article in my "Almanac" every year since 1990, I have never been able to understand how agency employees such as Mary Shapiro, Brooksly Born, and Daniel Waldman of the CFTC and Robert Wilmouth, Daniel Roth, and Daniel Driscoll of the NFA could engage the unlimited resources of their agencies in the oppression of my First Amendment right to publish since the Constitution so clearly states that Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of the press.

Our Founding Fathers deemed this principle so fundamental to our concept of liberty they included it as the FIRST Amendment in our cherished Bill of Rights.

If the clearly stated and unambiguous FIRST Amendment can so easily be abridged, why should we expect that any of the other Amendments can not be similarly trampled by agency statute?

The recent Congressional IRS hearings demonstrated that IRS agents will engage the full power of their agency to harass and oppress individual Citizens, sometimes unlawfully and especially when no counterbalancing Citizen oversight or criminal prosecution are otherwise provided.

Is it not Pollyannaish to believe that other agencies do not use similar tactics and oppression to achieve their objectives?

Are such tactics not to be expected since government employees are but people themselves, possessing all the frailties of the human condition, the ugliest of which manifest themselves when one gains POWER over another?

When government employees abuse the public trust, should these offenses by the state against the People be treated with any less consideration than are the offenses of individuals against the state?

My quandary arose when I realized that the First Amendment did not protect me against CFTC's and NFA's oppression - these agencies simply did not recognize the First Amendment as sufficient an authority to prevent them from attempting to force me to license my speech.

Sure, I could empty my wallet and spend years litigating my Constitutional right to publish . . . but if the People are protected from government by the Constitution, why must we first exhaust our finances and energies fighting the limitless resources of government before we might gain the protections the Constitution supposedly already provides?

In words, if you and I are protected, why do the employees of the CFTC and the NFA and other government agencies not recognize such protections?

THE OATH OF OFFICE

Article VI, Section 3, requires the execution of an Oath of Office in support of the Constitution for "all executive and judicial Officers . . . or public Trust under the United States".

This Article VI Oath of Office is the most fundamental document available defining the agreement between the People and a public official. It states the affirmation of the employee that, as a condition of employment, the employee swears to uphold the Constitution. Indeed, the very first act of a new President is the administration of the Oath of Office by the Chief Justice.

By this Oath of Office, do government employees not agree to subordinate agency statute to the provisions of the Constitution?

If government employees have executed an Oath of Office to support the Constitution and have then failed to protect the People's Constitutional guarantees, have they not violated their Oath of Office?

Is this violation of Oath of Office not perjury?

As John Marshall stated in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 176-180 (1803);

"Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeable to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? If it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?

"If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime."

At the least, is perjury of Oath of Office not a criminal act worthy of impeachment?

If my First Amendment right to publish can be so easily subordinated to agency statute, then what peculiar aspects of YOUR life are subject to abuse in matters not as clearly defined as are the protections provided by the First Amendment?

Further, have these officials not weakened and eroded the Constitutional protections of all by weakening and eroding the Constitutional protections of but one?

When such oppression violates the sacred trust and fidelity of the People, is the action not just perjury, but treason?

A traitor might damage the competitiveness of our country and commit treason by selling secrets overseas. These actions might compromise individual agents or policies and result in temporary setbacks.

One who erodes the liberties and freedoms of the People, however, does so for all and does so forever.

Which is the greater treason?

If the Constitution is strictly and literally upheld in accordance with the Oath of Office and a portion is found repugnant to the People, do We the People not have the ability to AMEND the offensive portion?

"It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error." American Communications Association vs. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 442 (1950)

The first place for me to personally begin was thus to assure that the people who administer the agency's rules had lawfully executed an Oath of Office.

THE FOIA/PAs

I began by submitting formal requests pursuant to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Privacy Act of 1974 (PA).

The FOIA/PAs are supposed to be the key to the Door of Justice for the common man.

These tools have produced information regarding such diverse subjects as the Kennedy Administration, satellite photographs of Mount Ararat in Turkey where many believe Noah's Ark came to rest, Citizen's military service, FBI, and CIA files, and so on.

