CHAPTER TEN
A Warning From America's Past : The Official Expulsion of Jews From Tennessee, Mississippi, and Kentucky, Upon a 24-Hour Notice.
On December 17, 1862, during the American Civil War, Major-General Ulysses S. Grant did issue General Order Number 11. It ordered the expulsion of all Jews in his military district, comprising areas of Tennessee, Mississippi, and Kentucky. Upon the overwhelming numbers of official reports that he had received, Grant was forced to believe that very well organized criminals were using massive thefts of cotton to make boundless fortunes, and that these criminals were Jews and their accomplices. Such Jews were very repeatedly implicated as the major participants in the cosmic fortunes made in the black market, war profiteering, and spying for the Confederacy.
A second front appeared to consist of a monolithic Jewish press, well financed and well organized Jewish activists throughout the entire nation, wealthy Jewish political campaign donors, and a frightful and powerful Jewish lobby. Moreover, his official investigations did implicate the powerful B'nai B'rith organization as being a spy agency for the most power and influential Southerner (arguably), the Secretary of State for the Confederacy, Juda P. Benjamin (a Jew).
The Jews that suffered expulsion plainly controlled the President of the United States, and the President (Lincoln) controlled Grant. Indeed, Benjamin may have been a British subject (He was born in the British West Indies). But, he was certainly a Zionist who did know the teachings of the Talmud extremely well. Those who discovered him skulking in the shadows of Jefferson Davis believed him to be an extraordinarily powerful and influential war profiteer who had only a disguised intense hatred for Christians, and especially Negro Christians.
On 4 January 1863, President Lincoln rescinded the order. Benjamin and so many others (See the Union Secretary of War Simon Cameron), then, used their European bank accounts to become the wealthiest persons on earth.
The aforesaid is a warning to Americans to reconsider any allegations that intend to cause brother to murder brother. Grant was a witness that tried to give a warning. Other witnesses believe that only a translation and knowledge of what the Talmud and the Torah actually teaches is all that Christians and Goyim need to defend themselves. These witnesses, plainly and irrefutably, include the father of Protestantism (Martin Luther), a great many Popes, a dear German soldier (Alfred Roth), and the last great hero (Elizabeth Dilling).
May the defendant in the trial of Indictment 6804.84, New York County (Frederick Alexander Jones), therefore, respectfully submit irrefutable facts that infer the character of those who used routine depraved conspiracies that included the following : (a) the deliberate failures of the defense attorney to object to very plain violations of the defendant's fourteenth amendment due process and equal protection rights, (b) the deliberate failures of the court reporters to record such violations (resulting in the deliberate use of fraudulent trial transcripts), (c) the inability to cause self-representation, (d) the inability to replace the defense lawyer, (e) and the threats of the presiding judges to remove the defendant from the courtroom upon his very first apparent disagreement with his defense attorney. The courtrooms almost never had any public attendance, there was no meaningful outside contacts, the defendant often entered such courtrooms immediately after suffering an unconsciousness due to the deliberate denials of appropriate medical care (by apparent foreign nationals), and such courtrooms were the darkest places on earth.
1. A LIE :
The extraordinarily vindicating medical records, upon which subsequent determinations were very plainly based, were hospital records that contained the "final diagnosis", clearly indicating "NO TRAUMA". The arresting officer, the defense attorney, the presiding judges, and the prosecutor did very hatefully deliberately misrepresent the truth by relying upon such records as the essential support for the prosecutor's case (See Miller v. Pate, 386 U.S. 1 [1967], 6; see, also, People's Exhibit #2 [Gloria Gonzales, a.k.a. Gloria Rivera, Metropolitan Hospital Center, 1901 First Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10029, Admission : 19 September 1984, Discharge : 10 October 1984, Chart # 100-73-55). See Indictment 6804.84, New York County.
2. A LIE :
On 10 October 1985, in Part 54, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, at 111 Centre Street, New York, N.Y. 10013, before Justice Myriam Altman (a Jew), Psychiatrist Doctor Robert L. Goldstein (a Jew) read a report, under oath, intended to cause the indefinite psychiatric commitment of the defendant. He took, at least 30 minutes to simply read this report. No one had even seen a copy, and no one else had a clue about the specific facts alleged in this report. The defendant testified that he never suggested that he wanted to see any doctor for anything other his chronic asthmatic condition. He did, also, testify under oath, that almost every word of the aforesaid report of Doctor Goldstein was a lie. It was a very enormous lie, one that no human being could produce under oath. This testimony occurred precisely one year after the complaining witness (Gloria Rivera [who was born Gloria Moray (a Jew)]) had been discharged from the aforesaid hospital.
