The President Does It Again…


I’d just like to remind the good people of America that there is only one man that the people voted in as president of the United States – well, technically he is elected by the electoral college and not the people, but who’s really paying attention to politics anyhow?

And again I’d like to remind the people that this one “elected” man in the presidency then appoints all other officers and cabinet members of the Federal Government. He is the Chief Executive Officer – the boss. All other officers are underlings operating solely on the authority of the President conveyed to them… millions and millions of unelected men and women controlling every aspect of our lives.

Do you get it?

These officers are not just the appointed goons of this “elected” man named Obama – they are Obama. Everything they do is in his name and under his authority. They are not voted in or elected to their positions. They are appointed by Obama to do his job. Thus, they are Obama.

When the ATF got caught in gun smuggling operations, the ATF was Obama.

When the military unlawfully attacks and occupies foreign countries and rebuilds nations, the military is Obama – acting under Obama’s “Emergency War Powers” and his declared “National Emergency” to bypass Congress, waging unlawful war while officially calling it a “mission of peace”.

And yes, when the IRS commits fraud, purposeful malfeasance, and discrimination while targeting certain political groups in illegal tax audits from its corporate headquarters in Guam, it is the “elected” President of the United States who appoints the Commissioner of that corporation, who in turn appoints managers, Chief Financial Officers, and all other unlawful employees that come after you in the middle of the night.

Of course, the game show of government is playing out as it always does, as the Obama appointed Attorney General (head of the Executive Branch legal team) will be investigating the case of the IRS (part of the Executive branch) through the court system (part of the Department of Justice – which is part of the Executive Branch). What does this mean? It means that the President is investigating himself and his appointed Executive Offices with his own Executive powers!!!

It was not the “Commissioner” who perpetrated the attack on the enemies of Obama; it was Obama – for the Commissioner was acting under the authority of only one man – the “elected” office of president; the Executive.

But it is always the patsy that must resign his appointed office, as we see again with the appointed Commissioner Steven Miller.

But I demand that Obama himself resign, for he is the only man with any power granted by the people (well, ah… sort of – whatever!), which makes the president fully responsible for any action taken by the Executive Branch. Everyone else is appointed by him or by someone else that he appointed!!!

Now imagine, folks, if you actually had a man as your president who was actually responsible for his own actions…

What a different world it would be.

But you didn’t vote for me to be president… not that the electoral college would have accepted the public vote as anything but what it actually is – entertainment.

This is America…?

It’s time to wake up from this dream, isn’t it?

.

For more delicious irony to pull that wool out of your eyes, please check out my research here:

Link–> https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2012/07/04/why-the-supreme-court-claims-obamacare-is-constitutional/

Link–> https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2012/12/24/understanding-the-2012-electoral-college/

.

–Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Tuesday, May 15th, 2013

 

 

 

 

 

A World Without Gray – Episode 3 – For Land And Country


Episode 3, for your listening enjoyment. This is my interview with Vicky Davis, writer and researcher of ChannelingReality.com

I highly recommend that you read the following information (below) before or after listening to this interview, for I believe it is one of my most important research projects yet in uncovering the true nature of the United States. Also, please watch the two videos at the end, for a glimpse of the future of mankind and America…


Download here: https://realitybloger.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/awwg_e3_02072013.mp3

–=–

For Land And Country

–=–

What does it mean to you when someone says “fight for your country”?

For some, the concept of just what a “country” is becomes blurred between two completely different things. While the conversational term for country usually defines the living people, the physical land, and the fictional government together in one neat package, the fact is that these things are quite different from one another, and are only connected through ink and consent of those living people as a “body politic”.

The “land” – the real and tangible thing we call home – is indeed not legally the “country”. Living men are also not legally the country.

The country is in fact a reamed folder of legal papers, notarized and signed by the appropriate members of a corporate “federation” called the United States. It’s borders are demarcated within this paperwork, but these too are not part of the actual physical land. It sets its own rules, changes those rules with the signing of a pen, and does so without the will of the people.

The land and the living people who inhabit it are called a country – a body politic – but only in a legal sense. The people, in order to inhabit this artificial country legally as “residents”, must also become artificial. They must become persons through contract so as to be part of (citizens) of this legal “country”.

“A “federation” is by definition an unincorporated entity, but a “federated” entity is corporated. A “union” of states is not a corporate entity, but that the “United” States is a corporation.”

Confused? You are supposed to be.

Instead of taking my word for it, I wonder what the government, the courts, and the Supreme Court thinks?

“Persons dealing with the government are charged with knowing government statutes and regulations, and they assume the risk that government agents may exceed their authority and provide misinformation,” –Lavin v. Marsh, 644 F.2d 1378 (9th Cir. 1981), 644 F.2d, at 1383.

“Whatever the form in which the government functions, anyone entering into an arrangement with the government takes a risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the government stays within the bounds of his authority, even though the agent himself may be unaware of the limitations upon his authority.” –Federal Crop Insurance v. Merrill, Supreme Court, 332 U.S. 380

From the West LegalEdcenter’s Securities Litigation Report:

Link: http://corporate.findlaw.com/finance/cftc-sees-dodd-frank-reforms-essential-to-reduce-future-risk.html

“International Coordination”

Twenty-first century finance knows no true geographic borders. Money and risk can move around the globe with a touch of a button. Sober evidence of this was AIG’s swaps affiliate, AIG Financial Products, which had its major operations in London. When it failed, the U.S. economy and taxpayers shouldered a tremendous burden.

The current debt crisis in Europe is but a stark reminder of our interconnectedness. Moreover, it is precisely during times of heightened market uncertainty that transparent pricing of risk is essential. While European leaders are working to avert a deepening crisis, it is critical that we implement the Dodd-Frank Act to protect the American public.

We are actively consulting and coordinating with international regulators to promote robust and consistent standards in swaps oversight. We are sharing many of our memos, term sheets and draft work product with international regulators. Building on these efforts, I will be traveling to London to discuss derivatives reform as well as issues relating to high-frequency trading.

We also will work with international colleagues on memoranda of understanding for access to information and cooperative oversight. We also have a long history of recognizing foreign regulatory regimes. The Dodd-Frank Act authorizes the CFTC to recognize foreign regulatory frameworks that are comprehensive and comparable to U.S. oversight of the swaps markets in certain areas. We also anticipate seeking public input on the application of Section 722(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act, which says that the law doesn’t apply to activities outside the United States unless those activities have a direct and significant connection with activities in, or effect on, U.S. commerce.

So, let’s get this straight… The Dodd-Frank Act was a tool by Congress to prohibit one of government’s regulatory corporations (the Commodities Futures Trading Commission – CFTC) to act outside of United States jurisdiction as long as the activities to be regulated are outside of the United States? Yes sir. But the reality of what this means is even more shocking. For when the term “outside of the United States” is utilized here, it is referring to United States borders (remember, they are paper borders created by treaty and international agreements). This is where “Inland Ports” and “Foreign Trade Zones” come into play. This is how your “country” (both the land and the government) is incrementally being pulled out from under your feet – while American Idol agonizingly plays in the other room – through contracts, treaties, and international agreements.

If we were to look at a true representative interactive map of the borders of the United States, it would actually look like a U.S. shaped slice of Swiss cheese. Incrementally, as each Inland Port and Foreign Trade Zone is implemented, a new hole in the middle of the United States appears, where U.S. laws are non-existent.

