Disclaimer:
These messages are presented solely for educational and informational purposes. It is not intended and should not be construed as legal advice. I nor any of the posters of the informational pages advocate disobedience to
any laws. As a Citizen of the united states in America we follow the Constitution for the united States of America
as LAW of the Land. For legal advice (under the color of law), consult your attorney.
"Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it inviolate. The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." Abraham Lincoln
"I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious." Thomas Jefferson
"Give me control of a nation's monetary system and I care not who writes their laws." Meyer Rothschild
"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others." Ayn Rand
"That paper money has some advantages is admitted. But that its abuses also are inevitable and, by breaking up the measure of value, makes a lottery of all private property, cannot be denied. --Thomas Jefferson to Josephus B. Stuart,1817. ME 15:113
"The trifling economy of paper, as a cheaper medium, or its convenience for transmission, weighs nothing in opposition to the advantages of the precious metals... it is liable to be abused, has been, is, and forever will be abused, in every country in which it is permitted." --Thomas Jefferson to John W. Eppes, 1813. ME 13:430
"Scenes are now to take place as will open the eyes of credulity and of insanity itself, to the dangers of a paper medium abandoned to the discretion of avarice and of swindlers." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1814. ME14:189
"The States should be applied to, to transfer the right of issuing circulating paper to Congress exclusively, in perpetuum." --Thomas Jefferson to John W. Eppes, 1813. ME 13:276
"The evils of this deluge of paper money are not to be removed until our citizens are generally and radically instructed in their cause and consequences, and silence by their authority the interested clamors and sophistry of speculating, shaving, and banking institutions. Till then, we must be content to return quoad hoc to the savage state, to recur to barter in the exchange of our property for want of a stable common measure of value, that now in use being less fixed than the beads and wampum of the Indian, and to deliver up our citizens, their property and their labor, passive victims to the swindling tricks of bankers and mountebankers." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1819. ME 15:185
"Private fortunes, in the present state of our circulation, are at the mercy of those self-created money lenders, and are prostrated by the floods of nominal money with which their avarice deluges us." --Thomas Jefferson to John W. Eppes, 1813. ME 13:276
"It is a cruel thought, that, when we feel ourselves standing on the firmest ground in every respect, the cursed arts of our secret enemies, combining with other causes, should effect, by depreciating our money, what the open arms of a powerful enemy could not." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Henry Lee, 1779. ME 4:298, Papers 2:298
"I now deny [the Federal Government's] power of making paper money or anything else a legal tender." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1798. ME 10:65
"A spirit... of gambling in our public paper has seized on too many of our citizens, and we fear it will check our commerce, arts, manufactures, and agriculture, unless stopped." --Thomas Jefferson to William Carmichael, 1791. ME 8:230
"Our public credit is good, but the abundance of paper has produced a spirit of gambling in the funds, which has laid up our ships at the wharves as too slow instruments of profit, and has even disarmed the hand of the tailor of his needle and thimble. They say the evil will cure itself. I wish it may; but I have rarely seen a gamester cured, even by the disasters of his vocation." --Thomas Jefferson to Gouverneur Morris, 1791. ME 8:241
"All the capital employed in paper speculation is barren and useless, producing, like that on a gaming table, no accession to itself, and is withdrawn from commerce and agriculture where it would have produced addition to the common mass... It nourishes in our citizens habits of vice and idleness instead of industry and morality... It has furnished effectual means of corrupting such a portion of the legislature as turns the balance between the honest voters whichever way it is directed." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1792. ME 8:344
"We are now taught to believe that legerdemain tricks upon paper can produce as solid wealth as hard labor in the earth. It is vain for common sense to urge that nothing can produce but nothing; that it is an idle dream to believe in a philosopher's stone which is to turn everything into gold, and to redeem man from the original sentence of his Maker, 'in the sweat of his brow shall he eat his bread.'" --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:381
"I own it to be my opinion, that good will arise from the destruction of our credit. I see nothing else which can restrain our disposition to luxury, and to the change of those manners which alone can preserve republican government. As it is impossible to prevent credit, the best way would be to cure its ill effects by giving an instantaneous recovery to the creditor. This would be reducing purchases on credit to purchases for ready money. A man would then see a prison painted on everything he wished, but had not ready money to pay for." --Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Stuart, 1786. ME 5:259
"We should try whether the prodigal might not be restrained from taking on credit the gewgaw held out to him in one hand, by seeing the keys of a prison in the other." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Pleasants, 1786. ME 5:325, Papers 9:472
"The maxim of buying nothing without the money in our pockets to pay for it would make of our country one of the happiest on earth." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander Donald, 1787. ME 6:192
"Every discouragement should be thrown in the way of men who undertake to trade without capital." --Thomas Jefferson to Nathaniel Tracy, 1785. Papers 8:399
"Would a missionary appear, who would make frugality the basis of his religious system, and go through the land, preaching it up as the only road to salvation, I would join his school, though not generally disposed to seek my religion out of the dictates of my own reason and feelings of my own heart." --Thomas Jefferson to John Page, 1786. ME 5:305
"I look back to the time of the war as a time of happiness and enjoyment, when amidst the privation of many things not essential to happiness, we could not run in debt, because nobody would trust us; when we practised by necessity the maxim of buying nothing but what we had money in our pockets to pay for; a maxim which, of all others, lays the broadest foundation for happiness. I see no remedy to our evils, but an open course of law. Harsh as it may seem, it would relieve the very patients who dread it, by stopping the course of their extravagance, before it renders their affairs entirely desperate." --Thomas Jefferson to Fulwar Skipwith, 1787. ME 6:188
"It is a miserable arithmetic which makes any single privation whatever so painful as a total privation of everything which must necessarily follow the living so far beyond our income." --Thomas Jefferson to William Hay,1787. ME 6:223
"I know of no remedy against indolence and extravagance, but a free course of justice. Everything else is merely palliative... Desperate of finding relief from a free course of justice, I look forward to the abolition of all credit, as the only other remedy which can take place." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander Donald, 1787. ME 6:192
"That we are overdone with banking institutions which have banished the precious metals and substituted a more fluctuating and unsafe medium, that these have withdrawn capital from useful improvements and employments to nourish idleness, that the wars of the world have swollen our commerce beyond the wholesome limits of exchanging our own productions for our own wants, and that, for the emolument of a small proportion of our society who prefer these demoralizing pursuits to labors useful to the whole, the peace of the whole is endangered and all our present difficulties produced, are evils more easily to be deplored than remedied." --Thomas Jefferson to Abbe Salimankis,1810. ME 12:379
"The system of banking [I] have... ever reprobated. I contemplate it as a blot left in all our Constitutions, which, if not covered, will end in their destruction, which is already hit by the gamblers in corruption, and is sweeping away in its progress the fortunes and morals of our citizens."--Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:18
"The banks... have the regulation of the safety-valves of our fortunes, and... condense and explode them at their will."--Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1819. ME 15:224
"The States should be urged to concede to the General Government, with a saving of chartered rights, the exclusive power of establishing banks of discount for paper." --Thomas Jefferson to John W. Eppes, 1813. ME13:431
"I sincerely believe... that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23
Our Status in America
To those digging in the bone piles of history, it is clearer each day that the Republic that was the united States of America, died at the hands of A. Lincoln, who seized power—without any lawful, constitutional authority whatsoever—and set forces in motion that drove the South into a war it did not want, and could not win.
In the eruption that followed, on the killing grounds of Antietam, Vicksburg, Missionary Ridge, and Gettysburg, the life blood of patriots flowed out onto the earth and into the crevices of revisionist history. Long before the flag of truce was raised, the Republic had already died, not with a bang, but ignominiously, in a whisper no one heard amidst the raging winds of war.
When seven Southern states walked out of Congress March 27, 1861, the quorum to conduct business under the Constitution, was lost. The only votes Congress could lawfully take, under parliamentary law, were those to set the time to re-convene, take a vote to get a quorum, and vote to adjourn and set a date, time, and place to re-convene at a later time.
Instead, Congress adjourned sine die (pronounced see-na dee-a), i.e., ‘without day.’ “An adjournment sine die—that is, without day—closes the session, and if there is no provision for convening the assembly again, of course the adjournment dissolves the assembly.”
Thus, when Congress adjourned sine die it ceased to exist as a lawful body. The only lawful constitutional power who could declare war on the South, was no longer lawful, or in session.
Congress did not reconvene until days later when it was re-convened under military authority of the Commander-in-Chief. To this day, Congress still sits by military authority of the Commander-in-Chief, and not as a lawful Constitutional body. More evidence for this is in any official set of U.S. Titles and Codes. In the Index of Titles in Volume One one finds either;
a. Title II, The Congress is marked with an asterisk and the note at the bottom of the page will indicate that the Congress exists by Resolution, not positive law, or;
b. All positive law titles are marked by asterisk and Title II, The Congress has none. In this case the footnote states that those marked with an asterisk exist by virtue of positive law.
The point here is, Congress knew the rules of parliamentary law and knew that it could have adjourned lawfully, but instead, chose a method that the Congress knew would destroy the law making power of Congress. In other words, the campaigns of the commercial speculators, banks, and others in Congress had been successful. The Constitution for the United States of America had ceased to be the law of the land, and the President, Congress, and the Courts were now free to re-make the nation in its own image.
The Southern states, by virtue of their secession from the union, also ceased to exist sine die. And, those state legislatures in the Northern bloc also adjourned sine die as, for example, occurred in California in April 27, 1863.
Thus, all the states who were parties to creating the Constitution ceased to exist and new states were created in their place as Franchisees of the Federal corporation, so that a new Union of the United States could be created.
From that time on, all Presidents have ruled by Executive Order. Lincoln wrote only a handful of E.O.’s during his tenure. Executive Order No. 1, the first ever signed by a President was executed April 21st, 1861, and called up 75,000 militia. other E.O.’s are issued under the authority of the Commander-in-Chief by the Adjutant General, the Treasury, and others.
The point is, Lincoln had no authority to issue Executive Orders and he knew it. Thus, he commissioned a special code to ‘govern’ his acts under martial law. In fact, the Code merely justified his seizure of power. “The Lieber Instructions,” extended The Laws of War and International law beyond the borders of Washington, D.C., and for the first time brought foreign law onto American soil.
The United States government became the conqueror and all states in the Union were thus re-formed as Franchisees of the Federal Corporation. The key to when the states became Federal Franchisees is related to the date when such states enacted the Field Code in law. The Field Code was a codification of the common law that was adopted first, by New York and by California in 1872.
Later, the Lieber Code put the U.S. into the 1874 Brussels Conference (two years after Washington, D.C., became a corporation), and the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907.
The Lieber Code explicitly stated in Section I, Article 1., that:
“A place, district, or country occupied by an enemy stands, in consequence of the occupation, under the Martial law of the invading or occupying army, whether any proclamation declaring Martial Law, or any public warning to the inhabitants, has been issued or not. Martial Law is the immediate and direct effect and consequence of occupation or conquest.” (emphasis added)
Lincoln imposed Martial Law on America without public notice. Americans could thus be arrested (falsely mustered), hauled into military tribunals, tried, convicted, sentenced, put in jail, have all their property seized, and put to death, without ever knowing the trials were in fact, military proceedings in court martial against civilians.
In such military courts no defendant has any Constitutional rights. The Code goes on to say in the same Section, Article 10. that:
“Martial Law affects chiefly the police and collection of public revenue and taxes whether imposed by the expelled government or by the invader, and refers mainly to the support and efficiency of the army, its safety, and the safety of its operations.” (Emphasis added)
Is it mere ‘coincidence’ that the I.R.S. was born during this period, in 1863? It collected war reparations from the conquered peoples in the South. Later, F.D. Roosevelt went Lincoln one better when he extended the same unconstitutional acts to all the states.
The Lieber Code then states in Section II, Article 31., that:
“A victorious army appropriates all public money, seizes all public movable property until further direction by its government, and sequesters for its own benefit or that of its government all revenues of real property belonging to the hostile government or nation. The title to such real property remains in abeyance during military occupation, and until the conquest is made complete.” (emphasis supplied)
Under Martial Law, one’s title is a mere fiction, since all property belongs to the military except for that property which the Commander-in-Chief may, in his benevolence, exempt from taxation and seizure and upon which he allows the enemy to reside.
After Lincoln, a new type of government was born in America when the District of Columbia was incorporated in 1872. In the U.S. Titles and Codes, the District of Columbia can also be called, the “United States.” Why did the federal power need a corporation?
The answer is, first, martial law governments are—in law—styled as ‘fictional creations.’ Second, the doctrine of equal standing in law makes it clear that only parties of equal standing can communicate in law. The maxim of Law is; “Disparata non debent jungi—Dissimilar things ought not to be joined.” Third, since such governments are fictions, they can only deal with fictions and are thus, prohibited from re-creating lawful civil authority.
Only the people have the sole and exclusive right, power, and authority to alter, abolish, or create a Lawful Civil government. Therefore, since corporations are also fictions, they became the logical means through which the new government carried on its business. Notice however, the substance of the government is now gone, and it retains only the outward form and appearance. After Lincoln’s War ended and hostilities were declared at an end, the Lieber Code justified keeping martial law a secret. Part of the evidence for the continuation of martial law is seen in an address given by Andrew Johnson, Lincoln’s successor, in which he gives his reasons for vetoing the Reconstruction Acts.
“The veto of the original bill of the 2d of March was based on two distinct grounds, the interference of Congress in matters strictly appertaining to the reserved powers of the States, and the establishment of military tribunals for the trial of citizens in time of peace.” July 19, 1867 (Emphasis supplied).
The nation was still under Martial Law and Congress knew it though the People have, from that day to this been ignorant of the fact. And, the U. S. is under no obligation to tell the People anything regarding their true status, nor to promote reconstruction of the Lawful civil authority.
Some may call this treason, sedition, or fraud, and these charges are commonly seen in the patriot literature, but, in fact, it is mere deceit, which is a stratagem of war, and under International Law is legal. This is because under such law, commonly associated with the Laws of War, it is proper for the enemy to deceive his opponent in the field, until engagement is made. Thus, the importance of Roosevelt’s change in The Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, and the reclassification of all Americans as belligerents under an emergency situation (actually a declaration of war).
Regarding this era, we close with a quote from Robert E. Lee:
In reply to Mr. Lee, we say that only a battle was lost. The war goes on.
The Law of Rome in America
If Lincoln and those who came after him did away with the Constitution, common law, and other Law that constituted the traditionally vested right of the people, what was put in its place?
The answer here is, in the history of law there are but two distinct kinds; God’s Law and man’s law, the principle example of which is Roman law represented in the Codes of Justinian.
The original Constitution for the united States of America, as an instrument of common law procedure, was, through the same law, descended from the Law of God through canon law as developed in England and America.
Further, the three branches of the civil power that were written with checks and balances built in, reflected the colonial governments that existed prior to the Constitution. These governments were, in turn, based upon the dominant form of church government in each colony.
Thus, the colonial government of Congregational churches found expression in civil governments dominated by a legislature. Presbyterian churches fostered a civil government that leaned to the judicial side, while Anglican, or Episcopalian forms favored the executive branch.
When Lincoln brushed all this law and tradition aside, he replaced it with the only law that was available as a codified whole, i.e., with the codified laws of Rome, by Justinian.
There are some who will ask why Lincoln did not import the civil law of Rome. The answer is, the idea of Roman civil law is bogus because Rome was always under the god Mars, i.e., Martial law and was always a military state in which the Roman Legions were used to expand and maintain control of Rome’s insatiable commercial appetite.
We find today, a vast number of parallels between the old Roman codes and modern codes, of which, only a few are mentioned below.
First, there is novation, from the Latin, novatio. This concept did not exist in American law before Lincoln’s War Against the States.
Novation is the extinguishment of a prior debt by a new debt obligation.
Today, this is done by a birth certificate when a baby’s foot is placed thereon—before it touches the land. The certificate is then recorded at a County Recorder, sent to the Secretary of State in the State where the baby is born, exported to the Department of Commerce, and Bureau of Census and the process of converting a man’s life, labor, and property to an asset of the United States government is in place.
Novation is not complete until the child as adult voluntarily assents to being a debtor, by submitting an application for a benefit, privilege, immunity, or opportunity from any branch of a martial law agency. It does not matter whether it’s The Department of Motor Vehicles or, The Social Security Administration, the effect is the same. Novation converts a baby’s life, liberty, labor, and property, to an asset of the United States, a Federal corporation, and converts a flesh and blood man or woman, created under substantive Law by God, to a persona, i.e., a fiction. One is now living collateral for the debts of the United States corporation, who has entered into commerce for some benefit, privilege, etc., from an imperial power, regulated by military law that benefits bondholders of the debt of the corporation.
Third, the persona, as a fiction, cannot think, speak, see, hear, or write, and thus an advocatus, an attorney, is called in to speak for the persona.
Fourth, Roman law is the basis of all International and Municipal law and forms the core of the United Nations law, and all treaties made by the United States with foreign powers.
Fifth, the lex mercatoria, the law of merchants and commerce is based on Roman law where the god of merchants and commerce, Mercury, presided, who is, the god of traders and thieves.
Sixth, all modern federal and state law appears in the form of codes patterned after the Code of Justinian, often following it, at places, exactly.
Thus, Roman law served all the needs of those who opposed Constitutional law. It installed the force and power of the military; it already existed as a complete body of law; it was commercial; and, it was clearly the only real substitute for the Law of God and the common law.
A Better Deal
We move forward to March, 1933, and the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in which he began to solidify the power of the federal government under the cover of a national banking emergency.
It seems American bankers were giving gold certificates (paper) to customers in exchange for gold coin at $22.00 an ounce and re-selling the gold to European bankers at $34.00 an ounce, a tidy 50%+ profit on each coin.
The people discovered this and started demanding gold coin back, but the banks didn’t have reserves to meet demand. President Hoover declined to take Federal action and bail them out.
Onto the stage comes Roosevelt. He makes a deal with the bankers to fix the problem, labels the conduct of the American people “hoarding,” declares a bank holiday, and raises the price of gold to $34.00 an ounce. Problem solved, right? Well..., that depends.
The banks re-opened and did business again, but the price Roosevelt extracted was, it was business as usual—only on the President’s Signature!!! Thus, anytime a President wants, he can close the banks and the Federal Reserve. All he needs is for people to believe there’s a national emergency. Whether real or not, the power to decide is solely within his hands.