The FOI Center in Columbia, Missouri, in fact, supports openness in government so strongly that they believe the existence of these Acts may have prevented the two World Wars of this century by exposing government clandestine activity deliberately meant to draw the United States into these conflicts.

Government booklets promote these acts as being user friendly tools for which lawyer assistance is not needed. My experience so far, however, is that they are anything but - the readily available information appears accessible, but the tough questions are stonewalled and remain unanswered.

As but the simplest of examples, the CFTC refused my formal FOIA/PA requests for copies of the written oaths for certain CFTC Officers and employees.

The concealment of these oaths appears to be an OBSTRUCTION and violation of due process as provided by the FOIA/PAs and the 5th and 14th Amendments.

Not only has the CFTC similarly not responded to other of my FOIA/PA requests, but most have not been timely provided and the CFTC has erected many barriers to the production of documents for others.

For example, the CFTC has several times abeyed the production of responses to many of my documents. Yet, CFTC regulations provide for no such abeyance authority nor do the FOIA/PAs.

The CFTC claims that since another agency, the Office of Management and Budget, published guidelines a decade ago, the authority has somehow been extended to the CFTC.

OMB's Guidelines are neither recorded in nor are they referenced in CFTC's manual. The question is thus not whether or not the manuals the CFTC distributes to the public are misleading, but whether the deception is intentional.

Further, OMB's Guidelines themselves state that they are just that - guidelines - and that, for the guidelines to become agency law - they must be adopted by the agency as such and published in the Federal Register.

One of my FOIA/PA requests thus requested the production of documents that evidenced such publication in the Federal Register. I posed the request in several different forms so that it would not be misinterpreted, including the adopted date, effective date, and so on.

You can imagine my surprise when the CFTC lawfully responded - - - WITH NO DOCUMENTS AT ALL - - - suggesting that the CFTC has never published its FOIA/PA rules in the Federal Register !!!

(You can verify the above statement by obtaining a copy of my FOIA request and the CFTC's response by filing a FOIA request directly with the CFTC and requesting a copy of FOIA # 97-0269. The address is;

Assistant Secretary of the Commission for FOI, Privacy, and Sunshine Acts Compliance Office of the Secretariat CFTC 2033 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20581

The request must state "Freedom of Information Act Request").

As simple as the government pamphlets attempt to portray the process, I have had these guys refuse to respond to requests I have sent directly to the General Counsel's Office claiming, apparently, that the General Counsel, who wrote CFTC's FOIA/PA rules, did not know what to do with a FOIA/PA request that was not addressed exactly as stated above.

In fact, I still have unanswered FOIA/PA requests that are now over 8 months old as this is written in December, 1997.

If I am experiencing such difficulties, my guess is that, like the IRS hearings, others are also experiencing the same or similar FOIA/PA disappointments and roadblocks with other agencies.

FOIA/PAs AND FREEDOM OF THE PRESS

Besides being important to the average Citizen, the FOIA/PAs are among the most important tools available to reporters, investigative journalists, authors, and others.

Because the CFTC refused to timely and lawfully respond to my FOIA/PA requests this year, I was prevented from updating my "Burning the Books" article in my "Almanac".

Is such OBSTRUCTION not a First Amendment violation of both my right to a Free Press and of my subscribers' right to receive the information unfettered by government interference?

NFA ARTICLE VI OATH OF OFFICE VIOLATIONS

Further, early in 1997, I discovered that these Oath of Office and FOIA/PA problems involved not only the CFTC, but the NFA as well, only in a far more serious manner.

The NFA is a self-regulatory organization approved and authorized by a government agency, the CFTC. The NFA exercises extensive regulatory authority over We the People and shares information with other government agencies and foreign authorities.

You can imagine my horror when I discovered I had been classified as a "Special Case" by the National Futures Association even though I am not an NFA member.

Have I been identified as a subversive?

A protestor?

Exactly what does "Special Case" classification mean?

Will I be subjected to McCarthy-like investigations and processes?

Have my "Special Case" files been shared with other government agencies or foreign governments?

Will little men in black follow me around town?

Need I worry about a SWAT TEAM battering down my front door at four in the morning?

