Tyranny Requires Equality


Question: What is required for a set of uniform codes and regulations to apply to all the persons of the United States?

Answer: Uniformity of legal equality under the law. In other words, equal rights.

It is an ultra-common misconception amongst the subjected people of the United States in their thought that “rights” are always a good thing, and that “rights” are always somehow a protection against the erosion and encroachment of government and corporations (persons) into the people’s personal liberties. To be even more clear, the general thought is that rights are always in place to prevent things like crime, extortion, tyranny, foreclosure, unlawful searches and seizures, incarceration, and so on from happening to the people.

For instance, one might arrogantly say that they have the right to a “fair trial”. And yet not once does the consideration dawn upon men of good conscious that the trial itself is literally forced upon them by government. Thus, the “right” to a “fair” or “speedy” trial is in actuality a direct consequence of an oppressive government in the first place. In other words, the fact that the trial is forced upon a person is the actual “right”, and the ability to receive the qualities of “fair” and “speedy” in that trial are not the root of that right. In this way, we begin to understand that rights are not voluntary at all, and these governmental rights are indeed forced upon the people. The government sells this tyranny to the people by baiting us like snake oil salesman with positive sounding diatribe such as fair and speedy. This is like me offering you (forcing upon you) my services to get hit with a hammer upon your head, but the impact will be “quick” and “painless”. Your right, you see, is to get hit upon the head with a hammer, with the beneficial service of the impact of that hammer being quick and painless.

Or you might believe in the “right” to free speech and the ability to freely assemble. Yet hate speech laws proclaim your speech must be nice and politically correct. Some cities require you to get a permit for free speech and to protest or assemble peacefully – but only in small, roped off , designated areas. The police even tell you that “anything you say may be used against you” when they read you your “rights”. But how can this be your right? If you don’t have a choice about these rights, are they really rights?

The real question you must ask is: Can a right be violently forced upon you?

Today we are going to be talking about a concept that is very difficult to understand. In legal code, we find what is called positive law. But we often forget that where there is a positive there is usually also a negative – an opposite and equal reaction, if you will. Positive law and “positive rights” are put into place in purposeful and direct violation or opposition to natural law and “negative rights”. A right is either positive or negative, and never-ever in between. Positive laws are laws assigning temporary and are revokable governmental rights placed upon legal persons, which usually create a direct violation of a man’s natural rights under God – the natural laws outside of governmental code.

The difference between these two types of law or “rights” is paramount to understand.

The problem is that all legal codes are positive, including the very misunderstood U.S. constitution itself.

Let’s use as an example the constitutional (positive) right known as the “freedom of religion”. This is one of the most deceptive phrases in legal code (positive law) that I can imagine. For in order to comprehend what it is to have the “freedom of religion,” we must first have a legal definition of these two legal words. All terms and phrases in the legal language have very specific meanings, and are often quite opposite to what we generally think of as conversational words – the words generally defined in an English general language dictionary. The word “freedom” is perhaps the best example of a legal word used to fool the unwitting public. We must realize that there is a very good reason why the legal dictionary is completely separate from the regular English dictionary, and why general dictionary definitions specifically tell you when referring to the same legal definitions within. English and Legal are two completely different languages, no different than English and Chinese. And every word in government must be a legal one, for government only deals in the legal construct, in the legal language.

Would it surprise you to learn that government is acting constitutionally when it requires you to get a permit for exercising “free speech”? To understand why this is so, we must define the legal terms involved, and you must stop thinking of the constitution as anything other than a legal language document.

So what is “freedom”, and what is “speech”?

The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

First, let’s get it into our heads what the word “freedom” means as used in this legal constitution.

While the natural or negative right to free participation in any religion is unalienable, the governmental or positive constitutional right to freedom of religion or freedom of speech is most certainly alienable. To understand this, we must understand the legal meaning of this legal term called freedom. In the Merriam Webster or any other normal English dictionary, you will see that the word freedom is defined in two distinctly different ways. Let’s take a look…

FREEDOM:

(1) The quality or state of being free: as

(a) the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action

(b) liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another: independence

(c) the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous <freedom from care>

(h) unrestricted use <gave him the freedom of their home>

FREEDOM:

(2)   (a) A political right

(b) franchise, privilege

(Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freedom)

And so we can see here that there are without a doubt two distinctly different definitions of the word freedom, and that the legal definition is indeed a political or “positive” right.

The truth about freedom is this…

There is but one freedom under government rule enjoyed by citizens (subjects): freedom is the revokable political positive right (privilege) to be free to act as you will as long as you obey the laws of government. This is not the state of actually being free in an unrestricted way to do what you please while being responsible for your actions, but rather a literal legal enslavement to government law to act under government rule. It is a truism to state that free men must have responsibility for their own actions, lest government become the master and punisher of those who are its servants (subjects). United States citizens are not free men, but instead they live within invisible legal chains called “freedom”.

The right to bear arms as a natural/negative right must go unchallenged by government by its very nature of being a negative right – the natural right of non-interference. But the positive governmental rights which are assigned to citizens to carry legalfire-arms” is certainly being challenged in government right now – as we speak. The trick with government you see, in order for its tyranny to prevail, is to make all its equal people as citizens accept positive rights by government so that the people turn their backs on their natural, God-given, negative, unalienable rights - the rights of men against government intrusion into those rights. Indeed, government actually requires a lien on all people’s natural/negative rights for them to enjoy citizenship within the United States under government’s strictly positive law, for we must remember that negative rights cancel out positive rights. So government must find legal ways to circumvent the peoples liberties (negative rights) and assign restrict-able political (positive) rights. Government does this via the contractual relationship offered to the people called “citizenship”, which carries with it the contractual benefit of positive rights, often called “civil rights” and/or “constitutional rights”. While it calls these liberties, they are far from it…

–=–

The Laws Of Attraction

–=–

So that we do not get confused here, let’s see just how one form of “right” is cancelled out by the other form. The job of an attorney as an “officer of the court” is to keep you within the legal language, so that the court never has to talk in plain English. The legal language of the law society within government is meant to keep you always in the artificial person-hood of your citizenship – never speaking the language of mankind. The following list shows the difference between the laws of man (natural) and the laws of government (legal):

Negative ……………………………………………………… Positive

Man …………………………………………………………….. Person

Free …………………………………………………………. Freedom

Free Man ………………………………………………………. Citizen

Natural ………………………………………………………. Political

Liberty ………………………………………………….. Entitlement

God-given ………………… Man-made (government granted)

Right (natural) …………………………… Privilege (revokable)

Right (natural) ……………………….. Duty (moral obligation)

Duty (responsibility, trust)…………. Contractual obligation

Responsibility ……………… Limited liability (incorporated)

Unalienable (inherent) ………… Alienable (not permanent)

De Jure ……………………………………………………… De Facto

Lawful …………………………………………………… Color of law

The words unalienable and inherent can be defined as essential and intrinsic . These words apply to ideals rather than to actual living beings. While life itself is not unalienable in any way (as is apparent throughout all of nature and its food-chain) the idea that life is an unalienable right is a negative concept in that it refers to the negative right of men to not be subject to the will of other men. This is the moral obligation of honor and duty that men should not kill other men… or as it is more commonly known: “Thou Shall Not Kill”.

On the contrary, cows, pigs, and chickens live under the positive rights granted by ranchers and farmers, in that they are subjects of that farm and its positive laws. These animal’s natural rights are only valid in as much as the farmer or rancher grants the same positive right to mirror their natural/negative rights. But when slaughter-season comes around and the market-price for bacon goes up, the cows, pigs, and chickens learn real quick that any rights they may perceive as livestock (citizens) of that farm are certainly alienable and in no way inherent or permanent. The cows only eat because the government (farmer) feeds them hey – thus the cows believe it is their natural right to have food brought to them every day by the farmer. But the farmer is only acting under his own positive law, and in reality the cows have no natural rights. But they still believe… The chickens may only have children (chicks) if the government (farmer) allows the hens to keep their eggs and hatch them. Parenthood is a legal term under contract with the state (farm). But the farmer, under the positive law of his farm (his rules), overpowers the natural rights of the chickens and allows those unborn children of the chickens to be collected for sale to others.

The only difference between the cows, pigs, and chickens and that of the humans within the United States farm is that the humans contractually volunteer and agree to be livestock under positive rights and laws, whereas these animals never had a choice.

And people think animals are dumb?

The difficult aspect here is to make people understand that as citizens they are not free, but are also livestock under the United States farm which grants the alienable privilege of “freedom”. Breaking through the “it’s a free country” paradox and fallacy of the American people seems to be the biggest challenge of our modern life and times.

Perhaps the most difficult of these opposite terms is the way in which a right creates an opposite duty. The individual natural right of “liberty” creates an opposite natural duty for all other individuals to respect the right of each others’ individual liberties. It would be the duty, for instance, for the people to use arms against government for violating their natural negative rights, no differently than if it was just a neighbor. For a natural right is something to be cherished and protected to the death. And it is a man’s duty to protect his own rights and that of others. It is a man’s duty to not interfere or trespass upon others rights – the duty to protect each others’ negative rights.

But when government offers political rights to citizens (artificial persons), the moral duty changes into a contractual obligation under legal law. The obligation of legal duty is no longer a choice, but rather a forced positive right – a right that forces you to conduct yourself in an activity that may be against your own interests or those of other individuals’ interests. The negative right requires only the opposite negative duty – a moral obligation to do no harm to others or yourself and to defend your negative rights with your life if necessary. But the contractual relationship of citizenship stifles negative rights (the right to not have your own rights trampled) so that positive rights are agreed to by the persons under contract. In other words, citizens agree to abandon their natural (negative) rights and accept under contract with government or corporations a replacement to their natural rights with the political (positive) rights offered by government, and accepted through contract by citizens. Thus, while in the natural realm government has no power over a man. But in the political realm government has total control over the person/citizen. For a positive law to be acceptable to natural men, that positive law must not be in violation of any negative right.

Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856, defines a the word Duty:

DUTY, natural law. A human action which is, exactly conformable to the laws which require us to obey them. 2. It differs from a legal obligation, because a duty cannot always be enforced by the law; it is our duty, for example, to be temperate in eating, but we are under no legal obligation to be so; we ought to love our neighbors, but no law obliges us to love them. 3. Duties may be considered in the relation of man towards God, towards himself, and towards mankind… 4. A man has a duty to perform towards himself; he is bound by the law of nature to protect his life and his limbs; it is his duty, too, to avoid all intemperance in eating and drinking, and in the unlawful gratification of all his other appetites. 5. He has duties to perform towards others. He is bound to do to others the same justice which he would have a right to expect them to do to him.

To live under natural law is to follow the laws of non-interference, responsibility of ones own actions, and honor to fulfill one’s moral obligations under promise and private contract.

On the contrary, the magnetic opposite of this natural law called duty is offered by government through contract, as a political or positive right:

DUTIES. In its most enlarged sense, this word is nearly equivalent to taxes, embracing all impositions or charges levied on persons or things; in its more restrained sense, it is often used as equivalent to customs, (q. v.) or imposts. (q. v.) Vide, for the rate of duties payable on goods and merchandise…

When the services of government are forced upon the people, the people must pay duties (taxes) on those services whether they enjoy or require those services or not. The right to pay taxes is a positive right, and the right to be punished for not paying those taxes is also a positive right. Punishment is an artificial duty created upon the positive right to be taxed – extortion being the right granted by government to persons. You, as a citizen/person, have the positive right to be taxed without the negative right to say no. The imprisonment you may enjoy as punishment for not paying mandatory taxes is also your positive right and duty. And most importantly, the right to pay more and more taxes on more and more things and accept more and more government services with more and more duties, as well as the right to allow government to raise those taxes at its own whim, is also your positive right.

Again, a right is not voluntary in the positive legal realm. So unfortunately, tyranny through extortion is certainly your right if government says it is so, and creates the positive law declaring it as such.

Positive law is involuntary service at the barrel of a gun…

It is perhaps easiest to comprehend these two completely opposite kinds of “rights” by using an analogy of magnets. Most people have played with magnets in their lifetime, attempting to push together two equal magnets that are opposed to each other in their polarities. A positive and a negative are diametrically opposed to each other. The harder we push those magnets together, the harder it becomes to push them, until the negative magnet throws off the positive magnet with a protective shield. And so the only way to make those magnets stick to each other is to turn one magnet around so that the polarities are equal, allowing them to join together. When speaking of God’s law and natural rights (negative rights), our opposing magnet in this case is government code and legality (positive rights). In essence, we must turn our back on law and our natural rights in order to function within government and its legal law and codes. The natural law is magnetically opposed to the positive (legal) law, just as negative rights are magnetically opposed to positive rights.

The first thing to consider whenever attempting to discern the legal language is to remember that emotion must be left out of the equation; that morals and ethics happen in men, not in legal codes. The legal language is just words, with a specific meaning, and with no humanity or consideration of morals or ethics. A contract, for instance, is just an agreement as written in this legal language. It has no moral obligations in an of itself to do anything, but instead establishes the specific positive rights and counterpart duties that will be followed. The moral and ethical parts of the fulfillment of that contract happen outside of the contract, in the hearts, minds, and actions of the men who signed that contract. The contract itself is a bridge between the moral realm and the legal realm, allowing what would otherwise be a natural duty to become an enforceable positive right. For instance, the right to be paid in exchange for an already delivered service or thing as agreed to within a private contract is a positive right, enforceable by law if one party to that contract doesn’t fulfill. Multiply this by 1 million and you have a government contract with men to be citizens, and in exchange the men as citizens must accept the services of government’s legal codes as a forced legal duty to accept. This is also positive law, the difference being that the former contract between men is done in good faith, where no legal recourse is needed, while the contract of citizenship is done without understanding, intention, comprehension, or good faith. A contract steeped in fraud is not enforceable by law, unless the law has been replaced by the positive laws created by government that allow that fraud to be law. This is government.

Just remember that rights are a double-edged sword, which can be positive or negative. In defining what this means, the term positive should not be misconstrued to mean good, no more than the word negative should be misunderstood as a bad thing. They are legal terms, and so attaching an emotional meaning to these words will only lead to confusion.

–=–

Equality – Ladies Acting As Men

–=–

A woman reading this may have an emotional response and espouse that women may sign contracts too, so why only mention “men” here? The confusing answer to this question is that in law, women are men. This is not my opinion, it is just legal law. All people are part of mankind, regardless of sex.  The legal language sees no sex and feels no emotion or obligation to appease the feminist or male perspective, unless specifically written into that code as an artificial construct. The word “men” simply refers to the species man, regardless of color, race, creed, or sex. In this way, the basic legal language itself is a higher language, not weighted down with petty intricacies and debates about whether women and men are equal, or whether all men are created equal. In actuality, the legal language has no ability in and of itself to make such a discernment, and is only concerned with defining the artificiality of mankind as “persons”. It is just a tool. Thus it does not recognize sex unless it is specifically told to, and then does so only in terms of a legal “status”. Legal code cannot be prejudiced, for it has no emotion or predisposition. A natural (real female) woman has equal rights with a natural man only if that natural woman has the legal status assigned to her as a legal fictional man called a legal “woman”. The legal term “Woman” is a status, not a natural state of a living being – not a living man (mankind). For legal does not recognize a natural living man or woman, only the artificial persons of these living people – which have no sex unless specifically defined that way in the code for legal separation purposes (rape, etc.). But this is no different legally than separating different species of ants for research and classification. There is no realization of feminism or masculinity in legal code, because a piece of paper has not the ability to make such distinctions or realizations. Paper has no emotions, any more than the legal words written on that paper. And so any sexual or other emotional or physical distinction between these two artificial persons is solely a construct of science and legal status, no different than distinguishing between garbage and recyclables. To the legal language, garbage and recyclables are the same thing – trash. Only when the legal codes are changed to recognize a certain type of trash as recyclable will a legal status be created allowing certain rights, restrictions, and benefits to be placed upon certain trash legally defined as “recyclables”. Though all garbage is created equal, certain garbage has a status. But that status can only be granted if all trash is first made equal under the legal law. Similarly, women have equal rights with men in law only because they take upon themselves the artificial person-hood status called “woman”, creating this status in positive law which states that persons shall be equally protected and punished under the law and shall have equal rights under the legal law known as “positive rights” but called “Equal Protection Under The Law”.

The reality for women is that their legal status is detrimental to their natural rights as men (mankind), and they become whatever the legal codes say they are as artificial constructs. Equal rights for “women” in law makes them no better or no worse than men, but instead makes them “equal” – removing any sexual differences unless specifically enumerated within that code and how it applies to that particular status of “woman” in opposite to men. Once this equality is established, then special positive rights can be assigned to the legal status of “women”. Thus, a “woman” can have unequal rights giving them special privileges over their supposed equal citizens of the male persuasion. The same goes for “African American” or other ethnicity’s – who are given a special status of “minority”, which then allows them to claim certain positive rights which trample all other citizen’s natural rights or lesser positive rights. In this way, it is the lesser status citizens who have inequality forced upon them, of which it is their contractual duty to accept that positive right and give up their right to sue for what would otherwise be blatant discrimination based on race. Affirmative Action is an example of this. Protected rights of a certain status of citizens requires unfair and unequal treatment of all other citizens. Equality steals away the individualism of a human (regardless of sex, color, race, etc.) and makes everyone not special in any way. It peals away the sex, the color, the race, the religion, and the humanity of each individual living man and woman and places them all in one giant legal blender – a melting pot of unwarranted equality. The end result of this multicultural duel-sexed cornucopia of persons is called legal “U.S. citizens”, whom in the end are in no way equal under law due to the assigned legal status’ called entitlements. If one person is entitled to a positive right that other persons are not entitled to, then the negative right of liberty does not exist in that legal system.

This is not to say that the legal language doesn’t neutrally define these unique traits of mankind in a scientific and unemotional way, it is just to say that it treats them no different than any other legal concept (like the trash example), and its basis is not founded on anything but simply defining these terms without the hindrance of human emotional traits. In short, the legal language only deals with artificiality in the form of corporations, contracts, and persons (i.e. citizens). These citizens are artificial things, not living people. Thus, when defining legality, emotion and humanity really has no place, race becomes a legal weapon, and equality exists only when considering positive rights and punishment for not obeying the forced contractual obligation of legal codes.

Back in 1856, this was the definition of “Sex” in Bouvier’s and other dictionaries, which shows that “women” is a status:

SEX. The physical difference between male and female in animals. 2. In the human species (of animals) the male is called man, (q. v.) and the female, woman. (q. v.) Some human beings whose sexual organs are somewhat imperfect, have acquired the name of hermaphrodite. (q. v.) 3. In the civil state the sex creates a difference among individuals. Women cannot generally be elected or appointed to offices or service in public capa-cities. In this our law agrees with that of other nations. The civil law excluded women from all offices civil or public: Faemintae ab omnibus officiis civilibus vel publicis remotae sunt. Dig. 50, 17, 2. The principal reason of this exclusion is to encourage that modesty which is natural to the female sex, and which renders them unqualified to mix and contend with men; the pretended weakness of the sex is not probably the true reason. Poth. Des Personnes, tit. Vide Gender; Male; Man; Women; Worthiest of blood.

