Category Archives: brainwashing

The Personal Income tax proves that you are a serf.

In the old world collecting tribute was more dangerous. Today the people actually think it is their duty to pay their masters.

In the old world collecting tribute was dangerous because the people were much more restless. Today the people actually think it is their duty to pay their masters.

Today, in honor of our annual tax tribute day, I am going to explain something very fundamental to you about your “income tax”.  And then I am going to make a modest proposal.

My argument uses their own rules. Thus, if the argument I make is not sufficient to carry the day for any change, then there is ZERO point going any further down the rabbit hole to discuss the difference between income and “wages”, or whether or not the code includes only foreigners, or whether it was properly ratified etc.  and on and on. The upshot of each of those types of arguments is that you somehow “don’t owe any tax” because of magic words and hidden meanings.  That is not realistic. 

The tax is owed, because the king says it is owed.  The subjects must pay the king because the king has the guns.  It is the height of absurdity to think the king will forego his tribute because of magic words.  

But this tax situation does provide a “teaching moment” to let you see where you really stand in this “free” country.  So I will do my best to make lemonade.

To understand my argument you need to understand a couple very fundamental tax concepts.  Gross income versus Net income, and the concept of how you get from gross to net which is basis and deductions.  Our rulers have set up the system, so those are the rules we will use.

If you’re already rolling your eyes at the terms I just used and are saying to yourself that this is going to be “too complicated” and “you can’t do math” then best of luck to you.  You have no chance.

I've started using common core math to calculate what I owe on my 1040. I love it!

I’ve started using common core math to calculate what I owe on my 1040. I love it!

Under the Tax code income is either gross or net.  Above the line or below the line in the vernacular.  “Income tax” is assessed on Net income.

Businesses are not taxed on gross income because they would all go out of business. Think about grocery stores, they operate on very slim “margins”.  Most make a net of roughly 2% of sales.  So for every 100k in sales, i.e. Gross income, they “net” after expenses, 2k.  If the taxable rate was assessed on their “gross income” then even a 2% rate would mean that there was NOTHING left over.  Because 2% of 100k is 2k.

The tax is assessed on the net, so even if the rate is 50% on the net, the tax owed is only 1k, because 50% of 2k is 1k.

If you can’t follow this example, then again, you can’t be helped.

So gross income is the amount that “came in” and “net income” is the amount you have left over after paying the “allowable deductions”.

The next concept you need to understand is basis. It has to do with what you own.  Here is what the IRS says about it.

“In most situations, the basis of an asset is its cost to you. The cost is the amount you pay for it in cash, debt obligations, and other property or services.”

Deductions are the basic expenses you incur in obtaining a profit such as the rent and salaries the grocery store paid. 

Now let’s look at a simple example of how these interact in practice to the very limited extent necessary to make my point as to the income tax on your wage.

Let’s say you have a business that makes money by letting people dump their “vote Hillary” signs into its holes after the election.  Clearly the first thing the business has to have is holes.  It can buy the right to use holes that already exist or it can dig new holes.  They both cost money.

I know it seems a bit extravagant, but my accountant said it was fully deductible, and a great hedge against a turbulent market. Plus the chicks seem to dig it.

I know it seems a bit extravagant, but my accountant said it was fully deductible, and I think it really “sets off the room.”   Plus the chicks seem to dig it.

Now whether the company hires men to dig the hole with shovels, or whether it rents a back hoe, either way it gets to deduct that cost.  It doesn’t matter if you purchase labor or capital.  They are both deductible.  That is important.

They both represent a cost incurred to obtain something of VALUE.  The company in effect turns some of its money (which has value) into another form of value, i.e. the hole.  It is simply an exchange.  In effect, it is a sort of mutation of the value the company already owns, from money to hole. 

Think of it like this.  If they have $1,000.00 of start up capital and they didn’t dig the hole or spend it then there is no taxable event because they own that money, i.e. they have a $1,000.00 basis in their $1,000.00.  Clear?

When they choose to dig the hole they exchange the $1,000.00 in money for the $1,000.00 in labor and thus there is no tax consequence because they have exchanged things of equal value.  They now have a hole worth a basis of $1,000.00.  I’m simplifying of course, but you should get the idea.

There are numerous other examples of exchanges where there is no tax consequence because the exchange is of things of equal value, i.e. where your basis is the same.

If I trade you my boat for your boat and both boats are the same value, there is no gain and thus no tax consequence. If I sell you a boat I already own for the same amount I bought the boat for, then again, there is NO GAIN and thus no income to tax.  When you buy a stock and it goes up in value.  You only pay tax on the difference between what you paid for it (your basis) and what you sold it for (your net profit). You don’t pay tax on the total price of the stock, only on the gain or loss.  Got it?

Those are simplified examples of the concept of “basis” as that term is defined in the tax code. You only get taxed on the gain or “income” over and above what you already own.

Now when someone pays to dump a Hillary sign into the hole, that is Gross income for the company.  The Net income is reached by deducting out what it costs to operate the company and the “basis” (or the value of the hole) is slowly eaten up as it is filled.  Of course all of this is necessarily simplified.

So now that we have the fundamentals lets look at how it applies to your “income” which is a wage or salary that you then have to pay “income tax’ on and I will show you where the problem is.

The genius behind the latest IPO called A**Holes is shown here in one of his early prototypes. Later perfected the company is now valued at 23 billion. This is how you do it in america. They are just smarter than you.

The genius behind the latest IPO called “Holes R Us” is shown here sitting in one of his early prototypes. He later allegedly perfected and patented his idea for a “cloud based hole digging system” the company is now valued at 23 billion.  He wrote a bestselling “business strategy book” as well  titled “do what you love and the money will come”.  Brilliant, according to the NY Times.   He responds to critics who say that nobody has ever actually built a cloud based hole yet by telling them that he is a visionary and that they don’t understand his vision. 

To the extent your wage or salary is “income” at all, it is simply “gross income”.  The IRS defines it as such.  “The Internal Revenue Code states that “gross income means all income from whatever source derived.”

Individuals have certain “allowable” deductions available to them.  Remember that distinction, it is critical.  “Deductions”, credits and “exemptions” are how congress controls individuals and businesses to make them do things they want and to not do other things, and to reward their benefactors and to punish their enemies.  The deductions are things like housing, medical expense, kids, interest, and on and on.

We are now ready to see the problem. So lets go back to the hole digging analysis. 

Say you were one of 10 people they hired to dig their $1,000.00 hole and they paid you $100. What is the tax consequence under the code? Simple, the company writes off the $100 as an expense, and you pay tax on the $100 you received as “income”.

Do you see the problem yet?

Does your employer pay you more than you are worth? No.  By definition if he did that it would be a GIFT.  He is paying you for the VALUE/basis of the work you provided.  That value/basis IS YOUR WORK.  Do you not own your own labor and thus that $100 of value you provided??

Ahh, that’s the rub.  The “allowable” rub.  Who gets the benefit of “owning” the labor you provided??  The STATE.

You see the government tax code does not “allow” you to deduct out the value or “cost basis” of the labor you provided.  It “allows” the business to deduct it when it has to pay for it, but it does not “allow” YOU to deduct it when you sell it!

Think about what that means.  You created the value with your time and life and expertise, just like every other piece of work you perform.  It is YOUR LIFE. But the State, in effect,  claims that value for itself and makes you pay tax on it!

How? Through the POLICY DECISION to not “allow” you the deduction. It is not a mistake. It is not a misunderstanding.  The state knows exactly what it is doing!  

Think about it.  If you hadn’t worked and had chosen instead to simply sit at home and play a video game the business would not have paid you because the work value would not have come into existence.  There would have been nothing to tax you on because there would have been no exchange.

I found that digging holes was a lot more satisfying than practicing law. And I could actually use the hole when I finished. So win, win.

I found that digging holes was a lot more satisfying than practicing law. And I could actually use the hole when I finished. So win, win. Here my partner and I test our custom holes. 

But you did work. You spent your time and effort and life, and it had a value of $100.  You EXCHANGED something you own, part of your life, for the $100.  The basis you have in the labor expended is set when you are paid for it.   It is boat for boat! They are identical. By Definition!

Just as the business had equal basis in the money it paid you and it was simply an exchange for equal value labor and therefore they get to deduct the paid amount.  On the flip side the labor you provided, which YOU OWN, was an exchange for something of EQUAL VALUE, the $100 they owned and paid you.  Boat for boat.

Do you see it yet?

There are only two possibilities of how to analyze this transaction UNDER THEIR OWN RULES and each of them produce a zero tax consequence exchange for both parties

One, you have a basis of $100 in the labor you provided and so it is an even exchange, boat for boat.

Or two, you received $100 in gross income for your labor, and you  should be “allowed” to deduct out that same amount because you chose to produce $100 of labor that YOU OWNED.  Thus the net income SHOULD BE zero, no tax consequence either way.

If you still can’t see it then think of it like this.  A business must pay salary to employees in order to make a profit.  They get to deduct out the cost of that labor they buy and the employee sells because it has value. The exact same analysis applies to you when you work for yourself.  You own and provide the value that is exchanged for an equal amount of money.  There is no net income left over, by definition.  

In the past I spent a lot of time talking to my fellow citizens about the inequity of the system. But they seemed to think I was the problem. A trouble maker I think they said. They used to tell me to stick to the mud, the mud is your friend. I never did adapt.

In the past I spent a lot of time talking to my fellow citizens about the inequity of the system. But they seemed to think I was the problem. A trouble maker I think they said. They used to tell me to stick to the mud, and the mud will stick to you.  I never did understand why anyone would seek that outcome. 

 The logic is unavoidable.  The only reason it isn’t the same in practice, is because the government does not “allow” you the deduction for your own time and life. 

By not “allowing” YOU the deduction, the government is telling all of its subjects that they do not own their own life and labor. That the State owns your life and labor.  There is NO OTHER EXPLANATION USING THEIR OWN RULES.

We know that it has value, because they “allow” the business to deduct what it must pay for it.

If it had zero value, then the businesses could NOT DEDUCT THE WAGES AND SALARIES THEY PAID YOU.  But they do allow them to deduct them because they do have VALUE.  The exact amount of value you received is the amount you gave and the exact amount they deduct.

They just don’t allow you to benefit from owning the value YOU CREATE THROUGH  YOUR WORK.

Do you finally see it?

It isn’t complicated and the logic is inescapable. 

It matters not whether you call the money received from your labor a wage or income.  It is still just GROSS income.  The government denies you the right to the value of your own labor, which it grants to the businesses who get its benefit.

Once you understand this you will see how the government actually views you. You are a serf.  Serfs and peasants pay a tax on their wage because they are owned and bound to their master and do not own their own labor.  You are taxed just like a serf. 

If and when you finally understand this simple concept you will take a big step in understanding what your government actually is and who it actually serves.

You may need to read it several times but the concept is simple, elegant, and the conclusion is unavoidable.  And once you see it you will be amazed you never saw it before.

She knew the law. She made it clear that I was only "paying for her time" what happened between us was consensual. So I went with it cause she was really my type.

She knew the law on entrapment, she wasn’t about to take any chance that I was “L.E.”  She made it clear that I was only “paying for her time” what happened between us was consensual. So I went with it cause she was really my type.

The solution I propose does not deprive the government of its precious “revenue” it claims to need and that the duped peasants all imagine is “necessary”.  That would be pointless.  They are going to take whatever they want. 

But it could ease our burden. And if nothing else, once you see how simple it is, and how they will not even do something this simple and fair, perhaps you will take another step to understanding what your government actually is.

Now back to the hole.

Remember, you can hire 10 guys to dig the ditch or you can rent a back hoe.  Purchasing labor is no different than purchasing capital.  They are the same.

When you buy an item the purchaser pays the tax.  That is always the case. Even in a “sales tax” all the seller does is collect the tax for the government. The buyer pays the tax.

So, here is my simple solution to the sort this problem out.

MAKE THE ENTITY WHO “PURCHASES THE LABOR” PAY THE TAX.

Make the labor buyer pay the tax like the buyer always does. No more keeping track of anything. No more complex deductions etc. to try and get.  You just get a check for the amount you agree to work for. And if you hire labor you pay the tax for hiring that labor.

It is that simple. “Justice” is restored and their system of rules is now consistent.  We the people are no longer their serfs.

If you employ someone for 100K then they get a check for 100k.  Period.  The employer “wage purchaser” is on the hook for whatever the additional amount of tax the government demands on the 100k purchase.

If the employer can only afford a total outlay of 100k for “the job”, then he can only pay your whatever is left over from the calculation of what he will pay you plus whatever is owed as sales tax on that labor purchase.  If the taxable rate on 75K is 33% then he can pay you 75k.  Because he’s on the hook for another 25k on top when he pays the tax.  So 75k plus 25k is 100k  Got it?

I scored big on my last case and I went a bit over with the selfies. I was so proud

I am normally paid in cash for tax purposes.  I keep a record of course.  Here’s my last case. Not bad for 2 years.  Not bad.

It is simple. It doesn’t prevent the government from collecting its tribute. But it frees the people. They then own their own labor.  It converts the “income tax’ into what it should be a “sales tax” on labor and wages, paid by the purchaser. I’m not saying I like the tax code and the rates, but at least this makes them make sense.

I have studied this topic for a long time. I have never seen this simple solution presented anywhere else.  Not saying it hasn’t been, I’m just saying I’ve never seen it. I’ve also never heard it discussed.

Think of how much time and effort it would save you.  Think of the outrages and inequities it would save.

Now of course I know they will never do this because it would eliminate the real purposes for the tax code.  The control they exercise through the tax code. And the ability to strike fear into people.  That, and they get to sell favors to people and to punish those who don’t properly grease the wheels of justice.

But at least I hope you now see the concept.  The very simple undeniable concept that until they change the code, the government is making it clear that they own your life and time.  Period. 

And if you still think you are “free” and that this government is run of by and for the people, then honestly, you are so far gone into the patriotic delusion that you can’t be reached.   

By refusing to “ALLOW” the people the right to claim the value of their own work and life, the government, your ruler, is sending a very clear message to those who purchase and use government to exploit the people. And that message is this:

“We have our boots on the throats of the serfs we own and they are well under control. What do you propose to pay us for the privileges you seek?  We can do most anything you desire to the people for the right price.”

So that is all for now my fellow inmate. I hope you had a great tax tribute day and gave all you should and more to your lawful master.  I have given you simple but profound truths today.  Do with them as you care. I am done for now. 

Take care, move towards the light and tell someone the truth about the law.

And the truth shall set you free.

    And the truth shall set you free.

 

3 easy steps to understanding your freedom.

Today we are going to learn all about the great and powerful justice system and how it protects all the people of Candyland!

Today we are going to dig down into the small print of the Candyland rule book and see how the system of justice actually works there. 

The U.S. government, in fact every government, is created and promoted for precisely one reason; to enable a very small group of people who control that government to exploit, through “authorized” force, the much larger group of people, who do not.  You and I, my brainwashed friend, are “the much larger group, who do not”.  I know that most people don’t believe this about “their country”, and that is their right.  But their failure to accept reality does not change reality. 