Let’s take a land-locked state like Colorado for example. As there are no oceans (international waters) touching any of Colorado’s borders (the land), there is only one way to create an Inland Port in this state. The state must become a virtual body of water.

When an Inland Port is created, it becomes an international jurisdiction under international Maritime Law. And since Maritime/Admiralty law is the “law of the sea”, the land must become a port among a body of water in legal terms. Thus, as a port receiving trade through trade-routes, the land now becomes international jurisdiction. it’s brilliant really, when you stop and think about it. Suddenly a port pops up in the middle of of the land, with no water around it whatsoever. And yet it falls under the law of the sea!

So how is this accomplished?

Perhaps you’ve heard of the controversial NAFTA Super Highways…

You see, the rest of the United States (the land) becomes a “land-bridge” over virtual (paper) water between these ports and zones, and the roads and highways now outside of the United States called NAFTA represent international virtual waterways under international Admiralty Law going from Inland Port to Inland Port. Thus, the whole structure of ports and highways are under the law of the sea – outside of the United States. Why start a limited corporation in the great state of Colorado when you can move 10 miles away into an unlimited Foreign Trade Zone? Why hire American workers with all of their demands and minimum wages laws when you can hire foreigners living in these Foreign Zones? After all, anyone can live and work in the Zones without being a United States citizen. And with no U.S. labor laws, health insurance, or pension funding requirements for retirement, why hire American when you can hire Chinese, Indonesian, or Indian at a fraction of the cost? It’s just on the other side of the Highway you know…

In the middle of America…

So now let’s get back to government’s opinion:

“The House and Senate Reports accompanying the legislation virtually compel this conclusion, explaining as they do that “a foreign government’s . . . employment or engagement of laborers, clerical staff or marketing agents . . . would be among those included within” the definition of commercial activity. H.R.Rep. No. 94-1487, p. 16 (1976) (House Report); S. Rep. No. 94-1310, p. 16 (1976) (Senate Report)…”

“I had thought the [507 U.S. 349, 369] issue put to rest some time ago when, in a slightly different context, CHIEF JUSTICE Marshall observed:

“It is, we think, a sound principle, that when a government becomes a partner in any trading company, it divests itself, so far as concerns the transactions of that company, of its sovereign character, and takes that of a private citizen. Instead of communicating to the company its privileges and its prerogatives, it descends to a level with those with whom it associates itself, and takes the character which belongs to its associates, and to the business which is to be transacted. Thus, many States of this Union who have an interest in Banks, are not suable even in their own Courts; yet they never exempt the corporation from being sued. The State of Georgia, by giving to the Bank the capacity to sue and be sued, voluntarily strips itself of its sovereign character, so far as respects the transactions of the Bank, and waives all the privileges of that character. As a member of a corporation, a government never exercises its sovereignty. It acts merely as a corporator, and exercises no other power in the management of the affairs of the corporation, than are expressly given by the incorporating act.” –U.S. Supreme Court, Bank of the United States v. Planters’ Bank of Georgia (1824) 22 US (9 Wheat) 904, 6 L.Ed 244

See also Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v. Republic of Cuba, 425 U.S. 682, 695 -696 (1976) (plurality opinion).”

(Source: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=507&invol=349)

According to Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, under the definition for the word “corporation”, it states:

“Chief Justice Marshall describes a corporation to be “an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law,” continues the judge, “it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it, either expressly or as incidental to its very existence. These are such as are supposed best calculated to effect the object for which it was created. Among the most important are immortality, and if the expression may be allowed, individuality properties by which a perpetual succession of many persons are considered, as the same, and may act as the single individual, They enable a corporation to manage its own affairs, and to hold property without the perplexing intricacies, the hazardous and endless necessity of perpetual conveyance for the purpose of transmitting it from hand to hand. It is chiefly for the purpose of clothing bodies of men, in succession, with these qualities and capacities, that corporations were invented, and are in use.”

(Author’s Note: It is important to note here that technically the corporation of the United States or portions thereof can be “conveyed” to foreign hands, including the United Nations. Remember, this is all on paper, through treaties and agreements. And it wont likely make the nightly news as it happens piece by piece, port by port, zone by zone… This can all be done while never changing the corporate charter name of “United States” or of states, counties, cities (municipal corporations), and districts.)

And this legal definition goes on to state:

Corporation: “Nations or states, are denominated by publicists, bodies politic, and are said to have their affairs and interests, and to deliberate and resolve, in common. They thus become as moral persons, having an understanding and will peculiar to themselves, and are susceptible of obligations and laws. Vattel, 49. In this extensive sense the United States may be termed a corporation; and so may each state singly.”

And Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856, defines the word corporator as:

CORPORATOR. One who is a member of a corporation. 2. In general, a corporator is entitled to enjoy all the benefits and rights which belong to any other member of the corporation as such. But in some corporations, where the rights are of a pecuniary nature, each corporator is entitles to those rights in proportion to his interest; he will therefore be entitled to vote only in proportion to the amount of his stock, and be entitled to dividends in the same proportion. 3. A corporator is not in general liable personally for any act of the corporation, unless he has been made so by the charter creating the corporation.

(Author’s Note: This means the American people can be made liable for United Nations debt or funding, and that the United States is a member- i. e. not a “sovereign” entity – with only a “vote” in world affairs, including its own.)

Note here that the United States is a “member” of the United Nations, and of the International Monetary Fund (World Bank).

Can you put the pieces together?

And of course when Bouvier’s defines the United States, it says:

UNION. By this word is understood the United States of America; as, all good citizens will support the Union.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. The name of this country. The United States… 5. The United States of America are a corporation endowed with the capacity to sue and be sued, to convey and receive property.

Again from the Supreme Court – near the year of the founding of this “country”…

“If Congress, previous to the Articles of Confederation, possessed any authority, it was an authority, as I have shown, derived from the people of each province in the first instance. When the obnoxious acts of Parliament passed, if the people in each province had chosen to resist separately, they undoubtedly had equal right to do so as to join in general measures of resistance with the people of the other provinces, however unwise and destructive such a policy might and undoubtedly would have been. If they had pursued this separate system, and afterwards the people of each province had resolved that such province should be a free and independent state, the state from that moment would have become possessed of all the powers of sovereignty internal and external — viz., the exclusive right of providing for their own government, and regulating their intercourse with foreign nations — as completely as any one of the ancient kingdoms or republics of the world, which never yet had formed or thought of forming any sort of federal union whatever. A distinction was taken at the bar between a state and the people of the state. It is a distinction I am not capable of comprehending. By a state forming a republic (speaking of it as a moral person) I do not mean the legislature of the state, the executive of the state, or the judiciary, but all the citizens which compose that state and are, if I may so express myself, integral parts of it, all together forming a body politic. The great distinction between monarchies and republics (at least our republics) in general is that in the former, the monarch is considered as the sovereign, and each individual of his nation as subject to him, though in some countries with many important special limitations. This, I say, is generally the case, for it has not been so universally.

But in a republic, all the citizens, as such, are equal, and no citizen can rightfully exercise any authority over another but in virtue of a power constitutionally given by the whole community, and such authority, when exercised, is in effect an act of the whole community which forms such body politic. In such governments, therefore, the sovereignty resides in the great body of the people, but it resides in them not as so many distinct individuals, but in their politic capacity only. Thus A. B. C. and D., citizens of Pennsylvania and as such together with all the citizens of Pennsylvania, share in the sovereignty of the state. Suppose a state to consist exactly of the number of 100,000 citizens, and it were practicable for all of them to assemble at one time and in one place, and that 99,999 did actually assemble. The state would not be in fact assembled. Why? Because the state in fact is composed of all the citizens, not of a part only, however large that part may be, and one is wanting, in the same manner as 99 is not a hundred, because one pound is wanting to complete the full sum.