A mature and thinking natural female human should be able to see that though this legal definition has changed over the years, the status is still the same. Legal persons called “women” have now been made to have equal status with legal persons called “men”. This is to say that the equality established in the legal code is completely artificial with respect to the hearts and minds of men. And though this status seems to benefit the female sex of mankind, you as a woman must remember that government defines you first as an “animal” here, and then assigns you a special status of woman-human-animal. So while you may certainly enjoy the positive rights bestowed upon you as “wo-man”, you must accept these positive rights with the knowledge that they create inequality among all natural men. In other words, equality in law is not true natural equality, but is an artificial status granted by a corrupt government that by definition tramples the negative rights of half of the population (male-human-animals). You, as a female of the species human, will only ever know true natural equality when men are not forced by law to treat you as such by positive law. As it is in legal code, men are forced to accept your legal equality, which in the end creates a resentment between sexes in the natural realm. This goes for creed, race, sex, and any other status that is “protected”. And in this way, citizens are forced to accept the most deviant and sinister of persons as equal, even when those persons act completely against the morals and values of others’ negative rights, and even as organizations of these persons legally extort from others. These persons are equal under punishment of legal law. Ironically, the struggle for equal rights for women, slaves, blacks, homosexuals, and other minority groups necessarily requires the unequal state of equality and status for certain individuals, but in no way creates equality among mankind.

If you are emotionally angry right now, then you are speaking a different language than the legal one, and your emotions are getting in the way of understanding your own enslavement.

As a woman, you are a legal fiction.

As a man, you are a beautiful creature of emotion, love, and flesh and blood.

Here is how these legal terms are defined in Bouvier’s Law Dict, 1856:

MAN. A human being. This definition includes not only the adult male sex of the human species, but women and children… 2. In a more confined sense, man means a person of the male sex; and sometimes it signifies a male of the human species above the age of puberty. Vide Rape. It was considered in the civil or Roman law, that although man and person are synonymous in grammar, they had a different acceptation in law; all persons were men, but all men, for example, slaves, were not persons, but things.

–=–

MANKIND. Persons of the male sex; but in a more general sense, it includes persons of both sexes; for example, the statute of 25 Hen. VIII., c. 6, makes it felony to commit, sodomy with mankind or beast. Females as well as males are included under the term mankind. See Gender.

–=–

GENDER. That which designates the sexes. 2. As a general rule, when the masculine is used it includes the feminine, as, man sometimes includes women. This is the general rule, unless a contrary intention appears. But in penal statutes, which must be construed strictly, when the masculine is used and not the feminine, the latter is not in general included… 3. Pothier says that the masculine often includes the feminine, but the feminine never includes the masculine; that according to this rule if a man were to bequeath to another all his horses, his mares would pass by the legacy; but if he were to give all his mares, the horses would not be included.

–=–

WOMEN, persons. In its most enlarged sense, this word signifies all the females of the human species; but in a more restricted sense, it means all such females who have arrived at the age of puberty. 2. Women are either single or married. 1. Single or unmarried women have all the civil rights of men; they may therefore enter into contracts or engagements; sue and be sued; be trustees or guardians, they may be witnesses, and may for that purpose attest all papers; but they are generally, not possessed of any political power; hence they cannot be elected representatives of the people, nor be appointed to the offices of judge, attorney at law, sheriff, constable, or any other office, unless expressly authorized by law; instances occur of their being appointed post-mistresses nor can they vote at any election. 3. The existence of a married woman being merged, by a fiction of law, in the being of her husband, she is rendered incapable, during the coverture, of entering into any contract, or of suing or being sued, except she be joined with her husband; and she labors under all the incapacities above mentioned, to which single women are subject.

In the modern definition, Webster’s English Dictionary defines the word woman not as a natural being, but as an artificial person. Most people will not realize what is being defined here:

WOMAN-

a : an adult female person
b : a woman (person) belonging to a particular category (as by birth, residence, membership, or occupation) —usually used in combination <councilwoman>

In the legal language, the term woman is never used in legal code to describe the natural state of a female, but only to issue a legal status.

However, the word female is used:

FEMALE. This term denotes the sex which bears young. 2. It is a general rule, that the young of female animals which belong to us, are ours, nam fetus ventrem sequitur. The rule is, in general, the same with regard to slaves; but when a female slave comes into a free state, even without the consent of her master, and is there delivered of a child, the latter is free.

If right now, while claiming to be a “woman”, you wish to call me sexist, a chauvinist, racist, or other false paradigm, you could be no further from the truth than I can possibly imagine – and you need to reread this section. In fact, I may be one of the few men in existence who actually recognize your natural/negative equality without the threat or need of being punished by the positive legal system if I don’t!!!

For those who can separate the legal and English languages with logic and reason, we can move on…

–=–

Love And Marriage

–=–

Love and hate are not considered in this legal language when speaking of the contract of legal marriage. Marriage is nothing but a contractual state of being between (as persons) the man, the woman, and the State. It is paper with legal words written on it, and signed by all parties involved. It has no emotion, ethics, morals, values, etc.

Children produced by this marriage contract are not treated as living breathing humans, because the legal language does not deal with living breathing humans. Rather, it treats children as artificial things that are State property – things which are disputed due to the avoidance or negation of a contract by the artificial persons contracted in that legal marriage. Children are no less fictitious persons than the persons who birthed them, when considering the legal nature of human animals.

Again, judging or discussing the legal language with emotion is foolish, since it has no emotion when it defines you. It does not understand love any more than that for which it may necessarily define love as a legal concept. Like an android, the legal language may sometimes simulate the emotions of living man, but will never actually feel them. And like an android with its humanoid appearing synthetic skin and outer shell, our own artificial persons may appear to be living men and women; but are in fact made up of nothing but the wires and circuitry of this legal language.

Love and marriage are distinctly different concepts. One is an emotion and one is a legal arrangement through contract. Love is for the most part incredibly outside of our control while marriage is a legal set of rules and regulations defining a state of contract controlled by government. Love is not in any way dependent upon the contract of marriage, nor is love required in a contract of marriage – for the legal language knows not love! But this does not mean that attempts by modern society, religions, and the courts have not presupposed the conjoining of these two concepts. But love is an emotion, and marriage is a thing (a signed paper contract). But most importantly, love is not controllable by law while marriage is.

Therefore love is a negative right whereas marriage is a positive right.

Love has no limits, whereas marriage is nothing but limits.

So now we may begin to personally see and feel the difference between positive and negative rights – like feeling the difference between heat and cold. When it comes to love, it is safe to say that our natural or God-given right is that we should be able to love any man or woman we choose, and that in fact it is not even a controllable choice – as love is an emotional feeling that, as most of us have certainly felt, is way outside of our emotional control. So love is not something that can be controlled by government with regards to law.

But the government deals especially well in the creation and enforcement of contracts. And marriage is nothing but a legal contract, which has nothing to do with love or emotion in the eyes of legal law. Therefore, marriage is indeed something that can be controlled by government with regards to positive law.

This again makes love a negative right and marriage a positive right.

I imagine right about now your emotion has kicked in again and you are feeling something that is causing you to perhaps forget that legality has no hindrance of emotion. This disposition may be getting in the way of your understanding of why or how love can ever be considered a negative thing. And some folks may musingly be thinking the opposite about marriage being a positive thing! But the confusion is only there because you are assigning emotion to the equation of the definitions of a legal construct. You must never do this. And one of the most difficult aspects of truly understanding the law and how it applies to living man is to be able to switch back and forth between the conversational and the legal language. For while we express our emotions through our interjectional conversations among other living humans, we must assume an unemotional state of person-hood when we switch over to the legal language. For the legal language is nothing if not a perversion of the natural state of man. Thus, we must recognize this perversion and imitate it in order to succeed in legal dealings and communications. If I am going to speak to an android, I would not expect that machine to contemplate morals or ethics other than what is written into its software and codes as a simulation. So why should I do anything different when speaking the legal language to an attorney or a judge? To them, you are nothing but an artificial person, and they are speaking the legal language without the limitations of human emotion if indeed they are doing their jobs correctly. They, in their capacities and regulations as officers of the court, are perversions of man that can only act within the scope of their written code and court procedures. They are legal automatons working in a fictional legal world that in my opinion no man should ever lay his natural rights or trust within. Doing so creates a contract of acceptance of the moral perversions of the legal language, the giving up of negative rights for positive ones, and acquiescence to all of the codes that are created and opinion-ed by such legal automatons in government.

And so your confusion about why a negative right is actually a good thing can be compared to traveling to another country and attempting to speak a new language there. In China, a horse may have the same name as a pig does in America. Thus, confusion may stem in conversations with the Chinese people when they call a horse a pig. But after a while, one becomes accustomed to switching back and forth between ones natural or “1st” language and that of the foreign language.

To most people, the legal language is certainly a foreign one. And so for now, simply realize that any confusion that you may be experiencing is just a loss in translation from your normal every-day conversational language to the foreign legal language.

A negative right is very much a good thing. Sometimes negative rights are referred to as “liberties”. Negative rights are also stated to be “unalienable” – which in legal language means that a legal lien cannot be taken out against that negative right. The constitution lays out some of these unalienable rights in a legal context, but is certainly no guarantee of such an unalienable status upon those constitutional (positive) rights. The thought that any legal document can ever guarantee another legal thing or right as unalienable is pure fallacy. For remember, a legal right is a positive right. And a legal positive right can be revoked at any time by its creator. Perhaps this is why God’s law in its permanence over man’s law is so important. We will talk about that in a moment.

Instead, the constitution as a legal document contradicts the very essence of protecting negative or “unalienable” rights as it boldly describes the ways in which such supposedly unalienable rights may indeed have liens put upon them or against them through legal means. And because of this, you will continuously hear me state loudly and fervently that my “rights” are absolutely not derived from the constitution or any other man-made law or legal code.

I have stated many times before that the 5th Amendment of the “BILL OF RIGHTS” in the U.S. constitution is perhaps the worst example of the deceptive nature of the legal language I have ever encountered. Perhaps in understanding what a “liberty” is as a negative (natural) right can help us to understand why the constitution in no way whatsoever gives individuals unalienable (negative) rights.

The 5th Amendment states:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Geez, the constitution uses longer run-on sentences than I do!

Firstly, this is the right of persons, not men. A fictional person cannot have unalienable rights. A person can only be granted political positive rights.

Secondly, we must know what a “bill” is:

BILL, legislation. An instrument drawn or presented by a member or committee to a legislative body for its approbation and enactment. After it has gone through both houses and received the constitutional sanction of the chief magistrate, where such approbation is requisite, it becomes a law.

This nickname given to the first ten amendments to the constitution is not an official legal term, but instead borrows from the original English term of the “Bill Of Rights”, which was a declaration granted by Royals William and Mary who reigned England. But this was not a declaration of natural rights of the British people, but was instead a declaration of the rights bestowed upon the SUBJECTS of the crown. Again, this can be compared to a farmer declaring positive rights of a bail of hey to be fed to his cows (subjects) twice a day. But with these seemingly wonderful rights also come the duties to submit as subjects to all other rights forced upon the subjects.

And what is the legal definition of “subject”?

SUBJECT, contracts. The thing which is the object of an agreement.

–=–

SUBJECT, persons, government. An individual member of a nation, who is subject to the laws; this term is used in contradistinction to citizen, which is applied to the same individual when considering his political rights. 2. In monarchical governments, by subject is meant one who owes permanent allegiance to the monarch.

–=–

SUBJECTION. The obligation of one or more persons to act at the discretion, or according to the judgment and will of others. 2. Subjection is either private or public. By the former is meant the subjection to the authority of private persons; as, of children to their parents, of apprentices to their masters, and the like. By the latter is understood the subjection to the authority of public persons.

–=–

CITIZEN, persons. One who, under the constitution and laws of the United States, has a right to vote for representatives in congress, and other public officers, and who is qualified to fill offices in the gift of the people. In a more extended sense, under the word citizen, are included all white persons born in the United States, and naturalized persons born out of the same, who have not lost their right as such. This includes men, women, and children. 2. Citizens are either native born or naturalized. Native citizens may fill any office; naturalized citizens may be elected or appointed to any office under the constitution of the United States, except the office of president and vice-president. The constitution provides, that ” the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.” Art. 4, s. 2. 3. All natives are not citizens of the United States; the descendants of the aborigines, and those of African origin, are not entitled to the rights of citizens. Anterior to the adoption of the constitution of the United States, each state had the right to make citizens of such persons as it pleased. That constitution does not authorize any but white persons to become citizens of the United States; and it must therefore be presumed that no one is a citizen who is not white.

Now, you should be wondering how a “right” can ever be “lost”. Of course, only political (positive law) rights can be taken away by government. Natural rights must be voluntarily given up to government.

But you may also be wondering why I am including these antiquated definitions within this essay.

The answer is an important realization about rights in general. For to declare that all men are created equal, and then to claim citizenship only for white persons should be a big clue to you that the legal law sees no equity but that for which is written by the hands of privileged men. And the preponderance by 100′s of millions of U.S. citizens that the constitution ever granted equal rights in natural men is the greatest fallacy of our time. Instead, the constitution literally and clearly states that only certain individuals (persons) are equally privileged and have the right to entitlements as positive rights that trample on the negative rights of all other colored or female persons.

And if you are not a citizen… let’s face it folks, then you are just an animal without government granted privileges and positive rights.

But even more importantly to comprehend here is that just because the constitution and other legislation has been changed over time to reflect “equality” in all persons regardless of sex or color, this if anything proves that nothing in the constitution or civil rights is in anyway an unalienable negative right. In other words, as they were changed in the past, so too can they be changed in the future.

Just ask the Japanese American citizens who were imprisoned during World War II if all citizens are equal regardless of race or color?

Here in this Bill Of Rights we have a listing of 10 positive entitlements that people mistakenly refer to as unalienable negative rights or liberties. But these are not in any way negative rights. They are instead listed here as positive rights that can be aliened upon through what is called “due process of law“.

This is why I call these an “exception clause”… and the constitution and all of legal code is riddled with them.

If your protections from double jeopardy and self-incrimination, and your protections of the rights of life, liberty, and property are indeed absolute and unalienable, then there would be no need to write them down in the first place, let alone place an exception clause within this statement (bill) of rights that allowed “due process of law” to deny you those very rights. In this way, these listed constitutional positive rights are not at all unalienable, and the constitution states clearly the “process” of how a lien can indeed be placed upon these listed positive rights – with due process of law.

Just ask anyone whose had their land stolen by government for “public use” through “eminent domain”; having watched in horror and helplessness as that land was then sold off to private corporate developers for a parking garage, a strip mall, or housing projects. Then ask that person whether they feel that their rights to property and liberty are secure and unalienable?

The 5th Amendment is the entire basis of the positive right of eminent domain claimed by government. In eminent domain cases, the 5th Amendment is noted as being the “takings clause“. This refers to the “exception clause” as noted within the 5th Amendment that property can be “taken” for public use by government with due process of law and “just compensation“. It is a fallacy to mistake the term “due process of law” with the “protection of natural rights”. Law and legal code can only protect legal or positive rights without exception.

If property rights were truly negative in nature for citizens, then government would be forced to respect the nature of that negative right without the ability to apply its right of positive law to nullify that individual persons’ negative right. In other words, the negative or natural right would not be able to be tread upon by a legal concoction of codes and concepts. A positive right by true republican idealism and rules of ethics can never trump a negative right.

In the case of eminent domain, with the backing and righteousness of the constitution itself, the government claims that it is your political “positive” right to literally have your land and home stolen by providing a remedy of what it terms to be “just compensation” for the imposing of that positive right upon you. We know this is a positive right when government won’t take no for an answer…

Imagine if I came up to your front door and handed you a check for $10,000 for the forceful purchase of your home that has a market value of $200,000 – me being just some guy with no government or militarized police force to back me up. Your first inclination would likely be to tell me to go stick my check where the sun don’t shine. But when government comes-a-knocking, our knees quiver and our head spins; for we know not how to tell government to stick its positive law where the sun doth not shineth.

So what’s the difference between when an average every day Joe “offers” you the contract of his version of “just compensation” in exchange for your home and when government makes you the same legal contractual offer?

Ah, this is where positive and negative rights truly come into play…

When the man approaches you to purchase your home, you use your negative right to say no to the contract offered by this individual man. You did not recognize his person, and refused the right of contract – acting in a negative capacity. This means that you have imposed the consequence of your negative right upon the man and expect him to fulfill his natural duty to uphold your right to say no. The abeyance and non-retaliation against your own negative rights by others with similar negative rights is called a “duty”. Thus, when average Joe made the offer for your home at a ridiculously low price, well below the market value of what you might sell that same house to another individual, it was your negative right to deny that offer of contract. It is now the duty of average Joe to respect your negative right to say no by walking away from the offer without force, retaliation, or theft of your property.

Duty has a direct association with negative rights. The consequence of a man declaring his natural, God-given, negative rights means that all other men of good conscious have the duty to respect that negative right. Thus, a negative right creates a duty in others to refrain from taking action against another. So a negative right is best explained as the right to not have “due process of law”, violence, or coercion forced against you. Therefore, a negative right is the right to be left alone. So Joe would respect your negative right to say no to his offer by fulfilling his natural or negative duty to not coerce you to sell your house to him. When this process is complete, the natural or unalienable right has been fully implemented and respected.

Under this system of respect and integrity between men, a lawful society without government can be imagined.  But since we live in and except the artificial world of fictional persons we must understand how this mutually respectful system of trust and integrity-based law has been perverted by government legal codes and its courts – which claim the very power of “due process of law” as listed in the Bill of Rights. In this regard, the constitution is in direct violation of all of man’s natural rights.

Before we can go on, this realization must be acknowledged: that the constitution does not give inalienable rights to individuals. Without this conscious admission, we cannot proceed. And we must fully realize and appreciate that the difference between a negative right and a positive right is that a negative right will never be written down as a legal right. Only a positive right must be written down, for this is the only way that a positive right may be enforced through due process of law to have power over a negative right. A positive right is adjudicated under positive law. And through the perversion of the legal code and its contractual nature, men are tricked into accepting positive rights that are in direct conflict with their natural/negative rights. They voluntarily relinquish the right to utilize negative rights against legal positive rights. Without the contractual nature of legal codes, no positive right of men could ever overshadow a negative right of God. In other words, the duty of men to respect and acknowledge the natural rights of their fellow man would never be excusable under color of law just because that man has a government ID, a police uniform, or a judges robe. The acceptance of a voluntary contractual obligation of positive rights by “citizens” allows other men to act as perverted beasts – artificial persons that trample upon any semblance of another man’s natural/negative right to not to be trampled on in the first place, with the excuse that their duty to respect man’s negative rights do not exist in legal code and are justified through due process of law, which is forcibly served upon that person/citizen for the benefit of the collective “public”. And in doing so, any recompense or remedy for their actions is applied not to the man himself for committing these acts of violence, coercion, and theft (taking) of property against the natural rights of another man, but are instead considered legal actions by an artificial person against another artificial person and its estate. You might say that no man was harmed, but only his dead or artificial person. This is referred to as acting under the “color of law”. Thus, the man doing the taking is not responsible for his own actions – actions taken by an artificial person (an incorporated entity with limited liability) on behalf of the due process of law of government. Positive rights then really equate to moral corruption of the living man in lieu of legal protections granted to the artificial person for which that man carries – the veil of artificial and limited liability corporation status called person-hood. And with this disposition; as in the art and atrocities of war where men kill men while claiming the positive right to do so as their perverted legal “duty” in the following of orders; men avoid their true and natural duties to protect the sanctity, integrity, freedom, and livelihood of the rest of their fellow man by claiming that due process of law allows constitutional and legal authority to do so. And government protects that positive right.