Thus, the annual clash between the Federal government and Federal Reserve (a private bank system) is just eye-wash for the people who are supposed to believe that the U.S government is looking out for the interests of the people. It is, in fact, more smoke and mirrors. The President can close the Federal Reserve whenever he wants to, if it serves his interest.
At any rate, Roosevelt extended ‘emergency powers’ and, in a flood of E.O.’s over the next few weeks, he; declared all Americans ‘enemies’ of the United States ; converted all acts involving money to commerce that required a license to conduct business; created the tools for the licensure of all Americans and the registration of all automobiles; and many others, all of which were ratified by Congress, usually without debate, in a series of lightning sessions, where most of those who voted on bills, never even read them. And this, because no one in Congress had the courage to buck the will of the Commander-in-Chief.
Because the application of martial law varied in each state depending on whether the state was one of the Southern Confederacy, one of the pro-union states, or came in after Lincoln’s War Against All States, Roosevelt’s actions, in effect, leveled all state laws to a common standing.
Thus, a visit to your nearest law library will show, that during the years 1932-38, the volumes of acts of the legislatures get very thick and complicated to read as the states attempt to cooperate with the Federal power and yet retain some of their own powers.
State legislatures did nothing to stop Roosevelt because all benefited from massive increases in state and local taxes that accrued to them under Roosevelt’s policies.
Roosevelt then packed the Supreme Court with his own men and secured the decisions that allowed him to expand the Federal government’s power, enormously.
Solely by E.O., he took total control of the nation, and only a President can terminate his own power of Executive Order. Today, Congress passes no act without the authority of a pre-existing E.O.. Perhaps, it doesn’t matter, since Congress doesn’t write legislation, anyway. No, it’s done for them, by contract with West Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minnesota; the same company that produces law books, including the law dictionary, Black’s 6th.
None of this, however, contrary to the conspiracy theories, has been covered up. On the contrary, everything one needs to know concerning what Roosevelt did, and why, is all a matter of public record, usually available from government sources at local, state, and federal libraries and printing offices.
The best work to demonstrate the real extent of the President’s power, and his control of what the Congress does is seen in a special report which, on page one begins with this ominous note:
“A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule.. And, in the United States, actions taken by the Government in times of great crisis have—from at least the Civil War—in various ways, shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency.” (emphasis added)
Thus, the old Roman Imperial power has been resurrected and installed in the united States of America and it is justified by the doctrine of necessity and the acquiescence of people.
We all remember the upheavals in the sixties, and most of us opposed the rhetoric of that time and the charges of ‘imperialism’ that were made against the Federal government. It turns out that the ‘hippies’ of the sixties were more accurate than we knew.
The imperial power has existed now for over 130 years, using The Laws of War, International, and Municipal Law under the Commander-in-Chief. These are the real supreme laws of the land. They govern all court process, its form, and process used by attorneys in such courts.
This is why people lose trying to argue Constitutional rights. Courts are military tribunals sitting in summary court martial proceedings against civilians. Constitutional and courts of common law arguments are not allowed in such courts.
Judges may listen to such arguments for many reasons and even decide in one’s favor, but not because of any Constitutional or common law argument. One may make an argument or reveal evidence and not realize why a judge renders a ‘not guilty’ verdict. Or, if he has collected excellent revenue (war reparations) for the day, he may just release you because he likes you. But, when the stakes are high enough, one must not delude himself into believing that Constitutional or common law tactics will work—ever.
This is why we do not recommend going into Roman courts. They are not Our courts, only the smoke and mirrors of an anti- Christian power trying to give the appearance of Lawful process.
What we face today, are the same imperial powers in all their arbitrary capriciousness, that have always lurked in the wings, waiting for God’s People to lie down and go to sleep. A new breed of Caesar’s stalk the land, seeking whom they may devour. If we fail to learn and apply the proper use of God’s Law and common law; fail to learn the science and art of being self- governing Christian men and women under God; fail to teach these things to our posterity; then we, like all men who sleep in ignorance, deserve nothing but extinction and the certainty of God’s judgment.
Now, comes the rude awakening!
One may scream to high heaven about courts, the IRS, BATF, FBI, and rail at countless agencies, bureaus, departments, and other tentacles of imperial government with charges of fraud, theft, murder, and a host of other crimes, but in the majority of cases, imperial governments only do what the people want. Imperial governments obey their law, but we do not obey the law we claim which is the Law of God. We honor it with our lips and not with our actions.
Thus, the Lord has said: “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain.” And the agent on Earth to exact punishment for violations of this Commandment is none other than the courts we have today.
We violate this Commandment—daily. We do things we ought not, against God’s Law, while demanding the benefits, privileges, and opportunities of ungodly governments.
“... Thou shalt take no gift: for the gift blindeth the wise, and perverteth the words of the righteous.” It is we who commit the fraud, theft, and other crimes—against God. If we enter imperial courts they cannot judge us by OUR law, but by THEIR law. They have no option to do otherwise, because they are under the military authority of the Commander-in-Chief!!!
Thus, the Lord has said: “Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?” Is this not a command to set up our own courts under Godly jural societies?
Why, if we abate a traffic ticket, does a court withdraw its Bench Warrant from service by officers in the field, yet, keeps it on the court Docket? The question is important because that is what the courts do when abatements are properly written and served on officers and judges.
The answer is; abatements tell the court that one exists in another venue and jurisdiction. The court says, “Fine, but we will keep a Warrant on the Docket in case you contradict yourself and show up in our courts, where the Warrant will be served and you will be prosecuted!”
The reason why courts recognize non-statutory abatements in the first place is because they recognize true Law when they see it. On this fact alone, the people could have stopped the imperial governments—decades ago.
One can protest law published in the Federal Register, but it is placed there to serve notice for purposes of public objections. Has anyone ever considered using non-statutory abatements against the Federal Register?
Laws of War, International and Municipal Law, Emergency Powers, are Imperial Law, and not law. All are arbitrary, capricious, and self-contradictory. Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Erie Railroad V. Thompkins, that there is no stare decisis, i.e., no prior decision of any court, which binds the present courts under imperial powers and there is thus, no federal common law.
Courts vacillate from one contradictory decision to another because they have no law standard of absolute right and wrong by which to measure a ruling. Therefore, one cannot accuse such courts of fraud. Deceit maybe (legal in International Law), but not fraud.
When true Law stares the court in the face, they never vacillate; they recognize it as true Law. In short, if we are who we say we are, and not what they say we are, what are we doing in their fictitious courts that have no jurisdiction over Good and Lawful Christian Men that we say we are?
Imperial courts will make certain that we strictly adhere to one law or the other. One must, therefore, either live according to God’s Law, the law of substance, liberty, and self-government, or, one will live by the law of fictitious persona, without substance or liberty, and they will govern every move and punish all deviation from an arbitrary and capricious system and seize one’s property (interest) and persona at will.
Some believe the imperial system can be done away with, and replaced by another system without the taint of religion (Christianity). But, the history of the world shouts with one voice, that such is folly. Men will either be ruled by God or by Imperial Tyrants.
Thus, if one claims to be at common law, in a Christian venue, yet lives under the arbitrary, Non-Christian system, and daily engages in commerce forbidden by Scripture, one is punished for his lies, contradictions, fraud, and deceit, which are unlawful in God’s court.
If one claims the benefits of God’s Law and His Providence and still wants benefits from Rome and the god Mercury (in commerce), one deserves what one gets. Defendants who sit on a fence deserve to be split asunder. Remember, God is long- suffering and may take His own time to punish evil, but man wants punishment now and he has created the courts to fulfill that demand. The Roman gods must be satisfied whenever, and in the form, they demand satisfaction.
The Same - Only Different
Most Americans today are ignorant, misinformed or confused by what’s really going on in law, today. Many, who believe they are learned in the law, have their rights violated in courts because they do not know they argue cases at cross- presuppositions.
We argue all cases in law with words and a set of presuppositions that control what we mean by the words. The courts, on the other hand, using the same words, operate from a different set of presuppositions which changes the meaning of the words and phrases to something entirely different than Our common understanding.
Under such conditions, we are merely victims in a long line of victims waiting to be fleeced who do not realize that the word games in modem court processes exist to hide the fact that the processes and procedures of all military courts have no basis in Law whatever. The subtitle of this section, “The Same Only Different,” draws attention to a central problem in law, where words appear to say one thing, but actually mean something entirely different.
Note: All words in italics art Latin originals.
Rights.
There are a variety of rights in law, but their meaning and usage is different, depending on many factors. Thus, there are; rights at law, rights in law, civil rights, natural rights, constitutional rights; perfect and imperfect, primary and secondary, and sub-categories in all.
But, in the sense we use the word ‘rights,’ we generally mean something within our prerogative to do or not to do, which is not contrary to Gods’ Law. Of course, all others would have the same prerogative.
From the Christian perspective, ‘rights’ come from God and are the heritage of all Christians, everywhere, and it is our first duty to obey God rather than men.
From natural man’s perspective, ‘rights’ from the civil power and are known as ‘civil rights’. In the common law of England and America, rights and duties came from God and were known by the practice and customs of the people as they worked out their salvation in fear and trembling. This law is known in Latin as the lex non scripta—the law not written , for it is written on the heart of the Christian man and woman.
Civil rights are not really rights at all, because what a civil power gives can also be taken away. Thus, political rhetoric on civil rights—and extending them to everyone—is vital to the continued success of the present forms of control over citizens who opt for civil rights, rather than stand as self-governing men under God’s Law. It explains why civil rights are political privileges; no law compels any politician to grant them.
Privileges.
‘Privilege’ often suggests something suspect, in that the privileged are somehow different from other people. But, in fact, it all depends on what kind of privilege we’re talking about. In man’s law, the privileges of citizens, for example, are different than those for aliens. The privileges of God’s Law and common law are different from those bestowed under Codes, ordinances, rules, and regulations.
Privileges can, therefore, also be a right.
Black’s defines privilege in many ways. i.e., “A particular and peculiar benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person, company, or class, beyond the common advantage of other citizens.” And as; “An exceptional or extraordinary power or exemption.”
Privileges are defined by usage in civil, statute, and maritime law. Privileges are necessary in parliamentary law, or there could be no ordered way to conduct business.
All privileges granted by civil powers, are fully taxable—always—otherwise there is no reason for a civil power to grant them.
The ultimate privilege of salvation in Christ comes from God and is granted only to some, and not others, by virtue of Gods’ predestinating prerogative.
Often, what privilege one may exercise. depends on which jurisdiction controls the specific man. What some do in freely exercising privileges, may require the permission of civil powers, for others to do. It may be the same privilege in both cases. The question turns on what privilege is being exercised and who is exercising it.
Particularly, this is so with respect to the so-called “right to travel vs. the license to drive”. In fact, under martial powers, everyone has a right to travel, but only under a license. This is contrary to what is commonly taught in the law reform movement because they do not understand that since all commerce is regulatable under martial law, and that traveling is a right specifically applicable only to salesmen and immigrants.
The specific phrase that should be used by the law reformer is not the ‘right to travel’ but, “the liberty to use the common ways”. The former is a commercial term. The latter is a term in the common law.
Ultimately, the meaning of the privilege depends on whether or not it is granted by God or man. On this question turns the entire meaning of privilege.
If granted by God it is not triable in any court. If granted by a civil power it is triable by any court so designated as the trier of fact.
The Doctrine of Necessity.
This topic is little understood by most Americans today, yet, it is the prime force behind emergency powers and martial rule, and it covers a multitude of sins committed by judges, bureaucrats, and politicians.
The meaning of necessity is especially baffling when one appears in court and argues a brilliant case only to hear the judge say,’ ‘Your case is well argued and normally I would agree with you, but, out of necessity I must rule against you.”
There are several types of necessity in law.
Necessity exists in three forms; “(1) The necessity of preserving one’s own life, which will excuse a homicide; (2) the necessity of obedience, as to the laws, or the obedience of one not sui juris to his superior; (3) the necessity caused by the act of God or a stranger.”
We would only add to this, the Necessity to obey God rather than man.
The most important view of necessity, because of its impact on the conduct of today’s emergency powers is; “Controlling force; irresistible compulsion; a power or impulse so great that it admits no choice of conduct. That which makes the contrary of a thing impossible. The quality or state of being necessary, in its primary sense, signifying that which makes an act or event unavoidable. A quality or state of fact or being in difficulties or in need; A condition arising out of circumstances that compels a certain course of action.”
At any rate, the doctrine of necessity is also used and has been so used by the United States government as justification for imposing emergency powers on the people of America. Such powers are just a thinly disguised form of martial law.
The same doctrine is also the father of eminent domain. “The right of society, or of the sovereign, to dispose, in case of necessity, and for the public safety, of all the wealth contained in the state, is called, ‘eminent domain’.”
But, in another decision this is qualified by saying; “when used in relation to the power of eminent domain [it] does not mean absolute necessity, but only reasonable necessity.”
And, “the word ‘necessity’, within a certificate of public convenience and necessity, is not used in the sense of being essential or absolutely indispensable but merely that certificate is reasonably necessary for the public good.”
The problem is, when the civil power says, “It’s necessary for us to do thus and so,” the question never arises as to whether or not what the civil power wants to do is lawful in the first place.
Among law reformers the current fad is to set up common law courts and justify doing this, without the necessary prerequisites of first establishing a Lawful civil authority (or Jural Society) by invoking the doctrine of necessity.
This is pathetic, because they justify setting up what are supposed to be lawful courts with an unlawful doctrine, because the maxim of Law is: ‘necessity knows no law.’
Emergency Powers.
As stated above, necessity gave birth to the emergency powers idea that encompasses all those forms of power such as: martial law, martial rule (a more benign form of martial law), national emergencies, and so on.
When nations stoop to impose such powers on its people, they are but
one step away from revolution and chaos. The only forms of law used,
are international and municipal law, that have never, in the history of
the world, formed the basis of a sound and long-lasting system of law.
More evidence for the potential self-destruction of such governments
is seen in the fact that such governments only operate under
democracies, not republics. This is done to maintain the fiction that a
lawful civil authority still exists. But, democracies only stay in power as
long as they can maintain a welfare state of benefits, privileges, and
opportunities.
By definition, martial law and emergency powers exist in the second
place because, lawful civil authority, process, and procedure have
ceased to exist in the normal course of things.
“Martial law, which is built upon no settled principles, but is entirely
arbitrary in its decisions, is in truth and reality no law, but something
indulged rather that allowed as law. The necessity of order and
discipline in an army is the only thing which can give it countenance,
and therefore it ought not to be permitted in time of peace, when
king’s courts are open for all persons to receive justice according to
the laws of the land.”
Further, “Martial law is neither more nor less than the will of the
general who commands the army. It overrides and suppresses all
existing civil laws, civil officers, and civil authorities, by the arbitrary
exercise of military power.”
How then, does martial law affect the administration of law and the
courts?
In State of California vs. O.J. Simpson, those who saw the early part of
the case, may remember the confusion in arraigning him. A flag without
gold fringe stood in the court as he was arraigned under local common
law.
Confusion arose because Simpson did not understand what the court
wanted when it requested his name. Proceedings re- started and he
identified himself properly. After arraignment, a new judge was
assigned (Ito), and a new flag was placed in court, with gold fringe
around its edge.
This is because; “The law of the territory occupied as an incident of war
or belligerency whenever the local civil authority is superseded in
whole or part by the military authority of the occupying power...
includes local criminal law as adopted or modified by competent
authority, and the proclamations, ordinances, regulations, or orders
promulgated by competent authority of the occupying power.”
Basically, the court, under ‘law of the territory’ arraigned Simpson
under common law with one flag, but tried him under a military flag. Is
this possible?
Congress has stated: “A majority of the people of the United States
have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years,
freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution
have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by
states of national emergency. The problem or bow a constitutional
democracy reacts to great crisis, however, far antedates the Great
Depression. As a philosophical issue, its origins reach back to the Greek
city-states and the Roman Republic. And, in the United States, actions
taken by the Government in time of great crises have—from, at least,
the Civil War—in important ways shaped the present phenomenon of a
permanent state of national emergency.”
National emergencies are; “A state of national crisis: a situation
demanding immediate and extraordinary national or federal action.
Congress has made little or no distinction between a “state of national
emergency” and a “state of war.”
Publicists tell us, that America is the greatest nation in the world, AND,
the longest lasting form of Constitutional government in the history of
the world. In fact, the constitutional republic lasted from 1787 to 1861,
less than seventy-five years!!! The death of the Republic, as shown
above, was engineered by A. Lincoln.
Note, Lincoln did not declare war on the South because he had not the
power. This is so because Congress, who had the power to declare war
- could not conduct business without a quorum, which was lost when
seven Southern States walked out, six months before.
There was a formal declaration of the end of hostilities but, there was
never a formal act to end martial law by the Commander- in-Chief (the
President), after Lincoln’s assassination.
F.D.R. created emergency powers and developed them to their highest
form of expression in the history of the country. All this, while
Congress was in recess, on March 6, 1933, under the guise of a banking
crisis.
By Executive Order F.D.R altered one word in “The Trading with the
Enemy Act,” which made the American people living in the states
‘enemies’ of the United States, and subjected them—for revenue
purposes—to licensure in all commercial activities. Instead of this Act
(originally passed during World War I) applying only to persons doing
business with the enemy ‘without the United States’ it was changed to
read, ‘within the United States.’
An extension of this idea is seen where; “The present law forbids
member banks of the Federal Reserve System to transact banking
business, except under regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury,
during an emergency proclaimed by the President.” 12 U+S.C.A., Section
95.
Congress returned from recess and rubber-stamped Roosevelts’ E.O.’s
and in less than two years, all the States passed similar statutes.
Because of 12 U.S.C.A., Sec. 95 (above), every President re-affirms the
state of national emergency, annually.
The answer to the questions asked above “are we living under martial
law, etc.?,” by now must be an emphatic, YES!!!
Where is Congress in the scheme of things? What sort of power does it
have? In the U.S Codes, we find ‘The Congress’ is not a body that sits
according to law or positive Act, but by resolution. The word ‘resolution’
means, “The term is usually employed the adoption of a motion, the
subject matter of which would not properly constitute a statute, such
as a mere expression of opinion; an alteration of the rules; a vote of
thanks or of censure, etc.. Such is not law, but merely a form in which
a legislative body expresses an opinion.”