But as such exactness in human affairs cannot take place, as the world would be at an end or involved in universal massacre and confusion if entire unanimity from every society was required; as the assembling in large numbers, if practicable as to the actual meeting of all the citizens, or even a considerable part of them, could be productive of no rational result because there could be no general debate, no consultation of the whole, nor of consequence a determination grounded on reason and reflection, and a deliberate view of all the circumstances necessary to be taken into consideration, mankind has long practiced (except where special exceptions have been solemnly adopted) upon the principle that the majority shall bind the whole, and in large countries, at least, that representatives shall be chosen to act on the part of the whole. But when they do so, they decide for the whole, and not for themselves only.

Thus when the legislature of any state passes a bill by a majority, competent to bind the whole, it is an act of the whole assembly, not of the majority merely. So when this Court gives a judgment by the opinion of a majority, it is the judgment, in a legal sense, of the whole Court. So I conceive when any law is passed in any state in pursuance of constitutional authority, it is a law of the whole state acting in its legislative capacity, as are also executive and judiciary acts constitutionally authorized, acts of the whole state in its executive or judiciary capacity, and not the personal acts alone of the individuals, composing those branches of government. The same principles apply as to legislative, executive, or judicial acts of the United States, which are acts of the people of the United States in those respective capacities, as the former are of the people of a single state. These principles have long been familiar in regard to the exercise of a constitutional power as to treaties. These are deemed the treaties of the two nations, not of the persons only whose authority was actually employed in their formation. There is not one principle that I can imagine which gives such an effect as to treaties that has not such an operation on any other legitimate act of government, all powers being equally derived from the same fountain, all held equally in trust, and all, when rightfully exercised, equally binding upon those from whom the authority was derived.

I conclude, therefore, that every particle of authority which originally resided either in Congress or in any branch of the state governments was derived from the people who were permanent inhabitants of each province in the first instance and afterwards became citizens of each state; that this authority was conveyed by each body politic separately, and not by all the people in the several provinces or states jointly, and of course that no authority could be conveyed to the whole but that which previously was possessed by the several parts; that the distinction between a state and the people of a state has in this respect no foundation, each expression in substance meaning the same thing; consequently, that one ground of argument at the bar, tending to show the superior sovereignty of Congress in the instance in question, was not tenable, and therefore that upon that ground the exercise of the authority in question can not be supported.”

(Source: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/3/54/case.html)

This important opinion tells you one very important thing… You do not now or did they then live in a true idealistic republic! If you are a citizen, you are nothing more than a part of the whole citizenry (in this case equality is a bad thing, for it takes away your rights). You are the State – a tiny piece of the jigsaw puzzle made up of equal size citizens. The people and the State are the same thing. “Distinct individuals have no power or sovereignty – only the state does as a body politic of all the people combined. This literally squashes the theory that in the United States all men are kings of themselves. This is just a falacy to be shelved with all the other “free country” myths out there. And the State creates these treaties and agreements with Foreign entities with the legal presumption that you don’t give a damn!

You aren’t fighting it, if you even know about it, and so the plans for world governance and the conveyance of the United States lands into United Nations (NWO) hands goes on unhindered.

For some clarification, here are the Bovier’s Law Dictionary definitions of a “Republic”:

REPUBLIC. A commonwealth; that form of government in which the administration of affairs is open to all the citizens. In another sense, it signifies the state, independently of its form of government. 1 Toull. n. 28, and n. 202, note. In this sense, it is used by Ben Johnson. Those that, by their deeds make it known, whose dignity they do sustain; And life, state, glory, all they gain, Count the Republic’s, not their own, Vide Body Politic; Nation; State.

REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT. A government in the republican form; a government of the people; it is usually put in opposition to a monarchical or aristocratic government. 2. The fourth section of the fourth article of the constitution, directs that “the United States shall guaranty to every state in the Union a republican form of government.” The form of government is to be guarantied, which supposes a form already established, and this is the republican form of government the United States have undertaken to protect. See Story, Const. §1807.

Yet another common fallacy squashed by the constitution itself!

Some how the people of the United States have mixed up the notion that the “United States” government – the central government of Washington D.C. as a federation – is supposed to be a republic. But this is not what the constitution states at all. The only requirement of the United States Federal Government laid out in its constitution is that the United States corporation in Washington D.C. must protect the already establish form of government of each individual state. Remember, the citizen is subject to two forms of government, one the state and one Federal.

On this, the Supreme Court state its opinion:

“The people of the United States resident within any State are subject to two Governments: one State, and the other National; but there need be no conflict between the two. The powers which one possesses, the other does not. They are established for different purposes, and have separate jurisdictions. Together they make one whole, and furnish the people of the United States with a complete government, ample for the protection of all their rights at home and abroad. True, it may sometimes happen that a person is amenable to both jurisdictions for one and the same act… It is the natural consequence of a citizenship which owes allegiance to two sovereignties, and claims protection from both. The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government.–The Supreme Court, 92 US 551: “U.S. v Cruikshank”

While you may live in a republic within your individual state, you do not live in a republic called the United States. The distinction here is absolutely key, and the tempering of fallacious considerations of the intent of the national government

And if “Common Law” is your bag, you should know that in the same case the Supreme Court stated its opinion about the Common Law:

“It is a rule at common law (the reason applies in equity and other civil law cases) that if a party can plead a fact material to his defense, and omits to do it at the proper time, he can never avail himself of it afterwards.”

Now why would anyone in their right mind agree to such a sinister and offending rule as this? And why would anyone submit to this?

Can you imagine…

You: Oh yeah judge, I forgot to mention that I have a video tape and 20 witnesses that saw me 1,000 miles away from the scene of the crime at the exact time of the crime.

Judge (as his gavel smashes down): Inadmissible! Guilty as charged!!!

It goes on to say:

“The law rather chooses that a party should incur a risk of this nature than leave a door open to endless litigation upon pretenses the truth of which it is very difficult to discover.”

God forbid we should have long litigation in order to discover the truth!

This is called the “justice system”, by the way. And the only thing common about common law is that it is commonly tyrannical just like any other legal system. Even if you had a good experience in court by a judge who seemed lawful or constitutional, this does not dismiss the fact that at any time this type of “opinion” can arise. It’s a rule that a judge may choose to follow at his whim. And while a man acting as judge may certainly consider late evidence, he certainly is not required to. Law means nothing to a corrupt politician or judge. And it is certainly a fallacy to overlook the rules just because once you had a good experience. The fallacy: This judge acted fairly and constitutionally, therefore all judges act fairly and constitutionally.

In this particular case, believe it or not, the “person” harmed was actually physically dead, but since the defendants did not claim this fact within the discovery process, this fact actually had no bearing on the case. The fact that the person was dead was not considered when doing wrong to that person. Image how that felt to the defendants when those words were uttered by the judge, who were no doubt thinking… Why in the hell would this fact even need to be mentioned???

It states:

“II. The death of Doane has been alleged for another purpose.