What is the authorization for the NFA to maintain "Special Case" files on non-NFA members of the public?

Have CFTC officials who have executed an Oath of Office approved NFA's clandestine activity?

Even more disturbing, I discovered not only that the NFA wrote its own rules (certainly not the smallest of conflicts of interest), but that it wrote its rules in such a manner that its Officers, Directors, and employees would not have to execute an Article VI Oath of Office!

To summarize, there is a "private" organization in our country which conducts extensive regulatory activities and operations and maintains "Special Case" files on non-member American Citizens, yet which is not beholden to the Constitution nor are its officials required to execute an Article VI Oath of Office.

If NFA Directors, Officers, and employees are not sworn to uphold the Constitution, what laws do they uphold?

Astonishingly, the CFTC Commissioners, Officers and employees who are required to execute an Article VI Oath of Office and who have oversight responsibility for the NFA approved NFA's Article VI Oath of Office exemption.

By approving an exemption to a Constitutional requirement they themselves are subject to, have CFTC Commissioners, Officers, and employees again not perjured their Article VI Oath of Office?

Have the protections of the Constitution again not been eroded?

EXAMPLES OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE OATH OF OFFICE

Most People, even esteemed attorneys, place little importance in the Article VI Constitutional Oath of Office requirement.

As but one example of its importance, its absence has allowed the NFA to demand that its members surrender their Constitutional 5th Amendment right to not incriminate themselves as a condition of registration. NFA Compliance Rule 2-5 demands that each member cooperate fully with NFA investigations. Citizen registrants who do lawfully exercise their 5th Amendment rights thus become subject to deregistration proceedings for violation of NFA CR 2-5 even though their only crime may have been to exercise their 5th Amendment Constitutional rights.

Could NFA CR 2-5 have been included in NFA's rules had NFA's founders, Directors, Officers, and employees executed an Article VI Oath of Office and upheld the Constitution for the United States of America?

What is astonishing is that CFTC's Commissioners, Officers, and employees, who are subject to an Article VI Oath of Office, subordinated the People's 5th Amendment protections to NFA's agency statutes when they approved NFA's unlawful subordination.

Was such action not, again, perjury?

It is the Citizen, of course, who suffers from this dereliction of duty as another Constitutional protection is eroded.

As another example, US Marshals are not required to execute an Oath of Office, an apparent direct violation of Article VI, Section 3.

CFTC ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS AND THE ARTICLE VI OATH OF OFFICE

A similar Constitutional infringement also occurs in CFTC administrative agency proceedings. As an example, in the December 4, 1997 R&W Technical Services, Ltd. case, CFTC Administrative Law Judge Bruce J. Levine found that he was bound by the CFTC's own precedent, established not in a court of law but in an agency administrative proceeding, to disregard the small financial publisher's claim that speech licensing was an unconstitutional First Amendment violation.

This deplorable ruling began as a result of two previous cases, In the Matter of Polyaxon Capital, Inc., 1988 CFTC LEXIS 166 and In the Matter of Armstrong, 1989 CFTC LEXIS 558, in which CFTC administrative law judges correctly concluded that impersonal publishers could not be held to the CFTC's registration requirement. Astonishingly, the CFTC's Chairperson, Mary Shapiro, and CFTC's Commissioners, on their own volition, arbitrarily and capriciously reversed the administrative law judges' decisions in 1993 claiming the CFTC was not bound to consider Constitutional requirements when applying CFTC agency statutes. In the Matter of Armstrong, Comm.Fut.L.Rep. 25,657 (February 8, 1993), 1993 CFTC LEXIS 34 at 15-18. Judge Levine and all other CFTC Administrative Law Judges have since been bound by this horrendous decision and blatant disregard for Citizens' Constitutional protections. For those brought before this agency, the First Amendment and other Constitutional protections simply do not exist!

An example of the affect the absence of Constitutional protections can have on a Citizen is seen in this same case where the administrative agency fined the firm three times its entire gross revenue since the firm's inception!

