You are on page 1of 9

Edwin Vieira – In The Shadow of Nemesis

IN THE SHADOW OF NEMESIS


By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
December 8, 2008
NewsWithViews.com
http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin186.htm

As this commentary is being written, the latest runaround in the judicial flim-flam of “who
lacks ‘standing’ to demand production of Barack Obama’s original Hawaiian birth certificate
(if one actually exists)” has just taken place. According to a newspaper report, Hawaiian
Judge Bert Ayabe has dismissed a suit filed by one Andy Martin, on the ground that Martin
“does not have a direct and tangible interest in the vital statistic records being sought, namely
the birth certificate of President Obama.”

Perhaps one may gauge the circumspection and even-handedness with which Ayabe
approached the case by recalling that Barack Obama is not yet “the President of the United
States,” only the ostensible “President elect” once removed (because he has been purportedly
“elected” only by the voters, but not yet by the Electoral College as certified by the President
of the Senate under the Twelfth Amendment). And the underlying issue in Martin’s suit is
whether Obama is even constitutionally eligible to hold the Office of President. So Ayabe’s
decision exhibits a rather strong undercurrent of question-begging and special pleading.

In a like vein, Ayabe ruled that Martin was not among the set of individuals to whom
Hawaiian law grants a right to inspect birth certificates. Of course, the more important
inquiry is whether the restraints Hawaiian law imposes generally on public inspection of the
State’s records must yield to an implied cause of action under the Constitution of the United
States for any American citizen to establish whether or not Barack Obama in particular is
even “eligible to the Office of President” now that his status as a “natural born Citizen” has
been (and is being repeatedly) challenged. [See Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and Article VI,
Clause 2]

Worse yet, Ayabe scored Martin for failing to prove that “irreparable harm will occur if the
records are not provided.” Perhaps neither Martin nor Ayabe has read my previous article,
“Obama Must Stand Up Now or Step Down,” which outlines only some of the more obvious
“irreparable harm” that must ensue if an usurper seizes control of the Presidency. But one
would hope that a “judge” might have some independent familiarity with the Constitution
sufficient to lead him on his own to the correct conclusion. For, as that article shows,
substantial “irreparable harm” from such usurpation can be established beyond peradventure
simply by reading the Constitution.

Not satisfied with this blunder, Ayabe ruled that Martin had provided “insufficient evidence
to indicate that the public interest supports” disclosure of the supposed birth certificate.
“There is a reasonable belief that the public would rather preserve confidentiality of vital
health records,” Ayabe held. Although that “belief” might be arguably “reasonable” in the
general case (yet not very persuasive even there), it is patently, even childishly, ridiculous in
this particular case, where only the complete disclosure of the record (if such record exists)
can answer the question of Obama’s eligibility, on which America’s future political stability

Page 1 of 9
Edwin Vieira – In The Shadow of Nemesis

may rise or fall. Can there be any public interest whatsoever in the
“confidentiality of [a single] vital health record” relating to a single individual
when such continued “confidentiality” plausibly threatens this whole country’s
well-being?!

So much for Martin’s lawsuit. It would be laughable if its result did not hammer another
twisted judicial nail into America’s coffin. Martin’s suit, moreover, is not the last of its type
that will be dismissed on purported “standing” grounds, because the judge-contrived rules of
“standing” applicable to this situation are sufficiently illogical, non-scientific, and even anti-
intellectual—that is, contrived from question-begging and ultimately undefinable,
unverifiable, and unfalsifiable legalistic mumbo jumbo—that they can rationalize whatever
result judges desire to reach, howsoever illogical, perverse, and even dangerous to the
national interest it may be. And, particularly in this situation, judges will desperately desire to
escape having to take upon themselves the responsibility for the political consequences—let
alone the odium whipped up by Obama’s touts in the big media—that will flow from the
courts’ declaring Obama ineligible for the Office of President. Which responsibility and
vilification wily judges can craftily evade by denying that voters, electors, candidates, and
various other would-be litigants have “standing” to challenge his eligibility. For then the
judges can claim both that, on the one hand, they have no authority to declare Obama
ineligible because no litigant has “standing” to demand such relief, and that, on the other
hand, by dismissing the cases solely on “standing” grounds they have not declared him
eligible, either. Perhaps when each judge publishes these rulings, the statue of Justice holding
the sword and scales should be replaced in his courtroom with one of Pontius Pilate washing
his hands.

