Strawman (Volume I) Now Shipping!


Greetings programs…

After fighting what can only be described as an extremely uphill battle, being such an inexperienced little fish in a pond of some very large and filthy corporate sharks, I am happy to announce that “STRAWMAN: The Real Story Of Your Artificial Person – Volume 1” is being printed and bound as I write this, and will officially begin shipping on Monday of next week (August 7th, 2017). I can’t possibly make any more rookie mistakes or trip over any more stumbling blocks! No more changes or corrections — of which there were a seemingly endless supply. What is written will not be undone — a scary thought — and thanks to all of your support and trust, I was able to get printed a total of 2,000 copies.

How ironic that this day falls but one day before my own strawman debtor’s birth event day (August 8th) — the day the informed upon Clint Richardson was legally berthed into this open-air debtor’s prison for so-called “natural persons.” And like every victim of this human capital management system of the district, I was at every turn tricked into voluntarily using (confirming) that false persona in agency as a legal vessel in commerce.

I am assured that Strawman will begin shipping free to all who have donated towards my efforts and requested a free copy as a gift, beginning this Monday. I hope that the receipt of this gift has been worth the wait, and I thank you all for your support and patience.

I have already sent out an email to each of you that I have confirmed for shipment on my mailing list, for those in the 50 States only. I am still working on international pricing and lists. If you did not receive an email but are expecting a printed copy to be sent to you domestically, please contact me to correct my records. Those in other countries should expect a confiramtion email shortly.

–=–


–=–
Warning: This work is not approved by church and state!

Inside Volume I:
Over 2,000 legal word-terms defined
Over 300 Bible texts/verses examined
Over 500 sourced quotes and citations
—=–

For all of the delays and seemingly purposeful obfuscations I have experienced in trying to get printed this private work in book-form without falling prey to the typical legalisms, big box print-on-demand mentality, and other corporate strangleholds, as well as doing so with the firm and unbroken insistence that it was printed without numbers, ISBN’s, barcodes, or any other “publishing” marks and government interventions and tracking devices, I could certainly tell you some amazing stories. I took the route less traveled, the hardest road, sticking with my demands of privacy and thus printing an unpublished work that is certainly not in any way registered or approved by church and state! Instead, I have chosen to learn from this series of unfortunate events some very valuable lessons, both legal and moral, to accept the things and persons I cannot change, and to be contented and happy that I finally found an honest printer.

–=–

“…I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.”

–Robert Frost

–=–

Though I may be telling my own story from some future prison or camp for political and religious dissenters, I am happy to say that I will be telling it with the utmost dignity. And yes, this certainly makes all the difference.

Though presently exhausted by this ongoing work and by the mental obstical course I just suffered, I will continue to work on Volume II and other works until I physically die or am made a civilly dead prisoner of the corporate church’s state. I figure that my next-next project after the Strawman series will be the history of the CAFR and how it was used to take us clandestinely into the globalism we find ourselves in today, and how combined government (an artificial persona), through investments and proxy shareholder voting, owns and controls it all! You aren’t shopping at Chevron, Costco, Apple, or Time Warner, you are always a “customer” of and shopping at government (a singular incorporation of all corporations). No corporation is created without (outside of) government. We live our commercial (fictional/dead) existence (persona) in a national company store, where all corporations are majority-share held by government investments, and where each board of directors is elected by proxy shareholder bidding by the collective, majority shareholder, which again is collectively government. And, of course, you can only spend government’s patented script, money or credit, which are both merely debt instruments — IOU’s. And so you are always using the property of another.

Not ironically, this was one of the biggest complaints of the original American colonists, that they should be taxed and forced to sped the script of the King of England, a script they could not create and had to borrow or earn from the king itself. But then, at least the colonists knew their status, that a colony is literally a company store of the crown, and that the word colony merely means the farm or plantation of a master.

These facts answer just about every question you may ever have about why corporations literally get away with murder, and why government never regulates corporations, for they are their main beneficiary and shareholding profiteer. And the highest corporate law is that the shareholders must make profit and gain on their investment. But this is another story… the story of the ultimate in conflict of interests.

I wish again here to thank everyone over the years who has donated towards my full time, unpaid activism, movie-making, radio hosting and guesting, and writing, all of which are freely shared with all who seek and always will be.

I again remind you that my new work, “Strawman: The Real Story of Your Artificial Person: Volume 1” is and always will be FREE to download in digital form (pdf) at my website, and that the printed version is not ready to be given (see website for instructions):

LINK–> strawmanstory.info

I am today updating the final, free version as printed, after correcting many spelling and grammatical mistakes, which will look then exactly as it is now printed. Please feel free to download and enjoy this work, both as a walkthrough of the legal matrix and as a seriously huge and utilizable resource outlet.

–=–
What Now?
–=–

1st of all, I think it’s time to dust off this old blog and start using it again. So… I’m back!

2nd, of course, I will continue with future volumes of Strawman and other works.

3rd, I’d say it’s about time to make another vaccine documentary. The ultimate documentary. One that cannot be outdone. One that names names and destroys false reputations. One that exposes even the “anti-vaccine” circuit as frauds in controlled opposition, who call for “safe” vaccines as if there is such a thing. But most importantly, one that shows vaccines for exactly what they are  — a well laid plan, as a time-released, biological weapon.

4th, and this is where I could use a bit of help, I’d like to start a radio show again. But you see, like many of you, I don’t know where I “fit in” any more, or at least who would be brave (or dumb) enough to permit me to speak with free reign about how little truth is being spewed in the so-called truth-movement. Who wants to hear that patriotism is a psychopathy like Stockholm Syndrome while at the same time hearing advertisements within commercial airtime by so-called “patriot” corporations, as if Chinese junk and red, white, and blue stuff can ever feel patriotic? Who wants to hear that most of us are not one of “We, the People” or that these so-called “People” don’t actually even exist in Reality, that “the People” is just a corporation (artificial person) called as the States? Who wants to let me rant about The Corporation Nation we are all unwitting yet voluntary agents (employees) of?

—=—

“A state, is called the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly lieth it also; and this lie creepeth from its mouth: “I, the state, am the people.” It is a lie! Creators were they who created peoples, and hung a faith and a love over them: thus they served life. Destroyers, are they who lay snares for many, and call it the state: they hang a sword and a hundred cravings over them. Where there is still a people, there the state is not understood, but hated as the evil eye, and as sin against laws and customs.”

—Friedrich Nietzsche, from ‘Thus Spoke Zarathustra’

—=—

In short, it seems there is no place out there for the self-evident Truth! You see, the Truth doesn’t sell… only mythology sells. Empty hope without end sells. Fear sells. Lies sell. Sex sells. But undeniable Truth? There is simply no market for it. And so, I’ll just simply put it out there that I am looking for a new home for my new show. I already have a title…

RED PILL SUNDAY SCHOOL

TAGLINE: Buy the truth, and sell it not…” (Proverbs 32:32)

Want to hear me rant profusely and wax philosophical? Want to see the legal matrix (artificial womb) for what it is? Want to hear again from Patrick, Daniel, and other kindred spirits sharing this journey? Well then help me find an uncensored broadcasting home, if there is such an entity…

Or, maybe you fancy yourself organized, like a producer, and want to help me to organize and run a podcast? I’ll take a radio host spot from the highest bidder… which, of course, will be nothing, nada, zero, as it always is for those who will not — can not conform. Just let ’em know I am seeking a soapbox. And, of course, that I would love to do more radio, both interviews and hosting, now that this Strawman soft cover is finally finished and available.

On a final note, I wish to thank everyone that has helped me to finally get this work printed, and for trusting in me, both monetarily but especially with your time, care, and kind words. You know who you are, and you know I could not have done this project without you, from editing to spell-checking to donations to some much needed criticism.