The CFTC immediately thereafter published a press release to be sure the decision and penalty received maximum publicity (see CFTC release # 0002-97 at www.cftc.gov/opa/002-97.htm) without, of course, informing the People that its "victory" had only been attained because of its own disregard and unlawful violation of the Constitution.

Can there be a clearer instance of wanton and malicious action by federal bureaucrats to deliberately ignore and abridge the Constitutional rights of an American Citizen and, thereby, of We the People, especially since the CFTC's own judges had previously reaffirmed and correctly applied the First Amendment protections?

If Constitutional protections can so easily be whisked away by this agency, why can they not be similarly disregarded by all other agencies?

Have not the Chairperson and Commissioners, acting in collusion, perjured their Oath of Office?

Have not CFTC's Officers and staff also perjured their Oath of Office by witnessing this Constitutional violation and, with their silence, failing to protect the Constitutional rights of those oppressed?

Has Judge Levine not perjured his Oath of Office by failing to uphold the Law of the Land as provided in Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution for the United States of America instead of agency statute, regardless of CFTC precedent and the Commission's directives?

MY FIRST AMENDMENT NFA/CFTC EXPERIENCE

In my particular experience, the CFTC rendered an Interpretative Letter in March, 1990 declaring that I had to register my "Almanac" and that I and my employees were further subject to fines and criminal penalties for the preceding years in which I had published the book without having first licensed my speech with government.

These fines can total $ 500,000 plus the cost of prosecution, can include jail terms of 5 years, can result in an injunction from future publishing, can result in felony convictions, and, as we have seen, can result in three times gross revenue - - - all for simply publishing an unregistered book!

Rather than file a Complaint itself, the CFTC sent a copy of its Interpretative Letter to the NFA which then filed the Complaint against me three months later in June, 1990 on behalf of the CFTC.

To clarify, the organization whose officials had sworn to uphold the Constitution sent the letter, for prosecution, to the organization that had exempted itself from upholding my Constitutional rights.

Can there be a better example that one of the purposes the CFTC authorized the NFA in the manner in which it did was to enable the NFA to engage in activity which would have been Constitutionally prohibited had the activity been conducted by the CFTC whose Officers had executed the Oath of Office?

As but one more example, I witnessed the NFA conceal evidence in a case involving J&J Development Corp. in clear violation of NFA rules right before the eyes of NFA's Assistant General Counsel, Kathryn Camp. Although one would expect that due process would correct such abuses on appeal, the case was upheld due to the deference the CFTC accorded its NFA "favorite son" hearing panel and the CFTC's arbitrary and capricious conclusion in which it admitted the violation but held that J&J had not been prejudiced by NFA's failure to produce lawfully required evidence. Obviously, the CFTC had no way of concluding what the unlawfully concealed evidence which was never produced might have established.

Again, these NFA Judicial Officials were able to ignore the rule of law and refuse to compel the NFA to produce the concealed documents BECAUSE THEY HAD NOT EXECUTED THE ARTICLE VI OATH OF OFFICE and sworn to do otherwise. They could thus not perjure an oath they had not executed.

The Constitutional violation was that of due process as stated in the 5th and 14th Amendments and the Article VI Constitutional requirement that Judicial Officers execute an Oath of Office in support of the Constitution.

MANDATORY NFA MEMBERSHIP

Citizens who are MANDATED to join the NFA, pay dues, incur expenses, and satisfy numerous and additional requirements as a condition to the pursuit of happiness and gainful occupation in the industry are thus forced to, unknowingly, surrender their Constitutional protections.

Citizens are further FORCED to join an organization which similarly deprives other Citizens of their Constitutional rights and which FORCES Citizens to participate in unlawful activities!

How can any organization be non-public if its membership is not voluntary, but MANDATORY?

Citizens are further not forewarned of either the surrender of their Constitutional guarantees or that they will be participating in criminal activity when they join the NFA since full disclosure, which regulators so vigorously force on the regulated, is conspicuously absent from the bill of goods regulators peddle to We the People.

The whole collusive SCHEME is authorized by CFTC Commissioners, Officers, and employees who each have perjured their Article VI Oath of Office by sanctioning unlawful activity.