Although this poltroonish judicial strategy has succeeded in some areas in the past, it will
prove bootless, as well as myopic, in this case. The next steps in the process of selecting a
President are: (i) for the Electoral College to vote, and then (ii) for Congress to count those
votes. The Twelfth Amendment provides (in pertinent part) as follows:

The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President * * * ; they
shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President * * * and they shall make distinct
lists of all persons voted for as President, * * * and of the number of votes for each, which lists
they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed * * * to the President of the Senate;—The
President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives,
open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;—The person having the greatest
number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the
whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the
persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as
President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.
But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each
state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from
two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. * * *

The Amendment specifies no grounds, procedure, or standards on or by which any elector’s


vote may be challenged for any cause, by either the Electors or Members of Congress. But
Congress has enacted a statute that partially addresses this matter:

Page 2 of 9
Edwin Vieira – In The Shadow of Nemesis

Congress shall be in session on the sixth day of January succeeding every meeting of the
electors. The Senate and House of Representatives shall meet in the Hall of the House of
Representatives at the hour of 1 o’clock in the afternoon on that day, and the President of the
Senate shall be their presiding officer. Two tellers shall be previously appointed on the part of
the Senate and two on the part of the House of Representatives, to whom shall be handed, as
they are opened by the President of the Senate, all the certificates and papers purporting to be
certificates of the electoral votes, which certificates and papers shall be opened, presented,
and acted upon in the alphabetical order of the States * * * ; and said tellers, having then read
the same in the presence and hearing of the two Houses, shall make a list of the votes as they
shall appear from the said certificates; and the votes having been ascertained and counted * *
*, the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall thereupon
announce the state of the vote, which announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration
of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the United States, and, together
with a list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Houses. Upon such reading
of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for
objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state
clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be
signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives
before the same shall be received. When all objections so made to any vote or
paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall
thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its
decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner,
submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision; and no
electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by
electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified * * * from which but one
return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may
reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so
regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified. * * * [Title 3,
United States Code, Section 15 (emphasis added)]

Even if this legislation is itself a constitutional implementation of the Twelfth Amendment


under the Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18), it does not purport to
provide for, let alone guarantee, a correct result:

First, without an objection “signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of
Representatives” no inquiry at all can go forward. Yet the mere absence of an objection—
particularly without any explanation—cannot preclude the possibility that an Elector’s vote
ought to be the subject of an objection and may prove on examination to be objectionable.
Indeed, in these times, the very absence of an objection may indicate only that “the good old
boys” in Congress—Democrats certainly, and Republicans most likely, too—have “cut a deal”
among themselves behind the scenes in order to suppress an investigation the inevitable and
unavoidable results of which would demonstrate the utter bankruptcy, if not criminality, of
the present electoral process—in that an individual possibly not “eligible to the Office of
President” and his handlers may have managed to bamboozle, bribe, blackmail, or otherwise
subvert, suborn, or silence both of the “two” major political parties, the big media, the
pundits, and every public official with civil or criminal jurisdiction over elections throughout
both the General Government and the States.

Page 3 of 9
Edwin Vieira – In The Shadow of Nemesis

Second, although a correct result requires a complete inquiry into an objection, with
appropriate findings of fact and law supported by competent evidence, the statute merely
requires “a decision” each from the Senate and the House of Representatives. On what basis
and with what formality and content these “decision[s]” are to be made the statute does not
specify. For instance, are the Senate and the House to hold hearings, to and at which
witnesses will be subpoenaed and documents will be required to be produced for inspection
and analysis? What rules of evidence will apply at these hearings? Who will have the ultimate
burden of proof? What will be the standard of proof—a preponderance of the evidence, clear
and convincing evidence, or evidence beyond a reasonable doubt? The queries are legion, the
answers unknown.