So what I’m going to do today is show you 3 separate cases from the supreme court, and you can draw your own conclusions about who that court and your government really serve.

The first case we’ll look at is where a State sought to sterilize a woman against her will because the State said she was an “imbecile”.

The next case involves the criminal conviction for publishing politically charged communist material advocating mass strikes to bring down the government.

The last case involves a multi-billion dollar international company getting a 2 million dollar punitive damage award levied against it to punish it for blatant consumer fraud.

So let’s look at the cases briefly and see how the court “protected your rights”.

The first case is Buck v. Bell, 1927.  The “august justice” Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the opinion “for the court”.

Although deemed an "imbecile" by the court, the Plaintiff in Buck v. Bell went on to a profitable career in TV and public speaking. Though she remained an imbecile. Ain't America grand.

Although deemed an “imbecile” by the court, the Plaintiff in Buck v. Bell nonetheless went on to a lucrative career in TV and public speaking after being released.

The basic facts, as set forth by the court, are simple. An imbecilic girl was placed into a state “institution” by her family. The person in charge of the facility wanted to sterilize her for the good of societyWe will accept the facts as presented for our purposes today.  The truth appears much more complicated.

The girl apparently had an out of wedlock child and the family felt “disgraced”.  The overall back story appears to be that the entire case was a friendly suit , unbeknownst to the poor girl of course, used to “clarify” and to thereby approve of eugenics laws which would later go on to sterilize 10’s of thousands against their will here in freedomville.  Here is an excellent law review article for those who are interested in pursuing it more closely.

The issue before the court was straightforward though far from benign. Here is how the court described the situation:

“The statute then enacts that, whenever the superintendent of certain institutions, including the above-named State Colony, shall be of opinion that it is for the best interests of the patients and of society that an inmate under his care should be sexually sterilized, he may have the operation performed upon any patient afflicted with hereditary forms of insanity, imbecility, &c., on complying with the very careful provisions by which the act protects the patients from possible abuse.”

There is a lot there.  Let me simplify it for you. If some arbitrarily appointed bureaucratic quack at some state institution you were unluckily housed at, thought, based upon the “highest science” that you weren’t what society needed or wanted, then you were getting sterilized.  But relax, the court assures us that the government has provided “very careful provision” to protect us all from abuse by this “law”.  So we’re good, you can go back to watching TV.

It is difficult to imagine a much more fundamental right that the court should protect than this.  So what did the court find? Well you can read its 1 paragraph “analysis”:

Much of the new Obamacare Dental plan has been justified under the reasoning of Buck v. Bell. Here, a politically correct orthodontist demonstrates a reimbursable procedure to induce a serious tooth ache.

Much of the new Obamacare Dental plan has been justified under the reasoning of Buck v. Bell. Here, a politically correct orthodontist demonstrates a reimbursable procedure to treat tooth ache.

“We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

I hope you re-read that and really think about what type of a court of so called “justice” would produce an opinion like that.  If you aren’t appalled by the court’s language, I can only hope that it is because you don’t understand the import of that language on your “rights”.

The court’s “analysis” is bereft of any concern at all for YOU and your rights.  The court, with a waive of its hand, finds that it would be “strange” if the state could not “obviously” sterilize you.  Why? Well because it can draft you into war and kill you, so clearly it can sterilize you. (I have written about the legitimacy of this alleged power to draft you, here .) The STATE’S interest towers over yours.  Forget batting second. You’re not even in the lineup.  So much for the court protecting your “rights”.

And let me say this.  There is so much blather about what a “great “justice” Holmes was.  Judge for yourself.    Authorizing the STATE to sterilize YOU with no analysis based upon fake facts is what he stood for when the chips were down.

So let’s look at the next case Gitlow v. New York, 1925, just a few years earlier than the previous case we looked at.

I pulled this exhibit from the State's brief. It is a compelling set of facts against allowing such a dangerous idea to spread. I mean, LOOK at those flames!! think of the children.

I pulled this exhibit from the State’s brief. It’s no wonder the court ruled as it did.  I looked through the evidence and this is a compelling set of facts.  My god man, just LOOK at those flames!! think of the children.  Enough said.

In this case the person was convicted of “criminal anarchy”.  Basically he published and promulgated a communist pamphlet about how the government was taking advantage of the working people, “the much larger group” I referred to earlier.  The pamphlet advocated for this group to rise up and throw this tyrannical abusive government off by coordinated mass strikes.

This type of political “speech” is EXACTLY what the laminated-in-every-school-room Declaration of Independence states is the peoples’ duty to do.  Throw off unjust governments.  If the first amendment is not there to protect speech like this, then what is it there for at all?

Let’s be clear.  There was no evidence of any so called revolutionary “conduct”.  The guy just published and promoted a pamphlet the government didn’t like.  In fact here is what the court said about that issue:

There was no evidence of any effect resulting from the publication and circulation of the Manifesto.

No effect means no action, no conduct.  This case is strictly about criminal liability for publishing a political manifesto.  This is precisely the kind of conduct that needs to be protected from prosecution as “un-American”.

Remember, it is only speech people DON’T like that even needs protection.  You don’t have to protect middle of the road milk toast bs like you hear and see peddled everyday on your boob tube and radio.  THAT speech is what the small group in control WANTS YOU TO HEAR.

So did the court throw out the conviction as a violation of the 1st Amendment? What do you think?  Here is the heart of the justification.  It quoted from the state court’s findings and then, in effect, confirmed that.

‘As we read this Manifesto … we feel entirely clear that the jury were justified in rejecting the view that it was a mere academic and harmless discussion of the advantages of communism and advanced socialism’ and ‘in regarding it as a justification and advocacy of action by one class which would destroy the rights of all other classes and overthrow the state itself by use of revolutionary mass strikes. It is true that there is no advocacy in specific terms of the use of … force or violence. There was no need to be. Some things are so commonly incident to others that they do not need to be mentioned when the underlying purpose is described.’

So if the public has been swept into a red scare panic, then the first amendment doesn’t apply.  Gotcha.  I thought the ENTIRE purpose of the court being there to hear these cases is to be sure that this exact type of thing didn’t happen to the rights of “minorities”?  

Also, notice that the court admits that there was not only no action, but there was also no advocacy of force or violence either!  But they nonetheless uphold the conviction outlawing the speech because there was “no need to be” any such showing.  That element would be READ IN against the citizen.

I spent quite a while breaking down the reasoning in the case and determined it might take too long to explain it since it is basically all crap.

I spent quite a while making notes here and breaking down the actual reasoning in the case and determined it might take too long to explain to non lawyers who aren’t used to dealing with such complex “constitutional  concepts”.  

Now I’m not going to waste time going over which made up pseudo “constitutional analysis” the court purports to use in this situation, e.g. clear and present danger, balancing, microwave for 2 minutes -add water slowly while stirring. It doesn’t matter what they claim to use. The proof is in the tasting.  And this case tastes like proverbial sh*t.

It is only one of two things.  Either, whatever test was used by the court is faulty, or the application of the test by the court was faulty, because the only thing that matters is the result. The decision either supports the peoples’ freedom of speech or it does not.  And the result here is the court preventing the people from getting information about how they can organize and defend themselves against the government.  Regardless of how misguided or wrong headed the “information” was or is, that kind of “speech” is supposed to be protected.   So whatever “test” the court used, can’t possibly support freedom of speech as it purports to do. By definition.

And don’t for a second imagine that I support “red revolution”.  That’s laughable.  This poor confused pamphleteer thinking that another kind of “government”, communist or otherwise, was the answer, was just lost as the rest of the duped masses who stood on the side defending our system. Neither of them understands what government actually IS.

Despite what you have been told there is nothing complicated about legitimate 1st amend analysis in a case like this. The problem is the court doesn’t do that because it has another agenda. Protect the government. Look the amendment says shall make NO LAW ABRIDGING.   What part of that is unclear?  How could the language have been any stronger?  Yet STILL these jokers dream up intellectual word games to justify “laws abridging” purely political speech.

Why do they do this?  Simple.  This is what they are THERE TO DO. They are protecting who they actually serve, the government.   They make it appear as though some solemn and complex analysis is being done in order to hide that reality. What people don’t understand is that all of their opinions, first amendment or otherwise, are just reverse engineered distractions designed to justify their predetermined outcome. Nothing more. Once you understand that they all make sense.

How is picking sides in a political battle part of the court’s job under the 1st amendment?  Even if the dissemination of the “information” led to the government being overthrown, isn’t the form of the government something the PEOPLE CHOOSE, not the supreme court?  What more do they have to do for you to see reality??

So lets review what we have so far.  The court supports the state sterilizing people if the state feels it should, and the court supports the state arresting anyone who produces political pamphlets that threaten the state’s control.  Take a moment to sip on a bit of that freedom Kool Aid.

Here is one of the hundreds of photos the jury saw of previously wrecked cars sold as "new" by BMW after being "fixed". It's clear why the court reversed the judgment.

Here is one of hundreds of photos the jury saw of previously wrecked cars sold as “new” by BMW after being “fixed”. It’s clear why the court found that the jury’s award violated “elemental notions of fairness” and the supreme court felt compelled to reverse .  Okay, sure, there’s a little damage, but where’s the fraud? 

Now let’s fast forward to 1996 and finish this trifecta of justice with our last case, BMW v. Gore.  No, not Al Gore. And so there can be no charge that I am not being fair, I am going to use the NSA’s own version of the facts from Wiki:

“The plaintiff, Dr. Ira Gore, bought a new BMW, and later discovered that the vehicle had been repainted before he bought it. Defendant BMW of North America revealed that their policy was to sell damaged cars as new if the damage could be fixed for less than 3% of the cost of the car. Dr. Gore sued, and an Alabama jury awarded $4,000 in compensatory damages (lost value of the car) and $4 million in punitive damages, which was later reduced to $2 million by the Alabama Supreme Court. The punitive damages resulted not only from Dr. Gore’s damages, but from BMW’s egregious behavior across a broad spectrum of BMW purchasers over a multi-year period of time in which BMW repaired damaged vehicles and sold them as new to unsuspecting buyers as a matter of routine business operation.”

So fairly straightforward facts.  A big company was lying to people and ripping them off. Selling them repaired vehicles as though they were new.  BMW had been doing it for a long time.  This wasn’t some one off thing. This wasn’t a rogue dealer. It was BMW policy to rip people off.  Apparently the jury was none too impressed with the conduct.

So this case, at its heart, is about the citizens’ right to a jury trial so that the people, through the jury, can protect themselves against powerful interests who can easily control the government.  Again, how do you get any more fundamental than this?

The justices often practice "remitting" awards in the mirror to improve their dramatic effect. The right of the court to "pardon you" if you're a friend of the court is of course a long standing tradition.

Here a poignant picture captures a private moment where an Alabama S.Ct. justice is practicing the ancient and solemn procedure of “remittitur”.  Many justices find that practicing their craft in a mirror improves the dramatic effect in court, making the court’s actions seem more credible and therefore “official”‘ to the masses who follow them.

After getting the 4 million dollar jury award against it, BMW went to its friends at the Alabama supreme court.  That court did the bidding for their masters and summarily cut the award in half.  How?  They used a procedural trick called “remittitur”, which is a scam the people have never heard of. The court claims the right, in the interest of justice of course, to substitute its own judgment for that of the jury.  That is a small taste of what your right to a jury means in actual practice.

So how had the jury come to the amount of the punitive damages awarded?  Simple, it took the actual damages in the case, the 4k, and then multiplied that by the number of similar fraudulent sales by BMW.  So they were just saying in effect, you got caught in this case, we’re gonna punish you for all the sales you weren’t caught on as well.  What is unreasonable about that?  Nothing.  But still the Alabama court cut it in half right off the top.

But even being cut in half wasn’t enough for BMW, they kept going. And guess what? The supreme court reached out and took this case.  The court takes about one in a hundred cases.  One in a hundred.  Do you think they’d take yours?  But for some “unknown” reason the court felt it “needed” to take this case.

Maybe it will be to vacate the remittitur and to re-instate the full award the jury found for egregious and deceptive conduct by BMW? Maybe?  Probably not.

Here’s what happened.  The court dreamed up a new sophisticated sounding 3 prong so called “constitutional test”, then “applied it” to the supposed facts and presto chango the jury’s award “failed” the test.  What an unexpected TWIST! The truth of the matter is that this so called 3 prong constitutional “test” is NOT a constitutional test at all.  That is absurd.  If it was, then how was it unknown for more than 200 years? The fact is the complex sounding 3 part test is just a made up thing imposed on the people to cover the court’s tracks while it protects the real interests of those who control the government.

I got access to the court's archives and pulled this draft of the "BMW" 3 prong test the court was working on. You have to admit , it does have promise.

I got access to the court’s archives and pulled this draft of the “BMW” 3 prong test the court was working on. You have to admit , it does have promise. I’m not sure it’s not, as is,  better than the final they released.

Here is what the court said in concocting the new 3 step test:

“Elementary notions of fairness enshrined in our constitutional jurisprudence dictate that a person receive fair notice not only of the conduct that will subject him to punishment but also of the severity of the penalty that a State may impose. Three guideposts, each of which indicates that BMW did not receive adequate notice of the magnitude of the sanction that Alabama might impose for adhering to the nondisclosure policy adopted in 1983, lead us to the conclusion that the $2 million award against BMW is grossly excessive: the degree of reprehensibility of the nondisclosure; the disparity between the harm or potential harm suffered by Dr. Gore and his punitive damages award; and the difference between this remedy and the civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases. We discuss these considerations in turn.”

Are we clear people? A 2 million dollar award for outright fraud against a huge multi BILLION dollar company is “grossly excessive”.  Remember a billion is a Thousand million! So how is a 2 million dollar award in any way “grossly excessive” AS A MATTER OF LAW against a multi- BILLION dollar company??  That is absurd on its face.

And don’t miss the fact that the court refers to BMW as a “person”!

So the court comes to the aide of BMW by using high sounding platitudes about justice and fairness and goes so far as to concoct a whole new 3 prong test to cover its trail. But the same court condones the STATE forcibly sterilizing an actual person against their will on nothing more than the summary conclusions of some bureaucratic QUACK, with a brush of the hand and no analysis.  Do you see the pattern yet?

And now do you understand why the court reached out and took this one in a hundred case?

And make no mistake about it.  This is the kind of case that the “back to the constitution conservatives” are fooled into supporting under the rubric of being so called “pro business”, anti-slip-and-fall lawyer, and to “help create jobs”.  The work a day people who are tricked into supporting this “philosophy” have no idea what they support. None.  But to be fair, big business does run on massive government protected fraud, so when you think about it, this is a classic pro business case after all.

And just to put a bow on all of this let me show you how it ended for Dr. Gore and his BMW, according to Wiki:

Look, I'm just saying I would like to go over the options again. I'm not sure I understand my choices here.

Hold on babe. I’m not saying no.  I’m not saying yes yet either.   I’m just saying I may be confused.  I would like to go over my options again. This feels like a pivotal decision.  What is it you want me to do?

