THE SEPARATION OF POWERS AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE JUDICIARY
The judiciary being among the 7 areas targeted by globalists, and we ought to begin with a focus on why the judiciary is such a pivotal institution, and this we ought to unpack in light of the doctrine of the separation of powers. This doctrine essentially outlines the division of the legislative, executive, and judicial functions of government among separate and independent bodies. It is based on the argument that such a separation limits the possibility of arbitrary excesses by government, since the sanction of all three branches is required for the making, executing, and administering of laws.
Make no mistake, it was not always a well executed doctrine. And as such, modern constitutional systems show a great variety of arrangements of the legislative, executive, and judicial processes, and the doctrine has consequently lost much of its rigidity and dogmatic purity. In the 20th century, governmental involvement in numerous aspects of social and economic life resulted in an enlargement of the scope of executive power, a trend that accelerated after World War II. Some who were concerned about the consequences of that development for individual liberty have favoured establishing means of appeal against executive and administrative decisions (for example, through an ombudsman), rather than attempting to reassert the doctrine of the separation of powers. Although, I tend to think that these issues and historical abuses of power by certain branches of government (like the executive) underscores the importance of the separation of powers, in that they reveal what an imbalance of power among the branches of government has the danger to create or allow. Not only that, but it shows the plausibility of constitutional republicanism which is a system that places the constitution as the highest law in the land, which legally enshrines the separation of powers, and insists on judicial independence- as opposed to the highest power residing with whoever becomes the president of prime minister of an nation.
So, in constitutional democracies or constitutional republics (think the US, South Africa, or India) not only is the constitution the highest law in the land, but as far as formal legal processes are concerned, the judiciary is the ultimate guardian of the Constitution. This is to say that courts have the power to declare any law or conduct unconstitutional. Courts also have the power to review conduct of the other arms of the State to the extent that the conduct is inconsistent with the Constitution, and to hold them accountable – and so, they ultimately serve as the most important system of checks and balances.
Evidently, and in light of the judiciary serving as a system of checks and balance, I would argue that – more than anything else – the doctrine of separation of powers underlies the principle of judicial independence, being the idea that only the judicial branch of government should discharge judicial functions and that it should do so free of interference from the other two branches. And so, it is this accountability and constitution-enforcing power vested in the judiciary that has made it a target for those who seek to undermine the rights, liberties and systems of checks and balances enshrined in the Constitutions and laws of the legislative branch of government.
HOW THE JUDICIARY IS BEING TARGETED AND ATTACKED
We then have to proceed to look at how the judiciary is being targeted and attacked. One of the most notable ways that corporations and cabal-linked have tried to erode the role of the judiciary is by capitalising on a system that removes the courts from discussions of accountability. For instance, we recently spoke about the target on food and agriculture, and highlighted the pursuit for protection from liability that is being spearheaded by Bayer and Monsanto. Well, the idea behind this is to remove courts as a check and balance against agrochemical companies. More specifically, since so many institutions in society have been co-opted by diabolical actors and special interest groups, it has both become vital to find alternative options (e.g., creating a robust independent media, AND ALSO to protect the viable options that remain.
Well, one of these viable options has ALWAYS been the courts, as frequently, if a bad actor steps too far out of line, a legal framework exists to constrain their actions. And so, for this reason, a plan of the industries which profit from poisoning people has long been to take away the ability of the courts to check them by passing laws (or securing court rulings) that shield them from liability and hence terminate the lawsuits that can stop their egregious conduct! So that is option one.
The other is a capitalisation on out-of-court settlements over trials p particularly in personal injury cases. More specifically, personal injury is an area of law involving cases where someone injured due to the negligence or wrongdoing of another pursues compensation from the liable party. The purpose of seeking compensation is to help the victim recover financially and get their life back on track after an accident.
Regarding resolving these cases, two approaches are typically available: settlement and trial. A settlement involves a negotiation between the injured party and the defendant, where they agree on compensation outside of court. In contrast, a trial involves a formal legal proceeding in a court of law, where a judge or jury determines the case’s outcome. To exemplify this, I believe you would have heard of cases where a big news story broke out about a massive development: it could be a scandal about how a company poisoned water sources in a local area that led to many being sick, or a company that sold defective products, or even a sexual abuse case between a notable figure and one of his workers. And hearing this, many begin to prepare for what could easily be one of the most revelatory trials in modern history, but then… as quickly as the story broke out, there is an out-court settlement before the trial ever begins, while a non-disclosure agreement that likely came with the settlement makes it such that anyone with important information canNOT say anything about the case. And so, the case never reaches court, and the judiciary is effectively out of the equation; while the offending actor simply pays the settlement amount and goes on about their business.