And, “The chief distinction between a ‘resolution’ and a ‘law’ is that the
former is used when-ever the legislative body passing it wishes
merely to express an opinion as to some given matter or thing and is
only to have a temporary effect on such particular thing, while by a
‘law’ it is intended to permanently direct and control matters applying
to persons or things in general.
To this day, a President pays lip-service to Congress with Declarations
of War. Now we know why there is always such a public display each
time the President and Congress come into conflict when such
situations arise, (The Korean War, The Vietnam War, Grenada, Desert
Storm, etc., etc., etc.). In fact, the President, as the
Commander-in-Chief with emergency powers never needs the
approval of Congress, or anyone else, to engage in ‘peace actions,’ or
war.
Thus, today, Congress makes only ‘public policy’. Such Acts are,
officially, “Public Law”. But, they have no real substance in law.
Public Law is realty Private Law, which is; “The principles under which
the freedom of contract or private dealings is restricted by law for the
good of the community.”
Now, for those who moan, roll their eyes and beat their breasts each
time Christians speak of God’s Law, and claim that any Law based on
God’s Law would impose morality on the people, consider that;
“The term ‘policy’, as applied to a statute, regulation, rule of law,
course of action, or the like, refers to its probable effect, tendency, or
object, considered with reference to the social or political well being of
the state. Thus, certain classes of acts are said to be ‘against public
policy,’ when the law refuses to enforce or recognize them, on the
ground that they have a mischievous tendency, so as to be injurious to
the interests of the state, apart from illegality or immorality.”
Or, legality and morality have nothing to do with public policy. We just
don’t want to injure the interests of the state. In other words, whether
its legal or moral doesn’t matter so long as the interests of the state
are advanced. If this is not a statement of morality then the English
language has no meaning. Further;
“Public policy is a variable quantity; it must and does vary, with the
habits, capacities, and opportunities of the public.”
“Whatever Lola wants, Lola gets.” A cliché comes to mind here,
something like, “What is moral depends on whose ox is gored.”
Martial Law Principles.
As they relate to the institution and execution of martial law, its
principles are as follows:
“First. That no government worthy of the name will permit itself to be
overturned, the object for which it was instituted to be defeated, by
the turbulent element in its midst, simply because the civil
administration fails, whether culpable or otherwise, to perform the
function prescribed by the written law; but, in such case, it is the right
and duty of government, in self-defense, to resort to a higher and
unwritten law to meet the exigency.
“Second. That the force called into active operation in this exigency is of
necessity the military and martial law is its rule of conduct.
“Third. That martial law thus may be invoked either by the executive or
the law-making power, although the former generally will be the case.
“Fourth. A proclamation establishing martial law, while convenient as
notifying to all the true conditions, is not necessary; but the placing the
military in control, by proper authority, carries its own proclamation
that martial law there prevails.
“Fifth. In the exercise of this power the military may, if convenient to
all authorities, utilize the civil administration; but this to the extent only
that the military may deem such course desirable.
“Sixth. In the enforcement of martial law the military may not wanton
with power and use it tyrannically or for the oppression of the
community; and should this be done, the perpetrators, after law has
resumed its proper sway, may be brought before the civil courts,
where such acts may be inquired into; the question for the court to
determine in such case being how the heart stood when such alleged
unlawful acts were perpetrated.
The Gold Fringed Flag.
The law reformers are always saying that the gold-fringed flag that
hangs in all the courts of this land is an admiralty flag. This is more
mythology. The truth is, admiralty is limited only to certain kinds of
actions, none of which are dealt with in most of our courts today This
ought to give someone a clue.
But, just what does such a flag signify? Is the fringe just decoration?
Where does the Gold Fringed Flag come from?
In 1959, as President, Dwight David Eisenhower, by E.O. and in the
Federal Register , and pursuant to law , stated that: “A military flag is a
flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it
has a Yellow Fringe border on three sides.”
The President designates this deviation from regular flags, by Executive
Order, and in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief Thus, “The Fringe is
strictly within the discretion of the President as Commander-in-Chief of
the Army and Navy.
The continued use of such fringe is prescribed in current Army
regulations.
“Ancient custom sanctions the use of fringe on regimental colors and
standards, but there seems to be no good reason or precedent for its
use on other flags.”
According to Army Regulations , “the Flag is trimmed on three sides
with Fringe of Gold, 2 *” wide,” and that, “such flags are flown
indoors, ONLY in military courtrooms.” And, further, “the Gold
Fringed Flag is not to be carried by anyone except units of the United
States Army, and the United States Army division associations.”
Question??? Why does this flag fly in all Federal, State, County, and City
courts if they are not military courts? Why does the U.S. flag fly over,
or above, all state flags? This never happened before 1861. Does this
specific year ring a bell with anyone?
The truth is, the gold-fringed flag flies in military courts that sit in
summary court martial proceedings against civilians and such courts
are governed in part by local rules, but more especially by “The Manual
of Courts Martial.”
What is an Enemy?
To clarity whether or not the people are the enemy of the United States
subject to military courts, one need only acquire the Manual for Courts
Martial and look up the word, ‘Enemy.’ Enemy, “Includes organized
forces of the enemy in time of war, any hostile body that our forces
may be opposing such as a rebellious mob, or a band of renegades, and
includes, civilians as well as members of military organizations.
‘Enemy’ is not restricted to the enemy government or its armed forces.
All the citizens of one belligerent are enemies of the government and
all the citizens of the other.’
Organized forces not only includes the regular military, but the National
Guard, all state, county, and city law enforcement officers under the
National Guard. In effect this means, we are being held Arbiterage,
“open and notoriously,” by our own neighbors, friends, and loved ones.
Last, concerning what constitutes a time of war, it “exists for purposes
of R.C.M. 1004(c)(6), and Parts IV and V of this manual,” in virtually
every act conceivable by any person, against which the United States
government has made a law, rule, or regulation. The details of the
crimes that civilians can commit, that are classed as ‘Acts of War,’
cover 125 pages in The Manual for Courts Martial.
Citizen, Neutral, Sovereign Citizen, State Citizen, or Foreign
National?
There has been considerable noise among law reformers concerning
one’s status, i.e., whether one is a citizen, neutral, or some other. One
idea is, one defends himself by being a ‘state citizen’.
Now, the status of a state citizen depends on what state he is a citizen
of. The problem is, who is governor, attorney general, secretary of
state, and who represents the state citizen? To claim state citizenship
when the officers of that state do not exist, is not just bogus
argument, but ludicrous, as well.
The same is true for ‘common law citizens’. There is nothing in law that
even remotely defines ‘common law citizen’. The reason why is,
common law is a body of law, process, procedure, rights, privileges,
immunities, courts, and duties, common to all men by virtue of their
Christian status. It supplies no rules to create a state. One would think
that this should be an absolute pre-requisite for the existence of
‘common law citizens’. Without a state of some kind that protects ones
rights, there are no citizens of the common law variety or any other.
Black’s says a citizen, in General Law, is; “A member of a free city or
jural society, possessing all the rights and privileges which can be
enjoyed by any person under its constitution and government, and
subject to the corresponding duties.” And, “In American Law, one who,
under the Constitution, and the laws of the United States, or of a
particular state, and by virtue of birth or naturalization—within the
jurisdiction—is a member of the political community, owing allegiance
and being entitled to the enjoyment of full civil rights.”
One can claim to have revoked, rescinded, or abolished all the
applications for benefits, privileges, immunities, or opportunities in
commerce that he has entered into in the past, or try to abolish his
signatures on such documents, but there is no authority in such
instruments to compel the martial law governments to comply. Besides,
a subject does not compel the performance of the master.
A Neutral, at first sight, is one who appears dis-interested to the
standing of belligerents in a war. But, “citizens of neutral [states],
resident in, or visiting invaded, or occupied territory, can claim no
immunity from the customary laws of war relating to communications
with the enemy.”
Any form of intercourse with the enemy, is communications with the
enemy. Taking the stance of a Neutral will not help you get there from
here.
There are also those who claim to be ‘sovereign citizens.’ In American
law, there is no such thing, because the only sovereign is the people, in
a collective sense, who are cloaked with sovereignty under God,
the only real Sovereign. And, the People are only cloaked with
sovereignty while they act in accordance with God’s Law.
Those who act in commerce have no sovereignty because they are
acting within the lex mercatoria, the law of the merchant. Lex
mercatoria is also the domain of the god Mercury, i.e., the god of
traders and thieves. Are these ‘sovereign citizens’ Godly people, or
pretenders to a jurisdiction that does not exist?
A Foreign National is, “all persons whether or not subject to military
law, except the military judge, members, and foreign nationals, outside
the territorial limits of the United States, who are not subject to the
code.” Territorial jurisdiction; “is considered as limited to cases arising,
or persons residing, within a defined territory, as a judicial district, etc.
The authority of any Court is limited by the boundaries thus fixed.” A
territory is also, “a part of a country, separated from the rest, and
subject to a particular jurisdiction.”
The term ‘United States’ has many meanings. “It may be merely the
name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other
sovereigns in [the] family of nations, it may designate territory over
which sovereignty of the United States extends, or it may be [a]
collective name of the states which are united by and under the
Constitution.”
The United States is defined in Title 26, The I.R.S. Code as, “the District of
Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Northern Mariannas Island,
and American Samoa.”
Foreign nationals are unique and may live under a separate law
system, within the geographic limits of martial law powers. The most
well-known example of this is the Amish Christian sect. This ought to
give someone a clue.
The bottom line is, the only man or woman outside martial law
jurisdiction and courts is the Christian—when acting in the mode
and character of a Christian. The problem today is, most Christians
are engaged in commerce and thus void all their rights, privileges, and
immunities under God and accepting instead the benefices of Mercury
and this places them under martial law.
In short, we have sold Our birthright for a mess of pottage.
Person, Human Being, Natural Person, Natural Man.
‘Person’ is; “An indispensable word with varied, overlapping meanings.
Often used without definition, as in the United States Constitution
(Articles I, II, III, IV; Amendments IV, V, XII, XIV, XII). Defined, and
redefined, in an endless succession of special purpose statutes, with no
assurance to the profession that this is the person you thought you
were talking about. The definitions here give an overview of current
usage.”
Person is defined as human being , and not a human being. It can mean
one who holds a “morality common to human beings,” an individual, or
a natural person.
It also means ‘artificial person’ which covers all forms of corporations
or incorporation, profit or non-profit, and is a being distinct from its
shareholders.
Thus, a church corporation [501(c)3] is a person, but an un-incorporated
church, or association, is not a person unless expressly declared such
by statute.
One may say the Christian church has always had the right to be a
corpore, but this is true only if the church has not sought privileges
from governments. In such case, a church exchanges its rights, for
privileges. Corpore does not apply to state authorized
corporations—anywhere in law.
One definition of human being is, “[A] monster ... A human-being by
birth, but in some part resembling a lower animal.” Blackstone says a
‘monster’ is one who “hath no inheritable blood, and cannot be heir to
any land, albeit it be brought forth in marriage; but, although it hath
deformity in any part of its body, yet if it hath human shape, it may be
heir.”
Elsewhere, a human being is “mundane; secular.” If so, what do
Christians have to do with such ideas, and why do so many Christians
consider themselves ‘human beings’? Is not this a contradiction in
terms?
The Apostle Paul is the last word on ‘natural man’. “But the natural man
receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness
unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually
discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is
judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he
may instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.”
The point is, ‘persons’ and all its related entities, are subject to Codes,
Ordinances, Rules, and etc., of the U.S., the ‘States of’, ‘Counties of’ and
‘Cities Of’. Read the codes and see for yourself. They only speak of
’persons’.
The Rules of English Grammar.
Since martial powers cannot use lawful civil authority, process, and
procedure, they must use some form of language in which to write
statutes, codes, ordinances, rules, etc.
Accumulations, simplifications, and systematic treatments of statutes,
are called Codes. “The Code of Federal Regulations, is not a Code of
laws, but an annually up-dated, collection of the regulations enacted by
executive regulatory agencies without the authority of Congress.”
Emergency power Codes are, with their hodge-podge of words,
phrases, meanings, convolutions, etc., are a code of hidden meanings
that is never interpreted consistently by any branch of the
government, much less by bureaucrats.
Capitalization and abbreviations of words and names of persons is a
devious thing in these codes and in the process which flows from them.
Thus, when a court issues judgment against a defendant, the Order is
always typed in all capital letters, as follows; IT IS SO ORDERED, which, in
the rules of English Grammar, has no meaning—at all.
A name typed in all capital letters on driver’s licenses, social security
cards, court documents, process, and credit cards, is called a ‘nom de
geurre’, literally, a “name of war.” Thus, under international law, all
parties to a case must appear by the nom de guerre, because an
“alien enemy cannot maintain an action during the war, in his own
name.”
But, in lawful civil process actions can only be filed against Christians in
the full Christian appellation, according to the Rules of English Grammar,
I.e., in upper and lower case letters as in proper nouns. Thus, only in a
baptized name (first, middle, and family), can he be prosecuted
because process issued in any other flame is defective.
“If the Christian name be wholly mistaken, this is regularly fatal to
all legal instruments, as well declarations and pleadings as grants
and obligations; and the reason is, because it is repugnant to the rules
of the Christian religion, that there should be a Christian without a
name of baptism, or that such person should have two Christian names,
since our church allows of no re-baptizing: and therefore if a person
enters into a bond by a wrong Christian name, he cannot be declared
against by the name in the obligation, and his true name brought in an
alias, for that supposes the possibility of two Christian names; and you
cannot declare against the party by his right name, and aver he made
the deed by his wrong name; for that is to set up an averment contrary
to the deed; and there is this sanction allowed to every solemn
contract, that it cannot be opposed but by a thing of equal validity; and
if he be impleaded by the name in the deed, he may plead that he is
another person, and that it is not his deed.”
The same is true for parts of names abbreviated. For an initial is “no
name at all.”
“An initial cannot be regarded as a Christian name.” And, “We are of
opinion that the word ‘misnomer, which means a naming amiss, is wide
enough to cover, the faulty indication of a Christian name by means of
an initial.”
Concerning misnomer, it is “a good plea in abatement, for since names
are the only marks and indicia which human kind can understand each
other by, if the name be omitted or mistaken, there is a complaint
against nobody.”
One reason why all emergency powers courts have no lawful process
is because—they never use the lawful Christian name, spelled according
to the Rules of English Grammar, i.e., as a proper noun. But, one must
assert the error in the name as soon as one receives any process from
such governments or one can never raise the question again.
Especially is this seen in the heading of martial law process whose
courts are forbidden to use any process contrary to international law
under which they sit. If used, it is fatal to their process, when properly
exposed—at the outset of any process issued by such courts or their
agents.
It is interesting to note an I.R.S. scheme in forms and letters to alleged
taxpayers. One name is always abbreviated in all letters. They request
only a middle initial, not a full name. Often, when the nom de guerre
issue is raised against them, they change a nom de guerre to some
form of abbreviated name, and thereby seek to give the impression as
‘reasonable’ men who only want to comply with law.
Affidavits in all caps have no meaning (verified complaints) and are
repugnant to the laws of English grammar. They have no real force and
effect in traffic warrants, notices of warrants, notices of liens and
levies, and so on, and so on, and so on, unless one has already granted
jurisdiction. Their purpose is, to seduce the unwary into ‘voluntary
compliance’.
One may see words in martial law process like; “You must appear, blah,
blah, blah.... It appears to demand a personal appearance. But in law,
‘must’ means ‘may’. What’s really being said is, “We invite you to
appear for the benefit of discussion.” Only the word ‘shall,’ compels
performance.
Other Deceptive phrases are: “Notice of” means “an invitation to”,
“Notice to Appear”, “Notice of Levy/Lien”, “Notice to Remove”, “Notice
of Warrant”, “Notice of Trespass”, “Order to Show Cause”, “Order and
Demand” and many others are, simply, deceptive word games.
Commonly, emergency powers’ agents send letters to people,
threatening or implying all sorts of things. But, the letter, no matter
who sends it, has no force or effect in law, unless you voluntarily
default with an improper response. Most people write a letter back,
not realizing the agent who sent the letter, now knows you have no
idea of what the law is, because you answered a letter with a letter,
not lawful process.
Failing to answer letters with lawful process in common law, subjects
one to martial law process and a case will result, with default. This is
true of all communications from such powers, or agents. By the way,
the I.R.S. has no lawful authority to send letters to anyone in the fifty
states who is not actively engaged in a trade or business with the
Federal government, i.e. the Federal corporation known as the “United
States.”
e Facto, De Jure, and Republican Forms of Civil Governments.
De facto means, “a government of fact. A government actually
exercising power and control in the state, as opposed to the true and
lawful government; a government not established according to the
constitution of the state, and not lawfully entitled to recognition or
supremacy, but which has nevertheless, supplanted or displaced the
government de jure. A government deemed unlawful, or deemed
wrongful, or unjust, which, nevertheless receives presently habitual
obedience from the bulk of the community.”
“But there is another description of government, called by publicists, a
‘government de facto’, but which might, perhaps, be more aptly
denominated a ‘government of paramount force’. Its distinguishing
characteristics are, (1) that its existence is maintained by active
military power, within the territories, and against the rightful authority,
of an established and lawful government; and (2), that, while it exists
must necessarily be obeyed in civil matters by private citizens, who, by
acts of obedience, rendered in submission to such force, do not become
responsible, as wrong doers, for those acts, though not warranted by
the laws of the rightful government. Actual governments of this sort
are established over districts differing greatly in extent and conditions.
They are usually administered directly by military authority, but they
may be administered, also, by civil authority, supported more or less by
military force.”
The term “de facto, as descriptive of a government has no well-fixed
and definite sense. It is perhaps, most correctly used as signifying a
government completely, though only temporarily, established in the
place of the lawful or regular government, occupying its capital and
exercising its power, and which is ultimately overthrown, and the
authority of the government de jure re-established.”
A de jure government is “a government of right; the true and lawful
government; a government established according to the constitution of
the state, and lawfully entitled to recognition and supremacy in the
administration of the state, but which is actually cut off from power
and control. A government deemed lawful, or deemed rightful or just,
which, nevertheless, has been supplanted or displaced; that is to say,
which receives not presently (although it received formerly) habitual
obedience from the bulk of the community.”
Thus, all genuine lawful process against the unlawful processes of
martial powers, makes of the process issuer the representative of the
de jure civil power who is: “lawfully entitled to recognition and
supremacy in the administration of the state, but which is actually cut
off from power and control.” See above.