Further, having been warned of the Constitutional violations that this SCHEME perpetuates on the Citizenry, NFA's and CFTC's failure to CORRECT the violations is an OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE and wanton and malicious action deliberately meant to deprive certain Citizens of their right to pursue liberty, happiness, and gainful occupation in the industry.

This MANDATORY membership requirement further appears to violate one's First Amendment Constitutional right of assembly by prohibiting the right to NOT assemble in this SCHEME.

Is such COERCION also not an unconstitutional 5th Amendment TAKING OF PROPERTY WITHOUT COMPENSATION since one is sacrificing one's liberty and Constitutional protections when one is FORCIBLY registered under this MANDATORY SCHEME?

One component of the valuation of the property taken would be the fees and expenses incurred along with the value of the time the Citizen must expend satisfying the registration requirements.

How do we measure the value of one's forfeited Constitutional protections?

LARGE PUBLISHER EXEMPTION

Mandatory licensing SCHEMES such as that established by the NFA/CFTC usually exist to protect the pricing power of large institutional participants who then erect barriers to entry for new competition.

As an example, the EXACT SAME information I publish in my "Almanac" has appeared VERBATIM in "Forbes Magazine", "The Wall Street Journal", and so on. One might therefore expect that these financial publications would also need to obtain a CFTC/NFA speech license.

No such enforcement will ever occur, however, for the NFA/CFTC exempt such large financial publications.

In short, though these publications might influence millions of investor decisions daily, it is my bi-annual book that is perceived as the greater influence on price movements!

Is such selective enforcement not discriminatory?

How many small entrepreneurial firms have been denied industry access by this discriminatory SCHEME?

The expenses and regulatory and minimum maintenance requirements mandated of small financial publishers are all avoided by large financial publishers. An unnatural SUBSIDY is thus created for large institutions who then use their lobbying power to further restrict, through their own licensing SCHEMES, small entrepreneur entry to the marketplace.

Registered small financial publishers are also subject to the ambiguous whim of regulators who can initiate deregistration proceedings and cause the loss of business merely for "good cause".

Is this the American Way?

Can you not imagine the laughter that would echo down the canyons of Wall Street were the CFTC to knock on the door of "Barron's", "Money" magazine, or "CNBC" intent on performing one of its "investigative audit" fishing expeditions?

Yet such is EXACTLY what has happened to numerous small financial publishers across the country as their businesses are investigated by CFTC/NFA agents who have repeatedly not stated probable cause, or even a possible cause, for their "fishing trip" inquisitions!

I can personally testify to such an ambiguous assault as I was subpoenaed by the CFTC in May, 1995 to appear in Chicago with 10 years of records, receipts, and customer lists in tow. To this date, no reason has ever been provided for the CFTC's inquisition.

Although such witch-hunts are clear violations of the 4th Amendment, they are permitted of both registered and unregistered small financial publishers under CFTC's agency statutes. Incredibly, LARGE financial publishers do not have to bear these burdens or be concerned with CFTC violations of their Constitutional rights.

This discriminatory application of the law is a clear restraint of trade besides being grossly unfair and a barrier to market competition.

By preventing access of all persons to the marketplace, registered or otherwise, by MANDATING the registration of an economic class of small publishers while exempting the class of large publishers, and by establishing a second regulatory agency that duplicates regulatory processes and expenses and increases costs for all, the CFTC has STIFLED competition and failed to enforce the lawful requirements of Section 15 of the CEA which requires the CFTC to pursue "the least anticompetitive means of achieving the objectives" of the Act.

NFA FOIA/PA VIOLATIONS

Being exempt from adherence to the Constitution, NFA's founders, Directors, Officers, and employees astonishingly also exempted the NFA and themselves from the requirements of the FOIA/PAs.

Hence, We the People have no FOIA/PA access to NFA records, operations, and activities.

I cannot even access the "Special Case" files the NFA has maintained/is maintaining on me or other records involving NFA operations and activities relating to the "Special Case" files or the people who administer them.

Information regarding NFA's authority for its assaults on the People's Constitutional protections is similarly off-limits.