It is said that the decree is to restore to Elisha Doane, which was impossible because Elisha Doane was not then in being. Admitting that upon this record we are to take judicial notice that Doane was dead at the time of pronouncing the decree (in which I am by no means clear), yet if this was the real reason why the plaintiffs in error had withheld the property or its proceeds, they might themselves have said so. They have not, and as each party generally makes the best of his own case, we are to presume that did not in fact constitute their reason. In this case it could be of no avail but at the utmost to prevent the allowance of interest until a demand actually made. It never could destroy the whole beneficial effect of a decree given in rem, and when the parties who make the objection were in court and parties to the very decree complained of. I think nothing can be more evident than that if the decree be not totally void, the administrators are entitled to the benefit of it, at least until it is set aside for error, if there be any error in it, and such a remedy is now practicable. If a scire facias was necessary before execution could have been obtained out of the court which passed the decree, it could be for no other reason than that the other party might have an opportunity to contest the validity of the letters and the existence of the administration, if any such objection could be supported. Such an objection might have been made here. It has not been made. There is therefore, I conceive, no principle of law or justice which forbids giving effect to the decree upon this ground.”

You: But judge, the victim was already dead before I had anything to do with her!

Judge: Inadmissible! Guilty as charged!!!

Ok, extreme I admit. The point is that the possibility – as a rule – is that at any time a judge can dismiss crucial evidence that would prove your innocence without considering it.

But listen to what was stated even later in this case:

“A court of justice, indeed, ought at its peril to take notice of its own jurisdiction, and it is not often that cases of such doubt arise that a judge can be at a loss on the subject. But it may happen and does sometimes happen that innocent and serious doubts are really entertained. Is a court therefore, because its judgments may be finally dissented from by a superior tribunal, to be considered as flying in the face of the law, so that parties before it shall not only be protected in disobeying it but punished for their obedience? If this be the case, the old maxim cedunt arma togae (let arms yield to the toga – modern: let military power give way to civil power) will very ill apply to courts of justice. Instead of being the peaceful arbiters of right and the sacred asylum of unprotected innocence, their very forums will be the seat of war and confusion.”

Why is this all so important to the establishment of a New World Order Government?

Well let’s see… so far the Supreme court has allowed corporations to be people with rights, allowed these corporations to merge and acquire each other to establish monopolies and trusts,  allowed these corporations not only to clone life but to create new genetically altered life and then patent that life-form as a novel (unique) property of the corporation and government, it has ruled that children can be vaccinated without parental consent, it has allowed the United Nations to claim a part of the City of New York as international land immune from U.S. law, and seems to not be at all concerned with the thousands of Presidential Directives and Executive Orders that have allowed everything from martial law in America to unmanned drones for the use of killing Americans abroad and spying on them nationally.

Now why in God’s name would I put my trust in this body of “Justices” to do the right thing in protecting me or my country or to  combat the implementation of world governance? They are, after all, appointed by the same president and congress that is allowing it to happen in the first place! They aren’t even voted in by the people who suffer their opinions!!!

So what does it mean to you to” fight for your country”?

Well, you better start comprehending that your country and your state is in the control of a rogue government, and that to save the land the government must not be allowed to expand globally by expanding its ream of paper to include all of the United Nations as it’s master.

The “United States” is in the process of becoming  nothing more than an admiralty law-based “land-bridge” between oceans and countries, a port of call for the world government and its corporations built with your taxpayer money.

And all of this proving the pen is mightier than the sword, simply because the people will not wield the sword as their fore-fathers supposedly did.

In our interview, we discussed that in order to create a new World Government, the current borders of the United States must be destroyed. It is, however, important to state that the individual state governments and borders need not be demolished simply because the Federal government and borders are abolished. It is in fact the contractual nature of the individual states to this central government which is the cause of the loss of individual state sovereignty. As individual republics, under a new United States “union” the country would be no less grand.

Is it only me that feels this way?

…whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness… all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

–Constitution of the united states of America

“Whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.”

–New Hampshire Constitution, Article 10 of the Bill of Rights

“All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety, happiness and the protection of property. For the advancement of these ends, they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may deem proper.”

–Kentucky Constitution, Kentucky Bill of Rights

“All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper.”

–Pennsylvania Constitution, Article 1, Section 2 of the Declaration of Rights

“3d. That Government ought to be instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people; and that the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive to the good and happiness of mankind.”

–North Carolina Constitution, November 21, 1789

All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.”

–Texas Constitution, Article 1, Section 2

“Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by rule of law.”

–Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, United Nations (paying lip service to this decree with despicable arrogance and confidence as it subsumes all other constitutions!)

So what part of this aren’t you comprehending?

And just what do you think the 2nd amendment is for?

Better listen to the show now folks, and start to grasp exactly what’s happening in a local, county, district, state, and national government near you. For right this very second, government is doing all of the above for you, on paper, handing over the “country” to a global corporate federation, making the above options of abolition obsolete and unlawful with each treaty and contract your representatives sign, conveying the land to foreign interests…

And remember, just because you don’t see it doesn’t change the fact that it”s happening…

This is what you are truly fighting:

And the future of food (just replace metal powder with protein powder):

Truth is so much stranger than fiction, and so much closer to science fiction than imaginable.

In closing, I can only say that no matter what your “country” means to you; no matter how you define it – I think now would be a good time to start fighting for it while it’s still recognizable as such, and while we still have a resemblance to natural humans.

.

–Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Monday, February 11th, 2013

To Protect And Serve?


What does this obtuse and open-ended catch-phrase actually mean?

Have you ever asked yourself that question?

–=–

It is fairly obvious and easy enough to say that the police are not actually there to “protect and serve” the people of the land in the conversational sense of the words, but indeed protect and serve only the interests and continuity of the corporations called States, Counties, and Cities.

But we must also define what “protecting” and “serving” actually mean in the legal language. Of course, because we are talking about the sales pitch of the municipal corporation (government) police departments, we must answer this question with the best legal definitions of these words, instead of relying on our mislead perceptions of this misleading moniker as portrayed by the media and entertainment industries.

To protect and serve… Who? What? Where? When? Why?

We will now use U.S. CODE and the Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856, to get a full description of this open ended statement, “To Protect And Serve“.

–=–
TO PROTECT
–=–

The observation that police are driving around in expensive taxpayer-funded vehicles while being paid by taxpayers to do so, issuing citations for speeding, crossing double yellow lines, making illegal U-turns, and other pointless victimless crimes, should be quite enough evidence that the police aren’t driving around looking for an opportunity to protect you from danger or to serve or help you, but are instead driving around looking for ways to earn money through exaction and force for the corporation (government) that they are employed by – so as to fulfill their monthly quotas.

But if this concept isn’t readily obvious to you – that police officers are there to extort money out of your pockets – then let’s examine together the legal definition of the word “protect”.

First, we must understand what a legal right is as opposed to a natural right.

This section of U.S. CODE does a very nice job of making that distinction…

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 exactions 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.

Here we see the difference between a God-given natural right and a right that is bestowed by the government under color of civil law, which in fact is nothing more than a contracted privilege you agree to by signature and consent. When one understands what is stated here in U.S. CODE, one understands that political rights are the definition of tyranny and extortion.

In fact, the word exaction is specifically defined as extortion.

EXACTION, torts. A willful wrong done by an officer, or by one who, under color of his office, takes more fee or pay for his services than what the law allows. Between extortion and exaction there is this difference; that in the former case the officer extorts more than his due, when something is due to him; in the latter, he exacts what is not his due, when there is nothing due to him. Wishard; Co. Litt. 368.