Judge Altman did disregard the most basic and plainly required Fourteenth Amendment due process procedures and equal protection rights. Accordingly, she hatefully committed the defendant without a single objection from the defense counsel, and the defendant's appropriate protests were ignored. All evidence, other than the very enormous lie of Doctor Goldstein, indicated a person with no evidence of a mental health history and no suggestion of a mental health issue of any kind (after being forced to submit to three thorough inquiries that used required due process procedural protections). The aforesaid commitment to an indefinite further incarceration was a very flagrant lie and a willful violation of the Fourteenth Amendment right to due process and of the equal protection of the law. Moreover, such stigmas are almost impossible to remove.
The Fourteenth Amendment required that, to subject the defendant to a further ordeal, a proper further order of examination (with the required procedural safeguards ) must be issued. See, e.g. PEOPLE v CHRISTOPHER, 65 N.Y.2d 417 (Ct. App. 1985), 423,424. Indeed, the lies have no end.
See Indictment 6804.84, New York County. See, also, People v. Del Rio, 220 A.D.2d 122 (1996), 126 : The general rule of statutory construction.
3. A LIE :
On 19 November 1987, in Part 56 of the Criminal Term of the New York State Supreme Court in NewYork County, 100 Centre Street, New York, New York 10013, before Justice Harold J. Rothwax and a jury, the trial of Indictment Number 6804.84, New York County was in progress. The event was an off-the-record presentation of all of the exhibits on the evidence table. This included approximately six stacks of psychiatric records. Each of them stood approximately three feet high and were all bogus and plainly extraordinarily prejudicial. Moreover, the defense attorney (Michael Monaghan) insisted that the presiding judge ordered the defendant to remain outside of the deliberation room while the presentation of these exhibits occurred inside. Monaghan alleged that the prosecutor wanted the defendant to carefully inspect People's Exhibit Number 2 (The 1984 hospital records). He did this, while his hateful defense lawyer constantly glared at him. "It appears that the judge is going to describe you as a lunatic with a very long history of violent acts and very serious mental illnesses (an enormous lie)" said the defense lawyer to his client. The court reporter did not enter the aforesaid deliberation room, apparently. No consent was apparently given by anyone for this kind of presentation (an off-the-records trial in a closed room, inside a courtroom that had no public attendance). Rothwax had grossly deliberately misrepresented the trial exhibits, and told the jurors a depraved lie.
Indeed, again, the defendant suffered the willful denials of his Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection rights. Compare People v. Ciaccio, 47 N.Y.2d 431 (1979), 436 : "In every criminal proceeding, a defendant has an absolute right to be present, with counsel, 'whenever his presence has a relation, reasonably substantial, to the fullness of his opportunity to defend against the charge' (Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105-106; People ex rel. Bartlam v. Murphy, N.Y.2d 550, 553; People v. Tyler, 14 A.D.2d 609; N.Y. Const. art. 1, sect. 6)." The emphasis is mine. This necessarily includes receiving evidence.
4. A LIE :
On 20 November 1987, in Part 56, Criminal Term, New York State Supreme Court, New York County, 100 Centre Street, New York, New York 10013, before Judge Harold J. Rothwax and a jury, the trial of Indictment Number 6804.84 was in progress. The complaining witness (Gloria Charlotte Rivera, a.k.a. Gloria Garcia, a.k.a. Gloria Charlotte Revelli, a.k.a. Gloria Moray [name at birth]) had been sworn in as a witness, and she began he testimony under direct examination.
The defendant was very surprised, when she gave a testimony that was extremely vindicating and consistent with the testimony that the defendant gave at the same trial. The court reporter did not record this event, and all of the other court officers appeared to totally disregard it. Then, she gave a hateful inculpatory testimony that supported the outrageous indictment. No objection was made.
Upon cross-examination, the defense attorney continued to totally disregard her directly contradicting sworn statements. Both the prosecutor and the defense attorney did know the actual contents of the aforesaid People's Exhibit Number 2, did know the specific enormous lie that this witness had told under oath, and did nothing.
See, People v. Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86 (A.D.2d Dept. 1974), 88 : Evidence that is impossible to believe, because it self-contradictory, is to be disregarded as being without evidentiary value (citations omitted). Compare, United States v. Cronic, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984), 659 : "No specific showing of prejudice was required in Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (1974), because the petitioner had been "denied the right of effective cross-examination " which " 'would be a constitutional error of the first magnitude and no amount of showing of want of prejudice would cure it.' " (citations omitted).
Elizabeth Dilling did discover a hole in centuries of ignorance, and did repeat the warnings that Martin Luther made (Martin Luther, On the Jews and Their Lies, Luth. Wittenberg, H. Lufft, 1543).
See, The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today, by Elizabeth Dilling, Chapter III, p. 12 : "They (Christians) rank not as animals, like the rest of non-Talmudic humanity, but almost as vermin, to be eradicated. Language in the Talmud is virtually exhausted to find foul and hated names for Christians.