“On remand, the Supreme Court of Alabama ordered a new trial unless plaintiff accepted a remittitur of all but $50,000 of the punitive damages awarded.”

Yes, you read that right.  The Alabama S.Ct. made the good doctor an offer he couldn’t refuse.  And for anyone with half a brain and any sophistication as to how the process works this outcome was crystal clear.

Message sent.  Message received.

So the case goes from the front page screaming headline of a “4 million dollar out of control jury verdict” that the masses are told justifies “tort reform”, to a take it or leave it 50k dollar award years and years later reported on the back page.  THAT my friend is what the just-a-system in the United States actually looks like for you and me who make up, “the other large group, who do not” control the government.

I could show you dozens and dozens of more cases just like these.  The only reason this stuff surprises you is that you don’t understand the system or what government actually is That’s all. It’s not your fault, you were lied to by the government in its mandatory schools.  But it is your fault if you continue to refuse to accept that you have been fooled and you then continue to support and defend this kind of exploitation.

Do you now see how the system works?  Do you now see what your “constitutional rights” are in practice?  Do you now see what the courts are actually there to do TO YOU, not for you?  Do you now see the fantasy you live in?

Make no mistake.  THIS IS THE CONSTITUTION IN ACTION.  These cases ARE the result of the constitution.  They are not aberrations.  They are not “unconstitutional”.  They are not outside the system.  They are the system.

I know none of this will get through to people, because nothing gets through to people.  They will continue to believe that they live in a freedom fest.  Why? Because they’ve been told they do all their lives.  Their parents told them. Their teachers told them.  The nice man on the news told them.  All their Hollywood heroes live out the glorious freedom on the big screen. Everyone has been raised on a steady diet of propaganda and lies about what their system is, and so the cognitive dissonance is just too great for most people to overcome.

I wondered over to a demonstration a while back and started talking to some of the people to see if I might open their mind a bit. Before I knew it they had me on the ground and they wanted to know why I "hated america". It was weird.

I wandered over to a back to the constitution demonstration a while back and started talking to some of the people to see if I might open their mind a bit. Before I knew it they had me on the ground and they demanded that I tell them why I “hated america so much”.  Needless to say they made it hard for me to make my point.   That was a was weird day.

If you try and show the great mass of people the truth they get angry at YOU.  They will say that you hate America and you should leave.  They are utterly irrational.  They get viscerally upset.  It is amazing to watch. They defend the country and the system that does what I just showed you by imagining that those cases and all the others just like them are all mistakes and bungling or the result of “liberals” and that it is “still the best system out there”.  It is  dark comedy to watch such stubborn ignorance.  They refuse to accept the hard truth that these cases are examples of what the system is designed to do. The system is not benign.  Can you say Stockholm syndrome?

The vast majority of the people are not reachable.  No point trying.  They are the third class of people who Da Vinci said, “can’t see”.  Or as Albert Jay Nock said, are ineducable.  Or as the masses like to say in the vernacular, “you can’t fix stoopid”.  And they are all right.  Don’t lose any sleep trying.  It ain’t gonna happen.

And that, my fellow inmate, is why I no longer even try and convince people of these truths anymore than I try and teach my cat about the constitution.  It is a waste of time.  I write for my own sanity and for an honest record.  Nothing more.  And that has to be enough.

That’s all for now my brainwashed Brethren.  I have stared at the sun-of-freedom long enough today. I think I’ll have drink.  Take care, move toward the light and tell someone the truth about the law.

And the truth shall set you free.

   And the truth shall set you free.

 

The Scalia death shines a light on what the Supreme court REALLY is.

I am shown making my argument to the supreme court . No I wasn't actually in the case as a lawyer or litigant, but I figured if they were going to claim to bind me that if I wasn't going to get a chance to be heard that I would at least make an appearance and be seen.

Here I am making my argument to the supreme court.   Okay, it’s true that I wasn’t actually in the case officially as a lawyer or litigant, but I figured if they were going to claim to bind me to the decision without even giving me a chance to be heard that I would at least make an appearance and be seen.

The death of justice Scalia provided another opportunity for the people to see the reality they live in, but alas, they have not. They are just as lost now as they were before.  The “conservative pundits” on radio and TV and in print continue to line their pockets by peddling a detailed absurd analysis of what Scalia’s death and potential replacement means “under the constitution”. They talk on and on about the dangers of the “wrong person” being appointed, and the balance of power on the court and the failure to “uphold” the constitution etc. But they never raise the points you are about to see. The only points that even MATTER.

I can’t possibly re-educate anyone in a single article or even in a few. It would take books and books to unclog the head of most poor deluded people. And from what I can tell most people won’t even read an article like this that will tell them the truth.  They tell me it is “toooo wooong”.  Then those same people wonder why nothing ever changes.

Today I am going to show you what the court is actually empowered to do under the constitution. Not what you have been TOLD all of your life. Not what the liars and controllers want you to believe. But what it is actually empowered to do. And after I do that you will see that it makes perfect sense. And you will see that if the court was doing what it was actually authorized to be doing, there wouldn’t be ANY CONCERN at all about who was ON THE COURT. Because it wouldn’t hardly matter to you.

The judicial section of the constitution is short. You should go look. But I will save you some time.  The activating portion of it is really just ONE SENTENCE.

Here is an example of the cover sheet you have to file when you file a brief in the Supreme court.

You want more freedom?  well the Supreme court has heard you my friend.  For a limited time they are now offering  a file one brief get two trials special.  That is two trials for the price of of one!  You can’t beat that in any other country.   Just more evidence of the superior freedom and liberty we offer here at the USA.  Limit one offer per illegal alien.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

That my friend is ALL it says about the supreme court’s supposed powers. Do “judicial powers” mean that the court can amend the constitution? Of course not. Does having “judicial power” mean that once the court rules in one case that that the opinion “becomes the constitutional law” for all cases that follow? No. Does it say that once the court rules that there must be a constitutional amendment to “overturn it”? No. It doesn’t say ANY of those things because none of them are true. Those are all lies you have been told.

Judicial power is just that. The court is there to rule on actual cases and controversies. NOTHING more. They can’t issue sweeping edicts about whether a law is or is not constitutional in general. All they can do is decide a single case. Here is a simple explanation of what the court is empowered to handle.

A case or controversy, also referred to as a Justiciable controversy, must consist of an actual dispute between parties over their legal rights that remain in conflict at the time the case is presented and must be a proper matter for judicial determination. A dispute between parties that is moot is not a case or controversy because it no longer involves an actual conflict.  cite.

The decision in a case only binds THE PARTIES involved in THAT case. Nothing moreJudicial power is the power to decide a case and controversy.

If they had been given some broad sweeping power to tell us what the law was in general and then to BIND US ALL TO THAT OPINION, then language saying that would appear IN the constitution. But it does not, because they don’t have that power.

The clerks at the supreme court are supposedly the cream of the crop, but I haven't had much luck getting a straight answer out of them.

The supreme court isn’t really there to answer questions about constitutionality, but most people are confused about what they do. Even the clerks who work there are confused.  And they are supposedly the cream of the crop.   I haven’t had much luck getting a straight answer out of them.

Need more proof? Simple, not even the Congress or the President can take a proposed law over to the court and ask for a legal opinion about whether it is “constitutional”. Why not? Corporations do it with their own legal department. THEY GET AN OPINION before they act. If the supreme court is the department that is supposedly there to “tell us what the law is” and to supposedly decide issues for the whole county then why can’t the congress and the president just run over and ask about something’s “constitutionality” BEFORE they make it law? Wouldn’t that make a lot more sense than what happens now?

Did you ever think about that?

If the constitution is such a brilliant document why is it so inefficient? Why do we have to all sit around wondering what the holy oracles are going to say about the law years from now when it finally “reaches” them? Why can’t we just go ask them, if in fact they are the “final say” for the whole country as we are now told? Why not just run Obamacare over to them and say, hey, does this “pass muster” BEFORE everyone has to spend billions to comply etc.?

Because that’s NOT the court’s job. Because the court can ONLY decide cases and controversies. They can’t issue generalized opinions about the law and they don’t have the POWER to bind anyone but the parties in EACH CASE they hear and decide.  

Just think about THAT.

The tyranny of the s.ct. does not come from the s.ct. being the final arbiter of a case. It does not stem from them exercising the judicial power over a case or controversy that they are granted in the constitution. The tyranny comes from the FALSE and totally UNSUPPORTED concept that the court’s opinion in one case is BINDING on every other case and on all people in ALL CASES for all times.

And that principle has nothing to do with exercising “judicial power” . It has nothing to do with anything in the constitution. That “power” has just been MADE UP.

DID YOU KNOW THAT?? Did you hear your favorite constitutional scholar tell you THAT?? I doubt it. Truth be told, they probably don’t even know it themselves. Most people, including most “scholars” and blowhards are incapable of even seeing what I just told you. They would probably still deny it even after you showed it to them!

I overheard this expert telling someone all about the system of government they had in this kingdom. It was beautiful and magical and wonderful. Then I found out where the kingdom actually was and I lost interest. I took a pic.

I overheard this legal expert from Harvard telling someone all about the system of government they had in this kingdom. It was beautiful and magical and wonderful.  So I asked if I could visit and he said sure, and he took me to see it.   He never could understand why I had lost interest.  I ended up having to change my email the guy wouldn’t stop telling me about how great it was.

They have spent all of their lives arguing about things within the box they were given. They don’t even see they are IN A BOX.  Having been richly rewarded for their ability to analyze a bunch of useless crap inside the box, the experts imagine they are geniuses, and that they are right. Those in power take advantage of this type of vanity and exploit it.

The Courts are supposed to do justice. THAT is the highest obligation of any court. When is the last time you EVEN heard any pundit or expert mention that! Why bother having courts at all if they aren’t at least TRYING to do JUSTICE?

But it is impossible to “do justice” when all courts “must” follow whatever some cobbled together majority opinion from one court said in one case from who knows when.  Do you see that?  THAT can never produce justice. And that my friend is exactly WHY they have told you it IS like that, so they can get away with anything they want and you will have to suffer whatever injustice they care to inflict. All under the name of “following the constitution”. Do you see yet?

Think about this. What about S.Ct. opinions that are wrongly decided? What about opinions where the court OVERREACHES? What about all of the 5 to 4 decisions with dissents! What about errors by the court? What about strange facts? What about lawyers who make bad arguments in the case? Or cases where the lawyers failed to raise the right arguments? Think of how much injustice this absurd made up rule reigns down on the people. 

We are told that all of that is irrelevant and part of “imperfect justice” and on and on. They have told us that regardless of the problems it causes we MUST follow their decisions and that they are binding on all future cases because that “is our system” and then they tell you that “our system” is somehow magically the greatest freedom and liberty machine ever created! But they can’t point to ANYTHING in the document that even shows the power exists and they can’t give us a good reason for why the power should exist, because they can’t be honest about their real reasons.

All the document actually SAYS is that the court is invested with the judicial power of the U.S. And that is nothing more than the power to decide cases and controversies. The way it is supposed to work is simple.

I had a constable show up at my office claiming one of my clients was "in contempt" of some order. I had never seen the case, so I went and looked it up. Turns out it really wasn't even a case, and I told my client to just ignore it.

The power to bind everyone for all time for every case seemed like a pretty big power to give to the supreme court.  I figured it must be in the constitution but when I asked my con-law prof about it he seemed a bit confused by my question.  He referred me to a set of test questions he had prepared on the issue for clarification.  Once I figured out what was really happening, I aced the course.   

If the reasoning is sound in a decision, ANY DECISION BY ANY COURT, then the next court is free to use that reasoning. BUT if the reasoning in the dissent was more persuasive, OR some reasoning the court didn’t put forth was more persuasive, then the next court is free to use THAT reasoning in order to try to do justice. THAT is what justice looks like.

The parties are welcome to appeal and maybe the trial court’s decision would then be overturned. But maybe not. Maybe the make up of the appellate court would be more like that of the original dissent. Maybe the supreme court’s justices would now be convinced their original decision was not well reasoned. Maybe a lot of things. Remember, this all started by having the justices on the supreme court itself DISAGREEING with what the outcome should be. Do you see??

Always the primary purpose driving the courts needs to be JUSTICE.  ANYTHING that gets in the way of that MUST be swept aside.

There is nothing holy about an opinion. Some are good some are bad.  They are all written by PEOPLE.  People are corruptible. People are wrong. People are biased. People are fools. People make mistakes.   As a practical procedural matter, at some point the case has to come to an end. In our system, that end comes at the supreme court. But only for THAT ONE CASE. Got it?

EACH CASE stands on its own. Each party is entitled to the best justice it can get. Sure it helps to have some way to predict what the outcome would be in a future case. But let me ask you this. Which is a better choice, to have a known outcome that is wrong, bad, unjust, or clearly unconstitutional but which nonetheless “must” be applied by every other court forever, OR to have the outcome not be as clearly known in any one case, but JUSTICE be served to the maximum extent possible IN EACH CASE? Because those are the “competing” values.

The power structure wants you to believe that we all “have to follow” the supposed “law” the supreme court announces so they can control you with a single lever my friend. Because YOU WILL NEVER GET TO THE SUPREME COURT. So they can screw everyone with one crap decision. That is the great scam. None of this “obligation to follow” the s.ct crap is in the constitution. None of it. Just go look. I double dare you.

Let me ask you this. How does a supreme court’s opinion even purport to “become the law of the land”?

They clearly don’t have legislative authority. So what is actually happening?
Well what they claim is that the supreme court is actually just interpreting the constitution, not “making law”. Because they know they are not allowed to “make law”. That is for the legislature. They claim all they are doing is “saying what the constitution already says must be done or not done”, in effect. Do you see that?

Here one of the justices is shown casting her vote on a case. Think of the majesty.

The Supreme court is steeped in elaborate ritual.  Here one of the hotter S.Ct. justices is shown casting her vote . This was a 5 to 4 decision for Corinne!  5 to 4.  Steve was just one vote away from being voted off!  one vote!!  Just think what will happen if Obama gets to put another justice on there and the whole power structure changes!!! What will happen to our freedoms?  What will happen to Steve next time??  You need to write your congressman, or maybe just send a bunch of money to some organization.

Of course, this word game can’t withstand any scrutiny. Let me show you.

The reasoning goes like this. They claim that the supreme court’s opinions tell us “what the law is” by “interpreting the constitution”. Then they tell us that “because” this is what the constitution “says” the “opinion” is now in effect, “the law of the land”. And as a result, the only way the people can reverse the decision/finding is to pass a constitutional amendment.

There can be no doubt that this is what we are told over and over. And this is why the blatant political make up of the court matters. THIS is why people care who is on the court, who replaces Scalia. Because the court imposes things on the whole country with a single decision claiming that the “constitution” somehow requires it etc. Now let me show you why what they say is just laughable.

If all of that is true, then how does the supreme court have the POWER to reverse itself??

Think about it.