A very special thanks to Craig Stuckless and his artistic hand, as the cover artist for this Strawman series. His brilliant work was given to the project freely, and the time and effort Craig put into this was incredible and incalculable to most. Thankfully, his professional experience with the print industry helped me in ways I cannot begin to relay or repay here.

Craig’s portfolio of artwork can be seen here: http://cargocollective.com/artofcraigs

For those who understand what it is to give your time freely as a professional, if anyone would like to help me raise some funds to offer to Craig as a gift for his many weeks of work on this art project, I’d be very appreciative. Like myself, like my now strange story, he is trying to escape the controlled corporate art world while at the same time attempting to use his professional skills for charitable and activist purposes. And that means sacrifice, both mentally and physically, socially and especially financially. Just let me know in an email or make a note that your donation should go to Craig And I’ll see to it. At this point, I am almost tapped out from printing and must still pay for the initial shipping of a few hundred copies of Strawman, so any help in gifting him is much appreciated. Craig has helped me out along the way in too many ways to even mention here. Other examples of his work on Strawman include these:

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Just how much time and work did this take?

Check out Craig’s many layers of artistic expression on Strawman here:
–>https://issuu.com/artofcraigs/docs/the_production_manual_series_-_case

–=–

With all of this said, I can only hope this work was worth the wait, and that it brings forward to each of you what you have been seeking — self evident Truth and knowledge.

The latest version, which is the same as the now printed version (without index), will be posted and the update noted at StrawmanStrory.info and always free to download, with many errors now corrected. This will always be free in its pdf form, so feel free to share it freely, never for profit, with good intent. You cannot possibly steal from he who gives freely, so give without concern.

Now, however, I need you all once again, your word of mouth. Spread the website or give away the pdf at will, and help me to get onto different radio shows to spread this work and more importantly the True and only Law.

Volume II, by the way, is well in the works.

Check back soon at StrawmanStory.info for an updated, final and always free pdf to download.

Be and stay well, for you may already be the remnant…

.

Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
Friday, August 4th, 2017

I Am Not The People, And Neither Are You


It is the greatest of fallacies; indeed it might be the greatest public relations stunt ever conceived. It cannot be defined. It cannot be touched or spoken to. It cannot be seen. It has no substance.

And yet we as individuals identify ourselves as it with perfectly unhindered irrationality, while at the same time never being able to grasp its totality of non-existence. It is used to describe every last one of us, even when it singles out one of us to bully and plunder. It represents the basis of the entire structure of power over us, while at the same time somehow being us. And the power of it has created the most impressive false dialectic ever conceived in the history of the world.

Monarchies and dictatorships are surely envious of it, for even the most violent of militarized tyrannies cannot match the shear driving force of the consent of it. And all who oppose it have learned that no power in the world, including an act of God, seems to be able to stop it.

So just what is it?

It is the ambiguous title of “the People.”

In its most surreal application, the People is most often used to cause a lack of tangible responsibility for the actions of the People. Like the Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde model, the men and women that make up the citizenry of government can simply blame the government for everything done in the People’s name, even though it was supposedly done with the consent of the governed. For the government, the men and women that make up that legislature and Executive branch can simply blame the citizenry for giving their consent as the governed People, never admitting that their own actions (which are often despite the actual People’s will) were anything but the will of the People.

Either way, it seems, no one is ever to blame for the actions of the People because the People simply does not exist.

Does the People cast a shadow? Can the People be touched or seen? Can the People actually only speak with one voice, considering it supposedly equates to all the citizens in the nation? Can the elected officials somehow be the People despite the rest of the People just because those People voted for the legislators to be the voice of the People?

Just who, in the end, do you suppose is taking responsibility as the actual People? Is it the president? Is he the People when He decides to act as the People without actually consulting the People? Is the entire citizenry of People thus responsible as a collective People for the actions of the president acting as the People?

–=–
The People vs. The People
–=–

I can just imagine it… where all parties claiming to be the People actually go into arbitration so as to decide just who is in actuality responsible for the actions of government. It would be more devious than a divorce case, more televised than the O.J. Simpson case, and more flippant than a cat in a hot tub.

The common People would claim that the government committed a crime. The government would then counter-claim that the People voted for government, and therefore the crime was in the name of the People. But, so argues the attorney for the voting People, government is acting without consulting the People in its actions. To which government’s Attorney General retorts that the People gave consent for the government to act as the People in all things political, which really means that government is the spirit of the People. Nay, nay, says the common People’s representative, for the People have voiced in private and have called and sent petitions to these re-presentations of the People in government and spoken their individual opinions of government’s actions, and a majority of the People do not approve of government’s actions while acting as the People. And still in stalemate defiance, the government would claim that while the People certainly have the right to individually voice their personal opinions under the doctrine of “free speech”, says the Attorney General for the United States (i.e. the People), the People (government) is certainly not required in any way to consider the People’s (any citizen’s) individual opinions on the actions of government (the People)…

And at this point, Judge Judy slams her gavel down in Talmudic entropy and declares a mistrial due to irreconcilable differences in sameness.

And when the opinions of the case are written into case law, it would read that no distinction could be established in either separating the government from the People or the People from government, and that no individual citizen could claim to be the People, for all the People cannot be manifest in just one common person. Finally, it is the courts opinion that no individual or group of persons can claim to be the actual full body of People, because the People is a plural title for a singular body politic called the People. Therefore, only government can call itself the People, despite the fact that government is merely a fiction of law with no substance, and so the People cannot in fact sue the government for the government is in fact and in title actually the People.

Final decision: the case cannot exist because the People cannot sue the People. The government cannot sue itself. The People, therefore, must submit to the will of the People.

Here exists the hand of the People,
claiming to exist despite its non-existence,
presenting its own representation.

–=–
Say What?
–=–

If the above is confusing for you, ask yourself a few questions….

Are you a People? Is there any way that the word People can be a singular term that refers to only one man or woman?

Is government a People? Inasmuch as Walmart is a corporation, and the entire staff, board, CEO, shareholders, and owners could loosely be called a People, then yes.

Is government the People? How can government be all of us People if we are not voting for the actions or laws created by the small group of People in government?

Sure, we vote for which persons will inhabit government, but those People never ask permission from the rest of the People who voted for them when they pass laws on the People’s behalf. But if the government (the People) is able to put the responsibility of its actions on the entirety of all the People, then is it any wonder that the People never punish the People in government for crimes against the People?

Trying to figure out just what the People is at this point is like looking at an infinite, self-similar fractal. The beginning and the ending of just what the People is can never be truly be ascertained. And just when you think you have it figured out, you realize the paradox that its true quantitative power is that it is an equation with no solution – an impossible perfection of the political corruption of natural reason and logic.

 

Don’t get lost

–=–

How can such a nonsensical word as the People have been foisted upon the masses of men, who self-identify as both an individual sentient being and a fictional plural construct? How can hundreds of millions of men be convinced that they are not men but legally a single hive-minded political term known as the People? And from that experiential belief, how were so many strong-willed men able to be convinced that We, the People is the creator of all things and all laws, and that even though they are supposedly one of the People, the People can somehow single one of the individual People out and sue, fine, tax, punish, imprison, and even put to death that individual all in the name of that great god called We, the People? Amazingly, even as individual sentient beings, we still consider and address ourselves not as our selves, but as the whole People. I am We. We am I.

And therein lies the greatest word magic and trickery ever spell-cast. For by saying I am We, the People, a man is really saying I am of government. I am a fictional representation of myself. I am an individual fictional person and one of the fictional People at the same time? I am not man. I have no voice. I am totally controllable. I am a creation of government

Literally, my will is the People’s will, and so therefore the People’s will tells me my will, whether I like it or not, and whether the People them-selves like it or not. Cause there are no real People, just a bunch of subjects called persons. It’s all just a fiction. Just a name. A big lie.