A republican form of government is “one in which the powers of
sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people,
either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to
whom those powers are specially delegated.”
Christianity.
Concerning Christianity and its relationship to the law, Bouvier says it
is; “The religion established by Jesus Christ.
“2. Christianity has been judicially declared to be a part of the common
law of Pennsylvania, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts. To write or
speak contemptuously and maliciously against it, is an indictable
offense....”
The word church, “signifies a society of persons who profess the
Christian religion; and in a physical or material sense, the place where
such persons assemble. The term church is nomen collectivum; it
comprehends the chancel, aisles, and body of the church.”
“2 By the English law, the terms church or chapel, and church-yard, are
expressly recognized as in themselves correct and technical
descriptions of the building and place, even in criminal proceedings.”
“3. It is not within the plan of this work to give an account of the
different local regulations in the United States respecting churches.
References are here given to enable the inquirer to ascertain what
they are, [and] where such regulations are known to exist.”
A church-warden is “an officer whose duties are, as the name implies,
to take care of, or guard the church.
“2. These officers are created in some ecclesiastical corporations by
the charter, and their rights and duties are definitely explained. In
England, it is said, their principal duties are to take care of: 1. the
church or building; 2. the utensils and furniture; 3. the church-yard; 4.
matters of good order concerning the church and church-yard; 5. the
endowments of the church. By the common law, the capacity of
church-wardens to hold property for the church is limited to personal
property.
The question is; Why are Christians not asserting their rightful place in
Law, and pressing the Crown Rights of King Jesus? Why are Christians
not defending the rights of life, liberty, and property on the basis of
God’s Law?
Summary
Since military law only recognizes municipal law, states create
municipal courts to punish ‘infractions’ of Motor Vehicle Codes.
“Infraction,” along with “contempt” and “appeal” are all military terms,
and not from civil law. This is why such terms are often, not defined in
State Codes.
Such courts fly the Commander-in-Chief’s flag, (gold fringed) and thus,
are an extension of the President’s power, on whose behalf they
collect war reparations by fine, penalty, etc. All operate as military
courts in summary court martial proceedings. Such courts only try
matters of fact. Judges make and declare law on a case by case basis,
without the controls of precedent or constitutional restrictions. The law
is thus, that which comes out of the judges mouth.
Municipal Court (traffic courts) judges act for the Commander-in-Chief
in the field under emergency conditions, as evidenced by the flag of the
Commander-in-Chief with gold fringe that flies in all their courts.
Judges resolve cases by the doctrine of necessity. In such courts
constitutions, stare decisis, etc., and civil law of lawful civil
authorities, are not heard as evidence in defense of a cause—with any
binding effect on the judge.
The key clause here is, ‘binding effect.’ Do not be deceived by a judge
hearing your constitutional arguments. Often bored, they will hear
considerable constitutional argument and stare decisis. But, such cites
do not bind the judges ruling in summary court martial proceedings.
With emergency Powers, final authority is always the chief military
commander, which in this nation is the Commander-in- Chief, i.e., the
President in his military office. This accounts for the Executive Order
snow storms since F.D.R., who first declared—openly—seizure of
Emergency Powers in March, 1933, again, by E.O.’s. From Lincoln to
F.D.R., a span of some seventy odd years, there were less than 2,000
E.O.’s issued by Presidents of the United States. Since F.D.R., in just sixty
years, E.O.’s now number more than 17,000.
Since, under emergency powers, there is no lawful, civil, or
constitutional authority, or LAWFUL civil courts, neither is there any
lawful civil or administrative process. This is key to understanding such
courts when the ignorant attempt to bring constitutional arguments to
court.
Common law advocates constantly try to bring actions based on
constitutional or precedential argument to courts that cannot hear such
argument. Then, when the court rules against them, they scream that
the “courts are just rolling over us.”
Remember, the argument is in the process, not in trying to argue the
case from a Constitutional standpoint. Emergency power process MUST
BE DEFECTIVE in form and the authority of it is thus compromised when
compared to lawful process.
All process is perfected by personal appearance, special appearances,
and any other form of appearance, because there is never, in such
appearances, a challenge to the form of the original process. Thus, all
court appearances in such courts are VOLUNTARY.
It does not matter how many errors one finds in martial law process.
If one appears, one loses, because one has waived service of defective
process and submitted to defects of process and the court, and is thus,
denied the protections of lawful constitutional, common law, and/or the
fundamental rights of Men as Christians.
“Modern law does not seek to compel appearance, but if the defendant
is properly served and neglects to appear and plead, the court will
render judgment against him for default of appearance.”
There are many who believe that special appearances (by paper work,
motions, etc.) nullifies a martial law court’s jurisdiction. This is false
doctrine. There is no remedy challenging jurisdiction except by an
abatement, first. Abatements do not challenge jurisdiction, they
challenge the process itself, upon which the jurisdiction depends.
Special appearances fail if a judge knows what he’s doing. Under
martial rule, judges do whatever they want, whenever they want, so
long as they do not alarm the public or disturb the peace. But, if “the
defendant or his attorney does any act with reference to the defense
of the action, he is held to submit himself to the authority of the court,
and all defects of service of process, are cured.”
Be warned, the court is not a building or judge, it’s the process, the
paperwork that starts the court action in the first place. If a court’s
paperwork is defective there is no court and it ceases to exist,
regardless of whether or not the court sits under martial or
constitutional law.
By necessity, field officers (judges, highway patrolmen, sheriffs, etc.)
exercise powers of life and death to maintain authority given them by
international and municipal law that prohibits lawful civil authority, or
constitutional mandates, because such procedures are too demanding
for timeliness and are therefore, clumsy for military, or quasi-military,
operations.
Constitutional and common law precedents are too restrictive for
Federal, State, County, and City powers, because they hamper, or slow
down, military procedures aimed at collecting war reparations against
the U.S. debt.
Military courts exercise “benefit of discussion” and acquire jurisdiction
as soon as the ‘accused’ asks or answers any question posed by a
court or its prosecuting officer. Arrest Warrants with a judge’s
signature in black ink and proper affidavits with true court seals, are
instruments of lawful process and thus, are not used in martial law
courts. Any argument, therefore, by a defendant on these grounds
alone, will thus be ignored.
Martial law courts manipulate Rules of English grammar to protect
their own status. Thus, states write their name as “The State of
California”, (instead of California State or California Republic) or in all
caps as in THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, instead of proper upper and lower
case letters, and use abbreviations such as CA, TX, MT, KS, NY, NJ, and
so on, ad nauseam, all of which are misnomers and no names at all, as
we’ve shown above.
International law require all parties to a case, to appear in some name
other than their lawfully spelled name.
The real irony is, the United States and the States, created martial law
courts to expand their power to collect revenue. But, by doing so, they
are vulnerable to lawful processes And, there is little they can do about
it without contradicting international law. This is why the U.S. will never
pull out of the United Nations voluntarily, because the U.N. is the source
of the United States’ authority to protect itself under International Law.
The point is, one who brings properly written lawful process against
unlawful process—must prevail.
A word of caution here. One who hires an attorney-at-law cannot bring
lawful process against emergency powers’ courts. Remember,
attorneys are agents of a court and can only use processes allowed by
the court that licenses the attorney to practice.
One must not hire an attorney to appear in martial law courts because,
doing so, automatically grants jurisdiction. A plea, “to the jurisdiction of
the person, must be pleaded in person, and not by attorney. If pleaded
by attorney, it is a submission to the jurisdiction of the court.” And, “A
plea to the jurisdiction of the person by a corporation must be by
attorney.”
Further, Arrest Warrants with a judge’s signature in black ink,
warrants with proper supporting affidavits, and court seals are lawful
process and are not used in martial law courts. That’s why such
warrants always fail the test of lawful process.
And, what about the Constitution of the United States of America in all
this?
Without lawful process, all constitutions are dead letters and facades,
manipulated at a governments whim because, lawful process itself is
based on the Constitution. They are thus interdependent. In short, if one
is gone, so is the other.
Lincoln set precedence for subversion of the Constitution in The War in
1861. If Constitutional cites fit a Federal need, they are used. If a
constitution or precedent gets in the way, it is ignored. Thus,
constitutions are merely optional.
This is why many Supreme Court cases (“Right to Privacy,” abortion,
social security, etc.) in which there is no right, constitutional or
otherwise, happen. A ‘social agenda’ is impossible without the Doctrines
of Necessity and international law to justify imposition of martial law.
Remember, there was no Federal Social Security before passage of the
International Labor Organizations Treaty (1935). It mandated a social
consciousness and enfranchisement of the masses. It created the
massive entitlement programs the people are burdened with today.
The hidden fact is, constitutional rights are ‘privileges’ that can be given
or taken away, by necessity and international law. Thus, in the Simpson
case, when Mark Furman was called to testify about the infamous
tapes, etc., he answered questions with: “I wish to assert my Fifth
Amendment “PRIVILEGE.”
Note: Furman asserted no RIGHT—only a PRIVILEGE with words given
him by his attorney/agent of a martial law court. Privileges, denied at a
Commander-in-Chief’s whim, tell us why Congress feels so free to play
with constitutional rights, i.e., in the Second Amendment, i.e., gun
ownership, etc. The last question is, how are emergency powers and
martial law, terminated?
“The question as to when military government in California terminated,
afterwards came up for discussion before the Supreme Court of the
United States. The Court remarked it had its origin in the lawful exercise
of a belligerent right over a conquered territory. It had been instituted
during the war by the command of the President of the United States. It
was the government when the territory was ceded as a conquest, and
it did not cease, as a matter of course, or as a necessary consequence
of restoration of peace. The President might have dissolved it by
withdrawing the Army and Navy officers who administered. But, he did
not do so. Congress could have put an end to it, but that was not done.
The right inference from the inaction of both was that, it was meant to
be continued until it was legislatively changed. No presumption of a
contrary intention could be made. Whatever may have been the causes
of delay, it was to be presumed that the delay was consistent with the
true policy of the government; and the more so, as it was continued
until the people of the territory met in convention to form a state
government, which was subsequently reorganized by Congress under
its power to admit new States into the Union. The Court concluded,
therefore, that the so-called civil, but really military, government of
California, organized as it was as a right of conquest, did not cease or
become defunct in consequence of the signature of the treaty of peace
with Mexico or from its ratification; and it was continued over a ceded
conquest without any violation of the Constitution or laws of the United
States.”
Martial law powers are terminated in only three ways.
First, a Commander-in-Chief can terminate martial powers by
Executive Order. The emergency then ends on a specific date and time.
But, a lawful civil authority must exist (U.N.?) to which he may cede the
authority and power of a martial law government.
It is clear that, if Hillary terminated the national emergency and martial
rule tomorrow, it would make no difference in how the law is currently
administered, since there is no lawful civil authority to whom she could
turn over the management and administration of the civil government.
Second, a conquering power can terminate emergency powers by its
own E.O., or decree.
Third, the emergency can be terminated by the people if they restore
lawful civil courts, processes, and procedures, under authority of the
“inherent political powers” of the people, and they can, therefore,
re-establish proper and lawful civil governments. Inherent power is,
“An authority possessed without its being derived from another. A
right, ability, or faculty of doing a thing, without receiving that right,
ability, or faculty, from another.” And, again, they are “Those which are
enjoyed by the possessors of natural right, without having been
received from another. Such are the powers of a people to establish a
form of government, of a father to control his children. Some of these
are regulated and restricted in their exercise by law, but they are not
technically considered in the law, as powers.”
This is the cornerstone of the peoples’ right to form jural societies as
discussed elsewhere in this work. If the people resist submission to
martial law courts, process, and procedure, and respond to unlawful
process with lawful process, martial law is null and void, ab initio,
nunc pro tunc, and the profits in martial law are greatly reduced.
By lawful process the people de-fund martial law.
The Land Question.
There is a great deal of interest in the law reform movements
concerning some procedure to get back one’s true title to the land he
lives on. The title everyone seems to want is an allodial title to their
land,
On this topic, we have some good news and some bad news.
First, there is no such thing as an allodial title! One may hold land by
allodial right, or in an allodium, but there is no Lawful piece of paper
that says “Allodial Title” at the top of it. The reason for this is, an allodial
right is a right found in the lex non scripta, i.e. the unwritten law, the
common law, and is not some form of title that can be granted by any
civil government, much less a martial law government.
And, we must not confuse a land patent with a title in allodium. When
the United States government patented land to anyone, it merely acted
as an agent for the People and created a record of who acquired the
land, how much, and what they paid for it, along with a notice of what
restrictions may have applied to the land, if any. That is all.
The original patentee did not hold his land in allodium, but by right from
the civil power. And, since he bought the land, he could not possibly
have held the land in allodium because true title to land never passes
by purchase.
In the law allodial is defined as: “A free manor; an inheritance that is
not held of any superior. Allodial lands are such as are free from any
rent or service (2 Blackstone 47,60: Cowel.).” And, again; “Title is the
means whereby the owner of lands or other real property has the just
and legal possession and enjoyment of it. Title is acquired either by
descent or purchase. The former covering the single case of inheritance
of property by operation of law, and the latter including every mode of
acquisition known to the law, except that by which a person, upon the
death of his ancestor, acquires his estate by right of representation as
his heir at law. But, title passes by descent, and not by purchase,
the former being the worthier title, where the same quantity and
quality of estate is devised that the devisee would have acquired by
descent. A more modern division of the subject is made when we say,
that title may be acquired by occupancy, a secession, transfer, will, or
succession.”
Therefore, true title only passes by Inheritance, not by purchase. The
Law concerning the descent of property listed above, reflects the Godly
means of property ownership and is not commercial in any sense of
the word.
However, if one sub-divides his property acquired by patent, the title
immediately moves the land sale or transfer into commerce where the
rules change. In this case, a lesser title has been sold than that of the
original patentee and such a title is almost always insured. But,
insurance is a benefit, privilege, or opportunity provided by the civil
government and thus, the title must come under the government’s
jurisdiction and be recorded in the county recorder’s office.
But, once the land is recorded it is a matter of public record, and, with
the imposition of martial law governments, when such titles are
recorded in the County Recorder’s Office, they immediately become
subject to liens from almost anyone, including the IRS, etc.
How this is done is, again, by the use of old Roman law brought up to
date.
Thus, the “principle of emphyteusis furnishes a connecting link
between the Roman imperial system of land tenure and the medieval
system. It arose out of the custom whereby land taken in war was
rented by the State on long leases. The rent paid in such cases was
called vectigal, and the land was called ager vectigalis. It was a form
of leasehold property especially advantageous to corporations of all
kinds, as they were relieved from all duties and cares as landlords and
were secured of a fixed income. When this form was employed by
private person and corporations, it was known as emphyteusis, the
land as fundus emphyteuticarius, and the person to whom the land
was given as emphyteuta. An emphyteusis was a grant of land or
houses forever, or for a long period, on the condition that an annual
sum (canon or pensio) should be paid to the owner—dominus—or his
successors, and that if such sum was not duly paid, the grant should be
forfeited. According to the law of the Emperor Zeno (475-491),
emphyteusis was neither a sale nor a lease by a special form of
contract.
“The rights of emphyteuta were, first of all, the right of use and
enjoyment. But he was better off than a mere usufructuary. He was
rather the bona fide possessor of the property. The only restriction to
his use of the land was that he must not cause depreciation in the
value of the property. Furthermore, he could, subject to certain
restrictions, alienate property. It passed to his heirs; it could be
mortgaged or hypothecated; and it could be burdened with servitudes.
But these rights depended upon the fulfillment of certain duties. If the
canon was not paid for three years (in the case of Church lands, for
two years), or if the land tax remained unpaid for the same period, the
grant was forfeited. Here, his position was different from that of the
usufructurary, for the latter paid no rent. The original rent of the land
granted could not be increased by the owner, but on the other hand it
was not diminished by any partial loss of the property. The
emphyteuta had to pay all the burdens attached to the land, and
deliver all tax receipts to the owner. The method of alienating the
property was as follows: The emphyteuta ought to transmit to the
dominus formal notice of the sum that a purchaser is willing to give
for it. The owner has two months to decide whether he will take the
emphyteusis at that sum; and if he wishes it, the transfer must be
made to him. If he does not buy at the price named within two months,
the emphyteuta can sell to any fit and proper person without the
consent of the dominus. If such a person is found, the dominus must
accept him as his emphyteuta, and admit him into possession either
personally, by written authority, or by attestation, before notaries or
a magistrate. For this trouble, the domimus is entitled to charge a
sum (laudenium) not exceeding two per cent on the purchase money.
If the owner does not make acknowledgment within two months, then
the emphyteuta can, without his consent, transfer his right and give
him possession.”
Does all this sound familiar to anyone? Do we now see where escrow
procedures come from? Do we now understand that we do not own
any of the land our home sits on so long as there is a record of the
emphyteusis in the name of an emphyteuta in the County Recorder’s
Office? And, if there is any doubt in anyone’s mind as to who the
dominus is, it is the martial law powers that currently rule the land.
Commerce vs. Unalienable Rights.
“Commerce”—a supposedly harmless term we hear every day. But
what is it and what does it mean to be “engaged in commerce?” Just
what are some of the consequences of “engaging in commerce?”
Dictionaries have part of the answer, court decisions have part of the
answer, and Scripture has the definitive answer. Let us look at each of
these and play a few scenarios that exist today. These scenarios, by
the way, all look normal and harmless. But as we shall see, are deadly
in terms of political, social, and individual impact.
“COMMERCE. Trade on a large scale, or the exchange of commodities.
(From the Latin cum mercis.)
This is a simple definition and covers a lot of territory in terms of what
can be considered commerce. Let us then consult the Latin definitions
of “commerce” to find out more about this mystery. In the Latin,
“commerce” is:
“COMMERCE. Mercatura (especially of the merchant: mercatio
(commercial transaction, the buying and selling, Gell, 3, 3): negotium, or,
plural negotia (the business which any body carries on, especially as
corn-merchant and money-lender): commercium (commerce,
commercial intercourse), Sal., Jug., l8, 6, Plin., 3, 1, 3: with anything,
alicujus rei, Plin., 12, 14, 30; then, also=the liberty of commerce):
wholesale business, mercatura magna et copiosa: in retail, mercatura
tenuis (Vid. TRADE]. The Roman merchants carry on a commerce with
Gaul, mercatores Romani ad Gallos commeant (i.e., they visit Gaul with
their merchandise, Caes., B. G., 1, 1). Social intercourse, conversatio,
(Vell., Quint.): usus: consuetudo (of his service, & c.): convictus (in so far
as one lives with any body). Vid. INTERCOURSE.”