5. A LIE :
The defendant in the case having indictment number 6804.84 (New York County) was in prison and in an absolute custody that could not end before 25 years of his life had passed. Moreover, the very great mental health and criminal conviction stigmata will never end. Nevertheless, he began to do all that is possible to find what was put into his file when he was a new york city police officer (shield number 2492). Indeed, he used the Freedom of Information Act (New York Public Officers Law, §§ 84-90). Then, upon refusals, he used the appropriate court (JONES v. N.Y.C.P.D., Index Number 42634.92 [New York County]). Upon further denials, he appealed (also as a layman) and won. He was given all requested items, apparently.
The redaction of the score of documents, that was given to the defendant, upon court order, was very plainly a total failure. Accordingly, the names of countless police officers (almost all foreign nationals [police officers who were Puerto Rican]) had falsely accused the defendant of dozens of very serious crimes that were often preposterous. Most of these felonies could be almost immediately proven to be lies. The names of those who permitted this massive manufacturing of evidence were not given. The defendant never received any indication that these lies were being put into the his file (excepting a drug test taken immediately before entering the new york city police department and read to the jurors, without the objection of the defense counsel).
When considering the above lies, one must always know that a fraud upon the court is never a fraud upon the presiding judge. "As a general proposition, jurisdiction is vested in the courts, not in judges (People v. Grant [1979], 77 Ill. App.3d 673, 675, 396 N.E.2d 656, 657.)," according to the opinion of the court, delivered by Mr. JUSTICE LINDBERG, People v. Zajic, 410 N.E.2d 626, 88 Ill. App.3d 412, 414, 43 Ill. Dec. 626 (App. Ct. 1980).
Moreover, one must also always know that the aforesaid conduct consists of crimes for which Mr. JUSTICE FORTAS delivered the opinion of the Court : "The language of Section 241 is plain and unlimited. As we have discussed, its language embraces all of the rights and privileges secure to citizens by all the constitution and all of the laws of the United States. There is no indication in the language that the sweep of the section is confined to rights that are conferred by or 'flow from' the Federal Government, as distinguished from those secured or confirmed or guaranteed by the constitution." See United States v. Price, 383 U.S. 787 (1966), 800.
Today, in the year 2015, very few people know about the Criminal Civil Rights Statutes, and most never even heard about it. "These national civil rights statutes were never repealed, they were simply ignored," according to Joy A. Sigler, "The Civil War and the Rights of African Americans", published in Civil Rights in America 1500 - To Present (Michigan : Gale Research, 1998). page 90.
5. A LIE :
The defendant in the case having indictment number 6804.84 (New York County) was in prison and in an absolute custody that could not end before 25 years of his life had passed. Moreover, the very great mental health and criminal conviction stigmata will never end. Nevertheless, he began to do all that is possible to find what was put into his file when he was a new york city police officer (shield number 2492). Indeed, he used the Freedom of Information Act (New York Public Officers Law, §§ 84-90). Then, upon refusals, he used the appropriate court (JONES v. N.Y.C.P.D., Index Number 42634.92 [New York County]). Upon further denials, he appealed (also as a layman) and won. He was given all requested items, apparently.
The redaction of the score of documents, that was given to the defendant, upon court order, was very plainly a total failure. Accordingly, the names of countless police officers (almost all foreign nationals [police officers who were Puerto Rican]) had falsely accused the defendant of dozens of very serious crimes that were often preposterous. Most of these felonies could be almost immediately proven to be lies. The names of those who permitted this massive manufacturing of evidence were not given. The defendant never received any indication that these lies were being put into the his file (excepting a drug test taken immediately before entering the new york city police department and read to the jurors, without the objection of the defense counsel).
When considering the above lies, one must always know that a fraud upon the court is never a fraud upon the presiding judge. "As a general proposition, jurisdiction is vested in the courts, not in judges (People v. Grant [1979], 77 Ill. App.3d 673, 675, 396 N.E.2d 656, 657.)," according to the opinion of the court, delivered by Mr. JUSTICE LINDBERG, People v. Zajic, 410 N.E.2d 626, 88 Ill. App.3d 412, 414, 43 Ill. Dec. 626 (App. Ct. 1980).
Moreover, one must also always know that the aforesaid conduct consists of crimes for which Mr. JUSTICE FORTAS delivered the opinion of the Court : "The language of Section 241 is plain and unlimited. As we have discussed, its language embraces all of the rights and privileges secure to citizens by all the constitution and all of the laws of the United States. There is no indication in the language that the sweep of the section is confined to rights that are conferred by or 'flow from' the Federal Government, as distinguished from those secured or confirmed or guaranteed by the constitution." See United States v. Price, 383 U.S. 787 (1966), 800.
Today, in the year 2015, very few people know about the Criminal Civil Rights Statutes, and most never even heard about it. "These national civil rights statutes were never repealed, they were simply ignored," according to Joy A. Sigler, "The Civil War and the Rights of African Americans", published in Civil Rights in America 1500 - To Present (Michigan : Gale Research, 1998). page 90.
