NOTE: Today the courts are unconcerned with questions such
as whether or not the 16th or 17th amendments were ever lawfully
ratified. If the courts were to address this type of question
honestly, the government, with its huge bureaucracy and patron
special interests would be placed in jeopardy. This potential
threat is not allowed nor will it ever be. It is much easier for
the courts to label such potential threats as political
questions, point to the lateness of the clock and refuse to hear
or rule. Whatever the political jugernaut does, it uses the
facade of law to justify or reconcile it. The only way such
questions will have force and effect is if the general public
becomes aware and concerned with justice being based upon law and
not just policy based on a facade of law.

If you doubt such words, please be assured that they are not
just words but are, in fact, and articulation of the unwritten,
unspoken, present public policy, as enforced by the courts in
dealing with challenges to governmental acts and authority. For
documentation, see US v WAYNE WOJTAS, 85 CR 48 in the US District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division and
Judge Shadur's opinion on the 16th Amendment. You will see the
beginnings and threat of disbarment of a certain "aggressive"
licensed attorney.

To be truly effective in the courts in any challenge to
governmental power and authority, the challenger must possess a
good understanding of politics. This is especially so since
government and the courts are primarily concerned with a public
perception of the balancing of the scales of justice rather than
the attainment of true justice under the law.

Once it is realized that the court is primarily concerned
with politics, it then becomes necessary for any challenger to
become proficient in the political arena. By politics, we speak,
not of the electoral process, but of the politics of association.

Keeping this in mind, and truly understanding the concept, a
man accused of breaking a "rule" for which he may suffer
penalties of imprisonment, fine and costs without benefit of
trial or Constitutional safeguards, may very will consider
bringing a criminal charge against himself directly in court and
thereby blunt his adversaries' attack. To the uninitiated, this
may sound like madness, but to the political scholar destined to
appear before a "master" to answer to alleged rule violation of
the unauthorized practice of law, the self-accusatory route to
the courts may be the only hope of victory; both legal and
political.