If all they were supposedly doing was telling us what the constitution “required”, then they would not have the power to reverse themselves. How could they? They would be amending the constitution either the first time or when they reversed. It is inescapable. But they don’t have the power to amend. They don’t even claim to have that power.

Do you see the dilemma? If what they say has the “power” of the constitution behind it, and that is why we “must” get a constitutional amendment to change it, then there is NOTHING in the constitution that would allow the supreme court to then “change the constitution” back by changing their “opinion”. Do you see it yet?

If supreme court opinions had the power they tell us they have to somehow become “the law of the land”, then the court would not have the power to reverse itself. It just wouldn’t. Because they DON’T HAVE ANY LEGISLATIVE POWER, and they aren’t following the stated methods to amend the constitution.

Reversing things has always caused issues. Few people know that if you read S.Ct. opinions backwards they make just as much sense as they do when you read them forwards. Another amazing feat of freedom.

 Few people know that if you read S.Ct. opinions backwards they make just as much sense as they do when you read them forwards. Another amazing freedom feat.

But there is nothing in the constitution limiting the court from “reversing” itself. Because the court’s decisions do not “become the law of the land” and they are not intended to be binding on all the people for all times. The entire idea is absurd!

I will say it again. All that any decision can EVER DO is bind the PARTIES to THAT case. PERIOD. Nothing more. That is what judicial power IS. It is the power to decide A CASE.

I am going to give you one more example to show you why my explanation of the court’s power is the correct one and why all the laughable lies you have been taught and continue to be told in the press and by experts are preposterous.

Before a court, any court, can even HEAR a case, let alone “decide” a case, it must at a MINIMUM purport to have personal jurisdiction over the parties. NO COURT would even  try and claim to bind someone to the outcome of a decision if the court didn’t at least CLAIM to have personal jurisdiction OVER THAT PARTY. IN THAT CASE.

This is huge. Think about what I just told you.

The court must be able to point to very specific things to show that it has jurisdiction over YOU and everyone else in the actual case. Why? Because the court claims a right to order to you to do things. It claims a right to take your property, or your life or to tell you what your rights are against other parties and on and on. BEFORE it can do that it must meet very specific WELL KNOWN requirements that give the court the authority, or “personal jurisdiction” over you, to then bind you to whatever decision the court renders. Got it?

In lay terms, PERSONAL jurisdiction means that the person was given an opportunity to actually be involved in the case. The person was named, served, given an opportunity to appear and to argue the facts and the law in THAT CASE. Without that, the case is NOT BINDING on you. The court cannot issue an injunction against you. It can’t order to you to pay a contract. It can’t fine you. It can’t do ANYTHING to you without, FIRST, at least purporting to obtain personal jurisdiction over you. IN THAT CASE. It isn’t even enough if you have another unrelated case pending in the SAME court. It has to get jurisdiction over you EACH TIME in each case.

They bind everyone with trickery. People agree to things without understanding the real impact it will have. Like a bad safe word.

Most people can be fooled into believing most anything.  They can’t seem to think through the problem.  

YET, those in power have convinced you that you are BOUND by whatever the supreme court says, said, or may say in ANY CASE. Have you ever been party to even a single case in front of the supreme court? Of course not. Do you see the contradiction? Do you see the absurdity of it?

The court wouldn’t even claim to have the power to make you cut a bush down in your yard unless they had personal jurisdiction over you IN THAT SPECIFIC CASE. Yet you are told that you are bound to every decision they make, have made, or ever will make without ever being served, or having the opportunity to argue the claims or the facts of any of those cases??? It is laughable.

You have NO connection to the cases. You are in NO WAY “CONSTITUTIONALLY” BOUND BY THOSE DECISIONS. Nobody but the parties to that case are bound.  Nobody.  The very fact that they have convinced everyone that “this is the law”, and that something this preposterous is actually IN the constitution when it so clearly is NOT, is just another example of the power of brainwashing.

Judicial power is limited to the parties in the case. Period. There is no arguing about this.
The reason you are supposedly bound has NOTHING to do with the holy constitution. NOTHING. And it has nothing to do with any “judicial power”. It is a FRAUD perpetrated on you and enforced at gun point by your friends at government.

My friend, this kooky concept of being “bound” by some star chamber decision is not in the constitution for good reason.

NO sane group of people would ever voluntarily hand over such a broad power to an unelected group of people who serve for life and who the people have no control over at all! Who are then supposedly free to issue opinions about any and everything that binds them and everyone else for all time??  Please. It is asinine.  To give such a power away would in and of itself be proof that the person was non compos mentis!

And no sane group of people would ever imagine that they had the power to agree to a system that purported to bind people who aren’t even born yet to decisions that haven’t been made yet by justices who aren’t even known on topics that have no limit or scope??

Think of how truly absurd that concept is. 

And yet, we are told that this asinine concept is one of the very hearts of our freedom and the brilliance of our “system”!  We are actually told that this is somehow a “check and balance”!!  How can such an absurd concept ever be a “check and balance” on the very government that is issuing these edicts? It makes no sense.  My God people will literally believe anything they are told by some “expert”.

I got to go backstage at one of Hannity's big shows and see how they set the whole sound system up. It was great.

I got to go backstage at one of Hannity’s big shows and see how they set the whole sound system up. It was great.  Really professional.  I can see why he is so popular.

Yet the people do all believe this nonsense because they are told it day and night by experts.  And this includes all of the utterly deluded lawyers who are the WORST OFFENDERS.  The people even run around telling me how this kind of thing is what we should all fight and die to save and spread around the world!  That this “system of justice” is proof of the brilliance of the founders. That it makes us some beacon of freedom to the world!  That is the type of thing that just makes me lmao.  The back to the constitution crowd doesn’t understand the first damned thing about what they are talking about. NOTHING. 

My friend, why do you think the power structure allows that nonsense about “getting back to the constitution” to be broadcast into your home or car? Why are the purveyors of this nonsense so wealthy?  Do you really think it is because they care so much about you? Do you really think they’d promote and reward people espousing such things if those people were giving you advice that might actually DO SOMETHING to change the system?? Lol wake up.

The whole concept about what the supreme court can supposedly “do” when it issues an opinion is certifiable nonsense. It is imposed on you by those who rule you. It is a con designed to be sure that they can do whatever they want without legislation. Any outcome can be guaranteed. It isn’t complicated people. It is RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR NOSE FOR GOD’S SAKE.

But nonetheless the deluded “informed” masses run around talking about who will be the next nominee. Who will take Scalia’s place. And on and on. And they imagine themselves to be exercising some kind of civic duty by discussing this stuff! I swear if I made something this ridiculous up and put it in a movie, nobody would believe it. Honestly, I sit either laughing out loud or with my jaw on the ground when I hear the “greatest legal minds” sitting around pontificating about it endlessly and see the masses gobbling up this nonsense as though it was manna from heaven.

I’m done ranting. Lol

Now granted, I left a lot of stuff out due to time constraints, because it already takes a lot of “splaining” to even make the simplest points. But hopefully you are now able to see enough to start asking the RIGHT questions. At least See that you are IN A BOX. Stop talking about what color we need to paint the walls IN THE BOX and where to move the couch, and start thinking about why you are IN A BOX! Who put you there, and who is keeping you there. lol End of story.

It really is quite simple once you see it. And I have a secret for you. It is ALWAYS the same game they run. Don’t waste your time worrying about nonsense like whether someone is a strict constructionist or believes in a living breathing constitution. Those are all red herrings.

The reality is that people are enslaved through deceit.  Yet they are so brainwashed they think I am the one who is the fool. They can’t even see the bars on their electronic cell.

I can’t take anymore talk of freedom today. I have to go catch the news to see if Obama is about to nominate someone “polarizing”.

Take care my brainwashed Brethren. Live in the light and tell someone the truth about the law. — Legalman

And the truth shall set you free.

And the truth shall set you free.

The “facts” people get from the news would be laughed out of court, but the masses gobble them up like candy.

 

The press listens attentively while the Pentagon spokeswoman explains how the go 5 big bad terrorists in the last week. 5's a lot!

The white house press is captivated at the briefing by the pentagon spokeswoman’s dramatic tale of how the brave government soldiers saved the unsuspecting towns people from 5 BIG BAD  lone wolf terrorists last week. I overheard the N.Y. Times reporter gasp… 5’s a lot!

Many lay people are fascinated by legal things. Or maybe I should say, things people imagine to be legal things. That’s why our controllers make so many preposterous legal shows and movies. They are dramatic and thrilling and provide an excellent and insidious way to continue the long con they run on everyone about all of the justice and freedom there is. The TV shows and movies bear no resemblance to the reality of the actual “just-a-system” that exists inside the world you inhabit, but then… that’s the whole point of brainwashing, isn’t it?

Today I am going to give you a quick lesson in the law of evidence, gratis. You are going to learn what hearsay actually is. People hear “objection, hearsay” on TV and in movies all the time, but really they have no idea what it is. And, it is my hope, that once you learn what it is, that you will then be able to use that concept in your everyday life to help you negotiate the maze of lies they have you living in.

Technically hearsay is a form of inadmissible evidence. Like speculation, or opinion, or testimony given without a proper “foundation”. If something is “hearsay” then it is NOT admissible evidence. Evidence is supposed to be factual and reliable.

The underlying concepts developed by lawyers over a long period of time can be very useful in thinking about what type of information is reliable factual evidence. The centerpiece of all methods for ferreting out the truth, or more accurately, for ferreting out what is not true, is cross examination.

Ask yourself, would you agree to a trial where you didn’t have the right to cross examine the witnesses against you? I doubt it. That is why you have a constitutional right to face the witnesses against you. And would you trust the results of any trial where the evidence was not cross examined? Again, I doubt it.

An unnamed source sent me this top secret document showing some of the planning that went on behind the scenes at the NSA. Apparently they are adding some great new characters to the show this season!! Yay, set your DVR.

An unnamed source sent me this top secret story board showing some of the ideas they are floating at the NSA pitch meetings. Apparently they may be adding some great new characters and a touch of romance to the ISIS lineup this season!!  So be sure to set your DVR to find out — on  the news.

The simple reality is that most any “story” can be made to sound pretty damned good…. IF I am not allowed to ask any questions about it. And that, my friend, is the reason that hearsay is not admissible.

Because you can’t cross examine hearsay.

Hearsay is not permitted, because time and experience have shown that evidence that is not subject to cross examination is inherently unreliable.

Here is working definition of hearsay under the rules of evidence:
Any out of court statement (this includes the information in documents) offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

It may look simple but it is not. They spend weeks examining it in law school evidence class. It is subtle. Now there are a lot of minor exceptions to the “hearsay rule” but those exceptions can be summarized generally as follows, official records, statements against interest, and “excited utterances”. We’re not going to get into them. We’re just going to cover the basics and show you how to apply the concept of hearsay to the matrix around you.

The tricky part to determining whether something is in fact hearsay is that the out of court statement must be offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.  MOST out of court statements are NOT hearsay. Let me show you what the difference is with an example.

The witness testifies that, “Billy said he closed the garage door‘.

So, is that hearsay? On TV, sure it is. But the fact is you CAN’T KNOW if something is hearsay until you know what the evidence/out-of-court-statement, is being offered to prove. You must always remember THAT.

A simple truth that people never apply to themselves.

A simple truth that people never apply to themselves.

Let’s just say the case involves liability for a very cranky old three legged cat having gotten out of the house. And it is suspected that this wonderful creature may have gone out through the garage when the door was left open. Can the above testimony be “offered” to prove that the garage door was in fact closed? NO. That would be hearsay.

But the testimony could be used if it was offered to explain why the witness hadn’t checked to see that the garage was closed before he left. Do you see the difference?

In the first instance it is hearsay because it is offered to prove “the matter asserted” in the statement, namely, that the garage door was in fact closed. But in the next instance it is being used to show a state of mind for the actual witness. Whether the garage door was or was not in fact closed is not relevant.

All that is relevant is that the witness CLAIMS he heard Billy make the statement. NOT that the statement he claims to have heard is/was true. So you can cross examine the witness on whether it is believable that he in fact heard the statement, and whether he actually believed the statement, and whether he acted consistently with someone who had heard and believed such a statement from Billy.

Do you see the difference? It is subtle and it can be quite confusing. Don’t feel bad if you don’t quite see it, most lawyers don’t even understand the distinction. Like most people, they just think that any out of court statement is hearsay, but it’s not.

This type of "proof" has lost favor in most jurisdictions, but I have heard that the evil muslim radicalized lone wolf extremists still use this method!!

This type of “evidence” has lost favor in most western jurisdictions, but I heard someone on FOX news report that the White House says that it is still used in traditional sharia law  where they have evil muslim homegrown radicalized lone wolf extremists waiting to destroy our way of life!! 

You have to ask what it is being offered to prove. And if you can cross examine the witness on the reason for why it is being offered, then it is probably NOT hearsay.

Think of it like this. If the witness is there to prove that the garage door was closed, then he has to testify about that fact. He could testify that he saw it closed. Or that he heard it close. Those would not be direct evidence that Billy closed it. Maybe an inference from circumstances could be drawn, but not direct evidence of who closed it, just that it was closed.

So if the main issue was whether Billy closed it and all you had was the witness saying that he heard Billy say he closed it, well, that’s hearsay, it doesn’t come in.
Do you see how it all comes down to the ability to cross examine the witness on the evidence the witness is offering?

A witness can be questioned on whether he actually heard a statement made or whether the witness was mistaken about that or is in fact lying about what he heard IF ANYTHING. But you can’t cross a witness on whether or not the door was in fact closed by Billy if all he knows is that he heard Billy say he closed it. Got it?

Evidence is about facts. A witness needs to say what he knows, not repeat what someone else said to show something is true. If the basis for a witness’ knowledge about something is that he heard someone say it, well, that ain’t Jack S**t. That is hearsay. If what someone  said is the evidence you want to bring that something “is” true, then you need to bring in THAT person and let me cross examine them about the BASIS for their statement. That is the distinction.

You may have to re-read it and think about it a bit. It is complex. But the distinction is vital in assessing information that comes at you all the time.

I objected to the picture the government produced to finger my client, on the grounds that it might be photoshopped but the judge denied my objection saying that the government's word of the picture's authenticity was good enough.

I objected to the picture the government produced on the grounds that it might have been photo-shopped so I should have a right to examine it and the person who took the picture.  The judge denied my objection saying that  having it appear on a government website was proof enough of the picture’s authenticity so it was coming in.  The judge said that in this post 911 world that if I didn’t believe the government then maybe I was a terrorist too!

Congratulations, you may have just learned something that less than 1% of the population understands.

Once you see the distinction and grasp what hearsay actually is, then it should be clear why no thinking person should accept HEARSAY to form a firm opinion on anything. It defies logic to do so because there is no way to know if the information you are relying on is true e.g. that Billy in fact closed the door, because the information has not been “examined”.

Now of course the reality is that the world is overflowing with hearsay. And everyone loosely relies on it out of necessity for many things. And that’s fine. The world you live in is not a court room and you can’t expect to live by the rules of evidence. That would be absurd. 