And so we now take for our example the constitutionally proclaimed power by government to at any time, through due process of law  and with just compensation, “take” your property through this process of eminent domain. To do this, the government exercises the true nature of your constitutional “rights” by utilizing the legal system of which government created in the first place. Thus, the taking of your property is justified by these artificial persons in government with the disclaimer that they as men are not responsible for the theft of your property because the due process of law allows such perversion of responsibility to be delegated to an artificial construct within the protection of legal code. Government officers are not men, but instead an incorporated group of persons. They have the positive (government granted and protected) right to ignore their duties to uphold and respect your negative rights because you agreed through contract to consent and be subject to these positive rights granted by government. They claim this positive right for one and only one reason: because you unwittingly told them they could. You gave up your natural rights when you became a citizen, accepting positive rights through contract. And every time that you state a pledge of allegiance to the “flag” of this artificial corporation called the United States (not a pledge to the other people within these united states of America and their natural rights, mind you), and every time you check the box that states you are a “citizen of the United States”, and every time you claim legal constitutional rights instead of negative natural rights, you are literally giving your consent and permission for government to tread on you and your negative rights via contractual obligations and duties to government’s provided positive rights and services.

Understanding and proving to government that you are alive 100% of your life seems like a ridiculous notion. But the truth is that government requires you to be dead for any transaction in commerce or contract with itself, and assigns you an artificial person for such commerce and communication. Proving that you are alive every minute of every day of your life while claiming only natural rights is the only true defense against government tyranny. Any other right provided by government and claimed by you in court is of a contractual nature, meaning it is by default a revokable and enforceable positive right – the validity of which will be decided by an artificial person known as a judge.

A negative right is the right not to be subjected to the actions and coercion of another man, person, or government.

A positive right is the right to be subjected to the actions and coercions of another man, person, or government.

A free man has the right not to be subjected to the actions and coercion of another man, person, or government.

A citizen has the right to be subjected to the actions and coercions of another man, person, or government.

A free man enjoys the negative right to be free under God and nature, deriving his rights as such.

A citizen enjoys the positive right (privilege) to be free under government, as long as and only if he obeys the law (legal codes) of that government no matter how tyrannical and inhumane they become.

The perversion of the words positive and negative is just one example of how the legal language harms man’s natural state of being by perverting even the basic definition of natural words. However, legal words only apply in the fictional legal realm, which is why of course living men must be attached to an artificial person.

But I digress, for the title of this writing is “Tyranny Requires Equality”.

And so I had better now qualify why I believe that this is so…

Just as the words negative and positive have been perverted into different meanings than we are accustomed to in our everyday speech, so too have the words equality and rights.

It is important to understand that as with all legal terms, when the legal language uses the word equality it does not predispose that such equality is espoused by living men. Remember, the legal code does not deal in living beings. It can only define legal terms for artificial persons attached to human animals. Thus, when the government states that all men are created equal, it doesn’t really mean that in literal terms. It is referring to persons. And it is referring to the way in which the law punishes equally that of all persons under the law.

Let’s face the hard truth… When the constitution and Declaration of Independence was penned over two centuries ago, the term men combined with the term equal only applied to white male land-owners. As much as it pains us to admit that the constitution did not in any way make all men equal, and in fact made some men 3/5 a person (not a man) for political purposes, we must admit that the constitution was only a legal document granting subjects of the government certain entitlements. It did not deal in men as flesh and blood human animals, it dealt strictly with artificial persons. A statement of equality as is laid down in the constitution does not necessitate the conversational meaning of that word when describing flesh and blood men, race, or color. In fact, since the constitution only applies to persons as citizens, its privileges also only apply to persons as citizens. Remember, a legal government document only applies to men who have taken the perversion of artificial person-hood. The constitution promoted slavery and entitled only the privileged class to “freedom” – which again means the requirement to obey the law. And it can only be considered a document of freedom for those who contractually accepted the legal definition of freedom to “obey the government’s laws”. The constitution, if anything, made all men un-free, but gave the privileged class of white male citizens the “freedom” to arbitrarily own other men and be higher in legal status than the female half of the species. Of course, the contract of marriage created the STRAWMAN Dominus name change that allowed women to obtain some of the rights of their husbands via a legal contractual nature.

This ownership of people was without question or doubt the “original intent” of the constitution. Just read the damn thing! And remember that slavery was outlawed in England long before it was in the United States.

Over the decades, incremental change began to be seen, amendments passed, and legislation created that allowed for all “persons” to obtain “equal rights” under the law. But remember that these were certainly not natural rights granted by the government, but were instead positive rights. And slowly but surely all persons were made civilly equal. But what this really meant was that all men were allowed to accept the perversion of their natural state of being men and were allowed to become persons. And so again, I cannot stress enough that the constitution only makes contractual obligations of men as persons for which it calls “equal” and “civil” rights. Again, any natural man, woman, or child who wonders into the fictional borders of the United States will know immediately that all men are not equal, but that equality requires the voluntary agreement and contract of tyranny of citizenship. An illegal alien is simply a man who has not sold his soul for the positive rights and entitlements of citizenship. And the treatment, imprisonment, and exportation of these “human animals” by government and it’s millions of citizens is enough evidence to me to call any woman, black man, or legal immigrant a total and complete hypocrite – one who screams for their equal rights from a government and constitution that for centuries denied their ancestors those same rights that they now deny all other men of the world. Americans are hypocrisy defined – free men enslaved by their own freedom. And the white, property-owning citizen is ironically the only non-hypocrite… but only because his ancestors were born into the privileges of citizenship in the first place that denied all others their own rights and entitlements.

Never again should any United States citizen falsely and hypocritically declare that all men are created equal. For they are not men – as citizens they are not even alive.

This is the oft quoted fallacy that plagues the people of the United States and other governments. For government can not declare all men as equal and free, but can only declare its citizens as equal with freedom. For what happens when one bucks their government and tries to act upon their natural God-given rights in their negative capacity and as protection against the forcibly assigned positive rights violently bestowed by that government upon its people? Why of course the government violates the man’s natural rights claiming that his person’s positive rights come first!

And this is the most difficult thing about law and rights to comprehend. For most people believe that rights are somehow voluntary, and don’t realize that there is such a thing as positive rights that are involuntary. It’s certainly a confusing concept – that there should be in existence a human right that is enforceable by punishment from government, whether you want that right or not. Well… that’s because people think only in terms of humanity, and not in the terms of their artificial person for which those forced rights apply.

Another example I like to use over and over is this one from TITLE 42 of U.S. CODE. This code is in my opinion the perfect examination of how a “positive right” is actually a forced privilege through coercion and violence upon persons and not men:

42 USC § 1981 – Equal rights under the law

(a) Statement of equal rights

All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exaction of every kind, and to no other

(b) “Make and enforce contracts” defined

For purposes of this section, the term “make and enforce contracts” includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.

(c) Protection against impairment

The rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under color of State law.

And so here in one neat little package, the tyranny requires equality concept comes shining through. Remember, as stated here, the nature of “civil rights” is not to make men equal, but to make all persons equally screwed under the law. Government does not define men. It’s legal language simply makes all human animals as equal citizens – which means equal protection of the positive rights that are forced upon those citizens. This is the tyranny of legal equality. True natural equality will only ever happen in the minds of men, not through statute or positive right. It will never happen in all men, and no legal statute will ever succeed in this task. For the acceptance of all men as equal is a negative right, and this type of acceptance can only happen within men, not without. The bottom line is that respect for human and animal rights must be earned and learned, not entitled and forced.

First, in Section (a) of this U.S. CODE we have an explanation of your positive rights as an (artificial) person within the jurisdiction of the United States (federal government) – the federation controlling the “union” of States. It tells you that you have the positive right to enter into contract equally with all other persons, and most importantly into contracts with government. And then it tells you that by committing to such a contractual nature, the positive rights of punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exaction (literally defined as legal extortion) are applied to you under that contract. If you sign a government or other contract, you are subject to positive rights. If you sign a contract, you give up your power of natural negative rights in acceptance of politically assigned privileges called positive rights. And in doing so, as a person and citizen, you are subject to all of the coercive measures that government allows itself to use against you to enforce those positive rights against you, including pain, punishment, and extortion.

Notice here that taxation and extortion are listed here side by side as a your right. There is hardly a difference between the two, and the avoidance of both gives you the positive, forceful, contractual duty to give acceptance to your right to be receive (enjoy) penalties, be punished, and be put in pain.

Now do you understand what a positive right is?

In Section (c) it states something that is also very important. It implies here that State laws, when compared to Federal laws, are subservient to these Federal U.S. CODES. By stating that the laws of the government of the individual States are only assigned to be as authoritative as to the “color of law”, this code is stating that you have no positive State’s rights that will protect you against these stated Federal positive rights. Federal contract law (citizenship), in other words, trumps any state law that may protect any other right you enjoy, either positive or negative. In other words, as a citizen you really have no negative rights!!!

But most important here is the legal right that all persons have to be equal with every other person. The last thing that government wants is for a man to break out of his or her artificial person/cage and be special – and claim to be unequal in the eyes of the legal code. Only with equality can democracy exist. Only with uniform equality can the people be considered a “body politic”. And only in a body politic can the government claim to act with the consent of all the equal people through representative government – representatives of the whole equal citizenry.

Some folks think that by exercising their right not to vote in elections that they are withdrawing consent to the election itself. But not voting is just another political positive right that persons have, in that this duty is not enforced as a requirement. Not voting is technically voting “no contest” to what the majority votes. Government doesn’t mind at all if individuals don’t vote in its public elections, for not voting means nothing at all. Even with less than 50% of the people voting in an election cycle, the majority of those actual votes still creates a majority vote. There is no law stating otherwise. And the president is not elected by the people anyway, but instead by the “electors”. That’s right, the constitution clearly states that the president is not elected by the people (voters) by popular vote, but by appointed electors. Amazingly, the majority of United States citizens believe that they actually elect the president every four years – a laughable psy-op that creates the illusion of authority of that office.

If this is news to you, you’ll be tickled to death to know that migrants who obtain citizenship in the United States know more about our presidential election process than most natural born citizens do!

Here is a link to the questions asked of potential legal immigrants before they become citizens. You’ll notice that question #16 asks: “Who elects the President of the United States?”

Scroll down a ways and you’ll see “The Electoral College” as the official answer.

LINK: http://immigration.findlaw.com/citizenship/typical-citizenship-examination-questions.html?DCMP=ADC-IMMI_Citizenship-NaturalizationTestQuestions&HBX_PK=the+naturalization+test+questions

Elections are a positive, not a negative right. Citizens do not have negative rights, other than those which have not been supplanted YET by positive ones.

What is the definition of the word “negative”?

NEGATIVE. This word has several significations. 1. It is used in contradistinction to giving assent; thus we say the president has put his negative upon such a bill. Vide Veto. 2. It is also used in contradistinction to affirmative; as, a negative does not always admit of the simple and direct proof of which an affirmative is capable. When a party affirms a negative in his pleadings, and without the establishment of which, by evidence, he cannot recover or defend himself, the burden of the proof lies upon him, and he must prove the negative. Although as a general rule the affirmative of every issue must be proved, yet this rule ceases to operate the moment the presumption of law is thrown into the other scale. When the issue is on the legitimacy of a child, therefore, it is incumbent on the party asserting the illegitimacy to prove it. Vide Affirmative Innocence.

NEGATIVE AVERMENT, pleading, evidence. An averment in some of the pleadings in a case in which a negative is asserted. 2. It is a general rule, established for the purpose of shortening and facilitating investigations, that the point in issue is to be proved by the party who asserts the affirmative; but as this rule is not founded on any presumption of law in favor of the party, but is merely a rule of practice and convenience, it, ceases in all cases when the presumption of law is thrown into the opposite scale. For example, when the issue is on the legitimacy of a child born in lawful wedlock, it is, incumbent on the party asserting its illegitimacy to prove it. Upon the same principle, when, the negative averment involves a charge of criminal neglect of duty, whether official or otherwise, it must be proved, for the law presumes every man to perform the duties which it imposes. Vide Onus Probandi.

And from Webster’s 2012 dictionary:

NEGATIVE-

(1) a: marked by denial, prohibition, or refusal <received a negative answer>; also : marked by absence, withholding, or removal of something positive <the negative motivation of shame — Garrett Hardin>

b (1) : denying a predicate of a subject or a part of a subject <“no A is B” is a negative proposition> (2) : denoting the absence or the contradictory of something <nontoxic is a negative term> (3) : expressing negation <negative particles such as no and not>

c : adverse, unfavorable <the reviews were mostly negative>

(5) a : not affirming the presence of a condition, substance, or organism suspected to be present; also : having a test result indicating the absence especially of a condition, substance, or organism <she is HIV negative>

By these definitions we can construct a view of how the word negative applies to and interacts with the word positive in law. A negative right attempts to remove or refuse a positive right, and a man seeks to withhold or remove the positive right with his negative right. Negative rights are a prohibition against positive ones. A living man may deny a positive right exists by denoting the contradiction of that positive right to his negative right. A living man must prove the non-existence of a positive. Positive rights directly contradict negative rights, negating the inherent and replacing it with the artificial, creating an absence of liberty. Positive is adverse and unfavorable to the negative. Men must not affirm the presence of a positive right, unless he is prepared to accept the conditions of its disease.

Even the word enjoyment has been twisted into a legal perversion, as defined in Bouvier’s:

ENJOYMENT. The right which a man possesses of receiving all the product of a thing for his necessity, his use, or his pleasure.

And Black’s Law Dictionary online defines Enjoyment as:

ENJOYMENT: 1 (a) possession and use <the enjoyment of civic rights>

And from Webster’s:

ENJOYMENT: The exercise of a right; the possession and fruition of a right, privilege, or incorporeal hereditament.

So while you may emotionally enjoy living somewhere, enjoyment is a legal term with no emotional attachments. It is the state of usufruct to which you are a person who enjoys the use of property, but do not legally own that property. Paying off a loan to a bank, it turns out, has absolutely nothing to do with ownership, as the home never belonged to the bank in the first place. A “lien” position is not an ownership position, but rather just a status of legal claim.

Legislative records explain this positive right of equal enjoyment best:

“The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called “ownership” is only by virtue of government, i.e. law, amounting to mere user; and user must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.” Senate Document No. 43, 73D Congress, 1st Session, entitled: “Contracts Payable in Gold”, by George Cyrus Thorpe, submitted to the senate: April 17, 1933

“The money will be worth 100 cents on the dollar because it is backed by the credit of the Nation. It will represent a mortgage on all the homes and other property of all the people in the Nation.” –Congressman Patman, speaking from the Congressional Record of March 9, 1933, and referring to the Act of March 9, 1933.

Enjoyment is use, as a user, of government property. Persons are not owners, they are users. Persons enjoy incorporeal use of real estate. The word estate in Latin means “status”. And a status of course is an entitlement – a positive right.

But don’t worry, all property holders have equal rights under the law – which really means that all property holders cannot say no when the government wants to eminent domain (legally steal) their property. Equal rights means equal enjoyment of equal extortion, which means equal victim-hood of the people is equally enjoyed as persons under the contractual nature of citizenship. Does it make you feel better that at any time the government can take anyone’s property, including your own? Does this equate to the disposition we take when our friends and neighbors have their property stolen by government for the public good? You are the “public”, you know.

Is it this equality of the possibility of legal theft upon all citizens that stops us from defending the property of our fellow man?

Have we been artificial for so long that we are becoming emotionless?

Have we grown to love our servitude, as Huxley declared so long ago?

Perhaps we have just lost our ability to do anything but legally enjoy our servitude – and have forgotten how to be free men.

Equality in legal terms is a detriment to all men, for no two men are alike. Under the law, men and women have no sex, except as a mechanical function in science. Their uniqueness is stripped away and replaced by a legal status. Their thoughts and ideas are stunted so that equality can prevail. By accepting the artificial person, the living soul becomes nothing but a user of the body – with enjoyment of the artificial person which interacts with the artificial world. In this way, the man hides away behind the mask of his or her person.

But the person is not the man, it is not created by the man, and it is not owned by the man. The person is a creation of and property of the government, assigned numbers and statistics which define each artificial person. And only the creator of persons can establish forced equality and tyranny among all persons equally.

And so I leave you with these final questions…

If government is the creator of persons, then isn’t it time to stop worshiping these idols of the false god of government and get back to nature’s and God’s law?

Who is your creator?

Isn’t it time to become a man again?

.

–Clint Richardson (Realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Why The Supreme Court Claims Obamacare is Constitutional


Did you really think that the Supreme Court would rule against “Obama-care”?

Just what exactly do you think the Supreme Court is?

Perhaps a reality check is in order here. And for that matter, a little history lesson…

–=–

This tome of research was originally planned as an educational-documentary movie script, but with the election process just around the corner and rumors of a major internet “change”, I feel it absolutely necessary to give it my best shot to create a wide-awake, openhearted, non-consenting public. In fact, my whole mock-presidential campaign was to expose the following facts – and that you the people cannot, no matter how much campaigning you do, elect me as president (or for that matter Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney, or any alternative 3rd party or non-two-party candidate) because you don’t get to vote for president.

Perhaps this all was dreaming too big on my part; that I can wake up an entire nation, but here it goes anyway…

We will now delve extensively into the Department Of Justice as well as the electoral college, and we will learn exactly what the role of the Attorney General is – and I guarantee you that none of these things are anything close to what you might think you know or have been taught in your public (government) school system. In short, we will learn the actual law, and that the law and the entirety of the United States does not exist without your contractual consent to it.

Sit back and hold on, for it is my hope that this is going to be a serious wake up call. I recommend that you read and re-read this entire presentation several times, until these definitions and concepts are familiar and completely understood, for you cannot be free without the knowledge of what enslaves you, especially if you do not know the hidden legal language of the Law Society. Certain words and phrases are underlined, highlighted, and emboldened. Do not take this lightly. Give these your special attention. And by the end, be sure you know the legal meanings of all these words.

If you read nothing else before you cast your vote for the office of president this year, I beg of you to take the time to learn why your vote absolutely does not, never has, and never will count towards the actual official election process of the president of the United States. This is the law. It is more accurate to say that your vote as a registered United States voter is not officially counted in the actual election process for the office of the president of the United States.

So why do you vote?

Why does the government waste our time allowing us to go through the charade of voting for the popular fake-election of president by the “people”?

Why will going through the process of “voting” to replace Obama not do anything to actually officially or legally replace Obama?

And why is Obama-care absolutely constitutional according to the Supreme Court?

Let’s find out…

–=–

What Was The Original Supreme Court?

–=–

The so-called “Founding Fathers” have become the stuff of legend.

They are credited as being radical new thinkers whose ideals were original in their context, and that these ideas created the first free country and a modern republic. And yet, the entire structure of government for the Federal United States, as well as the concepts of individual and state’s rights, liberty, and social contracts, date back not only to the Mayflower Compact, but to the roots of British history and common law, as well as Roman law in the Roman “Republic” and in the Magna Carta, created in 1215. In fact, as it turns out, everything that our “Founding Fathers” did in their declaration of independence was specifically to preserve their “natural-born rights as Englishmen“, which was in fact a perfectly legal pursuit as a crown colony. The Crown of England, in fact, had the same reaction to this declaration and the following constitution as the Northern “States” did when the Southern “States” seceded from the corrupt central government of the United States in the 1860′s – in order to form their own more perfect union and constitution in the South… which was for the Crown to unlawfully call it treason and to take its control back through occupation and military rule.