–=–
Maxim’s Of Law:
–=–

“The creator controls.”

“A thing similar is not exactly the same.”

“One who wills a thing to be or to be done cannot complain of that thing as an injury.”

“He who consents cannot receive an injury.”

“Consent removes or obviates a mistake.”

“The agreement of the parties overcomes or prevails against the law.”

“Agreement takes the place of the law: the express understanding of parties supercedes such understanding as the law would imply.”

“No one can sue in the name of another.”

“It is immaterial whether a man gives his assent by words or by acts and deeds.”

“A fiction is a rule of law that assumes something which is or may be false as true.”

“Where truth is, fiction of law does not exist.”

“Whoever does anything by the command of a judge (magistrate/We, the People as god) is not reckoned to have done it with an evil intent, because it is necessary to obey.”

“Where a person does an act by command of one exercising judicial (magistrative) authority, the law will not suppose that he acted from any wrongful or improper motive, because it was his bounded duty to obey.”

 –=–

Why can’t anyone get in trouble by the law for crimes against humanity? Because People aren’t men! A man acting in person as one of the People has the permission of the People to do what the People tell the person to do on behalf of the People. In other words, if the People are sovereign, and a sovereign knows no law above it, then the People have no real law when acting as the sovereign We, the People, and pretend to operate their crimes under the law of the People! This is the simulacra and simulation of the People and of government. The People is a copy with no (living) original. The government is similar to the law but not the law; a simulation of God. This is the fractal reality of a great and powerful lie, the underlying law being truly that of anything goes.

Who, what, where, when, and how is the People?
Will the real People please stand up?

–=–

People is a fiction of law. The law, however, assumes that the fiction (People) is non-fiction (Mankind), and that therefore the fiction is true in the eyes of the law. The law says that all of mankind are a single People. Man acting as persons of the People (government) are acting in another name (in the name of the People), and so man acting in the name of or as the People can certainly not sue the government, for the government is the People, and the People cannot sue the People itself, and so this makes somehow a functional paradox we call justice.

The People cannot really complain to government, which claims to be doing the will of the People, because again the People cannot complain about the People. They are the same thing. One single body politic. On individual thing. E pluibus unum. One world order is merely a one world People of the same world government (the People). Individual nations are called “state’s” of the United Nations, and the member nations will just be the new People of the One World Nation. For ultimately, in a global government, the People that is the United States will only be considered one individual person in the United Nations.

Now don’t be confused, for it is easy to fall into the fractal trap of this word porn. A diehard “We, the People” person that just can’t imagine not being regarded as a plural and thus actually be responsible for his own actions despite the People he identifies himself as, and therefore as a real non-dependent man, is no longer able to blame government or his mistaken identity he calls the People for his or her own inaction; somehow blaming all other People as opposed to himself while simultaneously believing that he is indeed one of the People which he himself blames. Damn People!

Whoa there!

Seriously, before the fractal gets way out of hand (Mandelbrot would be so proud), let’s make sure that this whole diatribe isn’t just some modern abstract from a fractal crack-head’s dream…

Let’s see what this word People means in the legal books:

PEOPLE, noun [Latin populus.]1. The body of persons who compose a community, town, city or nation. We say, the people of a town; the people of London or Paris; the English people. In this sense, the word is not used in the plural, but it comprehends all classes of inhabitants, considered as a collective body, or any portion of the inhabitants of a city or country. 2. The vulgar; the mass of illiterate persons. The knowing artist may judge better than the people 3. The commonalty, as distinct from men of rank. Myself shall mount the rostrum in his favor, And strive to gain his pardon from the people 4. Persons of a particular class; a part of a nation or community; as country people 5. Persons in general; any persons indefinitely; like on in French, and man in Saxon. 6. A collection or community of animals. The ants are a people not strong, yet they prepare their meat in the summer. Proverbs 30:25. 7. When people signified a separate nation or tribe, it has the plural number. Thou must prophesy again before many peoples. Revelation 10:11. 8. In Scripture, fathers or kindred. Genesis 25:8. 9. The Gentiles. –To him shall the gathering of the people be. Genesis 49:10. – verb transitive  – To stock with inhabitants. Emigrants from Europe have peopled the United States. (–Webster’s 1828)

PEOPLEA state; as the people of the state of New York. A nation in its collective and political capacityThe aggregate or mass of the individuals who constitute the state… In a more restricted sense, and as generally used in constitutional law, the entire body of those citizens of a state or nation who are invested with political power for political purposes, that is, the qualified voters or electors… In neutrality laws, a government recognized by the United States. The word “people” may have various signification according to the connection in which it is used. When we speak of the rights of the people, or of the government of the people by law, or of the people as a non-political aggregate, we mean all the inhabitants of the state or nation, without distinction an to sex, age, or otherwise. But when reference is made to the people as the repository of sovereignty, or as the source of governmental power, or to popular government, we are in fact speaking of that select and limited class of citizens to whom the constitution accords the elective franchise and the right of participation in the offices of government. (–Black’s 4rth Edition)

PEOPLE – Ordinarily, the entire body of the inhabitants of a State. In a political sense, that portion of the inhabitants who are intrusted with political power; the qualified voters. The words “the people” must be determined by the connection. In some cases they refer to the qualified voters, in others to the state in its sovereign capacity. The United States government proceeds directly, from the people; is “ordained and established” in the name of the people. It is emphatically and truly a government of the people. In form and substance it emanates from them. Its powers are granted by them, and are to be exercised directly on them, and for their benefit.” Under our system, the “people,” who in England are called “subjects,” constitute the sovereign. The simple word “people”  is sometimes applied to a nation or foreign power. When the constitution of a State directs that processes shall run in the name of the State, a process in the name of the “people” will be held deficient, notwithstanding the form be statutory.” See Citizen; Country; Government; Lex, Salus, etc.; Magistrate; Nation; Sovereignty; State, Welfare. (–W.C. Anderson 1889)

–=–

Ever wonder why a petition never seems to work? That’s because a petition is not created by all the People, but only by some persons. Persons are not the People. In other words, a petition may be considered as legal evidence, but not as the will of the People. The People is a legal concept that the People can’t seem to access, though We are supposedly the People.

PETITION – A written address, embodying an application or prayer from the person or persons preferring it, to the power, body, or person to whom it is presented, for the exercise of his or their authority in the redress of some wrong, or the grant of some favor, privilege, or license.

PRAYERThe request contained in a bill in equity that the court will grant the process, aid, or relief which the complainant desires. Also, by extension, the term is applied to that part of the bill which contains this request.

PRAYER – chancery pleadings. That part of a bill which asks for relief. 2. The skill of the solicitor is to be exercised in framing this part of the bill. An accurate specification of the matters to be decreed in complicated cases, requires great discernment and experience; it is varied as the case is made out, concluding always with a prayer of general relief, at the discretion of the court.

–=–

We pray to the court, because the court is the god, an other word for magistrate, which is another word for government as the People. The court represents We, the People against us, either wholly or as individuals or corporations. We as individuals or groups, associations, or corporations are never addressing the court as the People, it is the Court that is addressing us as the People, because government is the People. It is impossible for the People to sue the court because the court is the People. The court offers the opinion of the People. All we can do is pray to that magi-god in a black robe for remedy. The word prayer has been modernly re-named into “pleading.” The People need not plead, for the court is the People.

–=–
The Chicken Or The Egg?
–=–

I’m not sure how many other ways I can say this, but it should be clear that I, you, we, and us is not the People. It’s a physical impossibility, which is part of the strategy of control. The government knows that the People can never be together in one room, acting as its true self – all the millions of actual voters. It’s a gloriously impossible feat. And that’s why the legal god that has been named the We, the People as a representation of the People is so powerful and seemingly immutable.