But what you can and must keep in mind is that if the only evidence you have would be considered hearsay, THEN you need to be WARY of the reliability of any conclusions you draw because you don’t have ANY EVIDENCE. So your opinion should remain very flexible because your opinion is based on crap.

Naturally, the reality with people is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what it should be. And of course our controllers know this and they take advantage of the people through this. The people tend to treat all information equally. Or even worse, they OVER weight the least reliable hearsay information just because they saw it on TV or read it in what they have been TOLD is a “respected” journal or newspaper etc.

In fact most people form almost all of their opinions of the world on nothing but rank hearsay twice removed. (meaning hearsay on top of hearsay!) People gobble up whatever their favorite “trusted” mouthpiece says. And they base their opinions on information that would NEVER EVEN BE ALLOWED IN as evidence in a legitimate proceeding.

Now I want to give you a bit of insight into how much of your world view has been built on this type of “information”. Let me take apart just one simple example of a very common piece of “news” you might hear or see and show you how ridiculously UNRELIABLE it is and how totally INADMISSIBLE it would be. Then you can see what I mean and you will see hopefully by analogy, how much of your world is just a concoction. No evidence at all for any of it.

Here reporters risk their very lives to bring the viewer the latest news footage from the naval tensions with China. Thrilling TV footage. Our brave troops were victorious once again!

Here a scene is shown from recently declassified pentagon footage of recent naval action in the South China Sea. Reporters  risk their lives to bring viewers footage like this and to get the story.  They said  that Our brave troops were victorious once again!  Freedom is safe for another day.  

And just so we’re clear, there is no official records exceptions to cover un-checkable nonsense like I’m about to give. So we can eliminate that.

You are watching TV and they show a clip of the white house press secretary making an announcement that the pentagon is saying that a top ISIS leader has been taken out in a drone strike. Then the hosts and guests begin to discuss the “implications” of such a thing.

Can you spot the incredible number of hearsay problems with this situation?

The white house spokesperson making the announcement is just reading a statement he or someone else wrote. The spokesman tells us it is based upon information they were given. How do we know they didn’t make the entire thing up? OR that the person who gave the information to them just made the information up? We don’t. We don’t know if they were even given any information let alone the information they are telling us. Do you see?

That is how fundamentally flawed the “statement” as evidence is and why it would never be allowed IN to any serious fact finding venue to “prove” that some ISIS leader had in fact been killed in a drone strike. AND why you should be very wary of trusting such information to form your opinion!!  It is useless hearsay, nothing more.

At a minimum we need to see the reports upon which the statements are based and find out who wrote them so we can question THAT person. But we NEVER do see the reports. The government cloaks everything behind a veil of “national security”.  Isn’t that convenient?

Yet people act as though this type of silliness from the news and government is the holy of holies of information. I mean “my god man, the white house announced IT!!!” lol Such nonsense would be laughed out of court.

Here an artists renders the scene where only the top reporters get their information. You must be very advanced in the profession to even be allowed access to this sacred place.

Here an artist renders the holy of holies – the reporters briefing room at the pentagon.  Average people could never understand the information the chosen ones are given here directly. The government and the reporters must work together to interpret the information so they can then give it to the people.   They have gotten quite adept at GIVING IT to the people.

Now let’s continue analyzing the “statement”. Right off the bat we know that the “pentagon” can’t say anything. Only a specific person at the pentagon can say anything. So again, without the ability to find out WHO at the pentagon allegedly provided the information — so we can at least go CROSS examine THEM — we are truly in the never-never land of untrustworthy UNTESTABLE information.

In a trial, you can’t just wheel someone in and have them make statements about something called ISIS and its “leader” having been “killed”. You have to bring EVIDENCE that can be cross examined. How do we know who was killed? How do we know anyone was killed? How do we know what if any connection they had to something called “ISIS”. We don’t.

At trial, in order to allow evidence in for any of what we heard in the press secretary’s statement there would first have to be a foundation laid to identify what “ISIS” is, who is in it and how we know who their leaders are. And that information all has to be from someone with actual knowledge of each of those pieces of information and each of those people have to be subject to cross examination.

But the public has never gotten that. And we never will! All the public EVER gets about anything of substance is just an amorphous blob of innuendo, speculation and hearsay hidden behind the protective and convenient veil of “national security”. Thus people imagine ISIS to be whatever they want or “fear” it might be. “Membership” in ISIS is no different than a slogan like “hope and change”. It is meaningless because it means something different to everyone.

Think of all the hearsay problems with just trying to “confirm” some ISIS leader was IN FACT killed. Who ID’d the body? Who has actual knowledge that he was “a leader”. Who has actual knowledge of how he died? Do you see?

Think how many ways the “information” from the press secretary could be picked apart in a murder trial by defense counsel. Think how ludicrous it is to trust such a sweeping completely unsubstantiated statement to make “decisions” about whether we should “bomb the country back into the stone age”!! lol

I think it's pretty clear what she stands for. She fights for us! I know she does, because I saw it right there.

What do you mean how do I know what she stands for?  She fights for us! I saw it right there.  And she said it. Plus I got a bumper sticker that says the same thing.  So sure I believe it.  Why wouldn’t I? I mean if it wasn’t true everyone would know right?

All you actually have in that example I gave you is some political hack at a podium making a statement. That is actually all you have. You have ZERO FACTS to support the truth of what he said.

How much validity or credence should a rational person give to such a statement to accept that a “leader of ISIS” was killed in a drone strike by the U.S.? None.

Without the ability to cross examine you have to TRUST. You are not going “trust” the government witnesses against you in a trial if you are charged with murder are you? Of course not, you are going to demand your right to cross examine them, because Cross is the only way to find out whether what someone is saying holds up to scrutiny! But we never get that scrutiny with government information or news. Hell we don’t even get to cross examine the person making the hearsay statements let alone the actual witnesses we NEED access to! Lol So it is crap.

Now if you want to consider the press secretary’s statement for purposes OTHER THAN the FACT that some ISIS leader was supposedly killed in a drone strike by the U.S. well… that is fine. THAT makes sense. Because that is NOT hearsay.

There is nothing unreasonable about considering the statement to be evidence that the  government wants to continue to create the appearance of a “war on terror”, or that the president is trying to deflect attention from his signing of some bogus executive order. Or maybe someone in the government wanted the guy killed because he knew something he shouldn’t and now they are covering their tracks by making this ISIS story up. Or maybe it was all a mistake. Or maybe NOTHING at all even happened and the guy they said they “killed” and was a “terrorist” is a gyro salesman obliviously vacationing in Cabo. We don’t KNOW.  Analyzing the statement LIKE THAT makes sense, BECAUSE it isn’t hearsay for THOSE purposes. Get it?

I could do the same analysis with basically any information we are given from “the news”. It is virtually all nothing more than repeating something some government spokesman or report claims to have found, or telling you what someone else told the reporter. Totally useless hearsay.

An early lesson most people just don't ever learn when it comes to their own lives.

An early lesson most people never learn how to actually apply in their lives.

The dirty unspoken secret is that News and government “information” relies almost 100% upon a TRUST by the people that the newsmen and governments do not deserve to be given. Trust is something that is earned. It is something you give a friend or family member you know and who has a reason to be honest with you. Trust is something that is given to someone who would bear the brunt of violating that trust.

The news and the government have NONE of those qualities and risk nothing by lying. They just make up more lies to cover their lies when they are caught because there is NEVER any outside investigation of the government. Only the government is allowed access to the people and information that is necessary to investigate the government. And only the news “investigates” the news. Do you see that?

You can’t be a rational person and “trust” a government spokesman or some Brian Williams or Dan Rather type character who claims he has gotten information from some unnamed source within some organization. THAT type of trust makes NO SENSE. There is no basis for it. In fact there is a huge amount of evidence to show they cannot be trusted. But still the fools trust.

The sad fact is that we can’t know if even one tiny bit of  whether most things that parade around as “news” are true. Not one stinking thing. All we know is that they are reporting that something happened. What happened, if anything, is something you have to use your own brain and experience to try and figure out. Not just accept what they say. That is silly.

Yet the masses run around and argue with each other about “reports’ and “facts” given to them by the government and the news about things that supposedly “happen” all over the world. They have built whole industries on this nonsense! The people in the “news and commentary” business argue about all of these “events” and imagine that they “have” all sorts of “details” about who did it and why and who they were connected to and on and on.

The reality is that all of these “experts” and analysts and commentators are just arguing about a bedtime STORY that was released by the government. A story so unreliable that a jury would never even be allowed to hear it. Not even reliable enough to “let the jury decide for itself”. Just think about that.

That is the actual quality of the information the people “get” from the news and their government. Rank Hearsay. But the conditioning and brainwashing are so deep, the people can’t see this. And the entire rickety broken ass system relies completely on this illusion. Just a grand sleight of hand over the population. And they gobble it up!! lol

Now there is someone that understands ironic humor.

I was thumbing through this textbook and I came across this graphic describing journalism’s sacred role in a free society and how the people depend on the press. It really made an impact on me.  The press deserves my appreciation. They keep the government honest you know. 

I find it particularly funny that political operatives and mainstream newsmen have some of the lowest credibility ratings whenever supposed polls are done, right down there with used car salesmen and lawyers! Yet people nonetheless continue to imagine that they are “informing themselves” by watching the “news” or reading the NY times or “the economist” or waiting to find out what their favorite commentator has to say about the latest “news”. My god the idiocracy.

And I laugh extra hard at lawyers who fall into all of this, and they do. Oh believe me they do. THEY should know better. It is a bunch of useless hearsay for gods sake. It is crap!

Well I am about done. Maybe now that you understand what you are looking right at, you will get a kick out of how insidious and prevalent hearsay is. It is everywhere. And maybe you will rethink some of the things you thought you “knew were facts”.

The fact is that we don’t know Richard, lol. We get told a lot of stuff from cradle to grave and most of it is just hearsay. It is up to each of us to use our brains. Those in charge know that isn’t going to happen, and they take advantage of that.

I hope that understanding what hearsay actually is and why it is not admissible helps you.

I have to run, I just remembered that I taped the “No Spin Zone” last night and I need to go watch it to find out what’s happening in the world and what I should think. lol

Take care, move towards the light, and tell someone the truth about the law. Oh and enjoy my new pic of Legalman.

And the truth shall set you free.

    And the truth shall set you free.

Government control and brainwashing begins early and in your own home.

There is a lot of talk about making the bathrooms at the schools co-ed now. The students here don't seem to mind at all. So another WIN for public education and tolerance!! yay.

There is a lot of talk about making the bathrooms at public schools co-ed now.  The students in this pilot program don’t seem to mind at all.  So another WIN for public education and tolerance!! yay.  Schools are  such a great place to create social change.   

Is homework legal?  Obviously most people think that only an “idiot” asks a question like “is homework legal?”. So I guess, ipso facto, I must be an idiot to most people. And I’m pretty sure that’s actually a compliment. In all seriousness, if you just take a moment, I think you will see that it is absurd for the public to accept the idea that a government agent (the teacher) has an arbitrary undefined power to require you and/or your child to obey their orders in your own home any night without notice for whatever they care to dream up.  Not only is that concept outrageous, it is scary to realize that people accept it without any question.  

First, just for the sake of argument, I will assume that the compulsory “education” laws are enforceable. And that is no small concession since I don’t see how in the world the state has any such legitimate authority to engage in something like that. Nor do I see how any sane person would ever entrust an entity as totally corrupt as the state with something as easily abused and as critical as the proper education of the citizens. But I will, to simplify things, concede it for this post.

To begin we need to understand that under the “compulsory schooling” laws, the number of days is set, the schedule is set and the school day ends at a set time. It is all state action. STATE action. The state is not entitled to arbitrarily “require” that you or your child appear at school.  They have to set a schedule, give you notice and the schedule has to be the same for EVERYONE.  They can’t make YOUR schedule or your child’s schedule different than some other kids for some arbitrary reason.  Do you see that? That is a very important thing to understand.  The state can’t just do whatever it wants.

Now that we have the framework, let’s look at what homework actually IS.

It's not what you think. They aren't free to go, it's called work release. Like when you get homework. You know?

Free to go? lol, I don’t think so.  It’s called work release.  You know, like homework.  Sure you’re outside the walls, but you still have to keep doing what they say.

Homework is an alleged claim by the state on your kids’ time and therefore their life. It requires that your kids stay under the control and direction of the state when they return home. It requires that they continue to do the “work” the state tells them to do. It requires that they continue to think about what the State tells them to think about.

Next, homework is an alleged claim by the state on YOUR time and your property as well. You often have to buy supplies, or drive them somewhere, or check it or oversee it, or track it. Think about how many last minute “projects” you find out about where you have to go to DefCon 3 at 8pm just to get the thing done by midnight. When did you agree that the state was allowed to intrude into your schedule like this to whatever extent they care to?

Next, these arbitrary state assignments called homework DOMINATE MANY EVENINGS and CREATE dissension between you and your family. Most people end up in a lot of arguments with both their kids and their spouses about homework and how to handle it. How in the world is the state permitted to intrude like this into your home life without your consent?

Further, homework prevents you from being able to do what YOU WANT WITH YOUR OWN CHILDREN IN YOUR OWN HOME! Because your children have to spend hours completing the assignments they got from their state agents first, otherwise it may be too late, or they might be too tired and then they will be in trouble with the STATE.

Homework varies from class to class, school to school, area to area, and teacher (i.e. state agent) to teacher. It is arbitrarily assigned by teachers you never agreed to in subjects you have no control over, using textbooks you have not consented to, in order to pass tests you have not approved, and somehow the state claims it has the power to impose all of this on you and you don’t even have a legal right to file objections and get a hearing? I don’t think so. Criminal defendants have more rights. It is absurd.

I know, I thought the same thing. I mean these homework assignments don't seem to have much to do with the classes anymore.

My math teacher is a tyrant!  “Okay, I will, but I don’t see how this helps me learn algebra.  These homework assignments seem to be getting farther and farther from the text book material.”

When did the people give the state this incredible sweeping power? Where is the law that sets this power out? When was it voted on? What are the limits if any of this supposed “power” by state agents over your children and you?

NOBODY HAS EVER AGREED TO THIS ARRANGEMENT. That alone should be enough to show you what a farce the whole thing is from a “legal” point of view in what you are told is a “democracy”.

As a constitutional matter, the 5th amendment says there can be no taking of your life or property without due process and paying you a fair value. And what could be a more fundamental ESSENTIAL of true freedom than your time? Because what is your time? It IS YOUR LIFE. Same for your kids. Whenever the STATE takes your time and makes a demand on you they are taking part of your life.

You may think, c’mon 5th amendment problem with homework? This guy’s a f’ing moron. Okay, well, can the clerk at the DMV arbitrarily decide to issue homework to YOU in order for you to keep your driver’s license? Why not? What’s the difference? We “have to be safe you know”, and he doesn’t think you are a “safe enough” driver. Do you see?  There is NO DIFFERENCE. So how does an arbitrary 40 hours a week of homework sound to keep your drivers license while I get none?  Give them any lip about it and they might make it 100.  lol What is the legal difference between that clerk’s “right” to demand an hour of your time or 100 hours and any other state agent’s “right” to arbitrarily make demands on your time or your kid’s time? None. That’s what.