Yet the Constitution demands that, if such an inquiry is held, it should arrive at the correct
conclusion with sufficient evidence in support. After all, the question of Obama’s eligibility vel
non is not within the discretion of Congress to skirt or to decide as its Members may deem
politically or personally expedient. Even by unanimous vote, Congress cannot constitutionally
dispense with the requirement that Obama must be “a natural born Citizen,” by simply
assuming that he is such, or by accepting something other than what lawyers call “the best
evidence” (in this case, his supposed original Hawaiian birth certificate, as opposed to some
purported “certification of live birth” computer-generated only decades later).

Therefore, if no objection at all is made to any Elector’s vote for Obama—or if no objection to
an Elector’s vote on the specific basis that Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” (and
therefore the Elector cannot constitutionally vote for him) is allowed—or if such an objection
is allowed, but no searching and complete inquiry, or no inquiry at all, is had—or if partisan
Senators and Representatives jury rig “decision[s]” that whitewash Obama on the facts or the
law—or some other gross irregularities appear in the process—then thereafter the matter
cannot be said to have been settled to a constitutional sufficiency. Congress simply cannot
“waive,” or simply flub, the Constitution’s eligibility requirement “to the Office of President”
by inaction, or incompetent action, or collusive action

In sum, if the statute does not guarantee (within human competence) that a correct answer to
the question be had, then it cannot be deemed to be the exclusive remedy in the premises if
(as will be discussed below) a better remedy is available. Moreover, even if the statute is
employed to hear and decide challenges to Obama’s eligibility, the resulting “decision[s]”
must provide assurances to a moral certainty that the correct answer has indeed been
obtained in both fact and law—otherwise, further inquiry needs to be had in other fora. For
the consequences of an incorrect answer on the ultimate issue, later exposed as such, are far
too serious to allow for any lesser degree of surety. Never were the stakes from a game of
“truth or consequences” higher than they are now.

Assume, however, that no inquiry, or only a perfunctory inquiry, or only an obviously tainted
inquiry takes place at the stage of counting the Electors’ votes. Is the issue then forever
foreclosed? Not at all. For a extensive class of litigants who absolutely do have “standing” to
challenge Obama’s eligibility will come into existence, and demand relief as a matter of
undeniable constitutional right and practical necessity, as soon as Obama’s Department of
Justice attempts to enforce through criminal prosecutions some of the controversial
legislation that the new Congress will enact and Obama will sign—such as statutes aimed at
stripping common Americans of the firearms to which (in Obama’s derisive terminology) they
“cling.”

Page 4 of 9
Edwin Vieira – In The Shadow of Nemesis

For example, in a criminal prosecution under a new statute that reinstates the Clinton
“assault-weapons ban” (or some equally obnoxious affront to Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15
and 16 and the Second Amendment), the defendant will undeniably have “standing” to
challenge the indictment on the grounds that no statute imposing such a ban even exists,
because the original “Bill which * * * passed the House of Representatives and the Senate”
was never “presented to the President of the United States”, and therefore could never
“become a Law,” inasmuch as the supposed “President,” Barack Obama, being
constitutionally ineligible for that office, was then and remains thereafter nothing but an
usurper. [See Article I, Section 7, Clause 2 and Article II, Section 1, 4]

Plainly, a criminal trial arising under a supposed law of the United States is a “Case” to which
“the judicial Power [of the United States] shall extend”; and the defense as well will raise a
specific issue “arising under th[e] Constitution, [and] the Laws of the United States.” [Article
III, Section 2, Clause 1] The defendant will be suffering serious “injury in fact:” namely, a
criminal indictment and a compulsory trial, with the possibility of a conviction,
imprisonment, and, if the infraction is called a “felony,” the forfeiture of many civil rights
even after his release from incarceration. The prosecutor on one side and the defendant on
the other will be adversaries espousing diametrically opposed and irreconcilable positions—so
the “Case” cannot be deemed in any way collusive. The purported statute’s invalidity by virtue
of its legal nonexistence will be “ripe” for decision, because the statute is the basis for the
indictment, and its invalidity the foundation of the defense to the charge. And, unless and
until the prosecutor importunes the court to dismiss the indictment with prejudice, the issue
of the putative statute’s legal nonexistence and inapplicability to the defendant will be
anything but moot.