A willful wrong…

This means that government claims under TITLE 42, Section 1981, that it is your right to be exacted (extorted) from by government or other corporations through the “contractual relationship”. And that it is your right to be wronged by men in uniform who willfully harm you while acting under the “color of law”

By signing a ticket or citation (a contract) and then by paying the fee imposed by that contract and agreed upon by you, the fine line of extortion and exaction is crossed, and exaction (nothing due) by contract under threat and duress is created and becomes extortion (what is now due). Add a few late fees and other charges by the courts (more than is due) and exaction is legally upon you via contract. So how does a police officer under the color of his office extort money from you in a way that “exacts what is not due” to him? He forces you to sign a contract which obligates you to pay his office a fine or fee. Thus, exaction (taking what is not due) becomes a legal function of legal contract law, and your “right” to be extorted from (stealing what is now due) as listed in U.S. CODE as an “equal right” (privilege) is justified by your signature on the ticket (contract).

Do you understand? Being extorted and exacted form is a right, benefit, and a privilege. Being taxed is a right, benefit, and privilege. And being subject to pains, penalties, and punishment is a right, benefit, and a privilege. These are the wonderful rights, benefits, and privileges of being a citizen (person) of the United States enjoying the “contractual relationship” between yourself and government.

You enjoy those rights now, ya hear…?

Ok. So what exactly does the word “protect” mean, considering that pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions (extortion) are the so-called rights enumerated and “protected” by police?

PROTECTION, government. That benefit or safety which the government affords to the citizens.

Yeah… so “to protect” can legally be defined as: to ensure the entering into and enforcement of the contractual relationship between government and the citizen by officer willfully wronging the citizens, for which a citizen may be forced into contract under duress and color of law so as to ensure commerce (exaction) for government through such contract, or be imprisoned for breach of that forced contract. And so, police officers (employees of government) are there for the “protection” of the authority and jurisdiction of government to tax, exact (extort), penalize, put into pain, and punish contracted “citizens” through its police “officers” and its “legal system”.

Great…

So what does government mean when it offers to protect your equal rights under the law?

equal protection: an overview

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide “equality” among individuals or classes but only “equal application” of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights.

And so once again, we can plainly see that civil rights were and are not created to make all men equal in the eyes of the law/government, but instead are instilled to make all men equally liable to the legal statutes and codes created by government. In short, civil rights make all Persons of the United States equally enslaved by diminishing natural rights into codified civil rights – turning unalienable God-given rights into State sanctioned and revocable privileges under contract and force.

–=–
TO SERVE
–=–

So what does it mean for the police to serve the people?

Probably not what you think…

SERVICE, practice. To execute a writ or process; as, to serve a writ of capias signifies to arrest a defendant under the process; Kirby, 48; 2 Aik. R. 338; 11 Mass. 181; to serve a summons, is to deliver a copy of it at the house of the party, or to deliver it to him personally, or to read it to him; notices and other papers are served by delivering the same at the house of the party, or to him in person.

Hmmm… So legally, “to serve” actually means to serve process, to arrest under that process, to serve a summons, or to deliver a notice. Ok, so “service” is not quite what we thought it was…

But remember, the police are protecting your right to be served by government, and your right to be exacted from and punished.

So what happens when a police officer (a corporate officer of a municipality, county, or State) serves me with a summons, process, or notice?

SUMMONS, practice. The name of a writ commanding the sheriff, or other authorized officer to notify a party to appear in court to answer a complaint made against him and in the said writ specified, on a day therein mentioned. 21 Vin. Ab. 42 2 Sell. Pr. 356; 3 Bl. Com. 279.

SUMMONERS. Petty officers who cite men to appear in any court (i.e. municipal police).

TO SUMMON, practice. The act by which a defendant is notified by a competent officer, that an action has been instituted against him, and that he is required to answer to it at a time and place named. This is done either by giving the defendant a copy of the summons, or leaving it at his house (i.e. mail); or by reading the summons to him.

Interesting. Just one problem though…

The problem with a police officer witnessing, writing (creating), and delivering at the same time a “ticket” for a code violation – which is a summons and notice to appear in court – is that the police officer is the creator of the complaint, as well as the authorized officer who is citing in the ticket (summons) a time to appear in court to answer an action. This ultimately means that a “ticket” is an illegal summons, as there is no action that has been created by a court of law, magistrate, or by an actual victim.

The “officer” may legally serve a summons written by a court, but does not have the legal authority to create a summons without the court… (Without means outside of its jurisdiction) A lawful summons must come from a judge or magistrate.

Of course, this is why the officer requires your driver’s or other license with a current address and personhood name. The license represents the contract agreed to, signed, and broken by you (i.e. vehicle code, etc.). Without the license and the consent presumed by it, no legal statute in code could be broken, and thus no citation could be created. That would mean no money could be exacted, oh my!

But can an officer make a complaint?

COMPLAINT, crim. law. The allegation made to a proper officer, that some person, whether known or unknown, has been guilty of a designated offense, with an offer to prove the fact, and a request that the offender may be punished.

COMPLAINANT. One who makes a complaint. A plaintiff in a suit in chancery is so called. 2. To have a legal effect, the complaint must be supported by such evidence as shows that an offense has been committed, and renders it certain or probable that it was committed by the person named or described in the complaint.

A better question would be: Can a police officer make a complaint to himself about you, and then punish you for the offense that he complained about to himself without a judge and jury? Can he complain to himself?

Isn’t that bypassing the whole concept of law and a fair trial?

The officer is supposed to be receiving a complaint, and serving a notice of that complaint. Can he do both lawfully? Isn’t there a checks and balances system for these types of lawless behaviors?

As we all know, the police officer generally has no complaint received for traffic and other citations, and is creating the complaint himself, and then creating a summons to appear in court to answer for that complaint/misdemeanor crime.

In fact, one might construe and even be able to prove that the police officer who issued the citation is indeed impersonating an officer of the court by issuing an unlawful summons to appear in that court. This, of course, is a serious felony crime – the impersonating of a court official. Thus, the magistrate would be required to answer to this fact when presiding over the trial. So the magistrate must admit to the fact that the police officer acted with or without his consent and jurisdiction to issue a summons to appear before this magistrate. If the answer is no, the summons holds no legal authority. If the answer is yes, then the magistrate is admitting on the record to cooperating in criminal coercion with intent to extort. Either way, I’m betting the case would be dismissed.

This is really no different than if a Girl Scout came up to you on the street and forced you at gunpoint under threat of arrest to buy her cookies, and by doing so, you must either pay a fine for her services or appear in court. This, in effect, is forced commerce through a forced contract (citation/ticket) under duress and threat of incarceration. The ticket is a get out of jail card. Sign the summons or go to jail…

So what is the definition of an “action”?

ACTION, in practice… Actions are divided into criminal and civil… 2. – 1. A criminal action is a prosecution in a court of justice in the name of the government, against one or more individuals accused of a crime… 2. A civil action is a legal demand of one’s right, or it is the form given by law for the recovery of that which is due… (lawful vs. legal)

A legal demand of one’s right…“.

Think about what that means for a moment. And remember, your “rights” are taxation, pains, punishments, and extortion under the “contractual relationship”. Thus, these “rights” can be demanded of you.

What a messed up system we have…

Criminal actions require a victim harmed. Civil actions require a contract broken or unfulfilled.