Well, many big corporations and public figures have capitalised on this option, because they know trials can be messy and revelatory, and come with retribution in the form of a court ruling or jury verdict. Meanwhile, victims often need the money anyway, and will thus agree to a settlement. It is how some of Epstein’s victims never spoke out publicly (and perhaps never can) and it is also how Johnson’s & Johnson’s curated an opioid crisis in the US for years, before courts became part of the conversations. But, in comparison, he is why it’s important to have courts in the equation, even to the extent that settlements are part of court ruling. In 2019, after J&J had spent years saying it cannot be held accountable for people’’s addiction to opioids, an Oklahoma judge ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $572 million after ruling the drugmaker liable for fueling an opioid epidemic in the state by deceptively marketing painkillers – and so, in addition to the settlement, there was an indictment of the company in a formal setting.
Similarly, there is also the culpability of J&J in the talc baby powder crisis, and bankruptcy settlements. In light of this, J&J has been attempting to resolve the lawsuits through a subsidiary company’s bankruptcy. This was (of course) met with opposition, including a group of cancer victims who asked a federal judge to block Johnson & Johnson’s proposed bankruptcy settlement of tens of thousands of lawsuits alleging the company’s baby powder and other talc products caused their illnesses, according to a court filing. Then, in April this year, a US bankruptcy judge rejected Johnson & Johnson’s $10 billion proposal to end tens of thousands of lawsuits alleging that its baby powder and other talc products cause ovarian cancer, marking the third time the company’s bankruptcy strategy has failed in court. Evidently, things tend to work out better and much more retributively for diabolical corporations when courts are involved.
JUDICIAL CORRUPTION IN BRAZIL: A CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT AND CAUTIONARY TALE
This brings us to the third avenue through which the judiciary has been attacked, and that is blatant corruption. And in the status quo, Brazil stands as an almost cautionary tale on what happens when the Supreme Court is captured by diabolical actors and special interest groups. In essence, the separation of powers among different branches of government is one of the greatest guarantors of liberty. Like we’ve established at the beginning of our discussion, we essentially have a system where no single branch, or person, can amass too much power if checked by the others. But a formal separation of powers means nothing if one branch has the means to intimidate the others into surrendering their constitutional prerogatives.
And what is happening now in Brazil underscores this point: a single Justice of the Supreme Court has usurped dictatorial power by threatening leaders of the other branches, or their families, with arrest, imprisonment, or other penalties. This person has destroyed Brazil’s historically close relationship with the US by, among other things, attempting to apply Brazilian law extra-territorially to silence individuals and companies on US soil. And the situation is unprecedented and anomalous precisely because that person wears a judicial robe: whereas we can always negotiate with leaders of a country’s executive or legislative branches, there is no way to negotiate with a judge, who must maintain the pretense that all his actions are dictated by law. So we’ve seen a concerning development where the usurper cloaks himself in the rule of law and the other branches insist that they are powerless to act.
HOW THE JUDICIARY IS BEING TARGETED AND ATTACKED
Then another way that the judicial system is being targeted and attacked is through infiltration. Simply put, many of the attempted judicial coups against the Trump administration were bought and paid for by George Soros through a network of NGOs. For example, on January 22, 2023, it was revealed that George Soros invested over $40M on assisting District Attorneys in getting elected to target political opponents and lower the priority on criminal offenders. Soros has backed 75 prosecutors in total and 3 out of the 75 are targeting Trump.
This was also an effort long in the making. For instance, in 2023, we were aware that in the US, the hard Left controlled the Executive Branch and the Senate. But the Judicial Branch was a big wrench in the works, as it’s full of Donald Trump appointees and others who simply won’t go along with the Left’s authoritarian, pro-abortion, internationalist, socialist agenda. George Soros, however, was bent on changing that. In particular, the Washington Free Beacon reported in 2023 that (quote) “progressive megadonor George Soros has ramped up donations to a group dedicated to packing the Supreme Court, signaling progressives’ determination to reshape the judiciary even after a string of defeats.” Soros’ Open Society Foundations has also poured no less than $4.5 million into Demand Justice in order to “support policy advocacy on court reform.” According to the Free Beacon, “that’s nearly double the $2.5 million Soros gave the group in 2018, when it formed to oppose Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation.”