As an example, the NFA appears to regularly provide the CFTC with information regarding the registration status of unregistered small financial publishers and the manner in which these publishers, such as myself, exercise their First Amendment rights. Such activity appears specifically prohibited by section 552a(e)(7) of the Privacy Act. Since the NFA does not recognize its FOIA/PA responsibility, however, it is not possible to ascertain that the law is or is not being violated since the targeted Citizen cannot obtain the necessary information the NFA has in its possession.

The CFTC, which is bound by the FOIA/PAs, will, apparently, provide limited access to NFA records the CFTC has in its possession.

The CFTC will not, however, compel the NFA to subject itself to full FOIA/PA access.

The NFA/CFTC SCHEME thus EVADES the FOIA/PAs for many records relating to government's regulation of the industry - - - records that would be subject to the full provisions of the FOIA/PAs had the records, operations, activities, and processes the CFTC has delegated to the NFA been retained by the CFTC.

INITIATION OF NFA DEREGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS

As we have seen, oversight of the NFA is performed by the CFTC pursuant to Section 17 of the CEA.

The CFTC is required, by law, to hold public hearings and suspend approval of the NFA if the NFA's operations and activities are not in the public interest.

The numerous NFA Constitutional infringements approved by the CFTC and identified in this paper and the NFA/CFTC SCHEME to evade the FOIA/PAs are each sufficient to convene deregistration hearings pursuant to Sections 15 and 17(c) of the CEA.

Since the CFTC benefits financially by delegating many regulatory duties to the NFA, however, the CFTC has a conflict of interest in executing its oversight authority over the NFA.

If such proceedings are not convened, does such refusal not suggest that CFTC officials are more inclined to protect their own financial interests than enforce the law and protect the public interest?

So we now have an organization, the NFA, that regulates We the People, that does not demand that its Directors, Officers, and employees execute an Article VI Oath of Office to uphold the Constitution, that violates the People's Constitutional guarantees, that FORCES Citizens to join its "voluntary" organization and pay dues, and the whole SCHEME is approved by the supposed government industry watchdog, the CFTC, whose Commissioners, Officers, and employees have a conflict of interest and appear to have perjured their Oath of Office by approving such a SCHEME, the proof of which is not possible since the CFTC will not produce documents it is lawfully required to produce under the FOIA/PAs giving rise to the possibility that CFTC officials may have not lawfully executed an Oath of Office in the first place.

REMEDIES OF LAW

What are the remedies of law that allow the individual Citizen to right such agency assaults as these?

No one is apparently mugged, and yet we all are mugged!

Although I have provided statements of my witness to the current agency Chairperson, Brooksly Born, General Counsel, Daniel Waldman, NFA President, Robert Wilmouth, to all CFTC Commissioners, and to all NFA Directors, is it realistic to expect these agencies to prosecute themselves or to prosecute themselves with the same vigor they apply when hammering a small financial publisher such as R&W Technical Services, Ltd.?

The concept of law is that it is a set of known rules.

Should Citizens not expect that the rules agencies promulgate will be enforced by the agency?

Hence, in addition to all the other agency irregularities I have discussed herein, I am adding failure to enforce per se agency rules.

Is such enforcement refusal not a violation of due process as stated in the 5th and 14th Amendments?

Are these 5th and 14th Constitutional infringements not, again, perjury of the Article VI Oath of Office?

We thus return to the original question, "Who will vigorously enforce the Constitutional violations discussed herein?"

In addition to agency officials, I have also provided statements of my witness to the Department of Justice through the United States Attorney in Tulsa, Stephen Lewis.

Are we to expect that one arm of government, the DOJ, does not have a conflict of interest when the U.S. Attorney himself defends complaints that are filed against a government agency?

How much confidence can a Citizen have in the DOJ when it appears to currently be embroiled in such controversy and conflict of interest it appears incapable of executing its mission in an unbiased manner even if individual, local prosecutors such as Mr. Lewis are so disposed?

IMPLICATIONS

The United States presently has incarcerated a larger percentage of its population than any other country in the world save China!

We now have over 100 federal asset forfeiture laws on the books!

Over 60,000 federal agents are now armed. Discussion has recently considered the arming of agency administrative employees.