So the legal rules, codes, and municipal corporation statutes, which require the consent and contract of the governed to have authority and jurisdiction, are all based on “civil action” – a legal (not lawful) demand to pay what is due to government – when government police officers bypass the court system altogether to create a demand to pay via an illegal summons. In other words, you must pay the fine or go to court.

But what is the cause of action? Who is the injured party? What contract has been broken?

That’s just it, there is no victim and therefore there is no criminal law broken (no victim, no crime). The action, therefore, is based solely on extortion under threat of arrest in the civil realm. This is an unlawful action, and is created or action without cause with an illegal summons to appear, which you may pay money for (extortion) to avoid making an appearance in court. All of this happens when the citation is signed, becoming a contract.

Ok. So what is a “demand”?

DEMAND, contracts. A claim; a legal obligation

DEMAND, practice. A requisition or a request by one individual to another to do a particular thing. 2. Demands are either express or implied. In many cases, an express demand must be made before the commencement of an action… in other cases an implied demand is all that the law requires, and the bringing of an action is a sufficient demand in those cases…  A demand is frequently necessary to secure to a man all his rights, both in actions arising on contracts and those which are founded on some tort. It is requisite also, when it is intended to bring the party into contempt for not performing an order which has been made a rule of court… 4. – 1. Whether a demand is requisite before the plaintiff can commence an action arising on contract, depends upon express or implied stipulations of the parties… 13. – 2. In cases where the taking of goods is lawful, but their subsequent detention becomes illegal, it is absolutely necessary, in order to secure sufficient evidence of a conversion on the trial, to give a formal notice of the owner’s right to the property and possession, and to make a formal demand in writing of the delivery of such possession to the owner. The refusal to comply with such a demand, unless justified by some right which the possessor may have in the thing detained, will in general afford sufficient evidence of a conversion… 14. – 3. When a nuisance has been erected or continued by a man on his own land, it is advisable, particularly in the case of a private nuisance, to give the party notice and request him to remove it, either before an entry is made for the purpose of abating it, or an action is commenced against the wrong doer and a demand is always indispensable in cases of a continuance of a nuisance originally created by another person… 15. – 4. When an order to pay money, or to do any other thing, has been made a rule of court, a demand for the payment of the money, or performance of the thing, must be made before an attachment will be issued for a contempt…

So technically, the police officer is making a demand before an action is created in a court of law. In other words, the officer is acting illegally as both the party that is harmed (legal codes broken) and the judge of a court who would otherwise issue a demand to answer and pay for an action. This paradox, where the demand for payment is created without a cause of action for payment having been created, is why the “ticket” is actually an illegal summons. No judge ordered you to appear before him, and the police officer is not a judge. Thus, your signature on the “ticket” becomes a private contract created through threat and duress between you and the corporate municipality for which that officer is an employee of – which automatically makes that contract null and void. For a contract must be entered into voluntarily. If you break that contract with consent (by ignoring it, not paying, or not appearing), then you are guilty of breach of contract, and more civil actions will be placed upon you, including liens on your home and personal property – the taking of property to pay the fine created illegally in the first place through coercion and duress.

This is the job description of police officers…

This is service at the barrel of a gun.

So can a ticket be an “order”?

ORDER, contracts. An indorsement (endorsement) or short writing put upon the back of a negotiable bill or note, for the purpose of passing the title to it, and making it payable to another person. 2. When a bill or note is payable to order, which is generally expressed by this formula, “to A B, or order,”or” to the order of A B,” in this case the payee, A B may either receive the money secured by such instrument, or by his order, which is generally done by a simple indorsement, (q. v.) pass the right to receive it to another. But a bill or note wanting these words, although not negotiable, does not lose the general qualities of such instruments… Vide Bill of Exchange; Indorsement. 3. An informal bill of exchange or a paper which requires one person to pay or deliver to another goods on account of the maker to a third party, is called an order.

The police officer is creating a bill of exchange (an order) requiring you to pay or deliver yourself (as surety) to the third party (the court/government). You are agreeing to this order with your signature.

PARTY, practice, contracts. When applied to practice, by party is understood either the plaintiff or defendant. In contracts, a party is one or more persons who engage to perform or receive the performance of some agreement. Vide Parties to contrads; Parties to ‘actions; Parties to a suit in equity.

PERFORMANCE. The act of doing something; the thing done is also called a performance; as, Paul is exonerated from the obligation of his contract by its performance… 2. When a contract has been made by parol, which, under the statute of frauds and perjuries, could not be enforced, because it was not in writing, and the party seeking to avoid it, has received the whole or a part performance of such agreement, he cannot afterwards avoid it… and such part performance will enable the other party to prove it aliunde (from another place)…

PAROL. More properly parole. A French word, which means literally, word or speech. It is used to distinguish contracts which are made verbally or in writing not under seal, which are called parol… which are under seal which bear the name of deeds or specialties… It is proper to remark that when a contract is made under seal, and afterwards it is modified verbally, it becomes wholly a parol contract… 2. Pleadings are frequently denominated in the parol. In some instances the term parol is used to denote the entire pleadings in a cause as when in an action brought against an infant heir, on an obligation of his ancestors, he prays that the parol may demur, i. e., the pleadings may be stayed, till he shall attain full age… But a devisee cannot pray the parol to demur. 3. Parol evidence is evidence verbally delivered by a witness. As to the cases when such evidence will be received or rejected…

SEAL – OFFICE, English practice. The office at which certain judicial writs are sealed with the prerogative seal, and without which they are of no authority. The officer whose duty it is to seal such writs is called “sealer of writs;”

SEALING OF A VERDICT, practice. The putting a verdict in writing, and placing it in an envelop, which is sealed. To relieve jurors after they have agreed, it is not unusual for the counsel to agree that the jury shall seal their verdict, and then separate. When the court is again in session, the jury come in and give their verdict, in all respects as if it had not been sealed, and a juror may dissent from it, if since the sealing, he has honestly changed his mind.

By now, we should realize that this whole exchange is an attempt to exact (extort) money from people by government. The police officer is having you sign an informal bill (contract) requiring you to pay on account of the officer to the government court system, which in this case is the “third party”. The police man is an employee or officer of the government corporation, and is securing the bill as a title backed by yourself as surety to pay exaction (extortion money) to the government corporation (third party). If you don’t pay, you and your property (registered property with the State) are the collateral that will be collected or put in jail.

As a parol(e) contract, a ticket/citation (illegal summons) has no authority accept that which you give to it with your consent and signature. It is based on the presumption of law (prima facie law) and orated (without seal) by the officer of the government, and relies upon the consent of the governed (you) for its authority and jurisdiction.

A “ticket”, as an illegal summons to appear, is a contract signed by you to avoid being placed in jail (parole). If you do not sign the summons, you will be arrested. Under this threat, most people sign the ticket, just as they would give their wallet over to an armed robber who threatened to harm or kill them.

Thus, the summons is not lawful. It is an illegal contract based on coercion and fear.

Of course, most people just accept and consent to the authority and jurisdiction of the police officer due to their fear of that officer and to that of the illegitimate for-profit court system of the corporations called municipalities and their prisons. If they decide to take a stand against this ridiculous extortion and racketeering ring hilariously called “law enforcement”, they must then do as the illegal summons requires them to do under their forced signature, which is to make an appearance in court.