And if you still don’t see the problem with homework let me ask you a few quick questions. 

Could a teacher arbitrarily extend her class for 2 hours? NO. Could a teacher arbitrarily extend it for even 15 minutes? NO.  They couldn’t.  Could the school day at just your school be “extended” by an hour arbitrarily? NO.  Could it be extended for just a portion of the students for an extra hour? NO.  Could the school or a teacher decide that the holiday weekend would be reduced by 6 hours of additional school on Saturday? NO. Could a teacher “require” that you come to the school at 6pm that night to “oversee” some project that the students were going to have to do? NO.

Bad news man, one of the guards on Cell block 6 just extended your sentence by 3 years. Hold it, WTF? Can a guard just do that? Sure he can. He just did. lol.

Bad news Legalman, one of the guards on Cell block 6 doesn’t much like what you have to say about state empLOYEEEES  on that piece of Sh*t website of yours, so he just extended your sentence by 3 years. LOL.  Maybe you can do a post about THAT!  have fun you jerk.  (Now do you see what homework is? A guard can no more arbitrarily extend a sentence than a teacher can extend its class.)

But Homework is the exact same thing as extending the class or the school day.  You just don’t notice it because you are habituated to the idea.   You would be outraged if the school just “announced” any of the things I just asked, but you ACCEPT homework as “normal”.  Do you now see that the STATE through its agents cannot arbitrarily just create requirements out of the blue.  THAT IS NOT LEGAL. It is outrageous.

Do you see how absurd the entire idea is that the state can issue Homework without YOUR PERMISSION when you step back and look at it? Surely something this intrusive is subject to the most severe “due process” protections and scrutiny, AT A MINIMUM!  You have to get notice of the school schedule.

But homework is not subject to any scrutiny at all from a legal point of view. NONE. In fact it isn’t even authorized in some specific law describing the parameters of its issuance.

Quite simply, the state, through its agents (teachers) purports to have the authority  to “extend” the school day or their class at anytime and in any amount that they arbitrarily decide to, with no notice, no right to complain etc. etc.  It is preposterous!

Are you starting to see the SERIOUS problem with homework? The principle of it is in complete opposition with FREEDOM and the requirements for state action. Further, what’s the point of “having” to give your children up all day to the state for schooling if they are just going to demand they continue to work at home to whatever extent they care? Would you agree to a school day that went until 830 every night?  How about 10pm?  NO? Well that is what HOMEWORK DOES to many kids.  It is absurd. None of it makes any sense.

Well can you just “not participate”? No, you can’t. There is no way to escape these absurd and arbitrary “obligations” the state imposes on you and your kid.  Here’s how the scam works.

They ‘require” your children attend school and “follow the rules”. Doing their homework of course is a part of following the “rules”. They must comply, otherwise they will fail, and then what? They are screwed, that’s what. Because the state sets all sorts of “standards” and requirements to be “licensed” or certified or accredited and that requires compliance with THEIR schooling requirements. Plus it controls colleges through grants and loans and more “requirements”. Which in turn control whether you are free to engage in all sorts of professions and jobs. Are you starting to see the picture yet? It is an endless web of CONTROL from cradle to grave. Any idea that you are “free” in such a system requires a serious re-defining of the word free.

Now THAT is the only real lesson they want you to learn.

Oh, so that’s what common core math is all about.  Now it makes sense.  I was really confused before.

If your kids are not “attending” school or are not complying with the requirements of the school, then they will send CPS to check it out. That’s right, they send state agents to your house and demand you explain what you are doing with your own children. They demand you submit to an investigation and interview. IF you refuse, well, I hope you like prison.

Ultimately, if you persist in your refusal or resistance, in all likelihood CPS WILL TAKE YOUR CHILDREN AWAY FROM YOU.  THAT is what homework actually is when you boil it down. The total control by the state of you and YOUR child in YOUR HOME.

And still, the people just take all of this. They act like it is somehow essential to “learning”. Oh it is about “learning” alright, LEARNING to obey authority without question.

Yet still the brainwashed drones run around talking about how free they are. And they have rallies and hold meetings about how to “fix” the problems with public education. My god they don’t even see that the problem IS state sponsored indoctrination masquerading as “education”. What do they think the answer is to fix it? More state agents getting paid more tax money. lol Is it any wonder that those running this whole show have such contempt for the masses?

I seriously doubt that you ever considered homework in the light I just explained. And do you know why you have never thought about it like that? Because the state deeply embedded a “compliance response” into you and everyone else in the culture, starting with your own “school” experience.

So now you just “react” when given an “assignment” by “authority”. You might complain about the amount, or the timing, etc. BUT YOU NEVER QUESTION THE STATE’S AUTHORITY TO DO IT IN THE FIRST PLACE!! And THAT is what they want and Homework is one of the means of achieving it. Compliant people who just do what they are told. Like children.

FREE MEN AND WOMEN question the authority of someone who purports to give them ORDERS! Slaves just mumble under their breath and COMPLY.

Creating “people” who reflexively comply with authority is the MAIN PURPOSE OF SCHOOL. And THAT is why it is “mandatory”. HOMEWORK is a critical piece of that system because it controls you and your children subtly in your own home.

I complained a lot in school about the rules. Here I am stuck in detention. They said it was for my own good. That I needed to learn to get along and follow the rules.

Here’s an old pic of me in detention. They said that I was being  disrespectful when I asked who defined what a “good citizen” was.   Wow I look so much younger in that picture.

State sponsored and controlled school has NOTHING to do with helping you or your children. It is THE OPPOSITE OF HELP. Ring a bell, change classes. Sit down, be quiet, repeat after me, learn what I tell you to learn… and on and on. Wake up. The state is not your friend it is your master.

Do you now see what an OUTRAGE homework is? HOW DARE THE STATE INTRUDE IN SUCH A MANNER INTO YOUR HOME AND YOUR CHILD’S LIFE.

Look, educating your children is one of the most important things anyone can ever do. But state sponsored schooling is the opposite of education. It has NOTHING to do with actually educating your child.

Beyond just a system to create a reflexive compliance reaction into the people, the “educational system” also provides those in charge with a handy way to filter the population to find those people who are able to quickly and easily memorize and spew back whatever nonsense the government “decides” is “required” and who are really good at TAKING ORDERS WITHOUT QUESTION.  Of course the “public education system” is also an excellent vehicle to create “social change”, think coed bathrooms, gender studies, laughable “economic theories”, how great government is, eco nonsense, anti-religious propaganda, and on and on. Yet still the people take it and ask for more.

And I want to remind you that I didn’t even get into the details of what a f’ing JOKE the classes are in which the kids even have homework! The schooling doesn’t teach anything but politically correct nonsense and lies. The “mandatory tests” are a joke. The scores and results keep declining. Now there is common core. They don’t teach math, or rhetoric or logic, or real history or how to write a complex sentence or on and on. And on top of the useless nature of the underlying “courses” for which the homework is assigned, the homework itself is basically busy work that wastes their time and makes them associate “learning” with misery. Think how beneficial that is to the STATE who wants to control a bunch of drones.

See there you learned something already! Now let's start putting that into practice Johnny. Sit down and take notes.

See there you learned something already! Now let’s start putting that into practice right away  Johnny. Sit down, be quiet and write down everything I say.  It will all be on the test.

Most people have never and will never see the realities I have just discussed. They will never think about homework as anything except something that they “have to do” or their kids “have to do” in order to “be a good citizen” and to “get ahead”. Most people are so truly lost in the maze.

It is sad to me. They will live their entire lives inside the laughably blatant control system they were born into Yet never see it. And by doing so they doom their own kids to the same fate. And YET they get angry with me if I try and show them the truth.

The only reason I even bother to write at all anymore is that I like to have a record FOR MYSELF just to be sure I wasn’t crazy. And maybe, just maybe, some people may see the truth. Because this much I know. Once you have seen the truth, you can never UNsee it.

So to come full circle, I ask, is Homework legal?

No, it is illegal. It is so absurdly illegal it is amazing that anyone complies with it all. I find it quite telling that nobody sees the actual nature of what homework even is.  That inability to see it for what it is, shows just how far down the road the “people” are and how truly lost in the brainwashing they have become. It is sad that they have been reduced to this. Sad.

Never forget, when the state tells you to do something it is seeking to control you. Period. So always question where the state gets the right to tell you to do anything. Including homework.

Reasonable but firm. That is what free people are.

Payback is such a great movie.  Porter certainly was no slave.  “It’s not $140,000.00 it is $70,000.00. You people are not listening.”  Reasonable but firm. That is what free people are.

Remember, Free men don’t take orders. They reach agreements. Slaves take orders.

So here’s a little homework for you should you choose to accept it. Teach your kids about what homework really is and why the state requires it. It will be one of the most important lessons you can ever teach them.

I’m done for today. I have to help someone with their homework, lol.  Take care my brainwashed Brethren we have to stick together. I hope you learned something. Live in the light and tell someone the truth about the law.

And the truth shall set you free.

And the truth shall set you free.

Slavery TO THE STATE is alive and well, despite the 13th amendment.

I had a professor in law school who wasted untold time because he took the Socratic method to a "whole nother level". always calling me with ridiculous questions out of the blue.

I had a professor in law school who took the Socratic method to a “whole nother level”.  He was always calling me with ridiculous questions at inconvenient times.  But hey, if you want the grade you have to play the game.

Millions upon millions of men over the years have literally been forced to “serve” the machinations of those controlling this country.  100,000’s of them have been killed and many more maimed or permanently damaged.  Think about that.  That is a big deal.  The power to conscript a citizen into service is the power to enslave that person.  How in the world is this consistent with the notion of a “free country” and of Liberty? 

And if you’re thinking, we don’t have a draft and they would “never use it again”, then please tell me why we STILL have mandatory selective service registration for men when they turn 18?    Do you think that is an oversight? an accident? If so, then all I can say to you is good luck my friend, you are truly lost in the maze.

So exactly where in the constitution does the federal government get this incredible power to turn you into the personal slave of the power structure and to order you to either kill or be killed?  Nowhere, that’s where. They made it up like most everything else they claim to have the power to do.

Let’s get one thing straight up front.  The idea of the feds being able to draft you was not something that was contemplated at the time of the constitution.  It was NOT even debated when forming the constitution. The issue that was debated was whether the federal government would even be given the power to keep and raise an army AT ALL during PEACE TIME. Read anything you want, federalist papers, anti-federalist papers, writings by any of the holy founders. The issue was, should the feds have the power, the very dangerous power, to keep a “standing army”? Even just getting that power put into the constitution was not easy.

NOW THINK, HOW FAR AWAY THE IDEA OF KEEPING A PEACE TIME ARMY IS FROM WHETHER THE FEDS HAVE THE RIGHT TO DRAFT YOU?

The compromise reached to even get the power to keep a peace time army was that they couldn’t pass financing for more than 2 years. Here’s the language. Congress shall have the power:

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years

Nothing about the language, “ to raise and support”, means a right to draft the citizens. The army can be “raised and supported” just like it is today, by volunteers. Period. No more analysis needed. There is no draft power. Thank you and goodnight. Don’t forget to tip your servers.

 I had no idea we weren't allowed to personalize our uniforms. I thought that he would be excited about my "pledge pin" . I thought it was extra "flare".

Hey, say it don’t spray it.  It’s my bad… I had no idea we weren’t allowed to personalize our uniforms with “pledge pins” . I thought it would be a good thing to add some more “flair” to my uniform.

The “power” to draft was well known and existed in many state constitutions. So if they intended to give the feds the power, then why wasn’t language permitting congress to draft people INCLUDED in the constitution? Why wasn’t it debated? What was the point of continuing to discuss “militias” in the constitution if all this power was going to the feds from the mere word “raise”?  The reason there are no satisfactory answers to those questions, is because the constitution does no grant the feds the power.  And thus, those types of questions are not allowed to be asked in public.  Understand?

We all remember our basic history. During the time of the constitution, the militia was the MAIN SOURCE of manpower. And guess what, the constitution quite clearly delineates the control and financing etc of the militias. The powers were divided between the feds and the states. But once again it doesn’t say anything about the power to draft being transferred or shared by the feds!

It is a BASIC rule of contract interpretation that if the TERM is left out, then it was left out for a REASON.

The men of each state were all part of the militia OF THAT STATE. When the feds needed an “army” they would have their small professional army, and they could call upon the states to produce additional men from their militias to swell the army’s ranks if need be. If a state needed to draft men to meet its quota, well, each state had that power. That is how the army was to be RAISED.

There is simply ZERO evidence that the word “raised” granted the feds the unlimited authority to draft the citizens for whatever military venture it cared to, that is absurd.

The federal gov is a government of LIMITED powers. It MUST find a constitutional grant for every power it exercises IN the constitution.  And the 9th and 10 amendments EMPHASIZE that the powers that are not granted are retained by the states and the people!!

The army of course has a long and glorious history of many great leaders. Here the famous Sargent Morgan O'Rourke demonstrates the proper way to take cover from the savages who questioned our great country's LEGAL RIGHT to take their lands.

The army has a long and glorious history with many great leaders. Here the highly decorated Sargent Morgan O’Rourke from “F-Troop” is shown defending our “country” from the savages who questioned our  LEGAL RIGHT to take their lands.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. (9th amendment)

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. (10th amendment)

Certainly granting a power as great as the draft, which can cost you your LIFE and which was already a STATE power would be very clearly spelled out as a grant of authority to the feds. But it is not in there. So it really couldn’t have been made any clearer. The feds don’t have it.  Despite what “experts” and “scholars” would have you believe. This is ALL there is to constitutional analysis in a case like this.

But there is so much more. What about the 5th amendment? It says that NO PERSON SHALL BE:  deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

So they have to pay you “just compensation” for your property, but they can take your life for whatever reason they care and for whatever pay scale they decide to set? I don’t think so.

And what about the 14th amendment’s supposed protection of “equal rights”? The only people drafted are men of a certain age. Gender and age are both “protected classes” subject to 14th amendment. So are disabilities. If there is a “draft” it must apply to EVERYONE EQUALLY, not just men of a certain age.

And don’t forget that once you’re in the military all sorts of your rights are limited. You are also subject to what is called the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It is NOT the same as civilian justice. YOU DON’T GET YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS under it. They GIVE you whatever you get.

So they claim they can draft you in and then subject you to whatever “crimes” they care to put on the books in the military, which you have ZERO input into as a voter, and then impose them on you under whatever rules they care to put into a code of “rights”? How does this pass constitutional “muster”?

Further, the military has all sorts of criminal laws that say you can’t criticize “your commander”, i.e. the president. So they can draft you in and then you are not allowed to complain about the government itself? You lose your right to basic political speech? Think of how absurd this situation is.

Our new and improved 14th amendment "equal protection" draftees shown here training for urban warfare in the Jade Helm 15 exercise. Remember, if they can marry, they can CARRY baby! USA USA USA!! long live freedom..