The only last fallacy to be consumed in the fire of this fractal debtor’s hell is to dispel the notion that the People created the government. Here again, the romantic patriotic view is that the People all voted for the constitution. Of course this is a verifiable untruth. Very few of the People could vote, because they weren’t good enough to vote due to blood, status, lack of land-holdings, and of course color. The People who created the constitution were clear on this 3/5ths of a point, which makes it humorous to see a patriotic “negro” man eager to wave the flag.

While it is accurate to say that the group of Free-masonic men who signed the constitution were certainly a specific, proper noun group of People, it is not accurate to say that they were all the People of the entire nation, any more than it is accurate to say that the legislature actually represents the will of every person in the United States as the People. It is more accurate to say that the individual states as body politics’ were the things that made up the People, and not the men within acting as citizens, slaves, and voluntary or involuntary servants. The People, as defined above, are the states of the nation and therefore is the nation itself. That’s not real People, that’s just an incorporated thing. An idol. A god.

How could there have been a People if there was no nation? Was there a specific day that all men became the People? They certainly weren’t natural born at the time they became the People. Could the People of a nation exist before the nation was created? Obviously, if none of us out here can represent the People in court, then we are not really the People.

If government disappeared tomorrow, there would be no place for the People to legally appear as a legal body. For the People only exist as and in a fictional jurisdiction. Government creates and becomes the People, and the creator controls.

And so I end this puzzling commentary with one last question…

When are you going to quit denying the beauty and wonder of your uniqueness and individuality, quit denying your personal responsibility, and quit letting evil men commit atrocious crimes against all the men and creatures of the Earth in your name – in the name of the god of We, the People?

.

–Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Thursday, January 15th, 2015

On Modern Mechanics Of Taxation


In days of old, the object of taxation was the physical plunder of intrinsic personal possessions such as money, foodstuffs, or other valuable considerations forcibly taken in support of the kingdom. The plunderers were known as tax-collectors; though by their plundered, public victims they were more commonly labeled by nicknames of reproach. The common opinion of the villages and townsfolk that paid this tribute to kings and dictators of tyrannical despotism was disdain and controlled rage – a will for freedom lacking way and means.

In our modern taxation stratagem, the rules of the game have changed dramatically. In fact, the very comprehension of tax-plunder has morphed into a custom whereby most people have no idea they are being taxed. Indeed, it is ridiculously parroted by the children of parents of great grand parents that death and taxes are the only certainties in life. For the children of indentured debtor parents have no rational idea what liberty from despotism might look or feel like. Taxation has not only become customized and normalized into the social meme, but the plunderers have actually trained the children of despotism to root for the taxman over their fellow citizens.

To even attempt to imagine the people of old cheering the kings’ tax-collectors as they razed each hut in the village to satisfy the kings’ court is a preposterous notion. For it was well-known that these collections agents of the crown were backed by the full military force and sword of the king!

Though nothing has changed (except perhaps that the kings crest and sword is now a badge and gun), we now have reality television shows appealing to the mass delusion as they depict debt-collectors, repossession agents, pawn shops, and bail-bondsmen as the modern day champions of the people. In this absurdity of an attempt to manufacture public opinion in favor of legal plunder for the kingdom, cognitive dissonance has been shrouded over the intellect of the plundered majority class of “tax-payers” so as to create a Colosseum of bread and circus entertainment as the reinforcement of very bad behavior. In short, plunder has been woven seamlessly into the political process while the mass of victims have been generation-ally bamboozled (educated) into cheering on the plunderers while their fellow debt-slaves are put in pain and suffering at the hand of tyrants – a virtual public display representative of those antithetical Christian’s of antiquity being fed to the lions.

Today, taxation has been streamlined in such a way that most citizens have no idea they are being taxed, for the government doesn’t ever have to go into the realm to actually and physically “collect” taxes. This modern method of unlimited plunder through the false dialectic of and name of taxation could only be accomplished through the creation of a fiat currency; one with unlimited creation potential, where the collateral does not define the value of the note. In the case of United States Federal Reserve “dollars,” most of which are created in ledger or digital form with no actual substance, we see the potential for not only unlimited creation, but in turn for unlimited taxation. Even the wasting, spending, or cancellation of creation does not equate to a cancellation of the taxation assumed by the creation.

So how does this compare to the historical collection of real assets by force as tax and tribute to the king and his dominion (king-dom)?

Oh, it’s much more profitable for the dictators (lawgivers of government) today.

We have no tax-collectors today. Taxation (tribute) then was an obligation of servitude and subjection to the kings’ realm and privileges. It was obviously fraud, and those who suffered it made no mistake to ever think differently.

Today, we only have debt-collectors. They do not collect tax, they extort false debt. For the tax is collected without anybody even realizing it, and no collector is needed. Let me explain…

When the lawgivers of the kingdom (congress) wish to generate wealth through what used to be called tax-collection, they simply write some official legal words down on a paper and place a stamp of approval upon it featuring the seal of the nation (king-dom). While kings and despots had to send agents into the communities to collect real assets, this congressional act or “bill” is an instrument of exchange, where congress literally appropriates money into existence. They then place that “bill” into the legal records of the United States, a bank account known by name as the state of “national debt”, where the citizenry (loyal subjects) of the king-dom’s dictators agree through manufactured consent to be responsible obligators of that debt. Another word for this is constitutor, which means debtor, as a constitution is merely a compact of debt and obligation in exchange for privileges and immunities and is always designed to be against (immune from) the laws of nature and the personal responsibilities of individuals.

Within this ingenious device, the lawgivers are able to create unlimited taxation to financially support their plans in artifice. With unlimited taxation power comes unlimited authoritative power. How else could they fund the military industrial complex every year that protects their king-dom from us without appropriating new debt upon the taxpaying public with each new appropriations bill?

Check please!

The taxation methods we have become accustomed to today as schemes ranging from income to sales tax and any one of hundreds of clever extraction, extortion, and exaction methods, not the least of which is false inflation derived from false market fixing and illusions of supply and demand shortages, are merely devises of debt collection. Whereas before the sword was obvious and in your face for refusal to pay, appropriations cannot not be paid. They are automatic. The tax is collected the minute it is created as a credit to government’s coffers. And the credit represents a debt that must be paid by the people of the nation.

Unlimited credit, in other words, is the most important tool of a money system that has no limit. For the creditors are never the debtors, and these lawgivers as plunderers don’t mind being part of the plundered society, for they simply exempt themselves from debt collection by their own military force or they pay their taxes with the plundered money to give the illusion that they too are good little citizens as debtors.

As I explained in an earlier post, located here: your current taxes are already spent! They are spent the moment they are created out of thin air! For any taxes you pay today are only paying for the national debt of former appropriations by congress. The lawgivers don’t spend tax money, they create it as debt. They spend their bill before it is even monetized by appropriating the new debts to specific government functions in their appropriations bill. And the new total is simply added on to the ever-expanding check that is perpetually handed to the collective of tax-payers.

The moral of this story?

By consent, we have given total authoritative power via the power of the purse to the most corrupt of men, for the cream of corruption always rises to the top. The salt of the earth always sink to the bottom of the mix, paying for the debts of the cream by way of innocence to the designs used against them. The salt continues to flavor the combination from their own labor and through taxation on that labor, while the cream never mixes with the lower class. They stay at the top where they belong, the cream of the crop of the criminally insane.

When the bill collectors come a knocking your door down or blowing your house away, remember that it was congress that created this concoction of acrid evil in the first place, and that it only continues to have authority because you consent to it as a voluntary citizen and taxpayer.

At least the men of old knew they were being burned and eventually would fight to keep what was theirs as products of their own labor. They could and did fight back physically, or even tar and feather the king’s agent in boycott.

