Letter to the U.S. Supreme Court

Text of our November 8, 2017 letter to the U.S. Supreme Court:

Your Honors:

Our organization is working to create an international government based on the U.S. Constitution and the principles of the cooperation of nature. Before our Constitution can be used as the basis for the international government, laws and practices that have caused chaos in our legal system must be purified to prevent the chaos from spreading onto the international level. One of our exempt purposes is to purify the U.S. legal system.

Misunderstandings have led to laws and practices that are based on the letter of the law rather than the intent of the law. Our legal system has three levels, not two. The three levels are the Principles, the Power and the Project--or in the case of our legal system, they are Universal Law, Constitutional Law and Federal Law. When any law or practice is based on only the Power and the Projects levels, it leads to the letter of the law rather than the intent of the law, and it leads to chaos.

Universal Law is immutable, and fixes our nation's legal system on a very high level. It is where our unalienable rights come from, and it stands on the principles of Equality, Liberty, Freedom, Compassion, Abundance, Capacity, and Tolerance. It applies to every atom in the Universe, and so it will be the basis for the international legal system. It is the only legal basis that can unify the entire planet.

Constitutional Law is the application of Universal Law within the United States, and it is evolutionary, but when Universal Law is omitted, laws are based on power games rather than principles, and our nation devolves. Laws and practices can be considered constitutional, and therefore, lawful, but they are unlawful based on Universal Law. Foreign policy decisions that lead to war is a prime example of this because the unalienable rights of other nations are disregarded, and then we face the backlashes of Universal Law of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Federal Law must be based on both Universal Law and Constitutional Law or it leads to chaos. Federal Law cannot supersede Universal Law. It cannot be used to justify denying any citizen of the United States, or even the entire planet, our unalienable rights to be able to live out lives without interference--meaning to fulfill our purposes in life--and to be treated fairly and equally, and to have a voice in our government.

We have two plans to purify the U.S. legal system, and we will introduce a government proposal through two senators in the near future.

Yours for peace,

Karen Holmes,
Principal

Donald Trump's plan to purify the US legal system

People all over the world are watching President Trump attempt to undo President Obama's legacy from his eight years in office. He declares an act, like the JCPoA--the Iran nuclear deal--or the ACA--the Affordable Care Act, is the worst deal ever, and announces he will "repeal and replace" it with something much better, but his plans have met resistance from Congress or through the courts. He doesn't have a viable alternative that addresses the root cause of the problem, so he turns the issue over to Congress to sort out. The Republican's efforts have failed, and so Donald Trump and Steve Bannon are now waging war on the Republican Party.

Under the US Constitution, legislation is passed by Congress, and signed into law by the president. While Congress is responsible for the legislation, the bills can be flawed, but it is not always possible to predict what problems will arise. When you create a plan, one step in the planning process is to resolve the glitches of the plan, and in "A Manual for the One World Government," Seth explains how bills can be clarified, purified and simplified to improve them.

One act that Trump intends to purify is NAFTA, which came into law before President Obama's administration. Trump wants to redo the trade agreement to greater benefit the United States. In our book, Seth addresses NAFTA, and says that the North American Free Trade Agreement was so huge that no one really understood what they were signing into law. Seth offers a solution for fair and equitable trade agreements through the economic departments of the One World government.

Today, let's consider an overview perspective of our way to purify the US legal system, which is one of our organization's exempt purposes.

We have looked at how laws may or may not stand on the three levels of the Universe, and how they can be based on the letter of the law or the intent of the law. When those laws that stand on the letter of the law are used in court, they can contradict the laws that stand on the intent of the law, which is the wider perspective. Judges know through experience which laws should come up for review, because they see the contradictions in court.

Then, who better to assume responsibility for purifying the laws than the legislators who wrote the legislation and then voted for it to become law? Our goal is to bring retired legislators back to address the glitches of their legislation. This sense of a future commitment to resolve the glitches may encourage the legislators to write better legislation.

Finally, who better to point out the actual flaws in any law than the people whose lives are affected by the law? They should have a voice in what changes must be made, and then once the changes are made, to once again have a voice in whether the changes had the desired effect. Our plan involves working with the students of five US law schools to review the laws that are up for review.

The US Constitution allows the United States to function on a very high level, but practices and laws based on misunderstandings have entered into our legal system and have created chaos, and before the Constitution can be used as the basis for the international legal system, we must purify these laws and practices. Each of our government proposals includes a stage in the planning process when we will focus on the failed practices. Our first proposal addresses what got us into the Iraq War, and what is now leading to conflicts with North Korea and Iran.

How many people believe the United States should wage a preemptive strike on North Korea? We are looking at the policy of preemption, which goes against the one of the basic premises of our legal system, that someone is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

That is our next topic.