Our new and improved 14th amendment “equal protection” draftees are shown here training for urban warfare in the Jade Helm 15 exercise. Remember, if they can marry, they can CARRY baby! USA USA USA!! long live freedom.

And I didn’t even mention the 13th amendment which says you cannot be held to involuntary servitude unless convicted of a crime. But what is forced conscription to “serve” if not that?

These are just some quick off the cuff constitutional problems with the whole concept. God knows what I could find if I really LOOKED. But the problems aren’t just limited to clear constitutional issues. There are so so many more issues that must be answered. Here are a few.

1. Can they draft me in for a term of 5 years? How about 10? How about 25? If not, where does it say they can’t since it doesn’t say anything about it at all?

2. What do they have to pay me? Do they have to pay me at all? Could they pay me 1 dollar? If not why not? Where does it say they can’t?

3. Can they send me overseas to fight?

4. Can they draft me during peace time?

5. What prevents them from drafting me to do a civilian job while “serving” in the military?

ON and ON the questions go without answer.

If the constitution actually authorized a draft, then it would have addressed at least SOME of the issues I just raised. The issues would have been DEBATED as well. But it doesn’t address them and they weren’t debated because the constitution doesn’t AUTHORIZE a draft.

So the question arises,

WHAT HAS THE SUPREME COURT SAID ABOUT WHERE THE RIGHT TO DRAFT CAN BE FOUND IN THE CONSTITUTION?

Well, there is a case right on point, Arver v. U.S., from 1918.  Right at the end of that big banker war of murder on a mass scale.  The court’s opinion is typical double speak. The upshot, governments all over the world and throughout time have regularly done it, therefore it is a “basic right of government”, a “fundamental power” so to speak.  But that reasoning turns the issue on its head because the federal government is a limited government of express powers, not a general government with inherent powers.  So it is NOT entitled to such a “inherent power” argument.  Do you see? Unless you’re paying VERY close attention, the court’s “reasoning” sounds sophisticated and impressive.  But it is just garbage.  Utter garbage. Let me show you. 

Here is how the court sets out the basic question.  

People constantly ask me what we can do to fix the problems I talk about. So I went ahead and penciled out a list. off the top of my head this weekend. You're welcome.

People constantly ask me what we can do to fix the problems I talk about. So I went ahead and penciled out a list off the top of my head this weekend. You’re welcome.

It is argued, [that]… compelled military service is repugnant to a free government and in conflict with all the great guarantees of the Constitution as to individual liberty, it must be assumed that the authority to raise armies was intended to be limited to the right to call an army into existence counting alone upon the willingness of the citizen to do his duty in time of public need, that is, in time of war.

So there is no question that the key issue was decided. And here is how they deal with it.

But the premise of this proposition is so devoid of foundation that it leaves not even a shadow of ground upon which to base the conclusion. It may not be doubted that the very conception of a just government and its duty to the citizen includes the reciprocal obligation of the citizen to render military service in case of need, and the right to compel it. To do more than state the proposition is absolutely unnecessary in view of the practical illustration afforded by the almost universal legislation to that effect now in force.

See how they basically assume there is such a “power” in any “just government”?  That is the OPPOSITE of what the actual analysis is supposed to be.  This should be insulting to any thinking person. And why can’t that issue be doubted? I doubt it. And what duty? What “just” government? Their “reasoning” begs the WHOLE QUESTION. Do you see how none of this is constitutional argument. It isn’t even an attempt at an actual argumentAnd remember, their “support” in the form of what other governments may do is IRRELEVANT to determining what the constitution permits!! You have to be able to point to a provision in the constitution that grants the authority, not show me a list of other despots and tyrants and criminal enterprises who engage in the conduct!

Could there be a more important power that needs to be expressly spelled out than the power to draft someone into a situation where they might have to kill or be killed? Of course not. But there is NOTHING in the constitution giving that power to the feds. It is just read in by the court. The court is a DISGRACE to the entire concept of justice.

The country is transfixed as an anxious citizen awaits the supreme court's decision on her case. Monty is about to tell her whether she will be getting the justice she has been hoping for, or whether she should have just kept what "Jay had in the box".

The country is transfixed as an anxious citizen awaits the supreme court’s decision on her case. Monty is about to tell her whether she will be getting the justice she has been hoping for, or whether she should have just kept what “Jay had in the box”.

I want you to understand something very important now. The concept is a bit subtle, so think about it. By finding that the draft is “authorized” by language that does not even mention the draft, the court has found a power that has NO constitutional limits because it has no constitutional basis. Do you see how that works? Since there is nothing we can look to in the constitution to understand the scope of the “power”, the power has no definable constitutional limits. Does that sound like something the people agreed to without any debate? Of course not. It is absurd.

I tell you all the time, if the powers that be want something and it isn’t in the constitution they read it in. If something is in there that prevents something they want, then they read that part out. Simple as that. The constitution is dangerous to your freedom because you imagine it protects you when in fact it does the opposite.  Let’s continue with the case.

To further “support” its holding the court also makes a big deal about the fact that the feds had created or attempted to create a draft in the past. So? If proposing or passing a law is evidence that the law is constitutional, then what the heck do we need a supreme court for? This type of “analysis” cannot even be called reasoning!! It makes absolutely NO SENSE. It sounds like something my ex girlfriend might say to try and make me do something. lol

I have pretty much given up dating judges. Just not worth it.

I was trying to explain to my friend why I just had to give up dating judges entirely.  Too complicated. 

The simple fact is the entire opinion is a just a convoluted way of “justifying” their predetermined outcome. Nothing more. What people don’t understand is that the purpose of the SUPREME COURT is to run this type of cover and to “legitimize” the violations of their buddies and the executive and legislative branches. That is what they DO. It isn’t the nonsense you are taught in government indoctrination centers about “guarding your rights”. People in power laugh at you for believing that.

Now I’m not going to go through the whole opinion, the article is already long by necessity. But let me give you just a little more flavor and you will see what the reality is of this opinion. Here is how they dealt with the very problematic first amendment violations.

And we pass without anything but statement the proposition that an establishment of a religion or an interference with the free exercise thereof repugnant to the First Amendment resulted from the exemption clauses of the act to which we at the outset referred, because we think its unsoundness is too apparent to require us to do more.

Just swept them away. NO analysis at ALL! Do you understand why I literally LAUGH at people who try and tell me about the great freedoms in this country. Or how we need to “get back to the constitution”. This is the FACE of the constitution. It is a TYRANNY.

And I have saved the best for last. Here is the holy court’s reasoning about why the 13th amendment’s “involuntary servitude” provision is not violated.

Finally, as we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation, as the result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people, can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that effect is refuted by its mere statement.

Please take a moment to read that last quote again. Think about the utter CONTEMPT for their supposed obligation to protect your rights that the court has in order to write something like that.

That type of reasoning is the reality of what the supreme court actually IS and DOES. And because nobody can CHALLENGE it, all of this transparent BULLS**T magically “becomes settled law”. And “scholars” and “courts” and law professors all quote it as though it IS what the constitution SAYS! Do you see how it actually works now? That is the system.

Ahh, "Be all you can be" baby. Army strong. Oh, wait, is this the army? Sure it is, you just have to get your mind right. Ahh, "Be all you can be" baby. Army strong. Oh, wait, is this the army or a chain gang? Frankly... it all depends on your perspective... you just have to get your mind right in order to see it.

Ahh, “Be all you can be” baby. Army strong. Oh, wait, is this the army or a chain gang? Frankly… it all depends on your perspective… you just have to get your mind right in order to see it.

My friend, it is simple. If this really was a government “of by and for” the people, then what in the world could ever be a better TEST of whether the PEOPLE think that a war is worth fighting than whether the people are willing to volunteer to go fight? Nothing. It is the ultimate ongoing REAL TIME plebiscite.

If the people don’t care to voluntarily go fight to “defend” the government or whatever the government claims needs to be “defended” well, then the people HAVE SPOKEN.

You cannot have a free country and at the same time have a government that claims to have the right to force its own people to fight, especially when the people never GAVE the government that power. The government has NO right to survive or to force people to fight.  To insist otherwise turns the entire idea of freedom and a government based on the consent of the people on its head.  BUT THAT, my friend, is the reality of the country you live in.

The government is not your servant it is your master. A master who can send you to your death whenever it cares to do so. That is what this country actually is.  As long as the people continue to imagine that the constitution somehow protects them, well, the people will continue to get whatever those in power care to stuff down their throats.

I hope I have been able to show you how the constitutional STRUCTURE of the federal government works to enslave you. This case is not an accident or a “one off”, or bungling. It is an insight into what THE SYSTEM IS DESIGNED TO DO.

I am done for today. I honestly can’t stand to keep thinking about those brainwashed fools running around talking about our freedom and the supreme court and our “rights” and getting back to the constitution and on and on. Anyone who reads this and continues to cling to those ideas is either blind or in on the scam. One or the other.

Take care my brainwashed Brethren, live in the light, and tell someone the truth about the law.

Oh, and do me a favor and take a second to hit the darned “like” button and share it with someone.  We have to play the game by the rules they have set up if we want to get the info out there. Thanks,

And the truth shall set you free.

And the truth shall set you free.

The “holy” Thomas Jefferson cheated his way to the presidency. It’s that simple.

I like to be somewhat inconspicuous when I travel. I know the fanny pack looks kind gay, but it really is so practical.

I like to be somewhat inconspicuous when I travel overseas. I hate to make people feel bad for not having all of our freedoms.  I know the fanny pack looks kind of gay, but it really is so practical.

Okay, I have two quick questions for you about the holy presidential election process.

1. Exactly how are the members of the electoral college chosen in your state?
2. Are those members bound by law to vote in any certain way and if so how?

I seriously doubt you got the answers right. Don’t feel bad, I doubt one person in a couple hundred could answer them correctly. You should get almost full credit just for continuing to read on after seeing the term “electoral college”. At that point, most people just go back to updating their Facebook. But look at how unbelievably BASIC those questions are.

My point is simple, people don’t know the most basic things about how their rulers even CLAIM to come to power, so it shouldn’t be any big surprise to find out that they don’t understand what their government ACTUALLY IS OR DOES. Much less anything about its history or the documents that CONTROL THEM. It is all by design my fellow inmate.

The 2016 show for President has begun. Most people have been reflexively conditioned to imagine that the presidential election in our freedom machine is a popularity contest that the people control. It has become a gigantic and expensive show. A huge distraction orchestrated for many different purposes. None of which have anything to do with what you think.  Here’s the reality.

My dog was sitting with me while I wrote this.  Even he was surprised.  I guess animals really do understand a lot more than we give them credit for.

Even my dog was was surprised about the whole voting thing. I guess animals really do understand a lot more than we give them credit for.

YOU DO NOT HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO VOTE FOR THE PRESIDENT. That is an undeniable fact.

Might your State allow you to vote? Sure. Might it not? sure.  Might it bind the “electors” to the outcome of the vote? sure, Might it not? sure.  If you want to understand this issue a bit more go read what I already wrote on it. There are links there as well.

I am not going to go into detail here but I will give you the basics.  The most important thing to understand is that if your state decided not to allow its citizens to VOTE for the president, you would have ZERO constitutional basis to complain. NONE.  Here is precisely what the adhesion contract says about the process.

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:

“Each state shall appoint in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct”, that is IT.  There is nothing to prevent your state from “directing” that the “appointing” of their electors shall be by lottery, or by whoever gave the largest donation to the governors re-election campaign. Nothing.

Well what about HOW the electoral college members have to vote once appointed? Surely that is where all the democracyness comes in for “your vote”. No my friend. Here is what the holy constitution’s holy 12th amendment says about that.

The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves….

In a nod to a changing world, and an attempt to be inclusive, the Furry community is now well represented in the California Electoral college.

In a nod to a changing world, and an attempt to be inclusive, the Furry community is now well represented in the California Electoral college.

There is no there there for YOU. They can choose to vote for whoever they want and for any reason they want! It was ALL left to the States to control EACH STATE’S OWN PROCESS of appointment and voting.

This is not a bad thing in a republic. The STATES would have the power to control the Senate and the President. The house of reps was designed to represent the people from each state.

Does all of this surprise you? Of course it does, because you have lived in a matrix of government lies your whole life just like everyone else.

Now that you have some essentials we can talk about what I really want to today. The preposterous Keystone Cops show that was the “election of 1800”.  Wake up… did you just doze off when I said “election of 1800”? Lol.

Trust me, this topic is quite entertaining and quite enlightening on both the process of the election of the president AND the disconnect between the myth we are taught about the founders and the reality.

The election of 1800 was between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Two of the big founding fathers. Demi-gods we all learn about in government internment camps as kids.
What went on in this election made the Al Gore hanging chads of 2000 look like a well oiled machine. And this election in 1800 exposed the real nature of one of our holiest of holies, Thomas Jefferson. And that is why I want to tell you about it. I am trying to get you out of the mental fog people experience when they “think” about our founders.

Here's an old law school shot of mine. I use to really be into the whole founding fathers fetish scene.

Here’s an old law school shot of mine. I use to really be into the whole founding fathers fetish scene. You’d be surprised how many hot chicks get into that.

Background. The election was extremely hotly contested. So much so that 4 different states, Georgia, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania, actually changed their laws and eliminated the popular vote for president leading up to the election in order to try and be sure they got the man they wanted. FOUR different states got rid of the popular election. Think about that. Imagine what would happen today if only ONE STATE did that?

Surely you now see that you don’t have a right to vote for the president.

But there was so much more to this show. It would take 70 electoral votes to win. Each elector who was casting a vote, was empowered to vote for 2 people. So that would be the equivalent of voting Obama and Biden. Got it so far?

Several states got together and agreed to vote so that Jefferson would win. Now THINK about that! Imagine something like that occurring today. California and New York representatives getting together, changing their entire “appointment” process, taking away the popular election and then working a deal to vote for Romney! This is the equivalent of what was going on then. Okay lets keep going.

With this plan in place Jefferson should have won outright with 73 votes. His VP Burr, should have gotten 72 votes and that would have done it. How? Because the plan called for one of the electors to abstain on one vote, so that would leave Jefferson with 73 and Burr with 72. But believe it or not, one of the electors screwed up and voted the wrong way!

Think about what a joke this is. They have one thing to do and they can’t even get that right? As a result of this screw up the whole election goes to the House of Reps to make the decision.

That’s right. There is no run off in this situation. And you don’t win with a plurality. You have to get a majority. But the way the holy constitution is written IF Jefferson and Burr had not gotten at least 70 votes, THEN the House of Reps vote would have been between all 5 people who had gotten votes.

Are you following? Because they got 73 votes, instead of 69, the House had to choose between Jefferson and Burr (Jefferson’s VP choice) for president. This is important — remember it. Because if Jefferson had only gotten 69 votes, THEN the House would have gotten to choose between Jefferson and his OPPONENT ADAMS.  Do you understand so far?

And here is why all of this matters.