In addition, the entire matter certainly does not raise a nonjusticiable “political question.” As
Chief Justice John Marshall explained, “[t]he province of the court is, solely, to decide on the
rights of individuals, not to inquire how the executive, or executive officers, perform duties in
which they have a discretion. Questions in their nature political, or which are, by the
constitution and laws, submitted to the executive can never be made in this court.” [Marbury
v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 170 (1803)] That definition excludes the hypothetical
criminal case under consideration here:

First, “the rights of individuals” will most assuredly and palpably be involved: namely, the
right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law. [Amendment V]

Second, the question at issue will not be “political,” in the sense that it asks “how the
executive, or executive officers perform duties in which they have a discretion.” Rather, the
question will be whether Obama is or even could be “the executive” at all. Self-evidently,
Barack Obama (or anyone else, for that matter) can enjoy no “discretion” to pretend to be the
President if he is not even eligible for that office in the first place.

Third, the question at issue will not have been “by the constitution and laws, submitted to the
executive.” It is not for Obama (or anyone else in his position) unilaterally to determine that
he is eligible for the Office of President, with everyone else in the country required to take his
unsubstantiated word for it. “[T]he constitution and laws” do not extend to an usurper a
license to perpetuate his usurpation simply by denying—indeed, falsely denying—that he is
such. And if Obama honestly believes that he can prove his eligibility to We the People’s
reasonable satisfaction, the Constitution actually requires him to do so when challenged: For

Page 5 of 9
Edwin Vieira – In The Shadow of Nemesis

the President must “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” [Article II, Section 3]
“Th[e] Constitution * * * shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” [Article VI, Clause 2] The
Constitution declares that “[n]o Person except a natural born Citizen * * * shall be eligible to
the Office of President.” [Article II, Section 1, Clause 4] And if the latter provision is to “be
faithfully executed” by Obama as “President,” and the objective evidence necessary for that
execution is in Obama’s own hands or subject to his control, then Obama, as the “President”
whom he claims to be, must bring forth that evidence sine die in order to fulfill the very duty
that he has taken an “Oath or Affirmation” to “faithfully execute.” [Article II, Section 1, Clause
7]

Fourth, (as explained above) the Twelfth Amendment and the relevant Congressional statute
purporting to implement it do not render the question closed (and therefore arguably
“political”)—unless Congress has actually performed a constitutionally sufficient inquiry,
based upon all of the available evidence, that is at least as searching, thorough, and politically
neutral as might be conducted in a proper court of law by actual adversaries.

Fifth, notwithstanding whatever may have happened when the Electors’ votes were counted,
thereafter the political branches of the General Government have affirmatively committed
this issue to the final determination of the courts. The hypothetical “assault-weapons” statute
was enacted by Congress and signed by Obama, with the intention that it be enforced through
criminal prosecutions. The statute’s enforcement is actually before the court, at the insistence
of the Legislative and Executive Branches. The statute’s constitutionality is being challenged
by an individual directly injured through its application to him. “It is emphatically the
province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” [Marbury v. Madison, 5
U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 178 (1803)] And if there is no true “President”, because Obama is not
“eligible to the Office of President”, then the statute is not simply “unconstitutional” but even
is nonexistent, and the indictment an absolute nullity.

Sixth, the question of whether Obama is “eligible to the Office of President” is eminently
within the jurisdiction, competence, experience, and workaday procedures of the judiciary to
answer. Courts are thoroughly familiar with how to subpoena witnesses, compel the
production of documents, establish the authenticity of documents through objective forensic
analyses and the testimony of disinterested experts, and otherwise ascertain facts through
application of the rules of evidence in adversarial litigation. Conversely, this is not what
ordinary voters or Electors do, or are competent to do. And if it may be what the Constitution
authorizes Congress to do in some circumstances, as hypothesized in this situation Congress
has not done and will not do so to a constitutionally sufficient degree.