Is the answer really to build more handcuffs, prisons, and batons?

If they are built, will it be long before they need to be used?

What are the processes that will preserve the ordinary, law-abiding Citizen's Constitutional rights if police power is augmented to another level?

How long will it be before it becomes virtually impossible for YOU to walk outside your door without committing a felony offense?

Some Americans have warned that the President can assume dictatorial powers and place the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in charge of law enforcement, the military, and just about every other aspect of government, simply by declaring a national emergency.

Apparently, YOU have been subject to such condition since, at the very least, November, 1994, when President Clinton declared such a national emergency.

Further, in a November, 1997, letter to Congress, the President wrote "I am continuing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 12938" in "accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d))".

Are YOU aware that you are subject to this "emergency status"?

Want to make a guess how many Constitutional guarantees you have under martial law?

If I can be so accused of crimes for simply PRINTING A BOOK, why do YOU believe YOUR activities are beyond the grasp of such People Controllers?

Now, if such emergency can be declared in PEACETIME and during one of the largest economic expansions on record . . .

IMPLICATIONS OF THE NFA/CFTC SCHEME

If the CFTC can create this supposed "voluntary" regulatory organization, the NFA, and place it beyond Citizen oversight, then what is to prevent one of the fully-armed agencies, such as the FBI or ATF, or those that might like to establish a fully-armed subsidiary, such as the IRS or EPA (maybe even the CFTC), from doing the same?

In such organizations, the blueprint of which has already been provided by the CFTC/NFA SCHEME, the employees would not be subject to such inconveniences as the Oath of Office or upholding the People's Constitutional protections.

In fact, as we have seen in the NFA/CFTC SCHEME, such organizations would be designed explicitly to EVADE such Constitutional protections.

Maybe agency employees would execute an Oath of Allegiance to Nato, the IMF, the World Bank, the United Nations, or . . .

. . . a government administrative agency?

Has Michael See, the soldier who refused to wear the UN patch while on active duty in Bosnia, not already been confronted with the choice of whether to uphold his Oath of Office or follow the orders of his superiors?

Is the willingness of military officers to so easily disregard their Oath to uphold the Constitution and, instead, accept U.N. oversight not a sign of how close our country is to Constitutional abandonment?

What happens when the U.N. passes its highly-desired world tax and orders the U.S. military to enforce the tax on U.S. Citizens?

How important will the Oath be to the U.S. soldier in Peoria when the soldier is ordered by a U.N. Officer to fire on protesting U.S. Citizens?

If we do not have the courage now to right the NFA/CFTC SCHEME and to demand full FOIA/PA disclosure and execution of Oath of Office of these, and all, government and quasi-government agencies regardless of how direct or indirect their regulatory thrust, how are we to expect any other outcome than that which was thrust upon Pvt. See?

If we do not have the courage now to enforce the Supremacy of the Constitution and to hold those accountable who would violate its provisions, then who do you expect will COMMAND your children in the world they inherit?

To what law will they be bound?

THE AMERICAN WAY

There is a simple resolution to the Constitutional infringements caused by the NFA/CFTC SCHEME.

Those who want to subject themselves to the rules, requirements, and standards of such SCHEMES should always and forever have the right to freely associate and join such associations. Such freedom of association is consistent with the Constitution.

On the other hand, those who wish to NOT be COERCED into participating in MANDATORY SCHEMES should retain the freedom to NOT so associate. Such freedom of choice is also consistent with the Constitution.

Let the members advertise their ethical standards, advantages of membership, quality of service to the public, display their secret insignia, and so on.

Let those who deplore such membership compete in the marketplace on the basis of price, efficiency, and capability without the artificial barriers that unconstitutional mandatory SCHEMES erect.

Both will appeal to different segments of the public.

Then let the public decide what is in the public interest and what is not and who survives and who is eliminated.

Anti-fraud provisions will still enable prosecution of the bad apples as Justice Byron White so eloquently concluded in Lowe v. SEC.

In fact, resources currently expended on silly activities that merely identify and constrain the law-abiding will be available to identify and prosecute the fraudulent resulting in even greater consumer protection than now!