Modern man is absolutely blind to his own, self-aggrandized, patriotic responsibility to his master, and has nothing to keep because the money and possessions he holds are already the property of his master. The money is fake, and so is the king-dom. The city is a debtor. The county is a debtor. The district is a debtor. The State is a debtor. So what is left to fight? You cannot tar and feather a digital transaction. And police are security guards ensuring protection of these corporations from the tax-payers.

It’s a perfect system of chattel slavery, a fiefdom of clueless subjects that in the end worship and pay tribute to nothing but fiction, from the money to the offices that create it.

We are a defeated people who quicken in our perishing due to a strict lack of contemplation and knowledge of our own enslavement.

That is just another way of saying we deserve exactly what we beget.

But never mind… go about purchasing Christmas gifts with government’s debt instruments, even though each and every dollar represents the embodiment of your own debt-slavery to its creators in the Treasury. Pretend that a billion kids aren’t starving around the world. Be the empire of greed and artificiality we were manufactured and determined to be. For it’s not that christ is missing from Christmas, it’s that the teachings of the christ is missing from self-proclaimed christians, who would never celebrate the twelve pagan-zodiac days of corporate Christmas and the imagery and majesty of Saint Nick if they weren’t worshiping mammon.

We must be governed by our own consenting hand, for we are apparently not capable of resistance to unfettered tyranny and greed or to the false reality of this matrix.

Checkmate.

.

–Clint Richardson (Realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Monday, December 22nd, 2014

It’s Time To Withdraw Your Membership To The United States!


Citizenship SchoolIf you are a member of an organization that begins to do things you don’t like, the rational course of action would be to withdraw your financial support to that organization and cease to be a member.

If your bank misbehaves or charges you ridiculous extra fees just because it can according to your “agreement” with the bank, the rational course of action would be to withdraw your financial support and cease to be a customer.

If your insurance coverage starts to diminish in quality or denies you your due benefits or coverage when you need it, the rational course of action would be to withdraw your financial support to that company and cease to be a member.

If my doctor or hospital began to practice bad medicine and cause more illness than it cured, the rational course of action would be to withdraw financial support to that hospital or doctor and cease to be a customer, and perhaps pursue alternative healing.

In fact, when we consider this repetitive logic, wouldn’t anyone be hard-pressed to think of any thing that might mistreat us as a member or customer that would not warrant the withdraw of financial support and termination of contract or membership?

So why then are people still voluntary members of the United States central government?

Do they enjoy the thought of future bad healthcare – which is really the quite unlawful forced commerce with insurance companies and not actual healthcare? If their membership to a corporation that gives them “benefits” suddenly forces them to accept bad medicine and bad insurance, isn’t the simple solution to end their membership to the main corporation?

Do the people enjoy paying taxes and unjust extortion fees and taxes for non-crimes just so that government can invest that money for itself without offering any benefit back to the people? Would it not be prudent to end that kind of business “relationship” with such a bad business?

Do people really believe that the meager benefit of “old-age insurance” called social security (socialism) is worth the vast amount of legal restrictions and tyrannies set forth upon them through their entire life – even when they could have invested their own money and walked away with double or triple what this administration will ever pay them – should they actually live through Obama-care? Do the people even know that there is no actual trust in their name – just a large investment fund that has been completely tapped for the national debt with no legal requirement to ever pay them anything? Do they know the difference between investing for themselves and their future and contributing (giving away) their hard-earned money to government? Do they realize where their money goes as government invests it into war, Monsanto, pharmaceuticals, and Think tanks?

Is there some misconception that being a “citizen” is somehow patriotic – that withdrawing their citizenship (membership) will make them less “American”?

Really? Because last time I checked, it was called the United States of America, not America of the United States.

Was there created at some point in history the fallacy that America is the central government called the United States – a 10 mile square municipal corporation that is not even one of the actual 50 states in the “union” ? Do the people actually believe that America is the United States?

Perhaps that misconception derives from the misunderstanding of just what citizenship is.

For citizenship is simply a membership, be it voluntary or forced through coercion and martial law, unilaterally agreed to by an individual. It is no different than a gym membership; where you must follow the rules set out in your agreement contract that only you sign. Like the government, the gym does not sign your contract. It is simply an agreement for membership to enjoy some benefits, as well as an agreement for you to follow their rules.

But what happens when the rules change without your consent?

What happens when the benefits diminish?

For instance, each state is a member of the Untied States, forced to hand over their unappropriated lands to the United States and draft new State constitutions after the Civil War under “reconstruction” and after agreeing to the terms of uniform “enabling acts” under duress. In fact, the civil war was nothing but a military takeover by a defunct central government under martial law of the lawfully succeeded sovereign states. They were forced back into contract membership with the new central government, one that was unlawfully created absent of the lawful participation of these states’ lawful congressmen. In their stead, military martial officers of law were forced into congress to replace the lawfully elected congressmen of each state. And under duress and at gunpoint, these states became members of this municipal corporation in Washington D.C, eventually dividing the entire territory of America into counties within states.

COUNTY. A district into which a state is divided.

2. The United States are generally divided into counties; counties are divided into townships or towns…

4. In some states, as Illinois; 1 Breese, R. 115; a county is considered as a corporation, in others it is only a quasi corporation.

5. In the English law this word signifies the same as shire, county being derived from the French and shire from the Saxon. Both these words signify a circuit or portion of the realm, into which the whole land is divided, for the better government thereof, and the more easy administration of justice. There is no part of England that is not within some county, and the shire-reve, (sheriff) originally a yearly officer, was the governor of the county. Four of the counties of England, viz. Lancaster, Chester, Durham and Ely, were called counties Palatine, which were jurisdictions of a peculiar nature, and held by, especial charter from the king. See stat. 27 H. VIII. c.25.

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. Certain officers generally entrusted with the superintendence of the collection of the county taxes, and the disbursements made for the county. They are administrative officers, invested by the local laws with various powers.

***All legal definitions taken from Bouvier’s Law Dictioanry, 1856

Counties are nothing but municipal corporations; a network grid of contract issuers and enforcers for the United States government – acting under administrate local law with federal powers. Another word for administrative is contract. And all administrative law is simply the administration of the unilateral contractual relationship with you and government. The county has police officers. The gym has security guards. There is no difference. Police officers are just security guards for the county corporation. They’re authority is presumed, just as your citizenship that might grant them contractual authority over you is presumed.

UNILATERAL CONTRACT, civil law. When the party to whom an engagement is made, makes no express agreement on his part, the contract is called uni-lateral, even in cases where the law attaches certain obligations to his acceptance… A loan of money, and a loan for use, are of this kind.

One does not generally think of government as just another customer-based corporation, but this is exactly what it is. When signing a unilateral agreement (contract), one agrees to follow a certain set of de facto corporate rules and regulations (codes) as set out by government. This is the voluntary state of citizenship – a series of unilateral contractual agreements signed or unsigned (presumption of law) by the people of America.

This circumstance of multiple contractual obligations is often called the STRAWMAN, which is simply the “person” as defined and bound by these contracts. The “person” is artificial, as defined in US Code and the 14th Amendment (see below). The person is a corporate veil of the man, used for the purposes of contracts. And in administrative law, government can only contract with this artificial person. Government cannot regulate man, only the corporate person. Thus, administrative law has nothing to do with and no authority over living man, unless he or she is acting under the commercial activities described within their contractual relationship with government.

A driver’s license, for instance, is a unilateral contractual agreement by one man to follow the State government’s vehicle code, which is administrative law. Driving is administratively speaking a commercial activity. Thus, driving can be regulated by government… but only if the man agrees to become a commercial person while utilizing his automobile. He does this when he unilaterally agrees for no reason at all to agree with government that he is utilizing his car as a commercial “vehicle”, even when dropping the kids off at school. Even if that car is never used for any purpose in commerce pr commercial activities, the government still elicits people to obtain a commercial license to drive.