Now, the organisation Demand Justice actively supports the violent intimidation of Supreme Court Justices: In the wake of the leaked 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, Demand Justice executive director Brian Fallon called for the removal of protective fencing around the Court to help protesters provide ‘more accountability’ of justices. Meanwhile, Soros’ support for Defend Justice is just one part of a much larger agenda. In light of the money Soros has sunk into the Legislative Branch, this $4.5 million looks like a drop in the bucket. He gave $128,485,971 to Democrat candidates in the 2022 midterm elections, which no doubt played a considerable role in the outcome. And it isn’t as if we weren’t warned. As far back as 2004, then-Senator Hillary Clinton declared, (quote) “We need people like George Soros, who is fearless and willing to step up when it counts.” But, this problem is not just in the US, it was also seen in Romania – even implicating USAID.
THE U.S. AND MEXICO: MEASURES TAKEN TO ADDRESS JUDICIAL CORRUPTION
By contrast, we then need to consider what happens when the judiciary is filled with people with a Christian conscience or inclined to Christian values; and when the judiciary can also better be held accountable – and here, we must consider the US. First, Trump secured 4 appointments in the US, and this has had a massive impact in ensuring that there is a majority of justices in the SCOTUS that preside over cases with a Christian conscience or are inclined to Christian values. Secondly, This has also had a massive impact in how cases on the weaponisation of laws and institutions have played out in the US. Therefore, electing leaders who have these focuses is important for how we protect the integrity of the judiciary.
In light of this, we ought to address the relationship between Trump and courts further. First, I would argue that president Trump is not trying to undermine the role of the judiciary in holding him and his executive orders accountable. This is considering that early all of the legal challenges are working their way through the courts. Some of the president’s actions have been blocked or allowed temporarily pending further court action. The court allowed the deferred resignation, or voluntary departure plan, by the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, to continue. Harvard University’s legal challenge to the administration’s funding freeze over anti-semitism and removal of diversity, equity, and inclusion programs has yet to be heard by the court.
However, the contention in the status quo tends to be when Trump wins cases against liberal judges – like we saw when a federal appeals court BLOCKED activist Judge Boasberg’s plan to hold Trump officials in criminal contempt. The contention also tends to arise when Trump holds judges accountable for breaking the law. But, if we just look at the facts of the cases, it is easy to deduce the legality and even political legitimacy of what has taken place. For instance, former AG Bill Barr has never hesitated to criticise Trump. However, his support of the Trump administration’s arrests of judges who were obstructing the work of federal agents who were attempting to arrest criminal aliens is unequivocal – and it is based on what the law dictates, being that “These judges do not have the right to interfere with the federal government performing its legal functions.”
Meanwhile, proof of the importance of a president who appoints exceptional justices is the recent ruling from SCOTUS, striking down the excessive use of nationwide injunctions: Trump himself stated that i this, “The Supreme Court has delivered a monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the RULE OF LAW!”
So, having embarked on this expose on the 7 areas targeted by globalists in these 2 weeks, we are presented with a crucial responsibility to take the necessary action against the adversaries devices. We know who we war against, and we know their targets, therefore, we must mobilise our capabilities: both the spiritual weapons given to us that are mighty through God for the pulling down of strongholds, and also the abilities available to us to consolidate resistance and attacks through formal legal recourse. And, indeed, we must not miss this opportunity.
Which brings to mind the Words of the President of Loveworld Inc., the highly esteemed Rev Dr Chris Oyakhilome DSc. DSc. DD., when he said that “Man was not made for the law, the law was made for man and so it can be changed,because those that drafted them are not God.”
Well, indeed, we have surely prayed, and continue to pray. Therefore, in this glorious Year of Completeness, all satanic and globalist agendas are suspended; they will live in our world, and we will not live in theirs, as we wrap up the Church age. And so, let us keep fighting the good fight of faith, because we have truly already won.