Why were the colonists of America always, and even to this day, so interested in retaining their English-born rights?

Samuel Adams wrote:

“All persons born in the British American Colonies are, by the laws of God and nature and by the common law of England, exclusive of all charters from the Crown, well entitled, and by acts of the British Parliament are declared to be entitled, to all the natural, essential, inherent, and inseparable rights, liberties, and privileges of subjects born in Great Britain or within the realm. – The Rights of the Colonists: The Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting, Nov. 20, 1772.

John Allen also stated:

For the rights of the people, which is the supreme glory of the crown and the kingdom of Britain, is the Magna Charta of the king as well as of the people; it is as much his previledge, as it is his glory, to maintain their rights; and he is as much under a law (I mean the law of the rights of the people), as the people are under the oath of allegiance to him… And therefore whatever power destroys their rights, destroys at the same time, his right to reign, or any right to his kingdom, crown, or glory; nay, his right to the name of a king among the people… Shall a man be deem’d a rebel that supports his own rights?Excerpts from the sermon, “ORATION, upon the Beauties of LIBERTY, OR the Essential RIGHTS of the AMERICANS” preached to the Second Baptist Church in Boston Dec. 3, 1772.

Resolution #2 of the Declaration of Rights of the Stamp Act Congress on October 19, 1765, was written:

“That His Majesty’s liege subjects in these colonies are entitled to all the inherent rights and privileges of his natural born subjects within the kingdom of Great Britain.

The “Charter of Massachusetts Bay (colony)” issued by the king in 1629 proclaimed that the people of the colony:

…shall have and enjoy all liberties and Immunities of free and naturall Subjects within any of the Domynions of Us, our Heires or Successors, to all Intents, Constructions, and Purposes whatsoever, as if they and everie of them were borne within the Realme of England.

The colonists wanted nothing more than and insisted upon being treated as natural-born Englishmen with all rights and privileges thereof. This was reflected in every facet of the New America. And it is part of the basis of the term God-given natural rights, as the “king” was considered to be of “God” – the “divine” right of kings…

Thomas Jefferson himself, in a letter to Henry Lee on May 8, 1825, wrote about the Declaration of Independence that it was:

“…with respect to our rights, and the acts of the British government contravening those rights, there was but one opinion on this side of the water. All American Whigs thought alike on these subjects. When forced, therefore, to resort to arms for redress, an appeal to the tribunal of the world was deemed proper for our justification. This was the object of the Declaration of Independence. Not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take. Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion. All its authority rests then on the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, &c..”

One could translate this as the freedom of the press, where that declaration was written as an appeal to pity by the rest of the world – an appeal to the court of popular opinion – and a reminder of the already historically established philosophies that were re-worded in the constitution and declaration.

It is also important to make the distinction between natural and political (contractual) “independence”. Independence, as a legal description or term, does not automatically mean free and clear of something as it might be perceived or misconstrued in every day conversation:

INDEPENDENCE. A state of perfect irresponsibility to any superior; the United States are free and independent of all earthly power. 2. Independence may be divided into political and natural independence. By the former (political independence) is to be understood that we have contracted no tie except those which flow from the three great natural rights of safety, liberty and property. The latter (natural independence) consists in the power of being able to enjoy a permanent well-being, whatever may be the disposition of those from whom we call ourselves independent. In that sense a nation may be independent with regard to most people, but not independent of the whole world. Vide on of Independence. (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856)

And just what does the 5th Amendment to the Constitution actually say about this?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

So the constitution states quite clearly that your natural rights of life (safety), liberty, and property can in fact be taken away from you with “due process of law and just compensation”. This is because these are actually your political rights enumerated, not your natural ones. This is not a protection from tyranny of government, but is instead tyranny defined! And this “right” – to have your life, liberty, and property taken away from you – is literally in the hands of the government created federal judicial system. As we will see, this is extremely deceptive and problematic with regards to the “justice” doled out by the “justice system”. Thus, the Bouvier’s Law Dictionary definition of “independence” above perfectly describes the illusion that we all have of our constitutional (political) “independence”. As contracted citizens of this government, natural independence is forfeited and political independence does not exist…

We must also understand that the “Judicial Branch” of this constitution was not in any way new as either the highest court of jurisdiction or of being a so-called “check and balance” of the other government entities. A government creation is not really in a position to monitor another government creation. This fallacy is why we are in the mess we are in today – government supervision and regulation of itself!

Within the British Empire, the highest court within a colony was often called the “Supreme Court”.

Most importantly to the Federal government and to any government who uses this structure of legal precedent, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court cannot be challenged once the government appointed Court members decide on what “justice” is. Therefore, once the Supreme Court decides that something is constitutional – like war, capital punishment, crime and punishment, fines, taxes, incarceration, eminent domain, and other government intrusions into the life (safety), liberty, and property of the people of the United States, the people have no recourse for the taking of their life, liberty, and property. In this way, the Judicial branch serves as a “check and balance” that ensures the tyranny of government is never challenged.

This hierarchy of jurisdiction is called stare decisis.

 STARE DECISIS - To abide or adhere to decided cases. 2. It is a general maxim that when a point has been settled by decision, it forms a precedent which is not afterwards to be departed from. The doctrine of stare decisis is not always to be relied upon, for the courts find it necessary to overrule cases which have been hastily decided, or contrary to principle. Many hundreds of such overruled cases may be found in the American and English books of reports. Mr. Greenleaf has made a collection of such cases, to which the reader is referred. Vide 1 Kent, Com. 477; Livingst. Syst. of Pen. Law, 104, 5. (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856)

Supreme Court decisions are deemed to be binding upon lower courts. Importantly, this is to ensure uniformity in the legal functioning of the United States and its corporate structure. This uniformity is further ensured by requiring BAR certification for the “practice” of the now copyrighted public policy that is called “law” in the United States. Civil law jurisdictions, however, are not generally considered to apply, and so supreme court decisions are not necessarily binding. But the decisions of the supreme court are meant to provide a very strong precedent (jurisprudence constante) for both itself and all lower courts.

So what does jurisdiction mean?

JURISDICTION - Practice. A power constitutionally conferred upon a judge or magistrate, to take cognizance of, and decide causes according to law, and to carry his sentence into execution. 6 Pet. 591; 9 John. 239. The tract of land or district within which a judge or magistrate has jurisdiction, is called his territory, and his power in relation to his territory is called his territorial jurisdiction. 2. Every act of jurisdiction exercised by a judge without (outside of) his territory, either by pronouncing sentence or carrying it into execution, is null. An inferior court has no jurisdiction beyond what is expressly delegated. 1 Salk. 404, n.; Gilb. C. P. 188; 1 Saund. 73; 2 Lord Raym. 1311; and see Bac. Ab. Courts, &c., C, et seq; Bac. Ab. Pleas, E 2. 3. Jurisdiction is original, when it is conferred on the court in the first instance, which is called original jurisdiction; (q. v.) or it is appellate, which is when an appeal is given from the judgment of another court. Jurisdiction is also civil, where the subject-matter to be tried is not of a criminal nature; or criminal, where the court is to punish crimes. Some courts and magistrates have both civil and criminal jurisdiction… 4. It is the law which gives jurisdiction; the consent of, parties, cannot, therefore, confer it, in a matter which the law excludes. 1 N. & M. 192; 3 M’Cord, 280; 1 Call. 55; 1 J. S. Marsh. 476; 1 Bibb, 263; Cooke, 27; Minor, 65; 3 Litt. 332; 6 Litt. 303; Kirby, 111; 1 Breese, 32; 2 Yerg. 441; 1 Const. R. 478. But where the court has jurisdiction of the matter, and the defendant has some privilege which exempts him from the jurisdiction, he may waive the privilege. 5 Cranch, 288; 1 Pet. 449; 8 Wheat. 699; 4 W. C. C. R. 84; 4 M’Cord, 79; 4 Mass. 593; Wright, 484. See Hardin, 448; 2 Wash. 213. 5. Courts of inferior jurisdiction must act within their jurisdiction, and so it must appear upon the record. 5 Cranch, 172 Pet. C. C. R. 36; 4 Dall. 11; 2 Mass. 213; 4 Mass. 122; 8 Mass. 86; 11 Mass. 513; Pr. Dec. 380; 2 Verm. 329; 3 Verm. 114; 10 Conn. 514; 4 John. 292; 3 Yerg. 355; Walker, 75; 9 Cowen, 227; 5 Har. & John. 36; 1 Bailey, 459; 2 Bailey, 267. But the legislature may, by a general or special law, provide otherwise. (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856)

JURISPRUDENCE – The science of the law. By science here, is understood that connection of truths which is founded on principles either evident in themselves, or capable of demonstration; a collection of truths of the same kind, arranged in methodical order. In a more confined sense, jurisprudence is the practical science of giving a wise interpretation to the laws, and making a just application of them to all cases as they arise. In this sense, it is the habit of judging the same questions in the same manner, and by this course of judgments forming precedents. 1 Ayl. Pand. 3 Toull. Dr. Civ. Fr. tit. prel. s. 1, n. 1, 12, 99; Merl. Rep. h. t.; 19 Amer. Jurist, 3. (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856)

The original Federal United States Supreme Court was created within the jurisprudence of the “organic” constitution “for” the united states of America via Article 3, as the third lawful “branch” of government – a check and balance for the Executive and Legislative branches. This organic constitution was very specific, and was meant to be the permanent structure of the three branches of government.

“The term “organic” statute originated from the French term Reglement Organique, which means regulations for an organization or governmental body. 

Organic statute is a statute that establishes an administrative agency or local government and defines its authorities and responsibilities.

An organic statute forms the foundation of a government, corporation or other organization’s body of rules. A constitution is a particular from of organic law for a sovereign state.”

(Source: http://definitions.uslegal.com/o/organic-statute/)

And so, for the purposes of the original, as-written constitution of 1786, the description of the constitution as “organic” is best understood as “original”. Once it was amended, it was not organic (original) any more. The foundational organic nature of the constitution is broken with every amendment added, for a foundation is not meant to be altered, just as food is either organic or altered (non-organic/non-original -vs- as natural law [nature] intended).

But as we are all no doubt aware, everything certainly changes…

On march 27, 1861, the dis-satisfied representative congressmen of seven of the “southern” States decided to leave the “union” as was their right as constitutionally established “sovereign” nation States, according to the very constitution that organically (originally) held that union together, in order to form what many scholars claim to be their own new nation of southern states based on the original intent of that same organic constitution for the united states of America. These elected representatives walked out of Congress, never to return. This was indeed abandonment sine die – (without day – when the court or other body rise at the end of a session or term they adjourn “sine die”). At this critical juncture at the end of true American history, Congress ceased to exist as a lawful (organic, constitutional) body, and could no longer lawfully declare war (without all congressmen present in vote). In the end, 11 states in total lawfully left the union via constitutional succession and declared their sovereignty and independence from the United States (Washington D.C.).

With the union now divided and the lawful (constitutional) congress canceled, drastic measures had to be taken by the remaining elite structure of this defunct “government” corporation. And so on April 15th, 1861 (not so coincidentally the now “national tax day”), Abraham Lincoln – who was no longer a lawful or constitutional president and was now acting under military rule without congress – issued the first Executive Order #1, which placed military rule (martial law) over the entirety of the U.S. territories. This soon became known as the “civil war” against the south by the now unlawful government – a government held together in continuity by the first declared state of emergency and the first declared “Executive Order” (#1) by the first unlawful and unconstitutional president, Abraham Lincoln. This was also referred to as the War of Northern Aggression. But the war was, as we will see, a war to force civil law on all the people of the United States.

These General War Executive Orders were, as they still are today, declared without congressional approval or consent by the Executive:

Proclamation Calling Militia
and
Convening Congress

April 15, 1861

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas the laws of the United States have been for some time past, and now are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the Marshals by law,

Now therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, and the laws, have thought fit to call forth, and hereby do call forth, the militia of the several States of the Union, to the aggregate number of seventy-five thousand, in order to suppress said combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. The details, for this object, will be immediately communicated to the State authorities through the War Department.

I appeal to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate and aid this effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of our National Union, and the perpetuity of popular government; and to redress wrongs already long enough endured.

I deem it proper to say that the first service assigned to the forces hereby called forth will probably be to re-possess the forts, places, and property which have been seized from the Union; and in every event, the utmost care will be observed, consistently with the objects aforesaid, to avoid any devastation, any destruction of, or interference with, property, or any disturbance of peaceful citizens in any part of the country.

And I hereby command the persons composing the combinations aforesaid to disperse, and retire peaceably to their respective abodes within twenty days from this date.

Deeming that the present condition of public affairs presents an extraordinary occasion, I do hereby, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, convene both Houses of Congress. Senators and Representatives are therefore summoned to assemble at their respective chambers, at 12 o’clock, noon, on Thursday, the fourth day of July, next, then and there to consider and determine, such measures, as, in their wisdom, the public safety, and interest may seem to demand.

In Witness Whereof I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the city of Washington this fifteenth day of April in the year of our Lord One thousand, Eight hundred and Sixtyone, and of the Independence the United States the Eightyfifth.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN

By the President:

WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.

.

(Author’s note: Take note here that in no way could the Congress of the organic united states of America convene together lawfully, as the southern state representatives were purposefully absent in abandonment of the ever-increasing corrupt and unfair legislature. In this Executive Order, the United States and the Constitution are capitalized and are both not followed by the words “of America. Why demonize England when the United States was worse to its own people?)

.

Executive Order 1
January 22, 1862

The purpose of this war is to attack, pursue, and destroy a rebellious enemy and to deliver the country from danger menaced by traitors. Alacrity, daring, courageous spirit, and patriotic zeal on all occasions and under every circumstance are expected from the Army of the United States. In the prompt and spirited movements and daring battle of Mill Springs the nation will realize its hopes, and the people of the United States will rejoice to honor every soldier and officer who proves his courage by charging with the bayonet and storming intrenchments or in the blaze of the enemy’s fire.

By order of the President:

EDWIN M. STANTON,

Secretary of War.

PRESIDENT’S GENERAL WAR ORDER NO. I.

.

(Author’s note: The lawful people acting within their constitutional and God-given natural rights are now considered “rebellious enemies” and “traitors”. In fact, the president himself was the traitor, defiling the organic constitution and the rights it stood for.)

.

Executive Order – General War Order No. 1
January 27, 1862

Ordered, That the 22d day of February, 1862, be the day for a general movement of the land and naval forces of the United States against the insurgent forces; that especially the army at and about Fortress Monroe. the Army of the Potomac, the Army of Western Virginia, the army near Munfordville, Ky., the army and flotilla at Cairo, and a naval force in the Gulf of Mexico be ready to move on that day.

That all other forces, both land and naval, with their respective commanders, obey existing orders for the time and be ready to obey additional orders when duly given.

That the heads of Departments, and especially the Secretaries of War and of the Navy, with all their subordinates, and the General in Chief, with all other commanders and subordinates of land and naval forces, will severally be held to their strict and full responsibilities for prompt execution of this order.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

.

.

Very importantly, this action by and against the southern States by the United States brought out what are referred to as the “Reconstruction Amendments” (13th, 14th, 15th) and later on the 16th, and 17th Amendments – or what I like to refer to as the legal person-ization and incorporation of the “people” of America from free men into indentured debt slaves, from the years 186o-1871. Or we could call this the corporeal enslavement of the people by turning us into own-able and transferable things (chattels), with the presumed consent of our unsuspecting, purposefully deceived and uneducated, incorporeal souls.

The 13th Amendment didn’t end slavery, it made it legal for government to create them by convicting them of a crime. The people alone, not the government, could no longer own or indenture themselves.

13th Amendment:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, EXCEPT as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 2 is ultimately the important clause here, as we will read later. The legislation created by congress allowing private prisons to use prisoners to work for slave wages is just one example of how the 13th Amendment created legalized slavery and indentured servitude in the “United States” jurisdiction.

–=–

What Is A Constitution?

–=–

Should we romanticize the “constitution” as our cherished law of the land that was derived from divine inspiration without question?

Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856 – the only law dictionary officially incorporated by Congress as part of the United States constitution and officially as part of the Supreme Court – let’s us know what the word “constitution” really stands for:

CONSTITUTIONcontracts. The constitution of a contract, is the making of the contract as, the written constitution of a debt. 1 Bell’s Com. 332, 5th ed.

CONSTITUTOR – civil law. He who promised by a simple pact to pay the debt of another; and this is always a principal obligation. Inst. 4, 6, 9.

(That’s you, by the way… you who are reading this as a citizen – you are the “constitutors” of the “constitution”)

TO CONSTITUTEcontracts. To empower, to authorize. In the common form of letters of attorney, these words occur, “I nominate, constitute and appoint.”

CONSTITUENTHe who gives authority to another to act for him. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 893.

CONSTITUIMUS – A Latin word which signifies we constitute. Whenever the king of England is vested with the right of creating a new office, he must use proper words to do so, for example, erigimus, constituimus, c . Bac. Ab. Offices, &c. E.

CHATTELSproperty. A term which includes all kinds of property, except the freehold or things which are parcel of it. It is a more extensive term than goods or effects. Debtors taken in execution, captives, apprentices, are accounted chattels. Godol. Orph. Leg. part 3, chap. 6, 1.

Of course, Article 6 of the constitution states very clearly that the United States is a debtor nation:

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.”

There was never independence if this country was founded in debt to England and France.

–=–

What Is The United States?

–=–

It is also important to know the Bouvier’s Law Dictionary definition given in 1856 of the “United States”:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA – …5. The United States of America are a corporation endowed with the capacity to sue and be sued, to convey and receive property. 1 Marsh. Dec. 177, 181. But it is proper to observe that no suit can be brought against the United States without authority of law. 6. The states, individually, retain all the powers which they possessed at the formation of the constitution, and which have not been given to congress. (q. v.)

–=–

***Remember this part, which have not been given to congress. As we saw with the 13th Amendment, this clause is oh so important with regards to the “reconstruction” of the United States and its “constitution” as a new organic (original) debt contract during this period of martial law. It will come as a shock just how much we the people have indeed given to congress…

So, the question becomes: What powers did the individual states retain? And which ones were “given to congress”?

For this, we must consider that a State was nothing more than the government incorporation of certain United States territories. Each territory, for the purposes of becoming a State of the Union, had something very sinister in common. This common element was a contract called the “Enabling Acts”, and were a uniform set of contractual agreements that were pre-determined and agreed to by all territories in order to become States (incorporated Federal Districts) of the United States.

Each Territory agreed to being a Federal District, and to having a Federal Governor and a Federal State District Attorney. These enabling legislation covenants were passed before each territory became a state, as a prerequisite for statehood and before the state constitution could be accepted by the United States.

More importantly, we can read in the following State “Enabling Acts” that all territorial unappropriated and non-deeded land was granted to the United States via these contracts of statehood. Once the people were made to became citizens via the 14th Amendment, they lost their independence and became subject to the UNITED STATES jurisdiction.