Contrary to popular belief, the Latin language is not dead. It is carried
forward in English today. “Commerce” deals with the trade, buying,
negotiating, profiting, benefiting, selling or exchange of commodities on
a large scale between two separate and distinct venues, intercourse.
The large scale aspect of commerce necessarily involves the public’s
(not necessarily Christendom’s) participation in some way, either
willingly or unwillingly. Profiting or benefiting from the expense of the
public, or their government is what must be, and is, licensed, regulated,
and taxed.
“Term ‘commerce’ as employed in U.S. Const. Art. I, 8, is not limited to
exchange of commodities only, but includes, as well, intercourse with
foreign nations, and between states [venues]; and term ‘intercourse’
includes transportation of passengers.”
The last phrase in Henius’ work, “exchange of commodities” concerns
us the most, because “commodities” is another term which must be
defined so we can come to a true and correct definition of what truly is
and is not “commerce”. And the last phrase in the Raymond decision
gives a clue to removing and staying out of commerce: that being
conducting your affairs among those of like-mind in the state of
Christendom, thereby not crossing venues. Commodities are what we
hear are being traded on many of the large exchanges in New York,
Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Hong Kong, Frankfurt and others. But no
where on news reports are you told what is a “commodity”. Consulting
Henius’ work:
“COMMODITY. Something which affords convenience or profit, which can
be exchanged for some other value. The commodity must be in such
tangible form, whether goods and services, that it can be traded for
something tangible (goods and services). Thus, a commodity becomes
something that can be made the subject of trade, of acquisition as well
as of an exchange offering; something possessing exchange value, that
can be traded for something else.”
This is a broad definition of “commodity”. According to this definition,
anything which can be made the subject of a trade, buy and sell, or
exchange is a commodity. Under this heading fall the following:
“The word ‘goods’ has been interpreted generally as meaning tangible
movable things, called ‘chattels.’ In the law of bailments, goods
includes money when treated as a commodity and not as a medium of
exchange, and also documents and instruments whether representing
goods (e.g., bills of lading and warehouse receipts representing goods)
or representing intangibles (e.g., certificates of stock representing
shares in a corporation, and negotiable and non-negotiable instruments
representing rights of action, such as checks, promissory notes,
insurance policies, and savings bank books).”
Money (magnitude without reference to substance) is a “commodity”
when it is not considered coin of the realm,” but is merely bought, sold,
traded, or exchanged for commercial paper or military scrip, i.e.,
Federal Reserve Notes, and the like. This is the state of affairs when
one goes to a coin dealer to buy his “lawful money” and he is charged
a tax for the purchase. This is intercourse between a Good and Lawful
Christian Man and the licensed merchant, who has no right to
possession. When, however, the “lawful money” of Christendom
returns to Christendom, it is no longer a commodity, but returns to its
original Lawful character, and to the Person who has the Right to
Possession. Notes, bills, drafts, cheques and all forms of negotiable
instruments are “commodities”. Licenses are “commodities”. Virtually
anything that gives an advantage of comfort, ease, profit, or benefit, or
which can be negotiated is a “commodity”.
“COMMODITY. What possesses the quality of ease, comfort: commoditas:
commodum: opportunitas (convenience). Profit, commodum:
emolumentum, (advantage, opposed to incommodum, detrimentum):
lucrum: fructus (gain: opposed to damnum): questus (gain, which one
seeks, profit): utilitas, (general term for the use or serviceableness of
any thing). Ware, or merchandise, merx. Commodities, merces.”
“BENEFIT. Beneficium. To confer a benefit on any one, beneficium alicui
dare, tribuere, in aliquem conferre or deferre; beneficio aliquem
afficere: benefacere alicui. Your benefits to me, tua in me officia; tua
erga me merita. As a benefit, pro beneficio; in beneficii loco. Use,
advantage, utilitas, usus; commodum, emolumentum.”
Notice the last phrase in Riddle’s definition of “benefit.” The same
words describe “benefit” to be a “commodity” or profit. Benefits in the
form of profit, when derived from pubic detriment, are commodities.
Any benefit you receive from the federal government is a commodity
and is therefore subject to regulation under the interstate commerce
clause. Benefits received from the State governments are subject to
regulation of intrastate commerce. Remember, the benefits are
crossing the boundaries mapped out by the constitutions; thus,
establishing a commodity moving from one venue to another:
“But where the effect of intrastate transactions upon interstate
commerce is merely indirect, such transactions remain within the
domain of [that] state[‘s] power. If the commerce clause were
construed to reach all enterprises and transactions which could be said
to have an indirect effect upon interstate commerce, the federal
authority would embrace practically all the activities of the people and
the authority of the State over its domestic concerns would exist only
by the sufferance of the federal government.”
Now what benefits could you be receiving? Are you receiving the
benefit of free delivery of your mail at your house? Please see Randy
Lee’s excellent article on Post Office’s “General Delivery.” Are you
receiving the benefit of “federal corporate employment?” The receipt of
a benefit from the federal government changes your whole relation to
the government. Why? Because it puts you on the government defined
“fief” or “feud”:
“Fief. The right bestowed on any body, beneficium: *feudum (technical
term).”
Further, this sets up what is known as a quasi-contractual relationship,
enforced in an action of assumpsit:
“Statutory contract is a contract which the statute says shall be implied
from certain facts [receipt of benefit], and is governed by the ordinary
rules relating to contracts.”
“A quasi contractual action presupposes acceptance and retention of a
benefit by one party with full appreciation of the facts, under
circumstances making it inequitable for him to retain the benefit
without payment of its reasonable value.”
“A debt resulting from a normal agreement or contract has always
been the result of a promise to pay, and invoked a remedy in the form
of assumpsit. However, an assumpsit cannot be applied to actions of
debts where there is no agreement unless the court does so by means
of a fiction, because in order to support assumpsit, it is necessary to
allege a promise, and without agreement there is no promise.
Historically, the courts have adopted the fiction of a promise, and it
was declared that a promise was implied in law.”
“For the convenience of the remedy, they have been made to figure as
though they sprang from contract, and have appropriated the form of
agreement.”
But quasi-contracts are insidious and contra bonos mores, when they
violate the customs and usages of Good and Lawful Christian People:
“I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of
Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods
before me.”
“Not only unscientific, and therefore theoretically wrong, but is also
destructive of clear thinking, and therefore vicious in practice. It needs
no argument to establish the proposition that it is not scientific to treat
as one and the same thing an obligation that exists in every case
because of the assent of the defendant, and an obligation that not only
does not depend in any case upon his assent, but in many cases exists
without his assent.”
That beneficium, benefit, is in a commercial venue separate and distinct
from Christendom, which is now under the jurisdiction of the federal
military power ever since the states lost in the Lincoln vs. All States
War, during the hostilities from 1861-1865. When you receive any
benefit, gratuity, or bounty, from government, a separate and distinct
venue, you are engaged in the commercial activity of making profit or
gain at the detriment of the government agency, and are marked a
“resident” in this relationship. This is because “residents” exercise no
traditionally vested rights retained by Good and Lawful Christian Men;
and, are therefore strange to the Private Christian Man who sojoums
on the land.
It is not Lawfully mandatory that any Good and Lawful Christian Man
maintain any such a relationship, when that relationship attempts to
deprive, cloud or destroy the Christian Man’s relationship with his Lord
and Saviour Jesus Christ:
“Again it may be asked, what must be done when a human law does
not agree with the Divine Law? Must such law be obeyed? Men have
no right to make a law that is contrary to the law of God; and we are
not bound to obey it.”
The way out is to destroy the existence of benefit, profit, ease, or
comfort, using the Law:
“When performance of contract depends on continued existence of
given person or thing [benefit], condition is implied that impossibility
arising from perishing of person or thing [benefit] excuses
performance.”
“Where performance depends on existence of a given thing
[consideration, benefit] assumed as the basis of the agreement,
performance is excused to extent that the thing [benefit] ceases to
exist or turns out to be non-existent.”
This is the purpose of removing, destroying, returning, or otherwise
Lawfully destroying the existence of benefit pleaded in statutory
actions against you:
“No man can be charged in equity as a partner [promisor, resident],
and sued at law as a debtor [Christian Man] of the firm, for his
adversary cannot place him in these incompatible legal attitudes.”
In the case of the free mail delivery, removal of the post office box or
sealing of the mail slot in your door is removal and destruction of the
existence of benefit. Returning of all forms of consideration, benefit, or
commodum to the grantor or giver of such is the answer.
This raises the issue of “unalienable rights”. No one has an unalienable
right to receive any government “benefits” to the detriment of the
public “commerce.” This is easily seen:
“UNALIENABLE. Incapable of being transferred. Things which are not in
commerce [traditionally vested rights], as, public roads, are in their
nature unalienable. The natural rights of life and liberty are
unalienable.”
“UNALIENABLE. The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold. 2.
Things which are not in commerce [traditionally vested rights], as public
roads, are in their nature unalienable. The natural rights of life and
liberty are unalienable.”
You don’t have unalienable rights in commerce, because everything is
negotiable. “Every man has his price” is the mantra. This is simply
because neither you, nor your neighbor, have a right vested by God to
lie, cheat or steal from each other:
“Neither shalt thou steal.
“Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbor.
“Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbor’s house, his field, or his
manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is
thy neighbor’s.”
Looking at the above then, traditionally vested rights which are
retained by Good and Lawful Christian Men should never be
compromised by entering into commerce, i.e., employment, driving,
traveling, “human resource,” or labeling one’s Self a “persona.” The
labeling of one’s Self a “persona” is when You say you are an article in
commerce, or You answer to some form of commercial process which
does not specifically call You. Take for example the following: You work
as a welder, and you are a welder. It is all in the words. “As” means
like or similar to, but it does not mean You are the commercial article.
The other phrase says you are a “mercator,” merchant, a thief. This is
so important. It comes down to a battle for God’s elect:
“Mercator, oris, m. [mercor], a trader, merchant, esp. A wholesale
dealer (opp. Caupo); Caes., Cic., Juv.”
“Mercabilis, e, adj. [mercor], that can be bought: OV.”
“Mercor, ari [merx]. I. To trade, traffic: P1. II. To buy, purchase. 1. Lit.:
hortos Hor.: aliquid ab aliquo, Cic.; fundum de pupillo, Cic.; quanti, Plin. 2.
Transf: ego haec oficia mercanda vita puto, Cic. Ep.; hoc mango, Verg.
Perf. Part. In Pass. Sense: Sail., prop.”
The god of commerce is the Roman god, Mercury:
“Mercurius, I, m. The son of Jupiter and Maia, the messenger of the
gods; as a herald. The god of eloquence; the god of traders and thieves;
the presider over roads; conductor of departed souls to the Lower
World; stella Mercuri, Cic.; Mercurialis, e, adj.; Mercuriales, ium, m. Pl. A
corporation of traders at Rome.”
Good and Lawful Christian Men are to abstain from the appearance of
evil. Notice traders and thieves are on an equal basis here. And this is
why commerce must be fully licensed, regulated, and taxed. Thieves
deal in speculation, i.e., inflation, deflation, market trends, etc., to
derive benefit in the form of gain or profit to the detriment of the
public. Speculation is:
“SPECULATE. (See Speculation.) To undertake a venture the results of
which are undetermined and can only be conjectured, with the hope or
idea of profiting thereby. The purchase or sale of stocks, commodities,
metals, merchandise, or the like, in the hopes of making a profit
[getting a benefit] on account of expected but not yet determined
fluctuations of market situations or prices [inflation or deflation] at the
time the speculation is entered into.”
“SPECULATION. From the Latin speculare, to observe, to look around. The
buying or selling of something, or the venture in a transaction the
profits [benefits] of which are uncertain and subject to change.”
“SPECULATOR. The person who buys or sells something, or enters into a
transaction by which he hopes to profit [benefit] although at the time
of buying, selling, or entering the transaction the chances of profit are
uncertain and subject to change.”
“The gambler [speculator] courts fortune [benefit, commodum]; the
insured seeks to avoid misfortune. The contract of gambling tends to
increase the inequality of fortune, while the contract of insurance
tends to equalize fortune [communism].”
This is what is happening all the time. Words have been changed to
protect the speculators. They are now called “bankers”, “brokers”,
“insurers”, “investors”, “venture capitalists”, “entrepreneurs”, ad
nauseam. A question arises at this point: How long or often can
government tax a “commodity”? The answer is: as long as that
commodity is navigated through commerce, deriving a benefit from the
public, i.e., to the detriment of the public, it is taxable:
“Commerce in the sense in which the word is used in the constitution is
co-extensive in its meaning with intercourse.”
“Commerce includes intercourse, navigation, and not traffic alone.”
What appears normal is not Scriptural at all. Good and Lawful Christian
Men are warned in Scripture to not deal in such speculation:
“Go to now, ye that say, To day or tomorrow we will go into such a city,
and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain: whereas ye
know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even
a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.”
For this reason, when we all stepped into commerce, we all
compromised our traditionally vested rights. You have only two
absolute “unalienable rights”: Life and Liberty. Everything else is
conditioned on your conduct and consent. Your Life and Liberty are
vested by God in Genesis 2:7. Dominion over property is conditional; this
is the lesson of Adam in the garden.
Just how did we all step into “commerce”? Perhaps the easiest way to
put this is: when we left the land seeking something that really never
existed in the first place, except in our own minds, which can be
manipulated. Now many of you will say, “We still have our farm.” Not
so, if it is registered in the county recorder, or if you are registered to
vote, or if it has a mortgage, or if it is an asset of a trust, corporation,
partnership, etc., or if it has ever been sold for commercial paper, or if
its owner is receiving mail at that location. The status of the estate
follows the status of its owner. This is what I mean about leaving the
land. We were never to sell or compromise the land, because it is not
ours: “The earth is the LORD’s, and the fullness thereof” (Psalm 24:1, see
also Psalm 50:12). We were to occupy till He returns, when He comes to
take back that which belongs to Him. Occupation is not buying and
selling for profit, or speculation from our neighbor. The armies of the
earth do not buy and sell; their sponsoring speculators, however, do.
Just how dangerous can “harmless commerce” get? I believe the
following remarks tell the story about the links between commerce
and war:
War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something
that is not what it seems to the majority of the people Only a small
insider group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit
[profit] of the very few at the expense [detriment] of the masses
[public].
The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent
interest over here [to pay war bonds from previously funded wars],
then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then, the
flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag This is done to
defend some lousy investment of the bankers [speculators].
There isn’t a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind
to. It has its “finger men” to point out enemies, its “muscle men” to
destroy enemies, its “brain men” to plan war preparations, and a Big
Boss’ supernationalist capitalism [owned by the previous wars’
bondholders and speculators].
I spent most of my time being a high muscle man for big business, for
Wall Street and for the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster
for capitalism.
I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American Oil
interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the
National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of
half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street.
The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the
international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought
light to the Dominican Republic for American Sugar interests in 1916. In
China, in 1927, I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way
unmolested.
“From whence come wars and fightings among you? Come they not
hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? Ye lust, and have
not: ye kill and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet
ye have not, because you ask not. Ye ask, and receive not, because ye
ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.”
When commerce begins to wane, and profits are low, wars are fought
to create or protect markets for the speculators, who own
governments through funding systems, and the taxing power is nothing
more than imposed slavery:
“FUNDING SYSTEM, Eng. law. The name given to a plan which provides
that on the creation of a public loan, funds shall immediately be
formed, and secured by law, for the payment of the interest, until the
state shall redeem the whole, and also for the gradual redemption of
the capital itself. This gradual redemption of the capital is called the
sinking of the debt, and the fund so appropriated is called the sinking
fund.”
“FUNDING SYSTEM. The practice of borrowing money to defray the
expenses of government
In the early history of the system it was usual to set apart the revenue
from some particular tax as a fund to the principal and interest of the
loan The earliest record the funding system is found in the history of
Venice. In the year 1171, during a war between the republic and the
Byzantine emperor Manual Commenas, a Venetian fleet ravaged the
eastern coasts, but, being detained by negotiations at Chios, suffered
severely from the plague. The remnant of the expedition, returning,
took with it the frightful pestilence, which ravaged Venice and
produced a popular commotion in which the doge was killed. To carry
on the war, the new doge, Sebiastian Giani, ordered a forced loan.
Every citizen was obliged to contribute one- hundredth of his property,
and he was to be paid by the state five per cent interest, the revenues
being mortgaged to secure the faithful performance of the contract. To
manage the business, commissioners were appointed, called the
Chamber of Loans, which after the lapse of centuries grew into the
Bank of Venice. Florence and other Italian republics practised [sic] the
system; and it afterwards became general in Europe. Its object is to
provide large sums of money for the immediate exigencies of the state,
which it would be impossible to raise by direct taxation.
In England the funding system was inaugurated in the reign of William,
III. The Bank of England, like the Bank of Venice and the Bank of St.
George at Genoa, grew out of it. In order to make it easy to procure
money to carry on the war with France, the government proposed to
raise a loan, for which, as usual, certain revenues were to set aside,
and the subscribers were to be made a corporation, with exclusive
banking privileges. The loan was rapidly subscribed for, and the Bank of
England was the corporation which it brought into existence. It was
formerly the practice in England to borrow money for fixed periods;
and these loans were called terminable annuities. Of late years,
however, the practice is different, loans being payable only at the
option of the government; these are termed interminable annuities. The
rate of interest on the earlier loans was generally fixed at three and a
half per cent and sold at such a rate below par as to conform to the
state of the money market. It is estimated that two-fifths of the entire
debt of England consists of this excess over the amount of money
actually received for it. The object of such a plan was to promote
speculation and attract capitalists; and it is still pursued in France.
Afterwards, however, the government receded from this policy, and, by
borrowing at high rates, were enabled, when the rate of interest
declined, by offering to pay off the loan, to reduce the interest
materially. The national debt of England consists of many different
loans, all of which are included in the term funds. Of these, the largest
in amount and importance are the three per cent ‘consolidated
annuities,’ or consols, as they are commonly called. They originated in
1751, when an act was passed consolidating several separate three
per cent loans into one general stock, the dividends of which are
payable on the 5th of January and 5th of July at the Bank of England.