Moreover, Congress cannot perform a simulacrum of this procedure by “remov[ing Obama]


from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes
and Misdemeanors.” [Article II, Section IV] For, if he is not “eligible to the Office of
President” at all, then Obama is not “the President,” and therefore cannot be removed from
an office that he does not, and cannot, even occupy—and has never occupied. In addition,
even if “Impeachment” of a plain usurper were constitutionally possible, Congress could not
“waive” its duty in that regard, do nothing, and collude with the pretender in order to enable
him to continue his imposture indefinitely.

Seventh, the defendant in this hypothetical criminal prosecution can invoke the Sixth
Amendment: namely, “In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right * * * to

Page 6 of 9
Edwin Vieira – In The Shadow of Nemesis

have compulsory process for obtaining Witnesses in his favor * * * .” Presumably, a properly
represented defendant would subpoena Obama himself as the indispensable witness,
requiring him to bring into court whatever records were in his possession or subject to his
control that in any way evidenced, related to, or referred to the time, place, and circumstances
of his birth, or to his citizenship, application for citizenship, renunciation of citizenship, or
oath of allegiance in or to any country. This would include the original of his supposed
Hawaiian birth certificate; every subsequent Hawaiian “certification of live birth” or like
document created by public authorities; every other “birth certificate” or equivalent document
whenever, wherever, and by whomever generated in the name of “Barack Obama” or any of
his several other names; every document submitted to an educational institution that
contained information or representations concerning his place of birth or citizenship; and so
on. In the interest of expediting the process, the custodians of records in Hawaii would also
be subpoenaed to testify and to produce all relevant documents subject to their control. To be
sure, Obama himself might invoke a privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth
Amendment as the grounds for refusing to testify or to disgorge inculpatory papers. But
custodians of public records in Hawaii or elsewhere throughout the United States have no
such privilege. And no Hawaiian or other law of the States or the General Government
purporting to make those records “confidential” can frustrate the Sixth Amendment.

So much for the legalities of the situation. Personally, I find this whole controversy—although
it is of great constitutional significance—to be a monumental distraction from what is
desperately needed for this country’s security. The problems now confronting America cannot
be solved simply by ensconcing in the President’s chair one charismatic “Leader” as opposed
to another—be he Barack Obama or the Archangel Michael (neither of whom, absent a proper
birth certificate, is “eligible to the Office of President”). For the Leader Principle at the very
top demands the Follower Principle all the way down to the bottom. And both are anathema
and inimical to the Constitution of the United States—especially the latter, because a nation of
self-governing individuals cannot be a nation of blind, bleating followers.

Intoxication with the Leader Principle over many decades has led America, staggering and
slipping on her own political vomit, to this sorry pass. Even more than the drinkers, though,
the purveyors of the political liquor are now going to pay the price with an industrial-strength
hangover. They have, as it were, “bet the farm” on Obama—either oblivious to the problem
that he may not be “eligible to the Office of President” at all, or confident that they are so
powerful (and the American people such dopes, dupes, and cowards) that nothing will be
done even if the truth should come out. But no one is that powerful. So, however this case
turns out, the Establishment will suffer a reverse from which it likely can never recover.

If the courts finally do their duty, and Obama is exposed as an usurper, the legitimacy of the
rest of the political system will be eviscerated (and the legitimacy of even the courts will be in
doubt, because their intervention was so reluctant and tardy). Whereas, if the courts cover up
the matter in case after case on spurious grounds, incarcerating one after another American
on the trumped-up charges of an usurper—and they will have to keep up the pretense in case
after case if the whole house of cards is not to collapse—the legitimacy of the entire political
system will utterly evaporate. (To be sure, Obama’s Department of Justice could refrain from
prosecuting anyone under new statutes; but then all of that legislation would become
unenforceable.) In any case, the only institutions of government that will escape
condemnation will be “the Militia of the several States”, because they will still not be in

Page 7 of 9
Edwin Vieira – In The Shadow of Nemesis

existence (unless Americans show a great deal more enthusiasm for the idea of revitalizing
the Militia than they have to date) and therefore cannot be discredited.