You see, this is the only way that government can have authority over you. It must trick you into entering into some agreement and contract for which you give your consent to its authority. Without this unilateral agreement, government cannot rule you and regulate every part of your life. It must convince you that the activities you participate in are within its authority as a legal activity before it can tell you they are illegal. And it must lie to you so as to convince you that using your car to travel is illegal unless you have a license to do so. For a license is nothing more than permission from government to do something illegal. In other words, every time you get into your vehicle and drive you are breaking the law by permission.

Though traveling in your personal automobile is not unlawful, driving commercially without a license is illegal – a breach of contract.

Perhaps most ironic about all of this is the simple realization that all of this contractual relationship nonsense is based on one and only one thing – your membership with the United States corporation in Washington D.C. This is the central hub of information. It is where your official artificial person is stored and maintains residence. And states and counties are just subdivisions of that corporation – artificial borders signifying United States jurisdiction, assigned federal locator codes called ZIP codes that are property of the United States. For the U.S. Postal Service is part of the United States corporation in Washington D.C. Your United States mail is not delivered to your home, it is delivered to your commercial address within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

You must never forget that all of your commercial activities are being done inside of the United States jurisdiction – the artificial corporate veil that extends throughout the 50 states and beyond like a spider web, ensnaring the activities people like flies and spinning them into commercial persons.

Imagine in your mind that the entire land of America has a plastic coating over it for which all people walk upon as corporate persons and citizens of the United States, never really comprehending that this clear plastic coating of corporate person-hood separates their natural body from the natural land. The people walk and talk on this corporate veil of clear plastic as if it doesn’t exist and as if they are walking on the actual land – which ironically is a true statement. For corporatism is indeed artificial, just as the artificial person replaces the man in his or her transactions with the corporation government, so to does the United States replace the land of America with its veil of artificial person-hood called statutes and codes.

Yet just on the other side of this artificial construct lies the natural world, natural law, and all of the natural rights that existed before the people contractually agreed to give them up for government granted political rights. For tyranny and oppression is literally the contractual right of citizens of the United States.

For a deeper understanding of what a right actually is (and this reality will certainly surprise you), please take the time to study my expose’ here:

Link–> https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/tyranny-requires-equality/

Perhaps this love affair with citizenship stems from the fallacious belief that the United States is still the same old sovereign county it was when it was founded, before the civil war tore it apart and the defunct and unlawful United States glued it back together with legal tape and military oppression?

Well, I’ve got some bad news for you folks…

The United States is now a member of the United Nations… and the United States is referred to as a “sovereign state” by that international central government. Just like the states under contractual membership with the United States corporation in Washington D.C. are not referred to as “countries”, the 193 countries of the world under membership of the United Nations corporation are also not called “countries”. And it is not the people or the 50 states that are members of the United Nations, it is just this 10 mile square piece of land called the United States corporation that is a member.

So can a sovereign individual state be a member of such a central government and still be sovereign? And can a sovereign nation then still be sovereign as a member of an international government under international maritime and admiralty (military) law?

The United Nations doctrine for “statehood” rings familiar, sounding very much like the false paradigm of the rules of “statehood” for the 50 states in the United States of America:

The dominant customary international law standard of statehood is the declarative theory of statehood that defines the state as a person of international law if it “possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.” Debate exists on the degree to which recognition should be included as a criterion of statehood. The declarative theory of statehood, an example of which can be found in the Montevideo Convention, argues that statehood is purely objective and recognition of a state by other states is irrelevant. On the other end of the spectrum, the constitutive theory of statehood defines a state as a person under international law only if it is recognized as sovereign by other states. For the purposes of this list, included are all states that either:

  • (a) have declared independence and are often regarded as having control over a permanently populated territory

or

  • (b) are recognised as a sovereign state by at least one other sovereign state

Link–> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states

The word-magic here involves the concept that the “state” has “declared independence” and has “control over a permanently populated area”.

This is of course the United States. It, as a central incorporated government, has declared independence that no one dare challenge due to its military might. The once sovereign states now pledged as collateral for this corporation, its debts, and its “good faith and credit” are considered nothing but legal territories of the United States in the legal realm through this contractual and constitutional relationship. The governments of the individual state territories of the United States are still military in nature, each one occupied by the United States’ military and its bases, which under the Libor Code represents military rule.

In other words, the presence of a military base in your State is stated in law to signify military rule under martial law. These bases are not just for your protection, they are for your control. They are the occupying forces of the United States, left over from the same forces that occupied each State during the Civil War. They are the United States corporation’s military – the military of Washington D.C. –  not the American or state militia. They protect the United States from all threats both foreign and domestic, and that includes the people of America and the 50 states. The military ensures the continuity of this 10 mile square municipal corporation and its military rule over the 50 states and other insular possessions. The United States is legally in possession of us!

And each state is governed militarily by a “governor”, whom in Canada is referred to as “Governor General”, and who is the ex officio Commander-in-Chief of the State National Guard of His State unless called in total by the President as (CIC) of the United States. This military position of Governor as commander of a military force is followed by a whole list of military positions…

Lieutenant Governor
Attorney General
Solicitor General
Insurance Commissioner – i.e. military commissions
Superintendents – The commanding officer of the United States Military Academy is its Superintendent.
State Controller
Officers of the court
Police Officers
Employees of Commissions and Authorities

All of these titles represent rule by military force.

OFFICER. He who is lawfully invested with an office.

2. Officers may be classed into, 1. Executive; as the president of the United States of America, the several governors of the different states. Their duties are pointed out in the national constitution, and the constitutions of the several states, but they are required mainly to cause the laws to be executed and obeyed.

3. – 2. The legislative; such as members of congress; and of the several state legislatures. These officers are confined in their duties by the constitution, generally to make laws, though sometimes in cases of impeachment, one of the houses of the legislature exercises judicial functions, somewhat similar to those of a grand jury by presenting to the other articles of impeachment; and the other house acts as a court in trying such impeachments. The legislatures have, besides the power to inquire into the conduct of their members, judge of their elections, and the like.

OFFICE. An office is a right to exercise a public function or employment, and to take the fees and emoluments belonging to it

2. Offices may be classed into civil and military.

TAKE. This is a technical expression which signifies to be entitled to; as, a devisee will take under the will. To take also signifies to seize, as to take and carry away…

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.

3. It is also used in contradistinction to military or ecclesiastical, to natural or foreign; thus we speak of a civil station, as opposed to a military or ecclesiastical station; a civil death as opposed to a natural death; a civil war as opposed to a foreign war.

So what does all this mean?

Consider for a moment just what the term “civil war” actually represents. As with the United States Civil War, we find that it was indeed fought to ensure the forced continuity of the United States government. It was not so much a war as it was an invasion. And it was fought to ensure that the people under martial law went along with that government who did not wish to.

To make the contradistinction between the words military and civil is almost a mute point. For a “civil society” under “civil law” cannot be accomplished without force of a military entity – which is the executive branch of government (now the Department Of Defense – as in defense of the realm).

For instance, the U.S. District Courts operate with no authority to actually enforce their decisions. Thus the power of the courts lie in the connection it has to the Executive Branch of that area. This is the true importance of the County Sheriff, for the Sheriff is the Executive power of all the courts within that county. The Sheriff’s Department man’s these courts (bailiffs, etc.), who operate under his authority. Of course, the Sheriff would have little power without the decisions and warrants issued by the courts. In a lawful society this would be referred to as a check and balance, creating a restraint of unreasonable power or influence by either entity. But when unlawful men occupy these offices as persons of the militarized United States under its authority and jurisdiction, the law becomes lawless and the powers of corruption go unchecked.

In essence, this relationship between the judicial and the executive is symbiotic in nature, where alone each office and officer would have no lawful power. But together they become the law, both written and enforced. The cowardly attorney’s in black robes called judges hide behind their pulpits and gavels while the Sheriff hides behind his badge and gun, while each gives authority to the other. Neither takes responsibility for their own actions, because they have been allowed to operate as artificial persons under limited liability incorporation. And they protect each other from legal action as one derives power unjustly from the other.