The bank being the fiscal agent of the government, pays the interest on
most of the funds, and also keeps the transfer-books. When stock is
sold, it is transferred on the books at the bank to the new purchaser,
and the interest is paid to those parties in whose names the stock is
registered, at the closing of the books a short time previous to the
dividend day. Stock is bought and sold at the stock exchange generally
through brokers. Time sales, when the seller is not the actual possessor
of the stock, are illegal, but common. They are usually made deliverable
on certain fixed days, called accounting-days; and such transactions
are called “for account”, to distinguish them from the ordinary sales
and purchases for cash. Stock-jobbers are persons who act as
middlemen between sellers and purchasers. They usually fix a price at
which they will sell and buy, so that sellers and purchasers can always
find a market for stock, or can purchase it in such quantities as they
may desire, without delay or inconvenience.
In America the funding system [principally derived from the Lincoln
administration] has been fully developed. The general government, as
well as those of the states, have found it necessary to anticipate their
revenue for the promotion of public works and other purposes. The
many magnificent works of internal improvement which have added so
much to the wealth of the country were mainly constructed with
money borrowed by the states. The canals of New York, and many
railroads in the western states, owe their existence to the system.
The funding system enables the government to raise money in
exigencies, and to spread over many years the taxation which would
press too severely on one [see Const. U.S.A., Article I, section 8, clauses
1 & 2]. It affords a ready method of investing money on good security,
and it tends to identify the interest of the state and the people. But it is
open to many objections, the principal of which is that it induces
statesmen to countenance expensive and oftentimes questionable
projects who would not dare to carry out their plans were they forced
to provide the means from direct taxation.
Also:
But there is no fact in the history of this war debt more startling than
this: that the great body of these bankers and bondholders were, at
the beginning of the war, but poor men; many of them helpless
bankrupts, and many of the pretended loans were mere collusions
between bankers and government officers [actors], entered into for
the purpose of creating money for the one [purported government] and
power for the other [bankers], at the expense of the people, who
would be required to raise standing armies from their children to
support this [banking] power and contribute taxes from their labor to
maintain the [government] funding system.
This has always been the case in the history of paper money inflations;
that the pretended benefactors of government have been simply
swindlers, who have imposed upon the people their worthless
promises to pay in lieu of [specie] as the pretext for their robbery.
This is true, with scarcely an exception, in every country, that the
government is never assisted by paper in any war. Those who issue it
amass fortunes by the issue. To this one our country has not been an
exception.
In the history of insolvent estates, bankrupts, merchants, contested
debts and repudiated obligations, which make up the assets of the last
six years, it must not startle mankind that the honest people have
thrown off the yoke rudely placed upon them by reckless and
unscrupulous tyrants.
And just guess where these international speculators get the bodies to
die fighting their little skirmishes? Those who are on the benefice fief,
feud. This is on the international level. Domestically, one can find the
same occurred during the Lincoln v. All States War:
“By mere supineness, the people of the South have permitted the
Yankees to monopolize the carrying trade, with its immense profits. We
have yielded to them the manufacturing business, in all its
departments, without an effort, until recently, to become
manufacturers ourselves. We have acquiesced in the claims of the
North to do all the importing, and most of the exporting business, for
the whole Union. Thus, the North has been aggrandized, in a most
astonishing degree, at the expense of the South. It is no wonder that
their villages have grown into magnificent cities. It is not strange that
they have ‘merchant princes’, dwelling in gorgeous palaces and
reveling in luxuries transcending the luxurious appliances of the East!
How could it be otherwise? New York city, like a mighty queen of
commerce, sits proudly upon her throne, sparkling in jewels and
waving an undisputed commercial scepter over the South. By means of
her railways and navigable streams, she sends out her long arms to
the extreme South; and, with an avidity rarely equaled, grasps our
gains and transfers them to herself by taxing us at every step and
depleting us as extensively as possible without actually destroying us.”
“You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you
annually under the operation of our revenue law, our navigation laws,
your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers,
our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute
we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals.
You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying
you on account of the balance of exchange which you hold against us.
You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the
condition of overseers for northern capitalists. You are not satisfied
with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights
and institutions.
“We do not intend that you shall reduce us to such a condition. But I
can tell you what your folly and injustice will compel us to do. It will
compel us to be free from your domination, and more self-reliant than
we have been. It will compel us to manufacture for ourselves, to build
up our own commerce, our own great cities, our own railroads and
canals; and to use the tribute money we now pay you for these things
for the support of a government which will be friendly to all our
interests, hostile to none of them.”
Domestically, Lincoln used deception to “save” the Union. This is evident
from the record: if the Union were saved intact, Reconstruction was a
nullity, because the states were intact. If, however, the Union was
destroyed, Reconstruction was necessary for erecting a new union in
the image and likeness of its speculating creator, Mercury, under the
imposed military power of the Commander-in-Chief; dedicated to the
proposition that public slavery, by destroying Christianity in the states,
for enhancing and expanding commerce, is a better idea.
It is no secret that the criminally infamous Secretary of the Treasury
Salmon P. Chase, in 1861, through his factotum Cooke, boasted that the
initial bonds issued to fund the Lincoln v. All States War were a “first
mortgage” upon all the property of the United States. It is also no
secret that the interest on these bonds was not paid as late as 1953.
This is that same Chief Justice Chase, by the way, who created and
established, by his own “judicial decree,” the huge tax base to pay his
filthy war bonds sold to the Bank of England, contained in the purported
Fourteenth Amendment. This is why the “public” debt cannot be
questioned. Could this have been a conflict of interest?
It is no secret “harmless commerce” is dangerous:
“Principiis obsta [oppose the first appearance of evil], nip the shoots of
arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve
the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers,
betrayers, and destroyers press upon them so fast, that there is no
resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon the
American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more
encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour. The
revenue creates pensioners, and the pensioners urge for more
revenue. The people grow less steady, spirited, and virtuous, the
seekers more numerous and more corrupt, and every day increases
the circles of their dependents and expectants, until virtue, integrity,
public spirit, simplicity, and frugality, become the objects of ridicule
and scorn, and vanity, luxury, foppery, selfishness, meanness, and
downright venality swallow up the whole society.”
“For resistance to law, every government has ample powers to punish
offenders; for usurpation, governments have provided no adequate
remedy.”
What hath “commerce” wrought? The destruction of a confederacy of
Christian states.
Final Thoughts.
If we look about the land today, there appears to be nothing to justify
the maintenance of “a permanent state of national emergency” by the
United States government. There isn’t a war going on; we aren’t in a
major economic collapse (yet), and the cold war appears to have
thawed.
The question is, why a permanent state of national emergency?
The answer comes down to something quite simple and actually can be
summarized in one word—hooked, a.k.a. addicted!!!
In earlier versions of this work, we summarized things by asking a
good many questions and providing a simple, yet, unsatisfying solution.
Subsequent research, based on a theory of the case that developed out
of earlier versions of this work, now shows a clearer and more concise
answer. Briefly it comes down to the following. At least seven years
before Lincoln’s War, a number of states began to adjourn their state
legislatures sine die. This discovery makes no sense until we realize
that the U.S. Senators of these Northern states, appointed at that time
by state legislatures, were the most radical proponents of policies that
would drive the South out of the Union.
If successful, this would have eliminated eleven (11) out of
thirty-seven (37) states and only twenty-six would be left. Missouri
and three other states (one may have been California) were
contemplating an exodus too, though not to join the South. If these four
(4) states leave we are down to twenty-two (22) states left in the
Union.
Since it takes only a two-thirds majority (25) of the states to secede
and terminate the federal Constitution, any combination of ten (10)
states, by sine die adjournment ends the Union. For all intents and
purposes, there would be no united States of America, only a collection
of independent countries on the North American continent.
But, why would the states want to terminate the Constitution???
The answer is, the Christian under-pinnings and presuppositions
embodied in the Constitution put too many restrictions on development
of commerce between the states. With the Constitution gone, it was
‘survival of the fittest’, and with the money power held by Northern
banks, it is likely that much of the Southern raw material production
would have ended up in the hands of Northern industrialists at the
price that the North wanted to pay for it.
The South would have been reduced to feudal states under control of
the Northern commercial interests, and slavery would probably still
exist as a matter of sheer economic necessity. Then, along came Abe
with a better idea.
Lincoln’s ego could not agree with the idea of the united States being
broken up, especially on his watch. He also knew the smell of the winds
blowing out of the North and turned it to his advantage. His problem
was, how to keep the Union together at least while he was President,
and still satisfy the demands of the Northern industrialists, commercial
interests, and bankers.
Remember, at this time in our nation’s history, the country was literally
busting out at the seams with western expansion, discovery of gold in
California, development of steam plants and engines, invention, and so
on. Everyone was scrambling to get his piece of the pie and with the
Christian consensus greatly reduced there was no one to sound the
alarm from the pulpit. We can now see that Lincoln’s plan to put the
nation under military law and resurrect the old Roman law with its
heavy emphasis on commerce, satisfied all competing interests, except
those of the South and the common people of America. More
importantly, it got rid of the Constitution and served notice on a
Christian world that, the united States was no longer a Christian nation.
To show its gratitude to the United States for what it had done in
rejecting Christianity, France produced a monument to its own French
Enlightenment view of law and liberty. Today, this monument stands
just off the coast of New York on an island all its own. This monument
may be called the Statute of Liberty, but it is in fact, a celebration of
lawlessness and licentiousness. The Greek and Roman character of the
statue is lost only on the ignorant.
That the elimination of the restrictions of God’s Law was in the mind of
all, is clear. The assault on Christianity in politics and civil government
that was begun by Lincoln in the massive blood-letting of Lincoln’s War
was simply carried to its logical conclusion by Roosevelt.
Today, the United States government is in the unenviable position of
being between a rock and a hard place. Its people demand “bread and
circuses”, its politicians are little more than dilettantes, major
industrial powers upon whom the tax system is based are leaving the
land, the lawyers and tax men suck the substance from the people’s
lives and subvert their liberties daily, the bureaucrats cannot even get
paid, and throughout the land there is a wailing and gnashing of teeth
as the pain level rises.
NOTE: . The views
expressed do not necessarily reflect those of The Real Truith, it’s staff,
Real Truth Ministries, or The Restoration Church of God.
Footnotes:
1 See, The Journal of the Senate of the United States of America Being
the Second Session of the Thirty-Sixth Congress; Begun and Held at the
City of Washington, December 3, 1860, in the Eighty Fifth Year of the
Independence of the United States. Published at Washington; by George
W. Bowman, Senate Printer, 1860-61. 2 Robert's Rules of Order Revised,
Seventy-Fifth Anniversary Edition, by General Henry M. Robert, Scott,
Foresman and Company, Publisher, 1915, pages 257-261. 3 Robert's
Rules, supra, page 62. 4 Robert's Rules, supra, page 63. 5 Apparently
the California legislature could not make up its mind of what day to
adjourn sine die. But, see "The Statutes of Ca1ifornia" passed at the
Fourteenth Session of the Legislature, 1868 at pages 790-91. Published
by Benjamin P. Avery, State Printer. 1863. 6 See, "A Compilation of the
Messages and Papers of the Presidents," by James D. Robinson, Volume
VII, published by the Bureau of National Literature, Inc., New York,
1897. 7 The Lieber Instructions were promulgated as General Orders
No.100 by A. Lincoln, 24 April, 1863. 8 Text Published in: Instructions for
the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, prepared by
Francis Lieber, LLD, Washington, 1898: Government Printing Office
(Engl.). 9 Lieber Instructions, supra, page 2. 10 Lieber Instructions,
supra, page 5. 11 Bouvier's Law Dictionary and Concise Encyclopedia, by
John Bouvier, Third Revision, 8th Edition, by Francis Rawle, in Three
Volumes, published by William S. Hein Company, Buffalo, New York,
1984. See, Volume II. "Maxims," page 2131. 12 See President Andrew
Johnson's veto message, parts of which are reproduced in The
Congressional Record of June 13, 1967. at page 15643. 13 From the
Correspondence of General Robert E. Lee, in "The Life and Letters of
Robert Lewis Dabney," Pp. 497-500. 14 See, "Novation," in Bouvier's,
supra, pages 2375-78. 15 Persona, literally, "the mask of the actor ...
that covered his whole head." See, "Dictionary of Latin Synonymes," by
Francis Lieber (Lincoln's man) translated from the German by Lewis
Ramshorn, published by Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1854. See
the extended discussion of the same in "The Shorter Oxford English
Dictionary," Revised and Edited by C.T. Onions, Third Edition, Volume II,
Oxford at the Clarendon Press. The discussion here makes it clear that
the word applies to those in law whose designation is otherwise
unqualified. That is, it can apply to a man, woman, or child, but not to
one who is designated as a Good and Lawful Christian Man or Woman.
The word is also connected to human being, person, natural person, and
natural man.
If you took the time to read the above and researched the "'FOOTNOTES"" you know it's true.
Truths,Opinons & Ramblings
I hope you got a chance to speak with Ed Shell ( a non bar lawyer) . He's been helping people beat the IRS for 22 years. I understand he has an excellent track record; only lost 3 cases in 22 years. I heard him on a radio interview in which he was explaining one particular case where they had the most knowledgeable IRS agent there on the stand. He had been involved in over 1500 audits, almost 20 years with the IRS etc..etc..etc...This agent was asked 4 questions:
"Agent _____. Is it your belief and understanding that the irs has jurisdiction over me???
"YES" agent says. Is it your belief and understanding that I
am liable for the Federal Income Tax????
YES" agent says.
Is it your belief and understanding that I am required to file a Federal Income Tax???
"YES" agent says. Pause.... Mr irs agent. Are your aware of any LAW that makes me liable for this Federal Income Tax?? (a long pause...... agent looks at the judge... then looks at the prosecuting Attorneys.....puts both hands over his face and tilts
his head down.. looks up and says)
"No, I am NOT aware of any such Law. (as the jury cracks up laughing. )
Judge, I have one more question... Why am I here?....
“Long live the glorious republic of the United States of
America. DAMN DEMOCRACY. It is a fraudulent term, used
often by ignorant persons, but no less often by intellectual
fakers, to describe an infamous mixture of socialism,
miscegenation, graft, confiscation of property, and a denial
of personal rights to individuals whose virtuous principals
make them offensive.” Westbrook Pegler -1951
The following Reports cover what freedoms you've lost to the HOUSE & stocks you DON'T OWN
"TRADE SECRETS": THE LATEST IN A
LONG LINE OF CONSPIRACIES CHARGES
Press release
SAMUEL S. EPSTEIN, M.D.
Bill Moyers is to be warmly commended for his March 26 program "Trade Secrets". This PBS Special will
document the chemical industry's conspiracy in denying information on the grave cancer risks to hundreds of
thousands of workers manufacturing the potent carcinogen vinyl chloride (VC) and its polyvinyl chloride
(PVC) product.
As newsworthy is the fact that there is a decades-long track record of numerous such conspiracies involving
a wide range of industries and chemicals, besides VC. These conspiracies have resulted in an escalation in
the incidence and mortality of cancer, and chronic disease, among workers and the general public
unknowingly exposed to toxics and carcinogens in the workplace, air, water and consumer products--food,
household products, and cosmetics and toiletries.
This misconduct involves negligence, manipulation, suppression, distortion and destruction of health and
environmental data by mainstream industries, their consultants and trade associations, notably the Chemical
Manufacturers Association (CMA). These practices are so frequent as to preclude dismissal as exceptional
aberrations and, in many instances, arguably rise to the level of criminality as illustrated below:
· Suppression of evidence from the early 1960's on the toxicity of VC by Dow Chemical, and on its
carcinogenicity from 1970 by the VC/PVC industry and the CMA. Based on these findings, a blue ribbon
committee of the American Association for the Advancement of Science charged in 1976 that: "Because of
the suppression of these data (by the CMA), tens of thousands of workers were exposed without
warning--to toxic concentrations of VC".
· Suppression of evidence since the 1930's on the hazards of asbestos, asbestosis and lung cancer, by
Johns-Manville and Raybestos-Manhattan, besides the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. This
information was detailed in industry documents dubbed the "Asbestos Pentagon Papers", released at 1978
Congressional Hearings.
· Suppression by Rohm and Haas of information, known since 1962 but not released until 1971, on the
potent carcinogenicity of the resin bischloromethylether. This resulted in deaths from lung cancer of some 50
men, many non-smokers and under the age of 50.
· Suppression of carcinogenicity data on organochlorine pesticides: Aldrin/Dieldrin, by Shell Chemical
Company since 1962; Chlordane/Heptachlor, by Velsicol Chemical Company since 1959; and Kepone, by
Allied Chemical Company since the early 1960's.
· Falsification in the early 1970's of test data on the drug Aldactone and artificial sweetener Aspartame by
Hazleton Laboratories under contract to G.D. Searle Company.
· Falsification and manipulation by Monsanto since the 1960's of data on dioxin, and its contamination of
products including the herbicide Agent Orange, designed to block occupational exposure claims and
tightening of federal regulations. This evidence was detailed in 1990 by Environmental Protection Agency's
Office of Criminal Investigation which charged Monsanto with a "long pattern of fraud" and with reporting
"false information" to the Agency.
· Fraudulent claims by Monsanto since 1985 that genetically engineered (rBGH) milk is indistinguishable from
natural milk. These claims persist despite contrary evidence.
· Monsanto's reckless marketing in 1976 of plastic Coke bottles made from acrylonitrile, a chemical closely
related to VC, prior to its testing for carcinogenicity and migration into the Coke. The bottles were
subsequently banned after acrylonitrile was found to be a potent carcinogen contaminating the Coke.
· Destruction of epidemiological data on ethyleneimine and other chemicals by Dow and DuPont. This was
admitted at 1973 Department of Labor Advisory Committee meetings in response to challenges to produce
data on whose basis industry had falsely claimed that these chemicals were not carcinogens.
· Destruction of test data on drugs, food additives, and pesticides as admitted in 1977 by Industrial Biotest
Laboratories, under contract to major chemical industries.
· Failure of the mainstream cosmetics and toiletry industries to warn of the wide range of avoidable
carcinogenic ingredients, contaminants and precursors in their products used by the great majority of the U.S.
population over virtually their lifetimes.
(For supporting documentation of the above charges, see the author's: Testimony on White Collar Crime,
H.R. 4973, before the Subcommittee on Crime of the House Judiciary Committee, 12/13/79; The Politics of
Cancer, 1979; and The Politics of Cancer, Revisited, 1998.)