Most western states have the following types of verbiage. Read carefully…

Colorado Enabling Acts:

§ 4. Constitutional convention – requirements of constitution. That the members of the convention thus elected shall meet at the capital of said territory, on a day to be fixed by said governor, chief justice, and United States attorney, not more than sixty days subsequent to the day of election, which time of meeting shall be contained in the aforesaid proclamation mentioned in the third section of this act, and after organization, shall declare, on behalf of the people of said territory, that they adopt the constitution of the United States; whereupon the said convention shall be and is hereby authorized to form a constitution and state government for said territory; provided, that the constitution shall be republican in form, and make no distinction in civil or political rights on account of race or color, except Indians not taxed, and not be repugnant to the constitution of the United States and the principles of the declaration of independence; and, provided further, that said convention shall provide by an ordinance irrevocable without the consent of the United States and the people of said state; first, that perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and no inhabitant of said state shall ever be molested in person or property, (only) on account of his or her mode of religious worship; secondly, that the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States; and that the lands belonging to citizens of the United States residing without (outside of the jurisdiction of) said state shall never be taxed higher than the lands belonging to residents thereof, and that no taxes shall be imposed by the state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by the United States.

Note the distinction between US citizens that are both within (residents of) and “without” of the declared United States jurisdiction of this new State – meaning those with already appropriated land.

And within the Utah enabling acts for the Utah State constitution, in similar uniform legal language (Commercial CODE), it states:

…Second. That the people inhabiting said proposed State do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof; and to all lands lying within said limits owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes; and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States, and said Indian lands shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the Congress of the United States Third. That the debts and liabilities of said Territory, under authority of the Legislative Assembly thereof, shall be assumed and paid by said State.

Note that the “debts and liabilities” portion of this is a demand that the citizens of the new “State” become “constitutors” of the constitution, which, as with all constitutions, makes this a debt contract. Also note that Indian lands are absolutely in no way independent of the United States Federal corporation.

To put this into perspective: If a state government goes away, the land that the fictional corporation (state government) sat upon is still a territory of the United States. States are not independent either politically or naturally, for a state is not of God. A “State” is a fictional incorporated creation of the United States corporation. Only men can be naturally and completely independent of the United States.

These “Enabling Acts” can be found for most of the non-original States as prerequisites to their State constitutions.

–=–

The Southern States:
A New Organic Constitution Is Created By Conquest

–=–

In August 1866, once the civil war was ended and brothers had killed brothers, president Andrew Johnson moved to restore the former Confederate states back into to the unlawful Union. In March 1867, the First Reconstruction Act placed the South under military occupation within federal military districts. Georgia, Alabama, and Florida for instance, became part of the “Third Military District” under the command of General John Pope. Ex-Confederates (the people) were kept from voting or holding public office under military rule, and were replaced with what were referred to as Freedmen, Carpetbaggers, and Scalawags – the Whigs who originally opposed the succession.

Suddenly, the confederate landowners of these states had lost their land rights, and were now faced with the fact that freedmen had the right of vote. These “freedmen” began to live freely on these lands and plantations against the wishes of these confederate land-owners.

FREEDMEN – The name formerly given by the Romans to those persons who had been released from a State of servitude. Vide Liberti libertini. (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856)

RIGHT – …3. It is that quality in a person by which he can do certain actions, or possess certain things which belong to him by virtue of some title. In this sense, we use it when we say that a man has a right to his estate or a right to defend himself... 2. In this latter sense alone, will this word be here considered. Right is the correlative of duty, for, wherever one has a right due to him, some other must owe him a duty. 1 Toull. n. 96. (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856)

In Georgia, black voters were forcibly registered to vote and now sudenly outnumbered the white voters, which sparked the forming of the KKK and the eventual violence that led to the expelling of the new black senators from the Georgia legislature despite the state constitution’s forbidding of blacks serving in office. From October 29 through November 2, 1867, elections were held for delegates to a new constitutional convention in Atlanta, not in the nations capital, and again did not allow ex-confederates (white land and plantation owners) to participate. Charles Jenkins was the first post-war elected governor, coming to office in January 1868. But he refused to authorize state funds for the state constitutional convention (which would have created a new organic State constitution for Georgia), and this government was yet again unlawfully dissolved by General George Meade and replaced by a military governor under military rule. Georgia was returned to military rule to quell violence after Ulysses S. Grant was “elected” president, being one of only two ex-Confederate states to vote against Grant.

All of this was “unconstitutional”, but only when using that word as it refers to the original organic 1786 constitution, as we will see. The United States is still under military rule, which is the very reason that martial law can still be declared with the stroke of a presidential pen, just as Abraham Lincoln first penned it in 1861. If a state were to attempt to succeed from the “union” today, martial law would be declared and military rule would ensue until the rebellion could be squashed, no different than it was then. And the “civil” law would be forcibly restored. As long as the elected governments cooperate with the United States and its uniform rules and codes, martial law is not declared and military rule is not so obvious – thus the illusion of being a free country is maintained.

In March 1869, the new United States Congress again barred Georgia’s representatives from their seats, causing military rule to resume in December 1869. By January 1870, General Alfred H. Terry as commander of the Third Military District forcibly removed from the legislature all ex-Confederates, replacing them with the Republican runners-up, and reinstated all expelled black legislators. Once again, there was a Republican majority in the legislature friendly to the United States corporation.

And finally, in July of 1870, Georgia was forcibly readmitted to the Union – a military conquest – and the newly elected but unlawful and (organically) unconstitutional General Assembly ratified the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States. A Republican governor named Rufus Bullock was inaugurated. He was from New York, not Georgia.

Section 1 of Amendment 14 states:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And with the unlawful and unconstitutional passing of this amendment, everything changed, and every man became a person and a citizen under presumed consent.

–=–

What Happened To The Original Supreme Court?
–=–

Under military rule, the courts must of course be recreated into military courts.

In 1870, with the reconstruction of the United States well under way and a new organic constitution established through amendment, Congress passed the “Act to Establish the Department of Justice (DOJ)“, setting this replacement up as an executive department of the government of the United States“, officially coming into existence with the signing of the presidential pen on July 1, 1870. The Attorney General of the United States became the appointed Cabinet level political position in charge of this new department.

Just one problem here… this Act to create the Department of Justice had the tiny little side-effect of all but nullifying what was always considered to be the independent third branch of government as a check and balance – the stuff of legend – the “Judicial Branch”. And so the DOJ became for all intents and purposes the new Judicial Branch of government. But this was not the traditional branch of government we all believe it to be… for it was now a branch of the Executive Department of government (of the president), and in modern times now includes:

Leadership offices

Divisions

Federal Law enforcement agencies

Offices

Other offices and programs

–=–

The BAR Is The Court

–=–

This Executive Department is headed by the appointed Attorney General of the United States – whom is required to be a BAR Association member. The “legal” system in this country has been contracted over to this 100% private association called the American Bar Association (ABA), a representative union and advocacy club for attorneys, which all but monopolizes the entirety of the administration of the law and the legal profession with the help of federal and state laws requiring this trust. Jurisprudence, the science and administration of law, has been fundamentally usurped by this private association. In fact, the Supreme Court wont even hear a case unless it is from a BAR accredited attorney or one who has been approved by another BAR member. In short, the BAR decides what cases will be heard by the Supreme Court, and the court denies cases that aren’t approved by the ABA.

The under-appreciated significance of the BAR Association in the selection of Supreme Court Justices needs to be mentioned here. Of course, the American Bar Association was formed just after the reconstruction process of the United States, in 1878. Since the 1950′s, the ABA has participated in the federal judicial nomination process by vetting nominees and giving them a rating ranging from “not qualified” to “well qualified.” In 2005, the ABA gave John Roberts, George W. Bush’s nomination for Chief Justice of the United States, a unanimous “well-qualified” rating. In 2006, the ABA gave a unanimous “well-qualified” rating to Judge Samuel Alito, Bush’s appointee for Sandra Day O’Connor’s Associate Justice position.

It is also quite important to note that this private association takes an official, purposefully biased stance on certain issues, making the ABA a politically oriented association of more than significant power. For instance, it has an official stance on abortion – the BAR is pro-abortion. The ABA requires collegial programs to offer “Affirmative Action” in their courses which would lead to an ABA accreditation. And it has an official stance on gun control…

From it’s website called the “Standing (ABA) Committee On Gun Violence”:

Assault Weapons
The ABA supports permanent reauthorization of the 1994 enacted ban on assault weapons.

Gun Industry Tort Immunity Legislation
The ABA believes that the gun industry should be held accountable under state civil liability laws, like other industries, businesses, and individuals.

Lawyer’s Role in Addressing Gun Violence
The ABA believes that lawyers share a special responsibility to help create a just and secure society in which firearms are well-regulated.

Regulation of Firearms as Consumer Products
The ABA supports enactment of legislation to provide authority to the Treasury Department to regulate firearms as consumer products, to set minimum mandatory safety standards, to issue recalls of defective products and prohibit sales of firearms failing to meet minimum safety standards, and to disseminate safety information to the public.

(Source –> http://www.americanbar.org/groups/committees/gun_violence.html)

–=–

Again, the significance of having such official political views by such an organization is problematic at the least. This means that in a gun control case, where all attorneys and the judge who sits on the case making the final decision, they will all have the pressure of the official stance of the organization they are forced to be members of when making decisions on such national issues, and in taking away basic “constitutional” and/or natural rights.

Can a gun-owner get a “fair trial” if his defending attorney, the prosecuting attorney, and his presiding judge are all three members of the ABA?

Also notice that the executive office of all U.S. Attorneys, including U.S. State Attorney Generals and Legal Councils are within the DOJ, as well as all things related to law enforcement. Also, another top DOJ official is the Solicitor General, who just happens to represent the federal government in cases heard before the US Supreme Court, and would be doing so against another BAR attorney as the prosecutor.

What is the only thing in the entire court/legal system that is seemingly missing from this list? The Supreme Court itself. So let’s examine this body of supposedly independent justices…

The members (justices) of the supreme court are attorneys… BAR’d attorneys, to be exact. This alone is disturbing to anyone who knows the history of the BAR (British Accreditation Registry). But what is more problematic is the very structure of that court and how these “justices” are appointed to their positions of power – the power to declare legislative and Executive public opinion (positive law) as either constitutional or unconstitutional with the self-proclaimed authority of what it claims to be constitutional “judicial review”.

The inherent problem with this structure? The Executive Branch appoints the Supreme Court Justices with the approval of the Legislative Branch.

Hmmm… who else is part of the Executive branch of government? Oh yeah… President Obama. In fact he’s the head of the entire Executive Branch, which also makes him the true head of the Department of Justice. For while the president has the privilege of appointing non-elected officials to be the “secretaries” or heads of these individual departments like the DOJ with the delegated authority of the Executive, the president is ultimately responsible for everything that happens within the Executive Branch. After all, he is the only person that was  actually “elected” in the whole Executive Branch!

To put this into easily understood terms, the whole Supreme Court is appointed by the office of the president of the United States, who just so happens to also be a BAR attorney this time around. Can you have a separation of powers if the Executive is a member of the judicial BAR? About 56 senators and 36% of congress are also BAR attorneys. The BAR Attorney General was appointed by the BAR president of the United States. The BAR Solicitor General was also appointed by the BAR President of the United States.

You see the problem here?

To call this a conflict of interest is laughable in its underwhelming description of the “judicial” governance as a “check-and-balance” system for this government. And for anyone who is reading this that still entertains the ridiculous notion that there is still any form of “separation of powers” in these “branches” of government – you need your head examined… or you just need to read the following case.

–=–

The Strange But Legal Case Against Eric Holder

–=–

Imagine if an old-time mafia-boss appointed the governor, the chief of police, the mayors, the judges, and the prosecuting attorney of his turf (city/state) where he and his appointed mafia gang members commit daily their organized crime. Well… you don’t have to imagine, because that is exactly what happens every time the president makes his cabinet and judicial appointments. Only instead of turf, they call it his jurisdiction.

As if to help clarify this scenario, a news story just recently broke for your reading pleasure. If nothing else, this article from “The Associated Press” should clear up any misconceptions about the Supreme or any other federal Court (and they’re all federal) with regards to their perceived independence and bias from the legislature and the Executive. My notes are in (Red):

–=–

Justice won’t prosecute Holder for contempt
No grand jury » The department says the A.G.’s decisions don’t constitute a crime.

By LARRY MARGASAK and PETE YOST

| The Associated Press

First Published Jun 29 2012 01:40 pm • Last Updated Jun 29 2012 11:18 pm

Washington • The Justice Department declared Friday that Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to withhold information about a bungled gun-tracking operation from Congress does not constitute a crime and he won’t be prosecuted for contempt of Congress. (Note that this declaration was not made from inside of a courtroom or made by a jury of his peers, and therefore it will never be heard inside of a court room, nor, more importantly, by the people in a grand jury. Here we see that by the act of denying Congress access to the Judicial (DOJ), the Executive has no check or balance. Congress itself cannot prosecute – it must move the case into “judicial review” utilizing the DOJ!)

The House voted Thursday afternoon to find Holder in criminal and civil contempt for refusing to turn over the documents. President Barack Obama invoked his executive privilege authority and ordered Holder not to turn over materials about executive branch deliberations and internal recommendations. (In case you missed that, the president’s appointment was just following the presidents orders. So really, Obama should be on trial for gunrunning, not his minion. Executive privilege is code for the fact that there are no checks and balances but those consented to by the Executive. Executive privilege is what a dictator has who is above his own laws.)

In a letter to House Speaker John Boehner, the department (DOJ) said that it will not bring the congressional contempt citation against Holder to a federal grand jury and that it will take no other action to prosecute the attorney general. Dated Thursday, the letter was released Friday. (Note that this decision leaves no one left to prosecute. The Executive Branch has just side-stepped the entire criminal justice system… Of course, that’s because the executive literally IS the entire criminal justice system (DOJ). Get it? Would you prosecute yourself if you had the choice [executive privilege] not to? Think about it… Would a king punish himself in his own “court“?)

Deputy Attorney General James Cole said the decision is in line with long-standing Justice Department practice across administrations of both political parties. (That’s the deputy attorney, who’s employed by the Attorney General and the DOJ, by the way!)

“We will not prosecute an executive branch official under the contempt of Congress statute for withholding subpoenaed documents pursuant to a presidential assertion of executive privilege,” Cole wrote. (Translation: The Executive Branch will not prosecute the Executive Branch!!! We WILL NOT prosecute an executive branch official because we are not a constitutional government, we are a corporation with a charter that we happen to call a constitution. There is no judicial branch of government any more as a check and balance, since all law and justice functions were transferred to the DOJ. And if there was (is), we would never allow it to reach the Judicial Branch in a criminal case because we have the power and privilege to stop it. I mean… we aren’t going to prosecute ourselves, sillies!)

In its letter, the department (DOJ) relied in large part on a Justice Department legal opinion crafted during Republican Ronald Reagan’s presidency. (Did you catch that? The Justice Department relied on a Justice Department legal opinion!!! Double-speak doesn’t just happen in “1984″, and war certainly is peace!)

Although the House voted Thursday to find Holder in criminal and civil contempt, Republicans probably are still a long way from obtaining documents they want for their inquiry into Operation Fast and Furious, a flawed gun-tracking investigation focused on Phoenix-area gun shops by Justice’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. (So Congress is trying to obtain documents about the Justice Department from the accused head of the Justice Department about a Justice Department agency he was in charge of [the ATF]. Ah-ah-ah Congress… Executive Privilege…)

The criminal path is now closed and the civil route through the courts would not be resolved anytime soon.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., is leading the effort to get the material related to Operation Fast and Furious.

This is pure politics,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said.

(Note that the word politics is defined by Bouvier’s Law Dictionary as -

POLITICALPertaining to policy, or the administration of the government. Political rights are those which may be exercised in the formation or administration of the government they are distinguished from civil, rights, which are the rights which a man enjoys, as regards other individuals, and not in relation to the government. A political corporation is one which has principally for its object the administration of the government, or to which the powers of government, or a part of such powers, have been delegated. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 182, 197, 198. –

(In other words, Congress has no political rights when it comes to the DOJ. The DOJ is politically independant of Congress.)

–END A.P. ARTICLE–

(Source –> http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/54404909-68/contempt-department-holder-documents.html.csp)

–=–

Now let’s think about this for a moment… Eric Holder is the appointed head of the Executive Justice Department. Obama is the man who appointed him to that Executive office (with an honorable mention to the senate [THE CONGRESS] who approved him). The prosecuting attorney would also be from that Executive office. The Federal court in which that case would be heard would also be part of the Executive DOJ. The defending attorney representing the DOJ head Attorney General in that case would also be assigned by the Executive Department of Justice.

So how could the people possibly have justice against the President’s appointment or against the President himself, when the entire Justice System is completely under the President’s Executive control? How indeed… the only way would be to assemble a people’s grand jury so that the people could decide! But the executive branch that committed the crime (through the protection of the privilege and immunity of the president himself), as well as the ABA, has the power to halt a people’s jury from ever assembling in the Supreme Court to hear the case in the first place!!!

Yeah… it’s a free country! (Que penchant, disturbing laugh again.)

So, what else would you expect from a Supreme Court that was appointed by the president (whose name is publicly attached and associated to the health care bill) – a bill that congress (the house and senate – mostly BAR attorneys) passed through legislation?

Did you actually think that the presidential appointed “Justices” would decide that this bill was “unconstitutional”?

Do you still actually think that these “Branches” of government are in competition with one another?

Corporately and profitably speaking, the “Affordable Health Care For America Act” (A.K.A Obama-care) is very constitutional!!! After all, it contractually forces Americans to be “constitutors” to the insurance companies without forcing the insurance companies to cover all medical conditions… which in the totality of it all are majorly held companies of government through its pension fund and other investment funds. What more could a corporation want out of its constitution as a corporate charter?

–=–

A Shout Out To The Ladies

–=–

There are some very important legal words that we must define here before we can go on, and trust me when I say they definitely apply to you, the reader…

PEOPLEA state; as, the people of the state of New York; a nation in its collective and political capacity. 4 T. R. 783. See 6 Pet. S. C. Rep. 467. 2. The word people occurs in a policy of insurance. The insurer insures against “detainments of all kings, princes and people.” He is not by this understood to insure against any promiscuous or lawless rabble which may be guilty of attacking or detaining a ship. 2 Marsh. Ins. 508. – Vide Body litic; Nation. (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856)

STATE – government. This word is used in various senses. In its most enlarged sense, it signifies a self-sufficient body of persons united together in one community for the defence of their rights, and to do right and justice to foreigners. In this sense, the state means the whole people united into one body politic; (q. v.) and the state, and the people of the state, are equivalent expressions. 1 Pet. Cond. Rep. 37 to 39; 3 Dall. 93; 2 Dall. 425; 2 Wilson’s Lect. 120; Dane’s Appx. §50, p. 63 1 Story, Const. §361. In a more limited sense, the word `state’ expresses merely the positive or actual organization of the legislative, or judicial powers; thus the actual government of the state is designated by the name of the state; hence the expression, the state has passed such a law, or prohibited such an act. State also means the section of territory occupied by a state, as the state of Pennsylvania.

(Author’s note: This means that The “State” of Pennsylvania or any other one of the 50 states in the union is the incorporated body politic governing a territory of (owned by) the United States. The United States is the D.C. corporation that owns the territory for which the individual 50 states (governments) are incorporated within- they are each United States sub-corporations, allowed to exist by the United States corporation. The land is still the claimed constitutional territory of the United States, despite the 50 State corporations residing on it.)

It is important to note that the use in modern day language of this word people is not the legal term that was used for the constitution. Remember, Bouvier’s Law Dictionary was cherished for being the definitive legal dictionary in regards to the language at the signing of and within the constitution. The only “people” who actually signed the constitution were the founding fathers, and they signed merely as legal witnesses for the individual “States”. You are only people (of the State, the Nation) if you as an individual man consent to it through contract with the State (United States) as a person.