What will be the necessary consequence of the exposure of America’s political system as
illegitimate in its entirety? Power will replace law. As Mao Tse-tung opined, political power
grows out of the barrel of a gun. And, with an usurper posing as “President,” someday soon
someone will prove that aphorism true here.

One scenario will suffice: On some Monday not so far in the future, “President” Obama meets
with the Joint Chiefs of Staff to announce that “Operation Sandblaster,” for a massive nuclear
attack on Iran’s supposed “weapons of mass destruction," will be launched on the coming
Friday. The Joint Chiefs remonstrate, pointing out that such aggression will trigger retaliation
by Russia and China, almost surely plunging the whole world into a thermonuclear World
War III. “President” Obama, however, is adamant, and instructs the Joint Chiefs to have the
necessary orders for “Sandblaster”—or their resignations—on his desk by Wednesday
morning. Knowing that, if they resign, “President” Obama will simply appoint some
unprincipled uniformed “yes men” to carry out his plan, the Joint Chiefs immediately order
covert break-ins around the country to obtain his original birth certificate and other material
evidence relating to his ineligibility for the Office of President. With these documents in hand,
on Wednesday morning, accompanied by a contingent of heavily armed Marines, the Joint
Chiefs confront “President” Obama with the evidence, arrest him as an usurper and all the
Members of Congress as his co-conspirators, and appoint themselves a Military Commission
to function as a “caretaker government” during the ensuing “national emergency.”

So, at that point, because the courts did not act, and Congress did not act, and We the People
did not act, the Praetorians will see fit to act. And even if the Military Commission eventually
returns power to civilians, the precedent will be set in steel for “the Latin American
solution”—government by junta. That, surely, would be “change we can believe in”—with a
capital “C.”

Not likely? If not, why not? If one man can get away with usurping the Presidency of the
United States, even as the rest of the General Government, the States, and the people look the
other way while mouthing legalistic mumbo jumbo to rationalize their inaction, why cannot a
few men—backed up by the Armed Forces—imagine themselves justified in overthrowing and
supplanting him in order to forefend a national calamity? Why cannot the bitter weeds of the
fall of the Roman Republic be transplanted from the banks of the Tiber to the shores of the
Potomac when the conditions conducive to their growth appear? No patriot—no reasonable
American of any political persuasion—may want this to happen. But if wishes were horses,
beggars would ride.

So, what now? The simple solution, if Barack Obama believes that he truly is “eligible to the
Office of President,” is for him to repair to Hawaii in a burst of publicity and make his original
birth certificate available for examination by each and every unbiased forensic document
analyst who cares to scrutinize it. And if, on the other hand, he already knows that he is
ineligible, he should step aside gracefully. Now, before it is too late.

He has no other choice, because events will give him none. When one walks in the cold
shadow of Nemesis, hubris is not enough of a cloak.

Page 8 of 9
Edwin Vieira – In The Shadow of Nemesis

Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and
Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).

For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In
the Supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to
the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v.
Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established constitutional
and statutory limitations on the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the
public sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their
employment.

He has written numerous monographs and articles in scholarly journals, and lectured
throughout the county. His most recent work on money and banking is the two-volume
Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution
(2002), the most comprehensive study in existence of American monetary law and history
viewed from a constitutional perspective. www.piecesofeight.us

He is also the co-author (under a nom de plume) of the political novel CRA$HMAKER: A
Federal Affaire (2000), a not-so-fictional story of an engineered crash of the Federal
Reserve System, and the political upheaval it causes. www.crashmaker.com

His latest book is:

"How To Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary"

http://www.newswithviews.com/HNB/Hot_New_Books20.htm

... and

Constitutional "Homeland Security," Volume One, The Nation in Arms...

At Amazon.com: http://tinyurl.com/ydhf7xb

He can be reached at his new address:


52 Stonegate Court
Front Royal, VA 22630.

E-Mail: Not available

Page 9 of 9

You might also like