Hopefully, the public and the media will be outraged by this longstanding evidence of recklessness and
conspiracies, graphically reinforced by Moyers' program. The public and the media should finally hold
industry accountable, and demand urgent investigation and radical reform of current industry practices
besides governmental unresponsiveness. The Moyers' program has already galvanized formation of a
coalition of grassroots citizen groups, "Coming Clean", to demand more responsible and open industry
practices, including phasing out the use and manufacture of toxic chemicals.
Criticism should also be directed to the multibillion dollar cancer establishment--the National Cancer Institute
and American Cancer Society--for their failure to warn Congress, regulatory agencies and the general public
of the scientific evidence on the permeation of the totality of the environment with often persistent industrial
carcinogens thus precluding corrective legislation and regulation, besides denying workers and the public of
their inalienable right-to-know.
NOTE: PRNewswire, the nation's largest newswire service, who has released Cancer Prevention Coalition's numerous press releases for the last five years, refused to issue this release on "legal grounds".
DATE March 23, 2001
SOURCE Cancer Prevention Coalition
CONTACT: Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition and Professor
environmental and occupational medicine, University of Illinois School of Public Health, Chicago,
312-996-2297;epstein@uic.edu; http://www.preventcancer.com
UPDATE ON D.I.R.T. & Echelon
http://cryptome.org/
"Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001
To: jya@pipeline.com
Subject: DIRT
The article [excerpt below] on how to remove DIRT is misleading. DIRT uses 'unused' space in the filesystem, so high level reformating will not destroy it. (This 'unused' space is used by operating systems to handle classified information with data structures similar to that in SE_Linux). Removing DIRT requires wiping the disk at the device driver level." -- Thanks to R.
"Protecting yourself from diabolical D.I.R.T. won't be easy. First, you need to monitor your comp's processes. Anything persistent which you don't recognize/can't explain should result in an immediate re-format with files re-loaded from text-only sources. For *nix, see this document. For Windows, see this one. You should run Netstat regularly to monitor all of your active connections. And again, anything persistent which you don't recognize/can't explain should result in an immediate re-format with files re-loaded from text-only sources. A handy progie which will resolve strange IPs is the free version of the Patrick Project DNS utility. Curious domains can then be traced free and easily via SamSpade.org, which has heaps of useful CGI gateways.
If all this strikes you as too technical, then you must be running Win9x, and that means you'd better play it as safe as possible. This, we're sorry to say, means re-formatting on a regular basis, like once a month. Annoying and troublesome, we'll allow; but it's the only way the technically challenged are going to succeed against D.I.R.T. In order to do this successfully, you should ditch every file you don't need during each re-format. Files you do need must first be saved to removable media in plain text with a non-formatting text editor (e.g., Windows Notepad); and you'll need to change your PGP pass phrase (not your key) each time as well.
Now set up your '9x box lean and mean, as if you were a gamer. Go to C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\MSCONFIG.EXE and make a desktop icon for the progie. Activate it, click on the 'STARTUP' tab, kill everything you don't need and re-boot (do NOT kill EXPLORER or SYSTEM TRAY). This will make it easier to keep track of what you have running, and what you should have running, which you can occasionally check with ALT-CTRL-DEL. Immediately after you re-format, run MSCONFIG.EXE and kill all the rot. Next re-boot, connect to the Internet, and then go ALT-CTRL-DEL and make a note of everything you have running. This list should remain constant. If it ever changes unexpectedly, it's time to re-format again.
This exercise can be helpful, but it's not an authoritative inventory of running processes; so if you're technically challenged, and have reason to fear being infected with D.I.R.T. or some other scumbag Fed Trojan, stick to re-formatting once a month as a precaution. It wouldn't hurt to change ISPs from time to time as well, which is the only non-technical way to defeat Carnivore (though you IP savants know more convenient methods), just in case the Feds decide to double-team you with their perverse toys.
-- Thomas Greene, New Trojan lets cyber-cops plant
bogus evidence, June 4, 2001
UPDATE- HOW TO AVOID "D.I.R.T."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/19404.html
"I think there is a very important point or lesson in this for your committee. If the GCSB staff had not risked their careers, their jobs, to talk to me, New Zealand intelligence chiefs and politicians would very likely still be telling New Zealanders and the world that our GCSB does not spy on our friends in the South Pacific, we have been cut off from American intelligence, the Waihopai stations is there to be independent, and they could have kept doing it, because no one could have contradicted it. The point is, these lies, this misleading of the public is standard practice in the intelligence world, and the people who do this misleading are not bad people. Within the intelligence agencies senior staff believe sincerely that the secrecy of their operations are of paramount importance. They feel completely justified in misleading the public and their own governments and European Parliament committees
when they need to, if that is what is required to protect their
operations and stop political interference and what they believe are important long-term relationships.
What I found when working on the subject is that much of what passes for fact in the news media and the debates about
intelligence is actually more or less fiction, it is mistakes or it is half-truths, which the intelligence agencies have allowed or encouraged the public to repeat year after year in their ignorance. I have talked to senior retired intelligence officers who have earnestly argued the need for the secrecy and deception. The relevance of this for your committee is obvious, if you don't want to be deflected from your job, then what I'm saying is, you must not take it seriously when you get the standard denials about Echelon and other subjects. Of course, they are going to deny it.
No US or British spy agency is ever going to confirm that they intensively monitor European nations, and so the denials and the evasions that they make cannot be taken seriously. Any deception - so-called - is what they would see as necessary protection of important operations and intelligence relationships. When, for instance, the CIA director talked about there only being spying in Europe to track down bribery - that old story - that might be true, but equally it might not be true. Another example on this, the people I interviewed - and these were the people who saw thousands of intelligence reports a week coming from the US across the wire and to our intelligence agencies - said to me that the standard sort of good spying examples that people hear about in public is things like terrorism, transport of weapons and so on.
In other words, the targets that the public hears about are not the real targets of these systems generally. Those targets like terrorism and weapons transport are used as a cover for the traditional areas of spying, the predominant areas of spying, which are political, diplomatic, economic and military. This is a point I want to come back to with you. In summary, what I am saying is that intelligence agencies routinely and continuously see it as their duty to mislead their publics and even their politicians, and they may also tell you the truth when it serves their interests, but this of no help to your committee, as you are probing a subject which they don't want to be probed."
-- Nicky Hager, Appearance before the European
Parliament ECHELON Committee, April 23 & 24, 2001
The European Parliament has posted on its Web site a later version of its draft report on investigation of Echelon, dated May 18, 2001:
http://www.europarl.eu.int/tempcom/echelon/pdf/prechelon_en.pdf (784KB). The report's additional 28 pages provide substantial new information beyond that of the May 4 report offered on Cryptome, in particular on the UKUSA Agreement and specific industrial espionage cases. The report on Cryptome has been revised to include this information.
"Echelon Study Committee Proposed Resolution for European
Parliament:
4. Calls on the UN Secretary-General to instruct the competent committee to put forward proposals designed to bring Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantees the protection of privacy, into line with technical innovations;
5. Calls on the USA to sign the Additional Protocol to the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, so that
complaints by individuals concerning breaches of the Covenant by the USA can be submitted to the Human Rights Committee set up under the Covenant; calls on the relevant American NGOs, in particular the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) and the EPIC (Electronic Privacy Information Center), to exert pressure on the US Administration to that end;
National legislative measures to protect citizens and firms
6. Calls on the Member States to review their own legislation on the operations of the intelligence services to ensure that it is consistent with fundamental rights;
7. Calls on the Member States to aspire to a common level of protection against intelligence operations based on the highest level of protection which exists in any Member State, since as a rule it is citizens of other states, and hence also of other Member States, that are affected by the operations of foreign intelligence services;
8. Calls on the EU institutions, in the event of cooperation between intelligence services under the CFSP, to introduce adequate measures to protect European citizens; the European Parliament, as the logical monitoring body, must for its part create the preconditions for the supervision of this highly sensitive area in order to make it realistic - and indeed defensible - to insist on being granted the necessary monitoring rights;
Specific legal measures to combat industrial espionage
9. Calls on the Member States to consider to what extent
industrial espionage and the payment of bribes as a means of
securing contracts can be combated by means of European and
international legal provisions and, in particular, whether WTO rules could be adopted which take account of the distortions of
competition brought about by such practices, for example by
rendering contracts obtained in this way null and void;
10. Calls on the Member States to undertake by means of a clear joint declaration not to engage in industrial espionage against one another, thereby signifying their compliance with the letter and spirit of the EC Treaty;
Measures concerning the implementation of the law and the
monitoring of that implementation
11. Calls on the national parliaments which have no parliamentary monitoring body responsible for scrutinising the activities of the intelligence services to set up such a body;
12. Calls on the monitoring bodies responsible for scrutinising the activities of the secret services, when exercising their monitoring powers, to attach great importance to the protection of privacy, regardless of whether the individuals concerned are their own nationals, other EU nationals or third-country nationals;
13. Calls on Germany and England to make the authorisation of further communications interception operations by US intelligence services on their territory conditional on their compliance with the ECHR, i.e. to stipulate that they should be consistent with the principle of proportionality, that their legal basis should be accessible and that the implications for individuals should be foreseeable, and to introduce corresponding, effective monitoring measures, since they are responsible for ensuring that intelligence operations authorised or even merely tolerated on their territory
respect human rights;
Measures to encourage self-protection by citizens and firms
14. Calls on the Commission and Member States to develop
programmes to foster awareness of security problems among
citizens and firms and at the same time to provide practical
assistance in designing and implementing comprehensive
protection strategies;
15. Urges the Commission and Member States to devise
appropriate measures to promote, develop and manufacture
European encryption technology and software and above all to
support projects aimed at developing user-friendly open-source encryption software;
16. Calls on the Commission and Member States to promote
software projects whose source text is made public (open-source software), as this is the only way of guaranteeing that no backdoors are built into programmes;
17. Calls on the European institutions and the public
administrations of the Member States systematically to encrypt e-mails, so that ultimately encryption becomes the norm;
Other measures
18. Calls on firms to cooperate more closely with
counter-espionage services, and particularly to inform them of
attacks from outside for the purposes of industrial espionage, in order to improve the services' efficiency;
19. Calls on the Commission to put forward a proposal to set up a European advisory centre to deal with issues relating to the security of the information held by firms, with the twin task of increasing awareness of the problem and providing practical assistance;
20. Takes the view that an international congress on the
protection of privacy against telecommunications surveillance
should be held in order to provide NGOs from Europe, the USA and other countries with a forum for discussion of the cross-border and international aspects of the problem and coordination of areas of activity and action;
21. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the
Council, the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States and applicant countries and the Council of Europe."
-- May 18, 2001 European Parliament Draft Report on
Echelon
"Suppose you could read every keystroke... Access and retrieve
any file from the hard drive without having physical access... No more secrets... DIRT was designed to allow remote monitoring of a target PC by military, government and law enforcement agencies. Base functionality includes a specialized application with surreptitious keystroke logging capabilities and stealth transmission of captured data to a pre-determined internet address monitored and decoded by the DIRT Control Center software. Physical access to the target PC is NOT necessary... You can even monitor DIRT from the safety and security of a listening post half-way around the world. Instead of placing hardware inside the target computer via physical access, investigators electronically place hidden software via the Internet from any listening post in the world. DIRT enables investigators to remotely and surreptitiously seize evidence before a suspect has any idea that he or she is under investigation. Many computer literate criminals "booby trap" their computers to erase evidence in case of seizure. DIRT ensures critical evidence can be preserved prior
to physically entering the suspect's premises. DIRT allows
investigators to crack and read encrypted messages in minutes...
What about Firewalls? We have taken intelligence gathering to a new level with the introduction of AntiSec Anti-Firewall application which searches for all known firewalls, kills the running process, replaces the running icon seamlessly, allows stealth FTP connection and effectively kills target's security by products like Boshield, Esafe, Cyberwall, Atguard, Blackice, Zonealarm, Lockdown, Neverhack, Jammer and eTrust Intrusion Detection.
-- Dirty Secrets: D.I.R.T. Presentation, June 2001.
Cryptome welcomes information about this criminal
program being used on a target, in particular evidence
of tampering with a computer, planting tags in
documents, keystroke sniffing, firewall trashing or
other privacy violations. And, if successful, how to
discover and block these outlaw perps. Send to:
jya@pipeline.com. PGP key below. Anonymity, yes.
"What role did Western secret service play in the Cold War? For British Prime Ministers, secret service helped to sustain
post-imperial influence and to protect interests with minimum costs and visibility. The fancy footwork of skilful retreat from a global empire required constant assistance from the hidden hand of secret service. Britain's intelligence contribution to the Western 'pool' offset military decline and allowed influence over friends. Britain retained her status as a secret service world power for much longer than anyone has suspected. For Americans Presidents, secret power also helped to square difficult circles. Secret service helped address a world in which Washington proclaimed that all states should be free, but in which a disconcerting number of free states chose non-alignment and criticised the leadership of the United States. Above all, American secret service allowed the extension of the power of the President over American foreign policy.
-- The Hidden Hand: Britain, America and Cold War
Secret Intelligence, July 2001 (offsite)
"During the interview Le Winter says that the ex-American
president Bill Clinton was a CIA agent who used to spy on his
colleagues at the Oxford University. He also defends that Oklahoma bomber, Timothy McVeigh, may never be executed because he was part of a plan to destroy evidences of a drug scandal concerning Bill Clinton. Le Winter also makes revelations about CIA actions in Portugal. He says that he was a member of a CIA team that came to Portugal to prepare the 25 April 1974 coup that would overthrow the dictatorial regime of Marcelo Caetano. That coup later became known all over the world as a leftist coup under the name of 'The Carnation Revolution': 'The revolution had to have a leftist image because nobody could suspect that the USA were overthrowing a government of a NATO country', claims Le
Winter. Also the death of Portuguese prime-minister Francisco SáCarneiro and his defence minister, Adelino Amaro da Costa, on a plane crash in December, 4, 1980, as an explanation from Le Winter: 'There was a ship transport of weapons from Portugal to Iran on November, 1980. That was during the "October Surprise" negotiation', he says. This information is similar to the claims made by the families of the victim’s plane crash that are still today fighting to take the investigation case into court. Oswald Le Winter also confesses in this interview to the Portuguese reporter Frederico Duarte that his first CIA mission, in 1967, was to capture Che Guevara in Bolivia: 'Che Guevara knew all about the illegal oil
business of George Bush with Cuba. That’s why Felix Rodriguez
was also sent by George Bush to kill him', says Le Winter."
-- Oswald Le Winter: General, Teacher, Poet and Spy,
June 1, 2001 (offsite)
"The purpose of the Engineering Principles for Information
Technology Security is to present a list of system-level security principles to be considered in the design, development, and operation of an information system. These guidlines are for use by Federal organizations which process sensitive information. Many people think that sensitive information only requires protection from unauthorized disclosure. However, the Computer Security Act
provides a much broader definition of the term 'sensitive
information:' any information, the loss, misuse, or unauthorized access to or modification of which could adversely affect the national interest or the conduct of federal programs, or the privacy to which individuals are entitled under section 552a of title 5, United States Code (the Privacy Act), but which has not been specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive Order or an Act of Congress to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy."
-- NIST Special Publication 800-27, Engineering
Principles for Information Technology Security (A
Baseline for Achieving Security), June 2001 (offsite)
MUST READS - IRS Code & YOU
---- Original Message -----
From: Barrie
To: news@thepotentialsunlimited.com
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 4:35 PM
Subject: Day 85 of 170
ONE INDIVIDUAL COMMUNICATING TRUTH WITH CONVICTION IS A MAJORITY!
THE HIDDEN MEANING OF THE
1040 INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RETURN
By Barrie Leslie Konicov
Barrie@thepotentialsunlimited.com/loophole.htm
What you are about to read will play your emotions like nothing you have read before.
After you have finished reading it, take the time to check it out for yourself. If you
find what I have written to be true, right, and correct, I am positive you will pass it
along and make plans to join with 9 million of your family and friends in front of your
local Federal Courthouses on April 9 between the hours of 11 AM and 1 PM.
TAX
I recently looked up the word "tax" in a legal dictionary and here is what I found.
"Tax… A charge by the government on the income of an individual, corporation, or
trust, as well as on the value of an estate or gift or property." The key word here is
income.
Since 1993 I have been writing, researching, and publishing information on the income
tax and the law. If there is one thing I have learned it is that we live in a country with
two languages, both of them English. One, is the language of the people and the other is
the language of the law. One, we understand, and the other we don’t. So when I see the
words individual I know better than to assume that it is talking about you and me,
especially when I see it used in a sentence with the word income.
INCOME
You see income is one of those words that mean something entirely different in the
language of the law. You and I, not being educated in the law, naturally believe that
income relates to money that we earn from our labor. But that is not the case. When
the word income is used by the IRS it means corporate profits."! Now that should get
your attention.
INDIVIDUAL = CORPORATION = PERSON
If a tax is a government charge on a corporation, and the word income means corporate
profit, then the word individual must be a corporation. Correct? Well, check it out
by first looking up the definition of a corporation. A Corporation is defined in law as…
"An artificial person or legal entity created by or under the authority of the laws of a
state."3 So good so far. I have made the word person bold because it is one of those
words that have two separate and distinct meanings. In the language of the law a
person is a corporation, and if you don’t know it is a person, this legal sleight of hand
will drive you crazy because you have been carefully taught to believe that you are a
person. Well, you are, but not in the legal sense of the word.
The IRS uses the word person a lot. In the legal language of the IRS Code, A person
is an "…individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company
or corporation." 7701(a).
What do you make of that? A tax is a government charge on a
corporation. Income is corporate profits and the word individual is a
corporation. I told you we live in a country with two languages, both
of them English. Now, I know that you want to believe that the word
individual means you and I. Sorry to have to bust your bubble but here
are a few legal nails to hammer this loophole shut once and for all.
In the language of the law, those entities defined as corporate
persons in 7701(a), fall under the Supreme Court’ s Collective Entity
Rule4, and do not have Constitutional guaranteed rights because they
are paper creations of government. And what the government creates
it owns and can tax. These Collective Entities are known as taxpayers.
According to the law, a taxpayer "…means any person subject to any
internal revenue tax." IRS Code 7701(a)(14).