Also of equal importance… if you are a woman reading this text you have probably noticed that I keep using the word man and never the word woman. As this is in fact a presentation on legal terminology, I wish to let you know that this has been a purposeful effort on my part. Why? Because you, as a woman, are actually a man – at least in the law society – unless you legally claim to be a woman.

Let’s see what it means to claim yourself to be a registered woman citizen.

First, we must define the root of that word, which is “man”, again from Bouvier’s Law, 1856:

MAN -  A human being. This definition includes not only the adult male sex of the human species, but women and children; examples: “of offenses against man, some are more immediately against the king, other’s more immediately against the subject.” Hawk. P. C. book 1, c. 2, s. 1. Offenses against the life of man come under the general name of homicide, which in our law signifies the killing of a man by a man.” Id. book 1, c. 8, s. 2. – 2. In a more confined sense, man means a person of the male sex; and sometimes it signifies a male of the human species above the age of puberty. Vide Rape. It was considered in the civil or Roman law, that although man and person are synonymous in grammar, they had a different acceptation in law; all persons were men, but all men, for example, slaves, were not persons, but things. Vide Barr. on the Stat. 216, note.

MANKIND. Persons of the male sex; but in a more general sense, it includes persons of both sexes; for example, the statute of 25 Hen. VIII., c. 6, makes it felony to commit, sodomy with mankind or beast. Females as well as males are included under the term mankind. Fortesc. 91; Bac. Ab. Sodomy. See Gender.

WOMEN - persons. In its most enlarged sense, this word signifies all the females of the human species; but in a more restricted sense, it means all such females who have arrived at the age of puberty. Mulieris appellatione etiam virgo viri potens continetur. Dig. 50, 16, 13. – 2. Women are either single or married. 1. Single or unmarried women have all the civil rights of men; they may therefore enter into contracts or engagements; sue and be sued; be trustees or guardians, they may be witnesses, and may for that purpose attest all papers; but they are generally, not possessed of any political power; hence they cannot be elected representatives of the people, nor be appointed to the offices of judge, attorney at law, sheriff, constable, or any other office, unless expressly authorized by law; instances occur of their being appointed post-mistresses nor can they vote at any election. Wooddes. Lect. 31; 4 Inst. 5; but see Callis, Sew. 252; 2 Inst 34; 4 Inst. 311, marg. – 3. The existence of a married woman being merged, by a fiction of law, in the being of her husband, she is rendered incapable, during the coverture, of entering into any contract, or of suing or being sued, except she be joined with her husband; and she labors under all the incapacities above mentioned, to which single women are subject. Vide Abortion; Contract; Divorce; Feminine; Foetus; Gender; Incapacity; Man; Marriage; Masculine; Mother; Necessaries; Parties to Actions Parties to Contracts; Pregnancy; Wife.

Note that man is a human being, and woman is a person.

So you see, being a female of the species human is not only wonderful but necessary for life itself to continue… But being a wo-man is not. Your rights as a woman (person) are civil, meaning they are prescribed and bestowed upon you as a citizen, or person. Ironically, with the advent of woman’s “rights”, this distinction in legal sexual identification erases a mans natural rights and turns her into a woman – which by default is and always has been beneath a male human man unless the civil legal code states otherwise – which it does. This may be difficult to understand, and even more difficult to utilize, but a woman can only be free from the United States as chattel by publicly shedding herself of her womanhood (her corporate person-hood). You, as a female, do not have the right to vote. But by accepting person-hood, you are granted the privilege to vote as a “civil right“, placing you on equal footing through legislation as a male.

Perhaps this will help in your cognition…

A horse can be male or female, and is still called a horse. It is not called a wo-horse. The same goes for pigs, sheep, dogs, cats, lizards, spiders, and every living sentient being on earth. Only in the corrupt minds of men could such a legal distinction of such binding and degrading class structure be brought to bear upon one half of the species of man! (And by the minds of man/men I mean the ladies too! Just look at that woman in Congress Nancy Pelosi! Yuck!!!)

–=–

The Incivility Of Civil Rights

–=–

While we are on the subject of the legal term “civil”, let’s briefly touch on the horrific hoax of what are called “civil rights”.

Knowing that a “right” is always nothing more than a permitted-by-government legal privilege, such privileges as the right to vote are considered “civil rights“.

The claim of civil rights made without legal standing (outside of government and the civil courts) places civility into the natural realm of man. But in legal language, a civil right is a right that can be taken away. A civil liberty is a liberty that can be taken away. And a civil court is a court that can take civil rights and property away.

Of course, we must specifically define this word in its legal context:

CIVIL. This word has various significations. 1. It is used in contradistinction to barbarous or savage, to indicate a state of society reduced to order and regular government; thus we speak of civil life, civil society, civil government, and civil liberty. 2. It is sometimes used in contradistinction to criminal, to indicate the private rights and remedies of men, as members of the community, in contrast to those which are public and relate to the government; thus we speak of civil process and criminal process, civil jurisdiction and criminal jurisdiction.

CIVIL LAW. The municipal code of the Romans is so called. It is a rule of action, adopted by mankind in a state of society. It denotes also the municipal law of the land. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 11. See Law, civil.

CIVIL OBLIGATIONCivil law. One which binds in law, vinculum juris, and which may be enforced in a court of justice. Poth. Obl. 173, and 191. See Obligation.

Trust me when I say that the last thing that a man should wish upon him or her self is to have the government decide what is civil. A jury of peers, maybe. Civil rights, as used in the legal context within the jurisdiction of the United States for women, blacks (freedmen) and whites as equal persons, is the vehicle for which your natural or “private” rights as a man are transferred via citizen contract as a person into “public” legal (civil) rights dictated by government.

The perfect example of what civil rights did to natural rights is this beauty in the U.S. CODE, TITLE 42 – entitled: “THE PUBLIC WELFARE”

TITLE 42 > Chapter 21 > Subchapter 1 > § 1981

(a) Statement of equal rights

“All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States (FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INCORPORATED) shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.”

With citizenship and its forced privilege (right) of civil rights comes not the loss of freedom, for freedom is specifically defined as obeying the law… but instead, a civil right as defined under government code (public policy) takes away the choice of civility and creates a statutory mandate that binds one to mandated statutory civility. And the civil “right” to be punished, put in pain, incur penalties, be taxed, be required to obtain and pay for a license as permission to have freedom to do some thing or act, and to be exacted (extorted) from becomes what the government calls an “equal right“.

So congratulations on being a woman (person) or a black freedman citizen (person) of equal privilege to white citizens (persons), for you are equally enslaved as chattel as the rest of us!

Just what did you really think affirmative action was put into place for? To give you natural civil rights!

Ha, ha ha ha ha…

It made us all equally indebted and extorted, man.

–=–

What Are The Duties Of The Attorney General?

–=–

Now, I’d like to share with you what the government website of the Attorney General of Illinois has to say about this very question.

You can click on the following (.gov) link to verify that this information came from that source (emphasis mine):

(Source–> http://www.illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/about/history.html) (This info is about 2/3 the way down that .gov page)

–=–

–Begin Excerpt–

—————————————————————————

“History of the Office of the Illinois Attorney General”

—————————————————————————

“The effect of the establishment of the Office of Attorney General under the 1870 Constitution, not fully recognized for several decades, was the creation of an office with broad powers to represent and safeguard the interests of the People of this State. The Attorney General has been determined, in decisions of the supreme court, to have not just those duties and powers that might be specifically prescribed in statutory enactments, but to have all those duties that appertain to the Office of Attorney General as it was known at common law. The phrase “prescribed by law” was rejected as a limitation on the Attorney General’s powers to those specified by statute. The supreme court stated in Fergus v. Russel (1915), 270 Ill. 304, discussed below, that “[t]he common law is as much a part of the law of this State as the statutes and is included in the meaning of this phrase.” (See, 5 ILCS 50/1.)

(Author’s note: Statutes are not law without the people’s consent. There is no law in the United States Inc, only statute, public policy, and CODE. Prescribed by law is not the same as prescribed by statute, and so this phrase needed editing. Law only happens outside of the United States’ jurisdiction.)

History continued…

In considering the powers of the Attorney General, the supreme court, in Fergus v. Russel, noted:

* * * Under our form of government all of the prerogatives which pertain to the crown in England under the common law are here vested in the people, and if the Attorney General is vested by the constitution with all the common law powers of that officer and it devolves upon him to perform all the common law duties which were imposed upon that officer, then he becomes the law officer of the people, as represented in the State government, and its only legal representative in the courts, unless by the constitution itself or by some constitutional statute he has been divested of some of these powers and duties.”

(Fergus, at 337.)

The court went on to state:

* * * By our Constitution we created this office by the common law designation of Attorney General and thus impressed it with all its common law powers and duties. As the Office of the Attorney General is the only office at common law [exercising legal functions] which is thus created by our Constitution, the Attorney General is the chief law officer of the State, and the only officer empowered to represent the people in any suit or proceeding in which the State is the real party in interest.”

(Fergus, at 342.)

The court noted that it is the Attorney General’s duty “to conduct the law business of the State, both in and out of the courts.” (Fergus, at 342.)

With these pronouncements, the court in Fergus clearly established the Office of Attorney General as one with expansive powers which the General Assembly lacked the power to diminish. While it has frequently been argued that much of the language in Fergus broadly describing the Attorney General’s role is obiter dicta, it is clear that Fergus stands for “the principle that the Attorney General is the sole officer who may conduct litigation in which the People of the State are the real party in interest.” People ex rel. Scott v. Briceland (1976), 65 Ill. 2d 485, 495. Under Fergus and its progeny, any attempt to authorize any other officer to conduct litigation in which the State is the real party in interest would be an impermissible interference with the Attorney General’s constitutional powers and an appropriation to another agency to be used directly for such purposes would be unconstitutional and void.

The powers generally understood to belong to the Attorney General at common law have been summarized as follows:

* * * 1st. To prosecute all actions, necessary for the protection and defense of the property and revenues of the crown.

2d. By information, to bring certain classes of persons accused of crimes and misdemeanors to trial.

[3rd.] By scire facias, to revoke and annul grants made by the crown improperly, or when forfeited by the grantee thereof.

4th. By information, to recover money or other chattels, or damages for wrongs committed on the land, or other possessions of the crown.

5th. By writ of quo warranto, to determine the right of him who claims or usurps any office, franchise or liberty, and to vacate the charter, or annul the existence of a corporation, for violations of its charter, or for omitting to exercise its corporate powers.

6th. By writ of mandamus, to compel the admission of an officer duly chosen to his office, and to compel his restoration when illegally ousted.

7th. By information in chancery, to enforce trusts, and to prevent public nuisances, and the abuse of trust powers.

8th. By proceedings in rem, to recover property to which the crown may be entitled, by forfeiture for treason, and property, for which there is no other legal owner, such as wrecks, treasure trove, &c. (3 Black. Com., 256-7, 260 to 266; id., 427 and 428; 4 id., 308, 312.)

9th. And in certain cases, by information in chancery, for the protection of the rights of lunatics, and others, who are under the protection of the crown. (Mitford’s Pl., 24-30, Adams’ Equity, 301-2.)

* * * “

1919-20 Ill. Att’y Gen. Op. 618, 629-30, quoting from People v. Miner, 3 Lansing (NY) 396 (1868).

–End Excerpt–

Please go to this link for this government site and copy or digitize it, before this little treasure gets taken down.

–=–

The “Crown” Defined

–=–

For the purposes of understanding what the word “crown” means in the above referenced U.S. court case by the Illinois Attorney, here are a few legal definitions that may help, dated from both modern and 1800′s period dictionary perspectives. See if you can put the puzzle pieces together via these legal definitions…

–=–

COURTn. 3. A palace; the place of residence of a king or sovereign prince. 5. Persons who compose the retinue or council of a king or emperor. 9. The tabernacle had one court; the temple, three. –Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.

COURTn. 2 the place where a king or queen lives or meets others. –The Newbury House Dictionary ©1999.

ESQUIRE - n. [L. scutum, a shield; Gr. a hide, of which shields were anciently made.], a shield-bearer or armor-bearer, scutifer; an attendant on a knight. Hence in modern times, a title of dignity next in degree below a knight. In England, this title is given to the younger sons of noblemen, to officers of the king’s courts and of the household, to counselors at law, justices of the peace, while in commission, sheriffs, and other gentlemen. In the United States, the title is given to public officers of all degrees, from governors down to justices and attorneys. –Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.

CROWN – n. 4. Imperial or regal power or dominion; sovereignty. There is a power behind the crown greater than the crown itself. Junius. 19. A coin stamped with the image of a crown; hence, a denomination of money; as, the English crown. — Crown land, land belonging to the crown, that is, to the sovereign. — Crown law, the law which governs criminal prosecutions. — Crown lawyer, one employed by the crown, as in criminal cases. v.t. 1. To cover, decorate, or invest with a crown; hence, to invest with royal dignity and power. –1913 Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary.

COLONY - n. 1. A company [i.e. legal corporation] or body of people transplanted from their mother country to a remote province or country to cultivate and inhabit it, and remaining subject to the jurisdiction of the parent state; as the British colonies in America or the Indies; the Spanish colonies in South America. --Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.

LAWFUL - In accordance with the law of the land; according to the law; permitted, sanctioned, or justified by law. “Lawful” properly implies a thing conformable to or enjoined by law; “Legal”, a thing in the form or after the manner of law or binding by law. A writ or warrant issuing from any court, under color of law, is a “legal” process however defective. –A Dictionary of Law 1893.

LEGAL - Latin legalis. Pertaining to the understanding, the exposition, the administration, the science and the practice of law: as, the legal profession, legal advice; legal blanks, newspaper. Implied or imputed in law. Opposed to actual (law). “Legal” looks more to the letter, and “Lawful” to the spirit, of the law. “Legal” is more appropriate for conformity to positive rules of law; “Lawful” for accord with ethical principle. “Legal” imports rather that the forms of law are observed, that the proceeding is correct in method, that rules prescribed have been obeyed; “Lawful” that the right is actful in substance, that moral quality is secured. “Legal” is the antithesis of “equitable”, and the equivalent of “constructive”. –2 Abbott’s Law Dict. 24; A Dictionary of Law (1893).

RULE - n. [L. regula, from rego, to govern, that is, to stretch, strain or make straight.] 1. Government; sway; empire; control; supreme command or authority. 6. In monasteries, corporations or societies, a law or regulation to be observed by the society and its particular members. –Webster’s 1828 Dictionary

RULEn. 1 [C] a statement about what must or should be done, (syn.) a regulation.

ATTORN (root of “attorney”) - [e-tern] Anglo-French aturner to transfer (allegiance of a tenant to another lord), from Old French atorner to turn (to), arrange, from a- to + torner to turn: to agree to be the tenant of a new landlord or owner of the same property. –Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law ©1996.

ATTORN – v.i. [L. ad and torno.] In the feudal law, to turn, or transfer homage and service from one lord to another. This is the act of feudatories, vassels or tenants, upon the alienation of the estate. –Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.

ESTATE - n. [L. status, from sto, to stand. The roots stb, std and stg, have nearly the same signification, to set, to fix. It is probable that the L. sto is contracted from stad, as it forms steti.] 1. In a general sense, fixedness; a fixed condition; 5. Fortune; possessions; property in general. 6. The general business or interest of government; hence, a political body; a commonwealth; a republic. But in this sense, we now use State.

ESTATE - v.t. To settle as a fortune. 1. To establish. --Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.

STATEn. [L., to stand, to be fixed.] 1. Condition; the circumstances of a being or thing at any given time. These circumstances may be internal, constitutional or peculiar to the being, or they may have relation to other beings. 4. Estate; possession. [See Estate.] Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.

FREEDOM - Liberty; the right to do what is not forbidden by law. Freedom does not preclude the idea of subjection to law; indeed, it presupposes the existence of some legislative provision, the observance of which insures freedom to us, by securing the like observance from others. 2 Har. Cond. L. R. 208. –Bouvier’s Law Dictionary Revised Sixth Edition, 1856.

FREEMAN - One who is in the enjoyment of the right to do whatever he pleases, not forbidden by law. One in the possession of the civil rights (privilages) enjoyed by, the people generally. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 164. See 6 Watts, 556 --Bouvier’s Law Dictionary Revised Sixth Edition, 1856.

–=–

An Oath To Uphold The Corporate Charter?

–=–

Each applicant to the Supreme Court must take the following oath as a BAR attorney or approved litigator:

Each applicant shall sign the following oath or affirmation:

I, ……………, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that as an attorney and as a counselor of this Court, I will conduct myself uprightly and according to law, and that I will support the Constitution of the United States.

Yes… that’s the Constitution of the United States (not the United States “of America”).

Note here that the Constitution of the United States is the Corporate Charter for the United States Corporation. This charter, as is the case with all corporations, is re-read into the public record every 20 years – and most people think the “government” is just being patriotic. Note that the word “public” has a very different meaning than what is commonly used in our everyday communicative language. In legalese, the clandestine language of the law society, Public refers to “public policy”. The government, from congress to the Supreme Court decides not on what the law shall be, but instead it sets “public policy”. This statutory law is 100% based on the presumed consent of the governed, and that presumption is all but granted the second we are born into subjugation of the United States. There is no true natural law left in America with regards to what we mistakenly call “government”. In its place, we have public policy. This is 100% contract law. All interactions with this U.S. corporation by men are in contract form as persons – from the signing of a license to drive or to marry to the filing of taxes to being placed in prison. Every single act by the people (persons) as “residents” of Washington D.C. (the City of Columbia) is done so voluntarily. When the people “resister” to vote, they are turning their backs on natural law and on the organic constitution and are instead contracting to the United States (the corporation 10 miles square) as 14th Amendment persons per the 15th Amendment of the private corporate charter that happens to be called a constitution. And in doing so, the people are accepting the contractual offer of government to be considered “persons”, giving up their God-given natural rights to vote in exchange for the privilege (contract) to vote in Washington D.C (where all people within the jurisdiction of the United States [D.C.] corporation “reside” as “residents” – as contracted corporate “persons”).

In fact, the first question on the voting form is, “Are you a United States citizen?”

RESIDENTpersons. A person coming into a place with intention to establish his domicil or permanent residence, and who in consequence actually remains there. Time is not so essential as the intent, executed by making or beginning an actual establishment, though it be abandoned in a longer, or shorter period. See 6 Hall’s Law Journ. 68; 3 Hagg. Eccl. R. 373; 20 John. 211 2 Pet. Ad. R. 450; 2 Scamm. R. 377. (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856)

–=–

Who Really Elects The President Of The United States?

–=–

Hilariously, our consent to this 15th Amendment and to voter registration means that 100 million “public voters” all cast their votes solely in the District of Columbia, not in the state they live – which in the electoral college, D.C. only represents 3 electoral votes out of 538.

17th Amendment:

“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.”

The Electoral College consists of these electors, who formally elect the President and Vice President of the United States (this is not the original united states of America, but the United States corporation). Since 1964, there have been 538 electors in each presidential election, as held in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution.

The Electoral College is an indirect election. This means that all registered Untied States “citizens” do not elect their president! Instead, the people elect congressmen, who along with their chosen political party, delegate the power of “elector” to others and thus the president (Chief Executive Officer ) is elected through the electoral college. This is how all major corporations work – the board of directors (congress) elect the CEO (president) of the corporation (United States).

So what happens to the millions upon millions of registered votes from the citizens (registered U.S. “persons”) of the United States?