If lawful men took over either office, refusing to enforce the power and authority of the other, and taking responsibility for their own actions outside of the color of law, the people would have little to fear from their government. But lawful men such as these generally end up dead or imprisoned by the very entity they represent.

On the national level, the President of the United States acts as the Commander In Chief of his executive army, carrying out the legislative and judicial law presented to it. Congress, like the judicial, has no power to enforce its created statutes and codes (judicial opinions for courts) without the enforcement arm of the Executive Branch. A law or decision without force carries no weight, especially from men with no honor.

In other words, the legal system of the United States is solely based on the force and coercion of the executive government to carry out the political laws created by congress. The local and state governments operate under the authority of the United States, for they are just corporations as extensions of that federal government corporation.

Congress created the court system and the Supreme Court, which derives its authority and jurisdiction from that body politic.This is an important fact because this means that the entire system of corporate administrative courts across the country are statutory in nature – created by congress and not the constitution itself, and operating under the authority and jurisdiction of the United States corporation. To put it simply, this means that the courts are operating under private corporate law without lawful authority. That is, unless you consent to that authority as a private corporate person – a member of the United States corporation. Just like the gym example, this private law only applies to members of the United States.

This creation of the court system was done by Congress in the Judiciary Act of 1789:

–=–

The Judiciary Act of 1789

September 24, 1789.

1 Stat. 73.

CHAP. XX. – An Act to establish the Judicial Courts of the United States.

SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the supreme court of the United States shall consist of a chief justice and five associate justices, any four of whom shall be a quorum, and shall hold annually at the seat of government two sessions, the one commencing the first Monday of February, and the other the first Monday of August. That the associate justices shall have precedence according to the date of their commissions, or when the commissions of two or more of them bear date on the same day, according to their respective ages…

Link–> http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/judiciary_1789.htm

–=–

The authority and jurisdiction of these statutory courts only applies to citizens (members) of the United States.

Some people also refer to citizens as “employees” of the Untied States, which is not incorrect. Congressmen (representatives and senators) are also “employees” of the United States corporation, but are officially called “Members”. And we can read above that judges and justices are “commissioned” as employees.

All of these men are acting as artificial persons of the United States, for there is no natural law or natural rights under civil and administrative law because only political law exists there – abeyance by force of contract. This is the very definition of military rule. And every time a citizen does not obey the law, the militarized executive branch steps in to force either compliance, incarceration, or death.

Murder is unlawful and illegal, but government gives license to commit this illegal act – a license to kill. It is interesting to note that government only acknowledges the “civil death” of a person, not the bloody and violent taking of the life of a man.

CIVIL DEATH, persons. The change of the state of a person who is declared civilly dead by judgment of a competent tribunal. In such case, the person against whom such sentence is pronounced is considered dead.

It is interesting to note here that just as a living or natural man cannot have a civil death but only a natural one, the word “perish” does not apply to persons, as artificial persons never existed as a living things but only as contractual things in legal code:

TO PERISH. To come to an end; to cease to be; to die.

2. What has never existed cannot be said to have perished

You see, an artificial person (corporation) never actually exists in nature, so it cannot have a natural death.

So it is perhaps the best definition of civil law for me to say that:

Civil law is the state of non-necessity of martial law while under military rule, because the governed are not acting in civil disobedience.

Martial law is the physical manifestation of force and violence via government decree to ensure the continuity of military rule that is visible and obvious (violent) to all people.

And military rule is simply the current state of a system of de facto United States corporate law based on coercion, force, and occasional violence, which is sugar-coated and masked under the appearance of civility and under the guise of “civil law”.

Civil law and military rule, therefore, are all but indistinguishable. They are both systems of law enacted by forced compliance of the Executive Branch of government. In both systems, the laws they tout are ensured by force. And in both instances, a man’s natural rights are struck down in lieu of positive or political rights.

It is ironic and disturbing then to point out the now obvious paradox of a subjected people in an occupied land…

For it would only be through open revolt and total disobedience of the current laws of the United States central government that the above facts could manifest themselves as self evident. This axiom of military rule is invisible to the civil servants and citizens of government, no differently than the subjects of a king might never consider that they are at all times under military rule – the rule by force of a tyrant – no matter how fair or just that king seems to be.

This kingdom called the United States – the District that reigns the lands of America through contractual membership under force of its own law despite being a foreign corporate entity outside of those lands – holds the reigns to millions of soldiers; obedient Americans conscripted by their own enemy through contract as security guards for the United States. And these soldiers, in their belief that they are fighting for America, will no doubt blindly follow this United States corporation into oblivion no differently than did those useful fools that killed father, brother, and child in that great United States Civil War – “The War Of Northern Aggression“.

Perhaps a more fitting title to that Civil War and to all wars proceeding it would read: “The Unending War Of Continued United States Aggression, Both Foreign and Domestic“.

Now you might think that Congress is there to redress grievances of the people to the United States government as representatives thereof. But oh what a tangled web they weave…

Congressmen are “employees” of the United States government, according to TITLE 5 of U.S. CODE.

So this would be like expecting a mid-level management employee of Walmart to change the policies of Walmart’s CEO and board of directors. Employees have no individual say on what happens in the United States corporation. So a single representative is worthless without the agreement of the vast majority of the entire body of representatives.

And of course the people represented in these congressional districts never seem to realize that the business affairs of Congress only happen inside of Washington D.C. – in other words outside of their State. Just as employees of Walmart have no authority outside of the corporate jurisdiction of Walmart, neither do the congressmen and Senators have power in the 50 individual States as republics. They are the Representatives of the Federal Government to the people, not the representatives of the people to the Federal Government. They conduct only Federal business in the jurisdiction of the United States, even while doing so in the States they hold domicile. They are United States Employees, not State Employees. In fact, they have absolutely no power within the State government, except those imposed by force by the Federal Central government as a whole.

So why do the people contractually volunteer to give up their power to a bunch of known-to-be-corrupt representatives as employees of the very entity that enslaves them, instead of leaving this horrific militarized club called the United States by withdrawing legal membership?

Perhaps it is the misconception that our membership (citizenship) is not a choice.

But wait a minute, you say. Isn’t it my “constitutional right” to be a citizen?

That’s an interesting question, actually. In fact, the concept of “citizenship” as it stands today was not part of the original constitution. Citizenship was created after the “country” was placed under military rule (martial law) under the Libor Code and General Orders 100. It was in this reconstruction period after the “Civil War” that was created reconstruction amendment #14.

The 14th Amendment states:

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…”

Whereas before this amendment was ratified by the now unlawful military congress the concept of citizenship was based on the blood of the man in question in a natural sense, the United States now took on a corporate disposition and changed the presumption of citizenship into a legally binding contractual duty; where all people became artificial persons as individual corporate bodies politic within the United States’ web of corporatism.

The most overlooked word in this amendment to the constitution is the word “subject”:

SUBJECT, contracts. The thing which is the object of an agreement. This term is used in the laws of Scotland.

SUBJECT, persons, government. An individual member of a nation, who is subject to the laws; this term is used in contradistinction to citizen, which is applied to the same individual when considering his political rights.

2. In monarchical governments, by subject is meant one who owes permanent allegiance to the monarch. Vide Body politic

NATIONALITY. The state of a person in relation to the nation in which he was born.

2. A man retains his nationality of origin during his minority, but, as in the case of his domicil of origin, he may change his nationality upon attaining full age; he cannot, however, renounce his allegiance without permission of the government. See Citizen; Domicile; Expatriation; Naturalization…

NATIONS. Nations or states are independent bodies politic; societies of men united together for the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and advantage by the joint efforts of their combined strength.