APPEARANCE, practice. Signifies the filing common or special bail to the action. 2. The appearance… should (in accordance with the ancient practice) purport to be in term time… yet, in fact, much of the business is now done, in periods of vacation (without appearing). 3. The appearance of the parties is no longer (as formerly) by the actual presence in court, either by themselves or their attorneys; but, it must be remembered, an appearance of this kind is still supposed, and exists in contemplation of law. The appearance is effected on the part of the defendant (when he is not arrested) by making certain formal entries in the proper office of the court, expressing his appearance… or, in case of arrest, it may be considered as effected by giving bail to the action. On the part of the plaintiff no formality expressive of appearance is observed.

The most important aspect of this term is the fact that it can be done through the certified mail using a notary public. In short, the notary is your court away from court. By responding (answering) via certified mail (certification show proof of receipt by the court) with a notarized letter (the notary makes the letter official by witness), the court must then consider that answer as a contract. It must answer that contract or be in violation of it. Thus, a time period (generally 21 days) for the answer of the court must be included within your letter, just as the original illegal summons allowed you a certain amount of time to pay for your fine or appear in court. Items requested should be things like the judges oath and affirmation to the united states of America (not the United States without America), a fee schedule showing the fees required by you to conduct commerce in that court, and demands for cause of action among other things.

This is your appearance and your answer to the illegal summons. And the last thing you want to do is to appear in a court, unless it is with a grand jury.

In a grand jury, the judge has no real authority over you, and the people of the grand jury decide the outcome of the case. Chances are, since the court system is a for-profit enterprise, the case will be dismissed long before it reaches an expensive and arduous grand jury process that must be paid for by the government. After all, they just wanted to exact you of the amount of the citation, and hope you will just be a good little slave and pay it via mail or online with a credit card. And with the judge and police officer participating in organized crime, the last thing they would want is to be indicted by a grand jury for coercion, racketeering, and illegal contracts created at gunpoint.

It is important to note here that when we show up to what is commonly referred to as “traffic court”, we are not really going to court at all. In fact, often times the presiding attorney over the traffic court is not even a true judge, but is just an administrative clerk assigned to arbitrate the proceedings. In order to actually make an appearance, the traffic court would have to schedule a hearing, which it does for those who are fooled into making a plea of “not guilty”. Of course, the only true answer to the question posed by the court as to your being guilty, not guilty, or no contest, is the word “innocent”.

INNOCENCE, The absence of guilt. 2. The law presumes in favor of innocence, even against another presumption of law

Making a plea of “not guilty” is not synonymous with being innocent. In a municipal administrative traffic court (legal setting), you are presumed guilty. Only in law is one presumed innocent. This is why “traffic courts” are set up as the first place the people will appear. Traffic courts are like spider webs – they catch the 99% of the ignorant people who make an appearance there, and entrap them with a plea. Claiming innocence is not a plea. It is a demand.

CLAIM. A claim is a challenge of the ownership of a thing which a man has not in possession, and is wrongfully withheld by another

The claim of the innocence of a man by that man cannot be withheld or challenged by the court.

However, the guilt of a man who claims his person (a corporation/thing) to be not guilty can be so held and presumed under contract created by the plea.

With the plea of “not guilty”, guilt is still assumed by the court under the contract (ticket) signed. After all, you signed the ticket – and this could be construed as an admission of guilt (though you had no choice and would be arrested if you didn’t sign). The plea itself is also a contractual agreement with the court, and the court will demand (legal obligation) action (recovery of what is due the court by contract) based on any plea. A plea of any type is not a demand, but is instead literally a process of begging of the courts forgiveness by answering the declaration (challenge) of the unlawful plaintiff (police officer of the court or government), as opposed to answering the court’s claim with your own demand for the cause of action through the notarized and certified mail, as talked about above.

PLEA, practice. The defendant’s answer by matter of fact, to the plaintiff’s declaration.

PLEA, chancery practice… A plea is a special answer to a bill, and differs in this from an answer in the common form, as it demands the judgment of the court in the first instance, whether the matter urged by it does not debar the plaintiff from his title to that answer which the bill requires… 2. Pleas are of three sorts: 1. To the jurisdiction of the court. 2. To the person of the plaintiff. 3. In bar of the plaintiff’s suit

This process of making a plea takes place within the court, and binds the plea maker (defendant) to the court in contract. One should never make a plea, for this assigns the jurisdiction of the court to the case, and places the person under that jurisdiction.

In opposition to this, an answer may be created by the innocent man to the the courts (plaintiff’s) claim prior to the date of the summons, which may challenge the jurisdiction of the court and require a cause of action of the plaintiff. In most traffic citation cases, there is no cause of action, because the demand was created without the cause of action existing. So there is no official cause of action that dated prior to the illegal summons issued by the police officer (plaintiff), thus the demand (citation and summons) was not based on a legal action of that court – which would have created the summons in the first place. And so your notarized “answer” to the court listed on the “ticket” (illegal summons) through the certified mail is to demand the cause of action, for which the court cannot produce because the summons was created without an action by the court.

Thus, this paradox is not answerable by the court, and its jurisdiction is challenged successfully. Remember, in traffic code violation cases, a civil action is a legal demand of one’s right, or it is the form given by law for the recovery of that which is due.

There is no law that gives a corporate for-profit municipal traffic court the lawful ability to recover what is due to them under a contract (citation/illegal summons) that was created under duress and by force and coercion. If you pay the fee listed on a ticket, you are doing so under your own free will with consent (and ignorance of the law), and accepting the validity, pain, and punishment of the unlawful contract by paying the fee, so as to not have to appear physically in court. This is extortion, and you submit to it by payment or by appearing in traffic court, instead of standing on your natural, God-given rights against tyranny.

What does it mean to legally answer the court?

ANSWER, practice. The declaration of a fact by a witness after a question has been put asking for it

ANSWER, pleading in equity. A defense in writing made by a defendant, to the charges contained in a bill or information, filed by the plaintiff against him in a court of equity… 2. As a defendant is called by a bill or information to make a discovery of the several charges it contains, he must do so, unless he is protected either by a demurrer, a plea, or disclaimer…

DISCOVERY, practice, pleading. The act of disclosing or revealing by a defendant, in his answer to a bill filed against him in a court of equity.

The answer is part of the discovery process in our case. It should be done by mail.

PLEADING, practice. The statement in a logical, and legal form, of the facts which constitute the plaintiff’s cause of action, or the defendant’s ground of defense; it is the formal mode of alleging that on the record, which would be the support, or the defense of the party in evidence… In a general sense, it is that which either party to a suit at law alleges for himself in a court, with respect to the subject-matter of the cause, and the mode in which it is carried on, including the demand which is made by the plaintiff; but in strictness, it is no more than setting forth those facts or arguments which show the justice or legal sufficiency of the plaintiff’s demand, and the defendant’s defense, without including the statement of the demand itself, which is contained in the declaration or count. Bac. Abr. Pleas and Pleading.

So what does it mean for a police officer to “serve” a process or a notice?

PROCESS, practice. So denominated because it proceeds or issues forth in order to bring the defendant into court, to answer the charge preferred against him, and signifies the writ or judicial means by which he is brought to answer… 3. In criminal cases that proceeding which is called a warrant, before the finding of the bill, is termed process when issued after the indictment has been found by the jury

PROCESS, rights. The means or method of accomplishing a thing.

NOTICE. The information given of some act done, or the interpolation by which some act is required to be done. It also signifies, simply, knowledge; as A had notice that B was a slave… 2. Notices should always be in writing; they should state, in precise terms, their object, and be signed by the proper person, or his authorized agent, be dated, and addressed to the person to be affected by them.