Those who voluntarily associate can decide themselves on the question of the Oath of Office and FOIA/PA oversight. If the outcome is undesired, one will be able to form an alternative association if such is the desire or deregister entirely.

Is this not the AMERICAN Way?

And before one dismisses this alternative, consider that the largest financial scandals of recent times have almost all been perpetrated by government-approved, REGISTERED persons who have been approved by such agencies as the NFA/CFTC.

WHERE IS THE MEDIA?

A most important factor that can help turn the tide of such oppression is public outcry. Public outcry not only focuses the attention of politicians to an issue, but also shames the individual regulator who would engage the unlimited resources of an agency in such oppression in addition to noticing employees of other agencies that such oppression is not to be tolerated.

Without media attention, public outcry is never able to mass itself. The oppression continues to fester and to sap the resources and will of the targeted Citizen, no matter how righteous the cause. An otherwise winnable case flounders as the Citizen is not able to timely attract the necessary financial, legal and moral support due to lack of media exposure. Targeted Citizens usually succumb to agency pressure and sometimes even serve as negative precedent in future cases.

It is thus quite deplorable that the investigatory responsibility thrust upon the "Fourth Estate" has gone entirely uninvoked in this and similar matters involving the rights of individual, ordinary Citizens while, concurrently, endless attention is accorded every "important" detail and nuance of celebrity cases such as O.J. Simpson, those matters involving Politically Correct groups, grisly murders, and so on.

Is the First Amendment only defensible when it involves pornography, large media publications such as those produced by Time-Warner, or Politically Correct groups of people?

Would my matter have risen to the nation's consciousness had I included "nudie photos" or "tabloid gossip" instead of publishing a book you would be proud to have your 14 year old daughter read?

Would I not have had to write this letter had my book been a Disney production?

Why has the ACLU, whom I have several times contacted, been so silent when it is the supposed guardian of Free Speech and a Free Press?

Is my First Amendment speech of less importance than Maplethorpe's?

Had the media performed its duty, would it not have exposed the NFA/CFTC SCHEME years ago and stopped the oppression long before it had a chance to ensnare me and others?

I shudder to think of the cases of great public importance, be they in Bangor, Maine, or Bend, Oregon, that We the People will never be given the opportunity to support for lack of public exposure.

If the media continues to not elevate this and similar matters to the public consciousness, how many more Citizens will be targeted because individual bureaucrats are not identified and shamed when they violate People's Constitutional protections but are, instead, encouraged and emboldened by media's silence and neglect?

CONCLUSION

Those private organizations that would regulate the Citizenry should be subject to no less a standard than are agencies, Officers and employees of the federal government. At a minimum, these standards include the execution of an Article VI Oath of Office, an Oath as to Purchase and Sale of Office, and full FOIA/PA Citizen access and oversight.

Regulation not subject to full Citizen oversight and Constitutional due process is regulation the People do not need and which is unjustifiable, unconstitutional, immoral, and which should be prohibited.

Agencies should enforce statutes only after considering the Constitutional implications of their actions upon individual Citizens. When Constitutionality of statutes thrust upon the agency by Congress is questionable, the agency should be required to seek Judicial Review at no less than Appellate Court level prior to enforcing the questionable statutes.

No one, supposedly, is above the law in our nation. The concept of equality is one of the cornerstones of We the People.

The Senate has sat as a court of impeachment in the following proceedings; 1 against a Senator, 9 against U.S. District Court Judges, 1 against an Associate Judge, 1 against an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court (Samuel Chase), 1 against a Secretary of War, and 1 against a President of the United States (Andrew Johnson).

If the Constitutional deprivations identified in this discussion are not sufficient to enable Mary Shapiro and Brooksly Born to be the first agency Chairpersons to be added to this list, then what is?

Finally, Citizens should be provided with a user-friendly, non-political means of causing the initiation of impeachment proceedings against those government employees who would perjure their Oath of Office and fail to uphold the Constitutional guarantees of We the People. Citizens should be able to provide evidence and testify against government employees in such proceedings and otherwise seek redress.

If we truly live under the Constitution, these few initial salvos should be welcomed by all.