2. But every combination of men who govern themselves, independently of all others, will not be considered a nation; a body of pirates, for example, who govern themselves, are not a nation. To constitute a nation another ingredient is required. The body thus formed must respect other nations in general, and each of their members in particular. Such a society has her affairs and her interests; she deliberates and takes resolutions in common; thus becoming a moral person who possesses an understanding and will peculiar to herself, and is susceptible of obligations and rights…

3. It belongs to the government to declare whether they will consider a colony which has thrown off the yoke of the mother country as an independent state; and until the government have decided on the question, courts of justice are bound to consider the ancient state of things as remaining unchanged.

In the Civil War, it would be a foregone conclusion to state that the United States did not accept (as it was lawfully required to do via its own charter) the secession of the confederate states – the yolks that threw themselves from the mother country. Instead, it acted unlawfully by all standards of ethics and natural law – a military conquest being the result – forcing the confederate states to be captured as prisoners of war and to accept the new reorganized United States and its new corporate constitution as their new sovereign tyrant.

COUNTRY. By country is meant the state of which one is a member.

2. Every man’s country is in general the state in which he happens to have been born, though there are some exceptions. See Domicil; Inhabitant. But a man has the natural right to expatriate himself, i. e. to abandon his country, or his right of citizenship acquired by means of naturalization in any country in which he may have taken up his residence. See Allegiance; Citizen; Expatriation…

Remember, the United Nations refers to the United States as a state that is a member of the U.N, just as the United States refers to its own 50 States that are supposedly independent but members of that body.

But more importantly one must understand the distinction made here of being “born in the country of the United States”.

Though a man may be born in the State of Georgia, his residence is created within the jurisdiction of the United States – that incorporated legal boundry that extends across the entirety of the territories called “states” and beyond. In essence, when a man is born in the United States, it is his artificial person that is civilly born, creating a citizen.

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…”

Again, this very important distinction must be made…

Though you physically are born in and reside within a State, the artificial representation of you called a legal “person” and a “citizen” is civilly born in and resides within the jurisdiction of the United States. Registered persons/citizens who vote are actually voting in the artificial representation of Washington D.C. – the jurisdiction that extends from that central district 10 miles square over the entire “country” through contract. Your home is a registered United States home. Your vehicle is a registered United States vehicle. Your children are registered United States persons. And all of these contractual agreements can be utilized to take these things away from citizens. In fact, it is the political and constitutional right of all citizens to have their registered property of the United States taken away from them. Just read the 5th Amendment very carefully… for it tells you clearly that through the United States court system under what it calls “due process”, you life, liberty, and property can be taken from you (see definition of take above).

In this way, it is correct to say that for the most part, the actual individual states are empty – abandoned by all the people who became residents of the United States in Washington D.C. – for the people all reside in the United States, and the States are territories of the United States. The people walk as persons upon the plastic coating of United States jurisdiction, never touching the natural land. Of course the illusion of States rights still exists among the citizens of the United States, who have no idea they are under the military rule of this foreign corporation, and who do not comprehend the true nature of the word person or citizen.

In the United States corporation…

Citizenship is granted, not taken;

Citizenship is legal and political, not lawful and natural;

Citizenship is contractual, not moral;

Citizenship is a voluntary membership, not a mandatory requirement.

Citizenship is artificial and un-American!!!

Perhaps the natural born citizens of the United States should be asking themselves why this so-called privilege and natural right of citizenship is being tossed to the wind and bestowed to those who did not naturally and traditionally gain it? The fact that citizenship can be contractually bestowed upon anyone who is contractually willing to receive or pay for all of the benefits and tyranny that accompanies such a legal status should be enough for anyone to realize that its conveyance has nothing to do with anything but a contractual tie to the military rule of government. This once honorable title of men is now just a corporate slogan to sell monopolized, for-profit government products and services to ignorant persons at non-competative prices.

Take the influx of what we call “illegal immigrants” as a clue as to how America became a militarized corporate slave machine:

The Pew Hispanic Center determined that according to an analysis of Census Bureau data about 8 percent of children born in the United States in 2008 — about 340,000 — were offspring of unauthorized immigrants. In total, about four million American-born children of unauthorized immigrant parents resided in this country in 2009, along with about 1.1 million foreign-born children of unauthorized immigrant parents. The Center for Immigration Studies – a think tank which favors stricter controls on immigration—claims that between 300,000 and 400,000 children are born each year to illegal immigrants in the U.S.

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

These are “natural born” children (citizens) just like you according to your representatives in government, for citizens are no longer required to have honor to join the “country”. And soon over 11 million non-natural born invading immigrants will join the party when the United States says it’s just alright.

Citizenship means nothing to an honorable man. It is just a ticket to ride on the slave-ship. It is the act of selling ones soul to acquire artificial things. And it has become a pour substitute for a once-cherished thing. Most importantly, it does not make you an American, just a useful pawn in a collective extortion racket designed to create corporate authority by making all the people into one collective tool to extract their individual power and intent as one lone consenting voice for the actions of an unlawful corporation. And every unlawful action by government is based on the informed consent it presumes from its members.

Isn’t it time to rebut that presumption of consent and take back our individual voices and power as individual men?

So let’s say that you are a member of an exclusive golf club that only allows people just like you to enter. You retain a membership to this club because you wish to be a part of something special and be around like-minded individuals who contribute and benefit from this club and its rules and regulations, as well as its exclusivity and respect. And you stay a member because this club operates legitimately and lawfully with full respect to nature and to all involved.

But then let’s say that your club is taken over and its rules for membership changed.

Suddenly, this club is full of men, women and children (persons) who are not like-minded in any way and who do not respect in any way your methods, opinions, lifestyle, morals, ethics, values, and so on. And then the club management passes rules and regulations that require you to integrate, hire as employees, and tolerate all of these new members – lest you be fined and imprisoned for discrimination and your corporation terminated and its assets seized by government. (Note: This is what E-Verify does.)

Would not the proper response be to immediately end your membership with that club and either find a more lawful club or start your own exclusive one?

The club only seeks to collect more and more revenue and fees from these new members, in order to both generate more revenue and to control more and more of the population by forcing its registration of all things and children. So why would anyone stay as a member of that club only to be forced to tolerate a cultural invasion and complete change in the standards of that club? Why would you continue to financially support that club’s central governing body when everything it does goes against your ideals and values?

So why do you continue to stay a member of the United States club?

It’s not a requirement! It’s not necessary for you to work and live in America and in a State. This beast’s Social Security number is not needed for anything at all. And it certainly isn’t helping you to stay a member, unless you consider tyranny, unjust taxation without representation, pain, punishment, and extortion your political right like government does.

We complain, we scream, we weep, and we suffer. And all because we believe that we must stay members of this corporation that continuously harms us. We accept the mark and the number of this beast because we believe it is for the greater good. We support its illegal wars and pay for them with our voluntary taxes. It doesn’t listen or care about us as anything but commodities, because a corporation only cares about growth (expansion) and profits. It sells our labor and bonds our incarceration. It takes all and gives nothing.

So why are you still a citizen of this 10 mile square corporation that seeks to control every aspect of your life through your voluntary contractual obligation? Isn’t it time to pull the plug and stop financially supporting its exaction tactics to extort your money and estate?

Isn’t it time to take back your registered United States property and place it back into your personal possession, including your children?

Or are a few non-guaranteed benefits at the expense of future generations (your children and theirs) more important than being free?

Do you really think it would be un-American to withdraw your membership to this corporation that isn’t even part of America?

Since the concept of being an American seems to have been blurred between the natural and the contractual, perhaps we should end here with a quote from the most American thing I can think of…

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, 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…”

–Declaration of Independence

.

–Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Saturday, May 18th, 2013

 

All legal definitions taken from Bouvier’s Law Dictioanry, 1856:

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

 

 

 

 

 

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