In case you missed that, the “serve” part of “To Protect and Serve” is to deliver notices and to issue process (serve process) so as to give official notice to you that you are either required to pay a fine, fee, tax, or other exaction (extortion), or are required to appear in court via a warrent in criminal charges, or as a defendant in a civil case.

To “serve” does not mean to “help”.

It means to “force” or to “deliver”.

“Serving” is a legal term, not a lawful one. Cops are not required to help you or to protect you in any way, accept those which are required of the cop in serving legal documents in process, notice, or summons.

But let’s go back further into the roots of the word serve under feudal law:

SERVICE, feudal law. That duty which the tenant owes to his lord, by reason of his fee or estate. 2. The services, in respect of their quality, were either free or base, and in respect of their quantity and the time of exacting them, were either certain or uncertain. 2 Bl. Com. 62. 3. In the civil law by service is sometimes understood servitude. (q. v.)

SERVITUDE, civil law. A term which indicates the subjection of one person to another person, or of a person to a thing, or of a thing to a person, or of a thing to a thing… 4. The subjection of one person to another is a purely personal servitude; if it exists in the right of property which a person exercises over another, it is slavery. When the subjection of one person to another is not slavery, it consists simply in the right of requiring of another what he is bound to do, or not to do; this right arises from all kinds of contracts or quasi contracts. Lois des Bat. P. 1, c. 1, art. 1.

SERVITUS, civil law. A service or servitude; a burden imposed by law, or the agreement of parties upon certain persons, for the benefit of others; or upon one estate for the advantage of another, or for the benefit of another person than the owner.

SERVITUS. Servitude; slavery; a state of bondage. “Servitus autem, est constitutio,” say the Institutes of Justinian, 1, 3, 2, “qua quis dominio alieno contra naturam subjicitur.” Servitude is a disposition of the law of nations, by which, against common right, one man has been subjected to the dominion of another. See Bract. 4 b; Co. Litt. 116.

SUBJECTION. The obligation of one or more persons to act at the discretion, or according to the judgment and will of others.

SUBJECT, contracts. The thing (i.e. person) 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 (not the same as natural rights – political rights are codified civil legal privileges granted via contract. Natural rights are God-given and above the laws of men.).

SLAVE. A man who is by law deprived of his liberty for life, and becomes the property of another. 2. A slave has no political rights, and generally has no civil rights. He can enter into no contract unless specially authorized by law; what he acquires generally, belongs to his master… 3. In Maryland, Missouri and Virginia slaves are declared by statute to be personal estate, or treated as such… In Kentucky, the rule is different, and they are considered real estate… In general a slave is considered a thing and not a person; but sometimes he is considered as a person; as when he commits a crime; for example, two white persons and a slave can commit a riot…

Remember, the 13th Amendment didn’t end slavery, it made all persons as equal slaves through conviction. This is what government calls equal rights!

Remember, the police are there to serve you process and notice and to protect your rights of punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind.

What more really needs to be said here?

.

For more fun and understanding of our collective disposition within this government fraud per the legal definitions of the words that bind us, you may wish to explore my other essay, here:

https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2012/07/04/why-the-supreme-court-claims-obamacare-is-constitutional/

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney. I am not offering legal advice. I am not practicing law. I will never act as or within any of these presumptions. Claims put forth otherwise will be met with a lawsuit for defamation of my character and slander… If you understand this, then you understand self-actualization and liberty.

.

P.S. I turned 40 years old today. Happy berth-day to me…

.

–Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Wednesday, August 8th, 2012

Dear Latino Voters… Don’t Be Stupid Americans!


In the March 12, 2012 issue of Time Magazine, the following article was published in the “conversation” section on page 2:

“Is this the group that’s really going to pick the next president?”

“CNN’s Soledad O’brien sounded a bit skeptical when she questioned Michael Scherer about his March 5 cover story, “Why Latino Voters Will Swing The 2012 Election”. But MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry had no such doubts: “I imagine [GOP candidates] will be digging into their Spanish-language dictionaries when the get a glance at this week’s TIME. “The cover was widely discussed among Latino bloggers and social media users, some of whom were disappointed that it did not feature any Afro-Latinos, but most of whom saluted TIME for its first cover line in Spanish, Yo Decido…

First of all, my Spanish friends, you must understand that even if every last one of you voted for president of the United States in the 2012 election this year, absolutely none of your votes would count.

That’s right… in the United States, we have an indirect election for president. According to the Constitution of the United States and its several Amendments, the president of the United States is elected by 538 people each election sometime in January.

There are 438 National congressmen in the House of Representatives, and 100 United States Senators in Congress. These are the people you actually get to vote for – the people who make the rules and Amend the Constitution. And the Constitution states that these men and women each receive 1 vote for president, which is delegated to an “elector”. These electors are then appointed by the political parties and the president of the United States is chosen by a vote of these 538 electors.

A list of these electors for 2008 – the 538 people who actually elected President Barack Obama for president – can be found here:

LINK–> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_electors,_2008

So, the answer to the question posed in the question above can be answered two ways…

Will Latino’s pick the next president?

Answer #1 – NO! – The popular vote doesn’t count towards the election of the president. The president is not elected by the people, and the color of peoples skin at the voting poles makes absolutely no difference to who gets elected president.

Answer #2 – MAYBE… The popular vote is called popular for a reason. It relies on the fact that most Latino, White, Black, and every color in between does not understand the election process of the electoral college. In other words, it relies on a big colorful bunch of stupid Americans! In short, the popular vote is a popularity contest; a beauty pageant for ugly old men. It means nothing accept in the fact that the vast majority of colorful Americans voted for their favorite American idol without realizing that their votes – as in Hollywood – are just for show, and that the 538 electors do the actual voting on behalf of each State. But if the Latino voters woke up to this open secret and organized crime, and realized that the Republican and Democratic Political parties have been responsible for appointing these electors for so many decades, then maybe, just maybe, this chain could be broken. The combined Latino vote could only make a difference if, as a group, you vote outside of the two-party system, which would ensure that the electors of president would not be loyal to the political parties, but to all the people of America regardless of their skin color. In this way, the Latino vote could actually change the world.

But even with the possibility of this happening, your leaders are dependent upon this system as well. They might even try to sell you a story that, as a white man, I am the devil, and shouldn’t be trusted. Of course, the black leaders might be telling their people the same thing about you. And the white leaders will no doubt be using you and the Chinese as the excuse for their participation in the legal, organized crime we call politics.

So don’t be stupid American’s like us this year… vote for a non-party candidate. Vot for your mother or father. Vote for a nun. Vote for anybody that has the people at heart. But do not vote as sheep for the latest wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Or, you could collectively send a real message to Washington D.C, by not playing the election fraud game at all. Make 2012 the first year that the people of America tell our government that we want a real election like Russia – a direct election of a non-party president of the people by the people of America.

.

–Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)(Clint4p.com)
–Wednesday, July 18, 2012

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

Congressman Confirms: United States Is A “Corporation”


Junior Tea Party Congressman Allen West makes a huge confession: “…the President is the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of this corporation called the United States of America”.

Confession at 4:50 in video:

Hero? Or untrained employee of the “corporation”?

You decide…

Learn more about The Corporation Nation here:

http://thecorporationnation.com/

.

–Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
Monday, August 1st, 2011

 

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,174 other followers