The hidden meaning of the 1040 Individual Income Tax Return should
be clear by now. It is a tax on the income of a corporation.
"But, wait," you say, "I am not a corporation. There must be some
mistake. There must be something wrong, my government wouldn’t lie
to me!"
Wrong. Sorry, to bust your bubble, but I am absolutely sure of my
facts. To the government you are a corporate person. As I said
previously, I have been studying this maze since l993 and I have not
filed or paid any federal or state income tax since l991. I assure you,
because I am positive that you will find this out for yourself, that
there is no mistake. Believe me when I say, that I would not place my
family or myself in harm’s way by refusing to file and pay Individual
Income Tax, if it were not true.
When the government addresses you, the corporate person, it prints
your name in all capitals. When you are addressed in upper and lower
case letters you are known in law as a natural person and your
rights are fully protected by the Constitution.
CORPORATE PERSON V. NATURAL PERSON
This legal game of corporate person and natural person is played
out perfectly in Section 5848 of the IRS Code. The government requires
an accounting from all its corporate persons, but a natural person
must provide the accounting. Take special notice how this section of
the code accommodates both, requiring the submission of the
information while at the same time protecting natural persons’
Constitutional rights.
"No information or evidence obtained from an application,
registration, or records required to be submitted or retained by a
natural person, in order to comply with any provision of this
chapter or regulation issued thereunder shall, except as provided in
this subsection (b) of this section, be used, directly or indirectly, as
evidence against that person in a criminal proceeding with respect to
a violation of law occurring prior to or concurrently with the filing of
application or registration, or the compiling of the records containing
the information or evidence."
Clear away all the legal language and here is what you find. The courts
have said that there is no way that a natural person can file a tax
return without waiving his or her Fifth Amendment rights. "The
information revealed in the preparation and filing of an income tax
return is, for purposes of Fifth Amendment analysis, the testimony of
a witness."1
There are many court cases that address this issue of taxes and
Constitutional rights. In United States v Doe1, the court ruled that the
Fifth Amendment protection covers both written and oral testimony.
But, it ruled that if you sign a 1040 under penalty of perjury, then you
have given up your rights and the information you voluntarily gave
may, can, and shall be used against you.
As I have previously stated, in the language of the law, you are known
as a natural person. Natural Persons have Constitutional, guaranteed
rights. Therefore, you, as a natural person, have been personally
excluded from the definition person in the IRS Code, and are not
defined as the taxpayer in 7701(1)(14). This exclusion, under the legal
doctrine of Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius, which states that the
inclusion of one is the exclusion of another, confirms that the
exclusion of natural persons from the definition of taxpayer is
intentional.
This intentional exclusion of a natural person is further supported in
Keene v. United States, 124 L. Ed. 2d. 118, 113 S. Ct. 2035. "Where
Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute, but
omits the language in another, it is generally presumed that Congress
acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or
exclusion."
You are legally a person, a corporation, an asset of the government,
something it owns and can tax because of one simple act on your part.
You have a taxpayer identification number, you know, your Social
Security Card! Remember when you applied for your Social Security
card? Well, that was when the government created you as a
corporate person. Don’t believe me? I can understand that, but here
is the legal definition of an U.S. citizen, "Every person born or
naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a
citizen."2 I hope you do not mind me repeating myself, but whenever
you see the word person used in a government document it is
referring to a corporation. Also, is there any confusion on your part
about the words "subject to its jurisdiction should make the meaning
absolutely clear who is under who’s control.
Everything you have read so far should have confirmed your deepest
fears and distrust of government and the law. It is evident that the
government has induced you into applying for a Social Security number
for the purpose of making you a corporate person under their
authority for the purpose of stealing your labor! YOU ARE A SLAVE! As
a slave you have a decision to make. Remain a slave or free yourself.
In 1993, after filing a "truck load" of documents with the IRS and
responding to their request for a tax return, the IRS sent my wife a
letter telling her she did not have to file or pay for the period of time
they were interested in. I made the decision that if my wife no longer
was required to file or pay, neither should anyone else. That is when I
got serious and began writing articles on the issue of taxes. The
articles eventually ended up in my first book, The Great Snow Job, The
Story Taxes and Money, Fraud and Slavery. You can find the book at
www.thepotentialsunlimited.com/Books.htm and read the letters from
the IRS to my wife and myself along with their amazing answer at
www.thepotentialsunlimited.com/IRS.htm. I am personally committed
to seeing this evil banished from all of our lives. That is why your
support is necessary to make April 9 a success. Please do your part.
1040 RETURN
There are still other hidden meanings behind the numbers 1040 and
why April 15 is the national day of filing. Both 1040 and April 15 have
to do with Abraham Lincoln. April 15 is the day Lincoln died and the
numbers 1040 refer to the bonds that Lincoln issued to raise the
money to fight the Civil War.
Here is a little history that you will not find in most schoolbooks. There is a lot more to
the story than I am going to cover. I am going to leave it up to you to dig out the rest,
if you are interested.
In 1861, due to the Civil War, seven Southern states walked out of Congress on March
27. This left Congress without a quorum to conduct the nation's business. The only
lawful government power left was the President. In order to govern, the President
declared a state of war and exercised his powers as Commander-in-Chief to institute
Martial Law under a state of emergency.
To fund the war, Lincoln issued war bonds. Those bonds became known as 1040 Bonds,
because they matured in 10 or 40 years. To collect the interest on the1040 Bonds, a form
1040 was instituted and the office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue was
created. Eventually the Commissioner’s office transformed itself after many changes
into the current IRS.
Even the current IRS code, section 861, is a subliminal reference to the year the
Southern States walked out of congress. Currently, there are many knowledgeable
people who believe that the way out of the system is to use the 861 argument, which
focuses on the Source of Income.
The only word I have not dealt with is "Return," as in 1040 Individual Income Tax
Return. The word return in the language of the law means, "A schedule of information
required by governmental bodies, such as the tax return required by the Internal
Revenue Service."1
Lincoln also did something else that cost him his life, and by the way, so did Jack
Kennedy. Both of them issued pieces of paper called money. Now there is a real study,
one I challenge you to undertake as soon as possible.
CONCLUSION
Now that you know the hidden meaning of the 1040 Individual Income Tax Return, the
question is, "What can I do?" This April 9, millions of people are going to gather around
Federal Courthouses between the hours of 11 AM and 1 PM. Your job is be there and see
to it that this information is spread.
Want out of the system? Go to www.thepotentialsunlimited.com/loophole.htm for the
details.
If you think what you have learned so far has turned your stomach, wait until you read
the next installment and find out who is behind this evil and what they have in mind for
you and Earth.
FULL PAGES ADS IN USA TODAY
Your Tax Dollars at Work
Whats the Governments doing ...........
Subject:
[GVT]Non-Lethal Weapons II
Posted By:
synap (Registered User)
Posted At:
3/19/01 2:59:43 am
You have seen the previews and reviews, now coming to a theater in your
neighborhood soon!
Thought I would reissue this movie for the newcomers and those who may
not have thought it relevant. And add some new links. I originally posted it
almost a year ago. Many things have changed since then. I hope some of us
are taking the last suggestion to heart and workshop. One must know the
weapon before developing a defense.
Nonlethal weapons aren't designed to kill. But some of them can
blind, suffocate, cause injury, and violate international law,
according to some human-rights advocates. Moreover, some
researchers may be taking advantage of the broad scope of
nonlethal technology--which spans chemical, biological, and
directed-energy weapons--to work on projects that may end up
being neither legal nor nonlethal. --Eugene Cirurana
www.omnimag.com/archives/.../near.html
The original post pub5.ezboard.com/fyourdon...=107.topic [hey it showed up
on Yahoo Search]
This is way too long to post here but if ya wanna know what is being
developed to be used against you, the original can be still found at
www.usafa.af.mil/inss/ocp15.htm
CROWD CONTROL : ARTICLES [scary but need to know stuff]
www.nldt.org/resource/cro...icles.html
Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Program
iis.marcorsyscom.usmc.mil...W_Home.htm
additional links documenting NLWs against civilians
ejmas.com/jnc/jncannounce.htm
Non-Lethal Weapons for Military Operations Other Than War
www.usafa.af.mil/wing/34e...hajd~1.htm
Information & other Warfare against American Citezens (many doc links,
many poofed but some haven't been JBT'd)
scout18.cs.wisc.edu/NH/97.../0016.html
Task Force Ranger: A Case Study Examining the Application of Advanced
Technologies in Modern Urban Warfare [Somalia]
www.at.y12.doe.gov/ranger.pdf
And last but definitely not least, the ever well done Infowar.com
This section of Infowar.Com will present work from the Military, the Defense
Universities, and those people with an interest in C4I, C3I and C2. Don't
forget to look at the Discussion Groups, off of Infowar.Com's Home Page.
www.infowar.com/mil_c4i/mil_c4i_2.shtml
________________________________________________
US Military
Microwave Weapon
Considered For
Civilian Control
By Nick Paton Walsh
The Observer
http://www.observer.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,458681,00.html
3-18-1
Riot shields and water cannon may soon be made
obsolete by a revolutionary weapon that can stun
a hostile crowd with invisible microwaves.
The US Vehicle Mounted Active Denial System
(VMADS), a radar dish mounted on the back of a
tank or jeep, is interesting British police forces.
The VMADS, or 'people zapper', uses a 'directed
energy beam', according to a Pentagon
spokesperson. 'When it comes into contact with
skin it causes a sensation of heat to an
uncomfortable level.' The Pentagon insists the
beam causes no permanent damage - no one gets
hurt, but the crowd or enemy soldiers retreat
hastily.
The weapon harnesses the beams found in kitchen
microwaves. Travelling at the speed of light, the
energy of the beam penetrates less than a
millimetre under the skin, quickly heating the
skin's surface. This triggers the body's defence
reaction: pain. When the subject moves out of the
beam, the pain stops. Scientists will start testing
the weapons on goats and humans soon.
Jane's Defence Weekly said recently the
'non-lethal' nature of some weapons 'might ...
encourage military forces to use them directly
against civilians and civilian targets'.
'It's part of this new political correctness on the
battlefield,' said a spokesperson. 'The problem
today in situations like Palestine is that you have
adversaries mixing with innocent civilians. Forces
now need a suite of weapons for different
situations. You can score so many own goals by
killing innocent civilians.'
Scientists have spent $40 million developing the
weapon at the Air Force Research Laboratory,
New Mexico. Demand for non-lethal weapons
grew after the disastrous US military mission to
Somalia in 1993, when marines died because they
could not shoot back without hitting civilians.
The VMADS is the most sophisticated development
in the search for the ultimate non-lethal weapon.
The SAS recently began training with 'glue guns'
that fire a web of resin from a gun-mounted
aerosol. The resin hardens around opponents,
paralysing them.
_______________________________________________________
ON WISCONSIN : JS ONLINE : NEWS : MILWAUKEE :
Supreme Court Justice SCALIA ON THE CONSTITUTION
Scalia slams 'living' document
philosophy
Justice draws overflow crowd,
protesters at Marquette
By TOM KERTSCHER
of the Journal Sentinel staff
Last Updated: March 13, 2001
The Constitution is an enduring document but not a
"living" one, and its meaning must be protected and
not repeatedly altered to suit the whims of society,
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said in
Milwaukee on Tuesday.
Scalia, often reviled as an
arch-conservative who would
do the nation harm, admitted to
a respectful crowd of more than
1,000 people at Marquette
University that his "originalist"
judicial philosophy is not
popular.
In contrast, the idea of a "living
Constitution" in which the
meaning can be interpreted as
society changes is "seductive,"
he said.
But Scalia also insisted that only
interpreting the
Constitution based on the Framers' precise words
and the meaning they intended at the time - can
preserve the Constitution's guiding principles.
"The Constitution is not an organism," the justice
said, "it is a legal document."
Scalia spoke to 500 people inside Weasler Auditorium
and to more than 500 more in an adjacent building in
the first appearance of a U.S. Supreme Court justice
on Marquette's campus in more than 33 years. Chief
Justice William Rehnquist, a Shorewood native, spoke
at a Marquette commencement off campus in 1988.
Reagan appointee
Scalia, who was appointed to the high court by
President Reagan in 1987, is widely regarded as
possessing a surpassing intellect and as being an
articulate voice for political conservatism on the
court.
Scalia, as a judge who utilizes a philosophy that seeks to
preserve the original meaning of the Constitution.
Judges who don't adopt an originalist or "textualist"
approach, he said, have no judicial philosophy and
issue rulings based on the majority view of society
at a given time.
That "living Constitution" approach, Scalia observed,
has led to U.S. Senate hearings in which candidates
for federal judge or Supreme Court justice are
grilled about which rights they believe are in the
Constitution. Eventually, voters will choose and
demand judges based not on their ability to interpret
the Constitution but on the political positions they
hold, he warned.
"The horrible consequence of that, you understand, is
that it places the meaning of the Bill of Rights in the
hands of the very entity against which the Bill of
Rights was meant to protect you against, that being
the majority," Scalia said.
Scalia's clear aim, however, was to get his audience
to care about how judges interpret the Constitution.
"Originalists" such as him, he said, are in the minority
throughout the legal system.
Scalia began by saying that an originalist or a
textualist takes meaning from the Constitution "from
its text, and that meaning does not change." The text
itself is augmented only by examining what the
Framers of the Constitution intended at the time -
'NOT" by what a majority in society might prefer today,
he said.
Scalia said that by adopting this judicial philosophy,
he is often treated as if he were "eating little
babies." But the originalist approach in fact is
orthodox, widely held by jurists throughout most of
the nation's history, he said.
Change under Warren
Only in the past 40 or so years, beginning probably
with the ascendancy of former Supreme Court
Justice Earl Warren, did judges see the Constitution
as an evolutionary document that could be
interpreted differently with the passage of time,
Scalia said.
Scalia said he understood why judges, and much of
the public, would support the "living Constitution"
because with such an approach, the Constitution can
say anything you want it to. But this nation was not
built on the principle that judges, attempting to
gauge the will of society, would interpret the
Constitution differently as time goes by, he said.
The Constitution, Scalia declared, must remain static,
but that does not mean that laws cannot change to
reflect changes in society.
The answer for advocates of, for example, abortion
rights or the death penalty is to garner enough
support from the public and pass laws - not have
Supreme Court justices and judges continually
revising their views of the Constitution in order to
satisfy society, Scalia said.
"That's flexibility," he said. "What the proponents of
the 'living Constitution' want to bring you assuredly
is not flexibility; it is rigidity."
Appeared in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on March 14, 2001.
ON WISCONSIN : JS ONLINE : NEWS : MILWAUKEE :
JUSTICE SCALIA ON THE CONSTITUTION
Scalia slams 'living' document
philosophy
Justice draws overflow crowd,
protesters at Marquette
By TOM KERTSCHER
of the Journal Sentinel staff
Last Updated: March 13, 2001
The Constitution is an enduring document but not a
"living" one, and its meaning must be protected and
not repeatedly altered to suit the whims of society,
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said in
Milwaukee on Tuesday.
Scalia, often reviled as an
arch-conservative who would
do the nation harm, admitted to
a respectful crowd of more than
1,000 people at Marquette
University that his "originalist"
judicial philosophy is not
popular.
In contrast, the idea of a "living
Constitution" in which the
meaning can be interpreted as
society changes is "seductive,"
he said.
But Scalia also insisted that only
interpreting the
Constitution based on the Framers' precise words
and the meaning they intended at the time - can
preserve the Constitution's guiding principles.
"The Constitution is not an organism," the justice
said, "it is a legal document."
Scalia spoke to 500 people inside Weasler Auditorium
and to more than 500 more in an adjacent building in
the first appearance of a U.S. Supreme Court justice
on Marquette's campus in more than 33 years. Chief
Justice William Rehnquist, a Shorewood native, spoke
at a Marquette commencement off campus in 1988.
Reagan appointee
Scalia, who was appointed to the high court by
President Reagan in 1987, is widely regarded as
possessing a surpassing intellect and as being an
articulate voice for political conservatism on the
court.
Scalia, as a judge who utilizes a philosophy that seeks to
preserve the original meaning of the Constitution.
Judges who don't adopt an originalist or "textualist"
approach, he said, have no judicial philosophy and
issue rulings based on the majority view of society
at a given time.
That "living Constitution" approach, Scalia observed,
has led to U.S. Senate hearings in which candidates
for federal judge or Supreme Court justice are
grilled about which rights they believe are in the
Constitution. Eventually, voters will choose and
demand judges based not on their ability to interpret
the Constitution but on the political positions they
hold, he warned.
"The horrible consequence of that, you understand, is
that it places the meaning of the Bill of Rights in the
hands of the very entity against which the Bill of
Rights was meant to protect you against, that being
the majority," Scalia said.
Scalia's clear aim, however, was to get his audience
to care about how judges interpret the Constitution.
"Originalists" such as him, he said, are in the minority
throughout the legal system.
Scalia began by saying that an originalist or a
textualist takes meaning from the Constitution "from
its text, and that meaning does not change." The text
itself is augmented only by examining what the
Framers of the Constitution intended at the time -
'NOT" by what a majority in society might prefer today,
he said.
Scalia said that by adopting this judicial philosophy,
he is often treated as if he were "eating little
babies." But the originalist approach in fact is
orthodox, widely held by jurists throughout most of
the nation's history, he said.
Change under Warren
Only in the past 40 or so years, beginning probably
with the ascendancy of former Supreme Court
Justice Earl Warren, did judges see the Constitution
as an evolutionary document that could be
interpreted differently with the passage of time,
Scalia said.
Scalia said he understood why judges, and much of
the public, would support the "living Constitution"
because with such an approach, the Constitution can
say anything you want it to. But this nation was not
built on the principle that judges, attempting to
gauge the will of society, would interpret the
Constitution differently as time goes by, he said.
The Constitution, Scalia declared, must remain static,
but that does not mean that laws cannot change to
reflect changes in society.
The answer for advocates of, for example, abortion
rights or the death penalty is to garner enough
support from the public and pass laws - not have
Supreme Court justices and judges continually
revising their views of the Constitution in order to
satisfy society, Scalia said.
"That's flexibility," he said. "What the proponents of
the 'living Constitution' want to bring you assuredly
is not flexibility; it is rigidity."
Appeared in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on March 14, 2001.
"When the government fears the people, you
have liberty. When the people fear the government, you have
tyranny." : Thomas Jefferson