It’s simple, really… The peoples votes are at best counted and the results may be similar to the 3 electoral college votes of the District of Columbia that are made by the electors (as public opinion) – the corporation that all voters are contractually “registered” to vote in and claim consensual residence in!

Through the electoral college, the constitutional “electors” of each state then vote for who the president and vice president of the corporation will be, each state having a different number of electoral votes based on population.

And the electoral college overrules the popular vote!!!

In other words, for all of the hoopla, pomp and circumstance, and billions and billions of dollars that surround the public vote for the presidential elections every four years, the whole thing is completely for show to fool the people into thinking they are electing the president! Because the popular (persons) vote doesn’t really count for anything…

The bible says that, “My people perish from a lack of knowledge.–Hosea 4: 6 (KJV).

In the case of legal persons, this could not be a more true statement. Men perish and virtually cease to exist because of their lack of knowledge of legalese and because of their own contractual corporate person-hood.

The voters of each state and the District of Columbia, through the political party system, vote for electors to be their authorized constitutional participants (electors) in a presidential election without most voters even knowing this is happening. Electors are free to vote for anyone eligible to be President, but in practice pledge to vote for specific candidates according to their political party, and political parties (not the people) cast ballots for favored presidential and vice presidential candidates by voting for correspondingly pledged electors within the party. Keep in mind that the Democratic and Republican parties, just like the BAR, are 100% private associations that do not represent the people in any way, though that is not what their media ads tell the people (voters) who support them.

What is the legal definition of “elector” from Bouvier’s law dictionary, 1856?

ELECTOR - government. One who has the right to make choice of public officers one, who has a right to vote. – 2. The qualifications of electors are generally the same as those required in the person to be elected; to this, however, there is one exception; a naturalized citizen may be an elector of president of the United States, although he could not constitutionally be elected to that office.

ELECTORS OF PRESIDENT. Persons elected by the people, whose sole duty is to elect a president and vice-president of the U. S. – 2. The Constitution provides, Am. art. 12, that “the electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for president and vice-president, one of whom at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as president, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as vice-president; and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as president, and of all persons voted for as vice-president, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit, sealed, to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the president of the senate; the president of the senate shall, in the presence of the senate and the 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 the 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. And if the house of representatives shall not choose a president whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the vice-president shall act as president, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the president. – 3. “The person having the greatest number of votes as vice-president shall be vice-president, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed and if no person have a majority, them from the two highest numbers on the list, the senate shall choose the vice-president; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of president, shall be eligible to that of vice-president of the United States.” Vide 3 Story, Const. §1448 to 1470.

–End–

–=–

Who In The Hell Are The Actual “Electors”
Of The President Of This United States?

–=–

I’ll tell you one thing, it ain’t the people!

What we have here in America is what is called “Legislative Democracy”. Authority is delegated by the people to their congressmen, and in turn they make all decisions for the people, and the people never actually vote on any legislation, and therefore never actually vote on the laws that bind them. If that’s not slavery by legislative democracy, I don’t know what is!

This privilege of the electoral college election of the president of the United States is delegated each year by your congressmen (538 house and senate members of each state, who each have one vote per the constitution) and by the political parties themselves – delegated to other citizens of their perspective states called “electors”.

The Twelfth Amendment provides for each “elector” to cast one vote for President and one separate vote for Vice President. It also specifies how a President and Vice President are elected. In practice the pres and vice-pres are always of the same party. But in reality, they are elected separately, and so the United States could technically have a mixed party ticket. But the public would get really confused at this, and so the electors will never vote in that way so as to retain the quite open secret of their elite college.

12th Amendment:

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate (the vice president).

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

To get the full skinny from the Congressional Research Center, read this: http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/36762.pdf

–=–

Nowhere here does it mention you, me, or any of the approximately 100 million “registered” voters in the United States. In short, the people do not in any way elect their president – though apparently most have been led to believe they do judging by the media circus that happens every four years costing billions of taxpayer and private campaign dollars. The presidency is really won by which ever political party lobbies the “electors” best, and by which party those electors represent and are members of. This is why someone like me will never be the president of the United States – unless, perhaps, the people actually wake up from their collective dream-state and finally realize that they do not have a choice, and finally revolt against the system that fools and re-enslaves them every four years. Silly persons

Even more disturbing is to actually see a list of who these “electors” are:

So let’s take the 2008 election as an example; where the first black person got elected in a flood of false “hope and change”… Remember how proud the people were that they had elected the first black president? They felt like they had collectively done something together to change the system. They felt so wonderful that they had utilized their “civil rights” and created hope for America. (LOL!!!)

My personal favorite of these 538 “electors” of 2008 is my own Attorney General of Utah, Mr. Mark Shurtleff.

If you are unfamiliar with my own dealings with our corrupt Attorney General, please take a couple of  moments to enjoy my previous confrontation with him at the March, 2010 Tea Party rally at the Utah State Capital in Salt Lake City:


Good times, and I didn’t even know he was an elector back then! Perhaps it’s time to find him again.

Oh, and sorry about the “music”…

When one looks at just a partial list of who gets appointed as electors by political parties, and when one considers the dates of when these people either attain office or get promoted (voted) into higher offices, one cannot help to start digging out the word conspiracy, dusting it off, and ditching the word theory altogether.

CONSPIRACYcriminal, law, torts. An agreement between two or more persons to do an unlawful act, or an act which may become by the combination injurious to others.

CONSPIRATORS. Persons guilty of a conspiracy. See 3 Bl. Com. 126-71 Wils. Rep. 210-11. See Conspiracy.

Remember, with no law, all acts are unlawful in America. And with the DOJ in place, no plans between two or more people will ever be brought to the light of “justice”.

Other “electors” from 2008, who were solely and directly responsible for the election of President Obama include:

Harriet Smith Windsor – Delaware Secretary of State (2001-2009; a Democrat currently serving as the Vice Chair of the Delaware Democratic Party. In 2008 Windsor was an elector for  Barack Obama.

Edward E. “Ted” Kaufman  Delaware United States Senator from 2009 to 2010. Since 2010, he has chaired the Congressional Oversight Panel. He is a member of the Democratic Party who was appointed to the Senate to fill the term of long-time Senator Joe Biden, who resigned to become Vice President of the United States in January 2009. Prior to becoming a U.S. Senator, Kaufman had been an adviser to Biden for much of his political career.

(Author’s note: as stated above, the guy who gets APPOINTED to the U.S. Senate was one of 538 persons that was an elector and he voted for Biden. Anyone smell a plan between two or more people here? No? I sure smell something…)

Wellington E. Webb was the first African American Mayor of Denver (1991-2003), after his stints as Denver City Auditor (1987-1991), and as Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies (1981-1987).

Muriel Bowser – Washington D.C. Democrat politician and a member of the Council of the District of Columbia representing Ward 4.

Vincent C. Gray - Mayor of the District of Columbia as of January, 2011, and was Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, as Council member for Ward 7. In the 1990s he also served as director of the DC Department of Human Services.

Anthony C. Hill Florida State Senator in the Democratic party (2002-2011). He currently serves as a legislative liaison for Jacksonville mayor, Alvin Brown.

Allan Katz is a writer, producer, actor, and director – with no political career. Katz was hired to be one of the youngest writers on Rowan and Martin’s Laugh-In and moved to Los Angeles. While working on Laugh-In, he also wrote episodes of Sanford and Son, All in the Family, and The Mary Tyler Moore Show. He went on to both write and produce other series including M*A*S*H (TV series), The Cher Show, Rhoda, and Roseanne. And now he is an “elector”…???

Rick Minor - Florida policy adviser who is now running for the Florida House of Representatives as a member of the Democratic Party. Previously, he was the Chairman of the Leon County Democratic Party from 2005 to 2009.

Jared E. Moskowitz (born December 18, 1980) Elected to the City Commission of Parkland, Florida in March 2006 at age 25 while a second-year law student.

Francisco (Frank) J. Sánchez - A Florida BAR attorney currently serving as Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade at the Department of Commerce. From 1999 to 2000, he served as a Special Assistant to the President. From 2000 to 2001, he served as Assistant Transportation Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs. In 2001, he founded Cambridge Negotiation Strategies.

Karen L. Thurman Former Democratic U.S. Representative from Florida (1999-2003). In 2005 Thurman was elected Chairman of the Florida Democratic Party, resigning after the election in November 2010.

Carmen Tores – played a character named Margarita Cordova in an American soap opera called “Sunset Beach”. (Author’s note: WTF?)

Frederica Wilson - U.S. Representative for Florida’s 17th congressional district (2011-current). Previously, she was in the Florida State Senate (2003-2010).

James Randolph “Randy” Evans - BAR lawyer and Republican from Georgia, who ironically specializes in government ethics. Evans is a law partner at McKenna Long & Aldridge. He has served as a longtime advisor to the Republican Party of Georgia.

Deborah L. “Debbie” Halvorson – Former U.S. Representative for Illinois’ 11th congressional district (2009-2011). She is a member of the Democratic Party, and formally a state senator.

James Phillip Hoffa - James is the only son of the infamous Jimmy Hoffa. James is a BAR attorney and labor leader and the General President of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Hoffa was first elected during December 1998 and took office on March 19, 1999. He was subsequently re-elected in 2001, 2006 and 2011 to five-year terms. (Author’s note: Again, the irony here is thick enough to cut with a butter-knife.)

Ronald A. Gettelfinger – President of the  United Auto Workers union from 2002 to 2010. (Author’s note: Big surprise!)

Andrew Mark Cuomo – 56th and current Governor of New York, having assumed office on January 1, 2011. A member of the Democratic Party , he was also the 64th New York State Attorney General (2007-2010), and was the 11th United States Federal Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (1997-2001). Andrew is the son of Mario Cuomo, the 52nd Governor of New York (1983–1994).

Thomas P. DiNapoli - 54th Comptroller of the state of New York (also in charge of the state pension system). He is a former state assemblyman in New York, who was appointed as New York State Comptroller on February 7, 2007. Previous State Assemblyman (1987-2007).

Sheldon “Shelly” Silver - BAR lawyer and Democratic politician from New York. He has held the office of Speaker of the New York State Assembly since 1994.

Helen Dianne Foster Currently represents District 16 in the New York City Council. Elected in 2001, she is the current co-chair of the Black, Latino, and Asian Caucus. She currently serves as chairwoman of the Parks & Recreation Committee, and serves as a member of the Aging, Education, Health, Lower Manhattan Redevelopment, and Public Safety Committees. Prior to this she was a BAR Assistant District Attorney in the Manhattan District Attorney’s office, subsequent to which she became an Assistant Vice-President for legal affairs at St. Barnabas Hospital.

William Colridge Thompson, Jr. - Known as Bill or Billy, he was the 42nd Comptroller of New York City (2002-2009). He is the son of William C. Thompson, Sr., formerly a prominent Brooklyn Democratic Party leader, City Councilman, State Senator and BAR’d judge on New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division.

David Alexander Paterson - default 55th Governor of New York (2008 to 2010) as lieutenant governor (2007-2008) – heralded in after Eliot Spitzer resigned in the wake of a prostitution scandal. Paterson was sworn in as governor of New York on March 17, 2008. During his tenure he was the first governor of New York of non-European American heritage and also the second legally blind governor of any U.S. state.

Janice McKenzie Cole - BAR attorney who served as the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina (1994–2001) under President Bill Clinton.

TheodoreTedStrickland - 68th Democratic Governor of Ohio (2007-2011). Ted previously served in the United States House of Representatives, representing Ohio’s 6th congressional district (1993-1995). Strickland currently serves as a member of the Governors’ Council at the Bipartisan Policy Center.

Bunny Chambers - Has Served As Oklahoma’s Republican National Committeewoman Since 1996. She currently serves on the Executive Committee of the Republican State Committee of Oklahoma. She has also held numerous positions on the grassroots level in her precinct and House District. Chambers has been a delegate to the Republican National Convention in 1988, 1996, 2000 and 2004.

Lynne Abraham – BAR attorney who served as the District Attorney of the City of Philadelphia from May 1991 to January 2010.

Thomas M. McMahon – Mayor of Reading, Pennsylvania from January 5, 2004 to January 2, 2012.

Michael Anthony Nutter – Current Mayor of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (since 2007). He is the third African-American mayor of Philadelphia, the largest city in the United States with an African-American mayor. He was re-elected on November 8, 2011. Nutter is a former councilman of the city’s 4th Council District, and has served as the 52nd Ward Democratic Leader since 1990.

Franco Harris - Former Professional football player. He played his NFL career with the Pittsburgh Steelers and Seattle Seahawks. Harris’ made comments in support of Joe Paterno, his coach while at Penn State, during the Penn State sex abuse scandal. Franco is a paid representative for the Harrah’s/Forest City Enterprises casino plan for downtown Pittsburgh. This association has earned him the nickname, “Franco Harrah’s”. (Author’s note: Again… WTF???)

Jack E. Wagner - Current auditor general of Pennsylvania (since 2005), and former state senator (1994-2005). He is a member of the Democratic Party.

Dennis M. Daugaard - 32nd Governor of South Dakota (since January 2011). BAR attorney. As a lieutenant governor under the South Dakota Constitution, Daugaard served as the President of the South Dakota Senate.

Marion Michael “Mike” Rounds- 31st Governor of South Dakota (2003-2011). Rounds currently serves as a member of the Governors’ Council at the Bipartisan Policy Center. Rounds served as the 2008 Chair of the Midwestern Governors Association (a private association). In its April 2010 report, ethics watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington named Rounds one of 11 “worst governors” in the United States because of various ethics issues throughout Rounds’ term as governor. Rounds is a partner in Fischer Rounds & Associates, an insurance and real estate firm. He placed his ownership interest into a blind trust upon being elected governor.

Bryant Winfield Culberson Dunn  – was the Republican Party 43rd Governor of Tennessee (1971-1975).

James Edward “Jim” Doyle – 44th Democrat Governor of Wisconsin (2003-2011). He is currently a BAR attorney ‘of counsel’ at the law firm of Foley & Lardner. 41st Attorney General of Wisconsin (1991-2003), as well as the Dane County District Attorney (1977-1982). In September 2010, Doyle was one of seven governors to receive a grade of F in the fiscal-policy report card of the Cato Institute.

–=–

To view the entire list of 2008 electors, click here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_electors,_2008

.

–=–

And This Is Constitutional?

–=–

The 23rd Amendment specifies how many “electors” the District of Columbia is entitled to have.

23rd Amendment:

Section 1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct:

A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Government has just told you that Washington D.C. is definitely not a State. In actuality, it is “THE STATE” when using that word as the ultimate power of the corporate government via contract with persons and according to legal definitions. Section 2 is also very important, as this addition or “clause” about congress having “power to enforce and legislate” is a built in loophole that gives Congress the power to create any legislation – in other words, to do anything it wants. This clause is also found in the 13th, 14th and 15th amendment Amendments, as well as in the wording of the 16th amendment with regards to income tax. Interestingly, the Congress has delegated that authority created by the 16th Amendment over to the Executive Department via the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which means that Congress isn’t really the branch collecting income tax as is stated in Amendment 16. But then, CONGRESS HAS THE POWER TO ENFORCE THE INCOME TAX BY APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION!!! It is very convenient to write the rules that bind you, and then write the rule that lets you write the over-ruling rule to bypass the first rule, effectively rewriting what you have already written. Sound confusing? It’s supposed to!

–=–

Now, remember that I asked you to remember something… what was it…? Oh, yes!

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA – …5. The United States of America are a corporation endowed with the capacity to sue and be sued, to convey and receive property. 1 Marsh. Dec. 177, 181. But it is proper to observe that no suit can be brought against the United States without authority of law. 6. The states, individually, retain all the powers which they possessed at the formation of the constitution, and which have not been given to congress. (q. v.)

Now we can see how important this section is in each of these Amendments.

Because the wording of the original (organic) constitution of the united states of America was not changed with the implementation of the corporate charter that amended the original constitution away, Congress left these little clauses in the reconstruction Amendments and future amendments so as to nullify and make void the power of the individual State’s rights. By stating here that “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation”, this and the other amendments with this type of clause are not organic, as these amendment’s intent and meaning can at any time be altered or changed; not by another amendment, but by the day to day legislation within the halls of Congress. In other words, amendments to the constitution with this clause are not organic, as they can and are over-ruled by bills of congress, any time it is convenient.

This clause also does something very, very important… It nullifies the protections of the 10th Amendment!

The 10th Amendment states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Oops! The 14th Amendment, states that:

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

For all of you Tenth Amendment advocates out there, you should really pay attention here. By voluntarily consenting to the 14th Amendment and registering as a 14th Amendment person (citizen), you have given up your 10th Amendment protection. You have taken your residence out of the State you live in and contractually become a resident of Washington D.C. And that means that you also contractually agree to the rules and legal codes of the United States! Whereas before the 10th Amendment gave the individual States rights, Section 5 of the 14th Amendments left no one with 10th Amendment State’s rights – because you no longer have primary residence in the your state!

Let’s go back to Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (accepted by Congress as the official law dictionary for the Constitution and the Supreme Court) to get the definition of resident again:

RESIDENT - persons. A person coming into a place with intention to establish his domicil or permanent residence, and who in consequence actually remains there. Time is not so essential as the intent, executed by making or beginning an actual establishment, though it be abandoned in a longer, or shorter period. See 6 Hall’s Law Journ. 68; 3 Hagg. Eccl. R. 373; 20 John. 211 2 Pet. Ad. R. 450; 2 Scamm. R. 377.

RESIDENCE. The place of one’s domicil. (q. v.) There is a difference between a man’s residence and his domicil. He may have his domicil in Philadelphia, and still he may have a residence in New York; for although a man can have but one domicil, he may have several residences. A residence is generally tran-sient in its nature, it becomes a domicil when it is taken up animo manendi. Roberts; Ecc. R. 75. – 2. Residence is prima facie evidence of national character, but this may at all times be explained. When it is for a special purpose and transient in its nature, it does not destroy the national character. – 3. In some cases the law requires that the residence of an officer shall be in the district in which he is required to exercise his functions. (This is the case with Congress). Fixing his residence elsewhere without an intention of returning, would violate such law. Vide the cases cited under the article Domicil; Place of residence.

DOMICIL - 5. – §2. There are two classes of persons who acquire domicil by operation of law. 1st. Those who are under the control of another, and to whom the law gives the domicil of another. Among these are, 1. The wife. 2. The minor. 3. The lunatic, &c. 2d. Those on whom the state affixes a domicil… A party may have two domicils, the one actual, the other legal

–=–

To Vote Or Not To Vote?
That Really Is The Question.

–=–

Now, I used to tell people not to vote – that voting gave legitimacy to the very corporate charter of the United States, and therefore you get exactly what you consent to. But now, as I ponder the consequences of both voting and not voting, I realize that in the end it will make absolutely no difference whatsoever whether you or I vote or don’t vote for the office of president this year. Even if 100% of the eligible people voted legally (via registration) in the presidential primary, the people would only have at best a less than 1% minority say in who will be president with their 3 electoral votes. (I’m literally laughing out loud right now as I’m pulling my hair out in large strands, but I didn’t want to just say LOL because it’s such a sinister and crazy kind of laugh…)

In fact, as I’m writing this, I’m thinking of how much time and effort was put into the election process for the private association election for the Republican Party representative (not a representative of the people, but of the party). The well-intentioned folks who are so desperately trying to prop up Ron Paul as the Republican candidate must not understand how presidential elections work! And for that matter, Ron Paul isn’t telling people about this either as his campaign collects 10′s of millions from people that will have absolutely no say in whether or not he will become president. Hmmm…

Don’t we know that Ron Paul must win the vote of the 538 electors, not the people? Don’t we understand that the people do not elect the president? Don’t we know that the whole presidential media campaign is a hoax, and that they are wasting all of our time and energy on a very profitable practical joke? And every four years we go through this complete act of futility with the “patriot candidate” only to be defeated by our own ignorance of the electoral college. Do we not understand that the Republican and Democratic “parties” are 100% private associations that have nothing to do with the people or our interests? Do we think that our delegate votes will make any difference in whom that private association props up as the representative of their private association?

What gives, America? Are we really such fools that we can be manipulated into believing that our votes make any difference whatsoever in the election of our CEO/president every four years? (Uh-oh… more nutty LOL coming on…)

Do you get it yet? This means that when the election of 2000 between private association members Bush and Gore was decided by the electoral college against the popular vote, the 538 elected house and senate members who make up what we call Congress (the board of directors of U.S. Inc.) and the votes they delegate to the private association political parties who elect the “electors” actually overruled the millions of people in the election of the President of the United States. 100 million “registered” citizen voters were outvoted by 538 voting “representatives” through “electors”. I mean, Hoffa… really?

And the people call this the right to vote?

In the end, there is only one solution to our collective problem: DO NOT CONTRACT, DO NOT CONSENT, AND DEFINITELY DO NOT REGISTER TO VOTE!!!

The tie that binds us all is in fact our contractual citizenship with this foreign corporation in the City of Columbia. The severing of that contract via the severing of our citizenship is literally the only solution. Their rules and laws (statutory public opinion) only apply to 14th Amendment citizens of the United States.

Why?

Because that contract and only that contract is what gives the United States authority and jurisdiction over you as a person. It cannot control you as a living, breathing man, only as a corporate-person-chattel-thing. Citizenship, once again, changes you from an incorporeal free man to an incorporated corporeal body (chattel) – a thing that can be bought and sold and killed; that can be incarcerated with “due process”; and that can be absolutely controlled through contractual obligation (public law). The only way for the United States corporation, whose legal boundaries are those within the ten miles square of Washington D.C – outside of the 50 states united (the union) – the only way that IT can control, imprison, and buy and sell you and your property as a comodity (chattel) to back its Federal Reserve notes is if you never sever the ties that contractually bind you voluntarily to these privileges of servitude that it calls “rights”.

Remember, a right (freedom) is defined as: the privilege to do whatever you want, as long as you follow their laws. This is why 1,000′s of new laws are created every year within the jurisdiction of the United States – to ensure that you will always be breaking one of their civil laws so that they can exercise control over your person. The only way that the United States (federal government) can touch you is if you take residence within that fictional 10 miles square boundary as a U.S. citizen, and subject yourself to the public opinion it creates, that it calls “law”. Like any other corporation, you are only subject to the rules and punishments of that corporation if you are a contractual employee (citizen) of that corporation. It’s time to quit your job as an indentured servant/employee to the United States, and to take back the personal responsibility for ALL of your own actions - the only thing that will ever make you a free man.

Can you live without the privileges of corporate State benefits?

Perhaps a better question is: Will the corporation allow you to live when those benefits require you to die from the benefit and privilege of those new Obama-care death panels and old-age public opinions? After all… it will be your right to die at the hands of the public opinion!

–=–

A Final Note To Self-Proclaimed “Patriots”

–=–

If you label yourself as a “conservative”, that means that legally you want to conserve the current system. Please stop calling yourself that. This word was foisted upon you by the media as a practical joke. They even have you badmouthing the word “liberal” – which just happens to be what the “Founding Fathers” were labeled as back when men were still men and actually used their guns instead of just crying over their regulation and confiscation. You are being laughed at every time you use the word “liberal” to mean the exact opposite of its original intent. And as for the word “Patriot”, those were the men of old who actually fought for life, liberty, and property… you know, those things that you don’t have or own anymore by law of contract.

And as for your “patriotic” incantation of “The Pledge of Allegiance to the United States”…

For your information, this pledge did not exist during our Founding Father’s lifetimes. This becomes obvious when simply reading the Pledge out loud. It states:

“…one nation, indivisible…”

But according to the original constitution, the states are absolutely not indivisible, but very much the opposite. In fact, when ratifying the U.S. Constitution, States like Virginia specifically declared the right to secede from the Union should they feel it necessary just as an extra precaution to make sure that this State-right was clearly understood. The “Pledge” was written over a century after America’s founding in 1892 by a socialist named Francis Bellamy, whose original text was:

“I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Just imagining my years as a youth in a group of 30 other youths making this pledge every day in public (government) school sends chills down my spine.

Now, I mean no disrespect here… My process of awakening has seen me tread through these same misnomers as everybody else. Only when one has experience in being a useful idiot like I have, can one then criticize others for same and show them a different path. And my path will no doubt diverge with the more knowledge that gets thrown in my way by somebody else who will criticize me.

I know that people who have reached the end here are looking for solutions. And I’m here to tell you that it is my personal opinion that persons, while they may have remedies, they will never have natural rights. Killing the STRAWMAN person and becoming a man again is the way and the light. But I must at the end here tell you that this essay should in no way be misconstrued as legal advice. I’d be quite personally offended if one of you accused me of practicing law. Only BAR attorneys do that, and I will never take on that sleazy foreign TITLE against the original 13th amendment.

I do not promote excommunication, as this is a legal venture. But the U.S. CODE does enumerate this process if you care to find it. I’d be happy to give personal references of people that might be able to help you, free men that are not citizens or persons, who’ve walked the walk and are now talking the talk. Contact me personally for this.

Mine is only to deconstruct and inform…

Happy July 4th to you. While you are out celebrating your non-independence, remember that July 4th was the day that Abe Lincoln declared martial law and military rule on the States that became, for a short time, independent from the United States Corporation, by convening the first illegal unconstitutional Congress of the new military law United States.

Thank you for reading. Now go get a sandwich and repeat!

.

–Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Tuesday, July 3, 2012

The United States: A Corporation


The “United States” is a corporation…

If you really want to understand why this is true, then you will have to look at each of the following pieces of the puzzle (links)… This will take a lot of your time and more importantly, the suspension of your idealism and belief.

That is hard. Trust me, I know.

I just spent an hour putting this post together and am passing this information on to you, so please don’t let it go to waste. Consider it an early Christmas present!

———————–≈———————–

Let’s focus on proving the corporate structure of the Federal Government, so that there is no doubt in your mind…

Here is the first carrot that I will dangle in front of you to get you to keep reading! This is from the U.S. CODE.

U.S. CODE is the corporate code of the UNITED STATES Federal corporation. Here it states that “United States” is defined as “a Federal corporation”.

———————–≈———————–

TITLE 28—JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE

PART VI–PARTICULAR PROCEEDINGS

CHAPTER 176–FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE

SUBCHAPTER A–DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS

§ 3002. Definitions

15) ‘‘United States’’ means—

(A) a Federal corporation;

(Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/usc_sec_28_00003002—-000-.html )

 

———————–≈———————–

Wam, bam, thank you mam!

So when did this happen…?

First, understand that the “United States” Federal corporation is a ten mile stretch of land that is not one of the 5o states united, and that this was mandated in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.

Team Law down in SoCal has a great fact-sheet printed here… read this to get an understanding of the corporate setup of D.C, by charter in 1801:

http://www.teamlaw.org/Mythology-CorpUS.htm

Now read the last two paragraphs in Article 1, Section 8 here:

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

Note that this Article only gave the federal government authority over the D.C. land – not to exceed 10 miles square. This is the corporate structure that is the Federal Government. Note that the Government is not allowed to “own” land outside of this 10 mile D.C. area. Also, states are not authorized to “own” land either. So all federal lands, state parks, national parks, etc… are not “property” of the constitutional government.

But a corporation… which the Supreme Court now says is a person too with first amendment rights… that becomes a whole other can of worms!

———————–≈———————–

Now, as referenced above, “The Act of 1871″ (Google this term for other pdf files which explain this in more detail, but watch for misinformation as well). It does seem like a redundancy, as mentioned above. Though it does seem to join the few “municipalities” of Washington D.C. into one “municipal corporation”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_Organic_Act_of_1871

———————–≈———————–

Interestingly, the Constitution Act of 1871 was passed in Canada the same year, confirming the Queens rule over Canada through Parliament.

http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/ca_1871.html

———————–≈———————–

Equally as intriguing is this info which says that English Parliament changed the social security system in the United States. It is very hard to except that the history we have learned is false. But until we do, we know nothing but false history, written by the “victors”. Also check out the “Treaty of Peace” (as referenced in this article, and the “Treaty of 1213″, showing the Vatican owns the Crown.

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/queen.htm

Check out all of the articles on this site when you have time:

www.apfn.org

Like this one which is congressional record referring to the bankruptcy, dissolving of, and reorganization of the United States corporation:

http://www.apfn.net/DOC-100_bankruptcy.htm

———————–≈———————–

It is also very hard for most to imagine that the constitution that we hold so dearly is not a very good document. It takes away freedom as much as it grants it. The only true freedom is God-given, natural law, not a peace of paper. Besides, most politicians only take a verbal oath, but they do not turn it in in writing, which is what contracts them to the oath… Big grand jury’s going on up in Utah here about that, since about 75% of our government is not sworn in on paper (lawfully). In fact, one of our smaller towns recently passed a code that says legislatures and government workers are not bound by any oath they take. It is city law in Tremonton, Utah!!!

For instance, why would anyone think that the 5th amendment is a good thing, or even idealistically “constitutional”?

Let’s read and understand the 5th amendment…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

“…nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Notice that the clause “without due process of law” nullifies the statement before it, and “without just compensation” nullifies the statement before it!

This last part is called the “Takings Clause”, and is what eminent domain is largely based on – taking property and land with “just compensation“.

Who decides what “just compensation” is?

Why, the very government that is doing the “taking”!

All of this, right under our noses…

Read more:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/takings.htm

Now to the 13th amendment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Section 1. “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

Section 2. “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

The statement “except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted” nullifies the former and later statement that slavery is illegal. This didn’t outlaw slavery… it legalized state sanctioned slavery while outlawing private individual ownership!

The constitution is full of these “except” clauses, which is why this holy worship of the constitution is ridiculous in my mind, and why it needs to be rewritten for modern times, not just reinstated. For once in history, the problem with a legal document (the constitution) is that it does not have enough small print!!!

Here is my blog about this:

http://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2010/08/15/is-slavery-legal-in-america/

I highly recomend it.

———————–≈———————–

Even worse, the “Federal Prison Industries” website is the “Amway” or “Wallmart” for the corporate U.S. slave prison system, called Unicor. Basically, the private prison system is huge. It relies on the courts to ensure a continuous influx of “prisoners” or “slaves” to build the products which the Federal Prison Industries sells. Think jobs are outsourced to India, check out the jobs outsourced to the prison industry!

Unicor Corporate Overview:

UNICOR, Federal Prison Industries is a self-sustaining, self-funded corporation established in 1934 by executive order to create a voluntary real-world work program to train federal inmates.

Check out Unicor here:

http://www.unicor.gov/

———————–≈———————–

***Also, the most important legal term you can understand is “CONSENT”. This is a must read. It also shows that the whole of the Internal Revenue Code is not statutory law, and in fact is Prima Facie law, meaning it is presumed law, meaning it is only law with the free peoples consent. Please, please read this. It will change your whole perspective on what law is and how it affects you.

http://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2010/12/08/consent-why-the-irs-domestic-and-homeland-security-have-no-lawful-power/

———————–≈———————–

But aren’t the courts there to ensure justice against government tyranny, you know, the whole checks and balances thingy?

The biggest mistake you can make is to get an attorney (plead incompetence and inability to represent yourself, and become a ward of the court) and then go into court to fight anything (consent to the corporate court and its non-statutory legal codes – not law).

Why?

You must understand that the courts are also private corporations. In fact, in Los Angeles they did a freedom of information act and found out that the judges down there build and own the private corporate courts, rent them out to the government for millions of dollars, and write checks on dummy and city “municipal” accounts that are not registered with the IRS! In other words, the court system is a money laundering system. This is happening all over the U.S. It involves the crime families as well, and other corporate structures that would surprise you.

Watch these videos… Though they are of horrible quality and video production, they are very revealing:

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtHCIXVb_eo

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_lwzj8DY_U&feature=related

Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKVNKCiGMpM&feature=related

So we see that the courts are indeed private corporations, just like all governments across the country.

———————–≈———————–

One last website to check out…

http://www.usavsus.info/

Understanding the difference between what is lawful and what is legal is paramount. They are two different concepts, one natural law and one corporate law (legality and code) with the peoples’ consent needed.

———————–≈———————–

I could go on and on… but if this doesn’t do the trick, then I am almost all out of tricks. If you haven’t watched The Corporation Nation, now would be the time. The movie will explain the rest, and explain the general accounting system for corporate government, the CAFR.

http://thecorporationnation.com/

My Christmas Gift to you, the gift of truth and comprehension!

Happy New Year everybody…

.

-Clint Richardson- (realitybloger.wordpress.com)

Saturday, December 18, 2010

Is Slavery Legal In America?


While one might be shocked at the presentation of such a question about such a historically controversial subject, one might also not be worse off to simply read their Constitution of the United States…

Let’s have a look at the 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

So, let’s break this down and comprehend what this really means:

The phrase “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted…” simply translates to -

“Slavery and involuntary servitude are illegal unless the court system (the state) makes it legal by conviction (court order).

In other words…

“The state has the authority to enslave you simply by convicting you of a crime and sending you to private prison or requiring community service through state approved agencies.”

Now we must understand that slavery in the United States was not legal or illegal until individual states made it so. Instead, it was just an accepted practice of common law brought over to the United States by the English settlers who were already accustomed to owning slaves. While southern states continued with their tolerance of the ownership of people (of any race or color) either through slavery or by indentured servitude (involuntary servitude), one by one the Northern states individually outlawed the practice, though this was not necessarily done by altruistic means as much as political ones.

It is very important to understand the concept of freedom in this case. The colonists that inhabited the states as individual citizens had the freedom (the right) to own slaves and to indenture others for payment of debt. This was a right.

It is also very important to understand that this right, as with all rights, was taken away from the individual people both when individual states outlawed the practice and when the Thirteenth Amendment was amended to the Constitution. Thus, the right to own slaves was turned into a privilege, and immediately revoked.

Remember, a right is God-given. It is not something that can be legislated. It is freedom without oppression. Breathing is a right.

Also remember that a privilege is not a right. A privilege is not a freedom. A privilege is a state sanctioned action, only allowable by state decree or with permission through license or legal statute. Driving is a privilege, revocable at any time by the state.

The question here is not one of moral compass or civil right, but one of individual rights compared to state authority. This is a story of the state taking rights away from individual citizens, and creating a monopoly on slavery through it’s system of laws, as stated in section 2:

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

It doesn’t matter what your personal opinion on the slavery issue is, it only matters that you understand that the state is now the slave owner instead of the individual citizen.

Now, let’s examine the prison state that is America…

  • The United States population accounts for approximately 5% of the world’s population.
  • Yet, the United States holds 25% of the worlds prisoners in its prisons.
  • That makes the good old U.S.A the #1 prison nation in the world!
  • But, you see, that also makes the U.S.A. the #1 legal slave owner in the world…

Do you remember when then Vice President Dick Cheney was indited along with Alberto Gonzalez for conflicts of interest in investing 85 million in private prisons? I guess you can’t indict a slave trader if he is operating within the permissions and full support of the United States government:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQEMPdIxZcY

Another great video from 2008 about the private prison business…

PBS special report: Prisons For Profit – http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/419/video.html

Look, the politicians, courts, attorneys, lawyers, judges, and anyone else involved in this legalized human trafficking and slavery are not acting in the best interest of the people. They are simply compartmentalized cronies each contributing to a shameful slave and private prison business.

And the court system is set up to ensure a constant influx of new slaves…

What is even more disheartening is the fact that the majority of people subjected to this legalized slavery are not guilty of breaking the law, meaning they have done harm to others or their property. No, these state inducted slaves were guilty of “victimless crimes”, meaning that no one or their property was hurt. This means that the state is the “victim”. This means that a code, limit, statute, or other nonsensical legality (not law) was broken. This means that the government has set up a system in which it imprisons and enslaves good and innocent people for breaking its own outrageous rules. This means that for running a red light, you could become a slave too. This means that for holding up a sign in protest, you could become an involuntary servant to the government.

Private prisons do pay their prisoners (slaves) for their work, to the tune of .30 – .60 cents per hour. This is a loophole to make the private prison business the cheapest labor in America.

Now, to put this all into perspective, I would refer you to a previous post about the legalization of drugs, specifically marijuana. (http://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2010/01/31/marijuana-to-legalize-or-to-not-legalize-that-is-the-question/)

Metaphorically speaking, the legal slave trade in America works in much the same way that legalization of drugs works… where as before “pot” was just a weed that grew wherever, neither legal or illegal – but now it’s an illegal drug except by government approved prescription and sanction (legal). In other words, I can obtain it with government license (state permission).

Likewise, slavery was neither legal or illegal, it just was, until individual states outlawed it. Then this “amendment” came along and made it “illegal without permission” for all states, just like pot. All you have to do is run a state approved prison (pot pharmacy) and only conduct this slavery within its walls (pot clinic/pharmacy/store) to make it legal slavery (medical marijuana). The concept to comprehend here is God’s law or common law – meaning most prisoners did not break this law, which states “do not do harm to others or their property”. Instead, they have committed “victimless” crimes (the STATE is the victim – like running a stop sign) which makes them eligible for slavery in private prisons per the 13th Amendment (and some of those prisoner/slaves are only guilty of smoking a joint).

Marijuana is illegal without a (state approved) doctors prescription, making it legal for state approved persons by state approved distributors.

Slavery is illegal without a judges (the STATE’S) prescription (permission), making it legal for state approved institutions to have slaves which are state approved (condemned) individuals.

I don’t know how I can make this any clearer!

This system of outsourcing prisoners to privately held corporate prisons, only induces “the state” to produce more victimless (innocent) state appointed criminals in order to produce more prisoners (slaves) for the state sanctioned legal slave trade that our government has the monopoly on through its 13th Amendment to the constitution.

And one last thing… community service is not for the benefit of the community. It is the temporary indenturing of code violators who haven’t harmed anyone but the state. The only “community service” you are allowed to participate in are state sanctioned organizations or corporations which serve the state or are non-profit in name only, receiving large sums of contracted money for your service. This is not constitutional or lawful. It is slavery hidden behind a corrupt charitable FOR PROFIT company who uses your state approved enslavement as positive public relations in a public-private-partnership (ppp) with the government.

The 13th Amendment is unconstitutional. It must be abolished, as must legalized state sanctioned slavery.

Please pass this on , for if we do not liberate our brothers and sisters out of this legal slave trade now, we may soon find that the only job choices left in America are prison guards or involuntary servants.

.

UPDATE: It’s amazing how good people pass things around and other good people fighting the good fight turn up in your reality. This is an organization who is fighting against the private prison business, and a video I highly recomend:

National Public Service Council To Abolish Private Prisons http://npsctapp.blogspot.com/

.

Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)

Sunday, August 15, 2010

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,412 other followers