The House of Reps, the body that was going to vote, was HEAVILY controlled by Jefferson’s opponent, Adam’s party, the Federalists. So if Jefferson had to go up against Adams in the House he would have lost. Just the same as if Obama had to face a heavily Republican house. He would lose to Romney. Got it?

The whole 2000 hanging chad loss really hit Al Gore hard.  I'm just glad he was able to bounce back and line his pockets with another scam.

The whole 2000 hanging chad loss really hit Al Gore hard. I’m just glad he was able to bounce back and line his pockets with another scam.

And this is where any semblance of adoration for our holy founding fathers will go out the window.

It turns out that Jefferson, who was the current VP and therefore in charge of the Senate was also therefore in charge of counting the certified votes from the states. But it turns out that the 4 Georgia votes had not been properly prepared by Georgia. So they did not constitutionally “qualify”. Those 4 votes for Jefferson and Burr SHOULD NEVER have been counted.  They were constitutionally defective!

But that didn’t stop him.  Jefferson improperly counted those four votes FOR HIMSELF and his running mate. That miscount enabled him and them to get to 73 instead of 69 votes. And THAT allowed him to avoid having to go against Adams in the House of Representatives, where he would have definitely LOST to Adams.

Do you see what just happened? He cheated his ass off to become president.

What kind of a man counts votes for himself FOR PRESIDENT that shouldn’t count, when holding THE official constitutionally set out office in charge of counting? Is this a high minded man of principle who only cares about the law and freedom and blah blah blah like we are told he was? Or is this a political creature using whatever tricks he can to become el Presidente?

And of course the Adams’ supporters in the Senate were laughably incompetent for not bothering to CHECK the count.  Just more evidence of Keystone coppery all around, but how does this mitigate Jefferson’s immoral conduct? it doesn’t.

Whatever the reason he did it, it certainly is NOT consistent with a man of great character who is some holy founding father to be fawned over.  It just isn’t. And believe me, I don’t LIKE his opponent ADAMS! He sucks too!  But my god, when you cheat the very nature of the constitutional system itself, what is left of any reputation for being a “man of principle” and “of the law”?  Nothing.

And just to tie this all up, did I mention it took 36 different votes in the House before he was “elected”? Yeah, that too.

So there you have a bit of our real history.  An insight into both the holy founders and the holy process of our great republic.  How different a view would you have of Jefferson, our founding AND THE COUNTRY ITSELF if you knew stuff like this?

… And that my friend, is why you don’t know any of this after leaving your government school.

What a sham the whole idea of a “presidential election” by the people is. What a hollow sham all those high minded words are from our “founders”. So many of them no more cared about those ideals when they got in the way of their own personal advancement than any common criminal cares about “the law”. Just like B.O. does not care one whit whether poor people get healthcare. He simply wants to grow government power and control with the ACA.

Those in charge today DON’T care about you. Those running for office today do not care about you. And they never have.

It's hard to tell sometimes whether what they are saying is real or bs.  The whole thing is one giant scam.

It’s hard to tell sometimes whether all the celebrity fawning over politicians is real or just manufactured P.R. bulls**t.  

There is no magical “time” of glory to “get back to”. Our holy founding is just a fairy tale fit for children. Not for grown men and women who want to be free.

The people need to understand that the founders were no different than Trent Lott or Michael Dukakis or George Bush or Barack Obama or even the nearly canonized “Ronald Reagan”. So long as people continue to romanticize our founding, the demagogues in politics and in the media will use that ignorance against us.

The presidential election show is not now nor has it ever been what you imagine. It is just a bunch of bs to control you so you voluntarily give those who run the show your money and power.

I actually laugh out loud sometimes when I see people on TV holding signs at a rally for some liar running for office. Drones — they’re not just unmanned aerial vehicles anymore — they live among us by the millions, they’re called neighbors.

Okay, I can’t take it anymore. I am done for today. Accept it for what it is or crawl back into your mommy’s arms and keep dreaming about “getting back to the constitution”. The facts speak for themselves. You have no right to vote for the President and the holy Thomas Jefferson cheated his way into the presidency. End of story. Such is life.

Take care my brainwashed Brethren, live in the light and tell someone the truth about the law.

Legalman IS the law.

Legalman IS the law.

 

The drones are so brainwashed they have no idea what a REAL LAW even is.

It's not gay, because it's the law.

Remember, Law and order is all about being a good American!

The “law and order crowd” does more to unwittingly enslave the people of this country than any other group. They seem to actually believe that anyone who doesn’t “follow the exact letter of the law” must not love “America” or respect our “freedoms”. Their belief “system” is so confused it boggles the mind. They truly are a living testament to the power of brainwashing. People don’t grasp how dangerous they are to real freedom.

For most people, a law is nothing more than something “passed” by the legislature and signed by the executive in some formal procedure. Most people don’t give any thought to what actually makes a law “legitimate”. And they certainly don’t understand the difference between positive law and natural law. Their thinking on the topic of “laws” ends once it meets the arbitrary procedural goal of “passing” and being “signed into law”. And that’s understandable.

This is probably above the intelligence level of most Americans, but I provide it for those who can understand it.

This helpful PSA  is probably above the intelligence level of most Americans, but you can see it is packed with helpful information.

We were all brainwashed as kids in government schools with a government mandated civics “curriculum” pushing a whole bunch of lies. And then we were subjected to cartoons and after school specials about how a “bill” becomes a “law”.

As a result a large group reach what they see as a logical conclusion. People imagine that the “country” has done all these things for them. Then they combine the brainwashing they had with regards to our “freedom” and how the government supposedly protects it and promotes it through its laws and conclude that “good citizens” “should support” whatever conduct the state has chosen to criminalize or “outlaw” in order to “maintain law and order” so long as it has gone through the “law making” procedure.

I met this chick at freedom rally. She was big into law and order. I did my best, but I just couldn't get through to her. So I just changed the subject and ended up sleeping with her.

I met this chick at a freedom rally. She was big into law and order and “getting back to the constitution”. I I tried to tell her about natural law, but I wasn’t getting through, so I just dropped it, told her I wanted to get something straight between us and took her back to my room.

And that is how the law and order crowd comes into existence. They conflate the freedom they are told exists with the country, and then they conflate the laws that pour out of the legislatures with a symbol of our system and thus our “freedoms”.

People never connect the dots that the education system they attended was fully controlled by the same government that desires to control the citizenry with its system of “laws”. And that the state made sure that the curriculum mis-taught or failed to teach anything that would have actually informed the citizens and impeded the game for those running the whole scam. Thus the law and order people don’t see that they are supporting the exact opposite of the freedom they think they are supporting.

They shouldn’t feel bad though, the difference between natural law and positive law is not even taught in law school. Or rather I should say, it is ESPECIALLY NOT taught in law school. The last thing those running the scam want is for lawyers and judges to actually understand that difference and to have decent well meaning people start questioning the fundamental legitimacy of the SYSTEM of positive law from within the system itself!

So let’s look at the difference now. Positive laws is the name for the arbitrary rules that “lawmakers” create with a “formal process”.  They are the silly bouncing ball graphic shown going from a committee to the floor to a vote to signing by the President.  You know, the stuff you learned about in after school specials DESIGNED FOR CHILDREN. lol

99.99% of all “laws” that you see and know are nothing but these “positive” laws. The term “positive law” derives from the fact that the law was “posited” or asserted as law by a person or a “body of men”, not because it is a “positive”. So right away those in control have made subtle use of the language to begin the deception.  But in reality they are just a made up thing. Just anything those crooks can get through their crooked system.

The natural law of cats is indisputable.

The reasoning is actually more sound than many of the arguments I have heard in favor or law and order.  And the subject is much more interesting to most people.

Natural laws are immutable rules that are the same everywhere for all time. Natural law is a science. Its rules are there to be discovered, not created arbitrarily in state houses. Natural laws either are or are not there. Just like the laws of chemistry or physics.

Natural laws are based in fundamental fairness. Everyone knows them and can discovery them in their own life because everyone WANTS the benefit of natural law justice when they are in a weaker negotiating position!

Violations of natural law are clear on their face. It is wrong to rob a man. It is wrong to slander a man. It is wrong to beat a man without just cause. It is wrong to fail to perform a deal under the terms agreed to. Do you see? It matters not what language you speak. It matters not what time or place you live in. The rules of conduct between people don’t change. Justice is justice.

Positive laws allow those with the power of government to OVERIDE natural law through force and coercion. The purpose of positive law is to apply a different standard to some protected person, group or activity. That is the ENTIRE PURPOSE of positive laws.

Think about it like this. Positive law was used to “legalize” slavery. Positive laws declare that the King or the “government” can own all the land and that they have the authority to “give” some huge tract of land to some favored person or to some railroad company. That is what positive law is and does.

Positive law is a great thing! depending on who you are.

More Good news for the positive law guys.  Remember, it’s the law, and we all have to follow the law. 

Remember the “fugitive slave act”? You know the “law” that required people to allow the state to return another person to some guy in another state if the slave managed to escape? Yes that law. THAT is what positive law looks like when it is boiled down to its basest form. Arbitrary and immoral.

Are you obligated to follow that kind of law? Well you are, inside the insane system of positive law. Is it moral to follow that law? Of course not. That is turning natural law on its head. Does following positive law support freedom? No, it supports coercion, the opposite of freedom.

And the SAME analysis applies to virtually ALL positive law. There are countless examples I could give you of made up “positive” non-laws and non-crimes that are passed and enforced. Vices, like smoking pot or paying for sex are not crimes because there is NO VICTIM complaining. They are no more crimes than watching too much t.v. or overeating is a “crime”.

Same goes for all sorts of “requirements” both civil and criminal for you to keep records and produce records to government agencies. The vast majority of “financial crimes” are made up nonsense designed to collect a tax, fix a price or draw attention away from the REAL crime of central private fractional reserve banking that steals from the people and that the government forces on us all through Positive laws!

Do you now see why you didn’t learn about the concept of positive versus natural law in your government schools? Lol

If ever the phrase, “they know not what they do” applied, it applies to the whole “law and order crowd”.

Why do you need consent when you've got the right to comment! This is what american freedom is all about!

Standard law and order guy doesn’t know he is actually exercising the only real political freedom he has.  And that the moderator is going to delete what he wrote.   

So how did we get in this sad state? Well it took time. Made up “positive” laws are the source of all political power. Politicians sell their favors to the highest bidders in the form of laws. And they create arbitrary crimes to spread fear and uncertainty in the people so that the people can be controlled and thus government abuse and power can expand, and thus their own power can expand. Get it? Thus Natural law is the enemy of all governments.

Natural law was understood by the people for a very long time. The peoples’ understanding of Natural law started to fade when the scam of “representative government” was created. You see, as long as there was a “monarch” it was clear that there was the king’s law, and then there was natural law, and EVERYONE knew the difference. One was whatever corrupt arbitrary practice the king chose to impose and the other was the law of RIGHT and WRONG.

With the rise of representative fakery as a form of “government”, the people have been slowly tricked into believing that the made up “positive” laws from the government have the same moral foundation as natural laws and thus that they are just as “legitimate” because the government claims to be “by the people”. Then with the advent of “public schooling” the entire concept of natural versus positive law was stripped out of the “curriculum” by the state. Add to that, the nonstop brainwashing from the media and pooooof. Now nobody has any idea.

The people now just think so long as Mr. Bill made his cartoon trip through the committees and the house and got votes there and was signed, well, then we have a law we all have to follow! Law and order you know. lol

Do you now see the close connection between the rise of “fake representation” government and state controlled education and the conflation of positive law with natural moral law? That connection is critical. When the monarch or dictator ruled his law was clearly arbitrary. When a group of crooks who claim to be elected with the consent of the people pass garbage, it is harder to see the game! Especially when you are taught lies in schools they run.

It's easy to under estimate people. The people could bite back.

People can surprise you.  Sure they may be easily manipulated, but they have a lot of power if they would just use it.

The entire pervasive “law and order” positive law mindset that they have embedded into the people and the police and the prosecutors and the judiciary is anathema to freedom! And that is why the state pushes so hard to confuse the people about what real law is. Because they don’t want you to ever focus on the fact that every reduction of freedom for the people through a positive law is a GAIN of power and control for the state. It is a simple formula.

Natural law is moral law. It is the law of right and wrong. It is the law of justice! So there is no need to “justify” it. But where does the moral obligation to follow positive laws come from?

Well that is where the whole thing falls apart for the state. And that is why this topic is never discussed.  Certainly not in government schools or the mainstream media.

The state and its apologists claim we are all somehow “bound” by some vague social contract. It is absurd.  Have you ever been presented with such a contract? Of course not. What are the terms? Are the terms negotiable? What happens if I decline? What if the government violates the terms? How is it enforced?  And on and on. The Social contract is just a con.  A scam.  It is a fantasy. It has no more reality than Klingon has as an actual language !

Let me ask you. Do you agree to the current system of governmental control?  I seriously doubt it.  Well, case closed then.  You have not agreed to the social contract upon which they claim their authority rests to tell you what to do with their positive laws.

Look, they already KNOW that the contract is a lie. They know that nothing supports their authority but force. Nothing.  They just hope you won’t figure it out.  And if you do, well… what can you do about it?  They have millions of law and order drones ready to help them. Who do you have?  lol. 

My friend, consent is the key to all conduct between people. If I coerce you when I have no RIGHT to coerce you, then my conduct is not moral. The entire “legal” system we operate under is an immoral system because there is no actual consent. That is the great secret they keep. That is the great lie upon which the entire edifice of “law and order” is built.

I did a little informal survey one night. I wasn't sure whether this guy was consenting or not. He fell back asleep before I could clarify his position.

I did a little informal survey one night. I wasn’t sure whether this guy was consenting or not. He fell back asleep before I could clarify his position.

I have showed you before that the supreme court itself has already ruled that you do not have any right to consent or not consent to the form of government. You MUST obey. Not because you have chosen to, but because they will come and arrest you if you don’t.  So again, case closed.  No consent.

The great con governments have pulled is distracting the people from looking into this issue of actual CONSENT that supports the government’s own actions. And here is where the law and order people are so confused. Whether THEY consent is not the issue. The issue is whether the people they seek to coerce and control have consented. Let me quickly show you.

Is it okay for 2 people to tell a third what to do just because they are stronger? No it is not. How about for 8 to tell 2? Of course not. Well is it okay for 1 to tell 2 or 4 others what to do because the one is stronger than the 2 or the 4? No of course not.

But is it okay for 3 people or 10 people or 100 people to all agree to live with whatever the majority decides? Yes it is.

Do you see the difference?

In one case the people agree that they may not get their way. But they agree to live with the result either way. The government must have THAT type of consent to be a government of consent! The government must have the VOLUNTARY consent of the people to live by whatever the group decides. If you don’t have that, then there is no ACTUAL consent, you have coercion.

So let me ask you. Do you think you can get unanimous consent to the form of our government?  How about to the idea that the “other guy” in the election gets to do whatever he wants? I don’t think so. How about 75% support for those ideas? I doubt it. Could you even get 50%? I doubt that as well.

So the people do not currently consent to the form of the government or to live by whatever the group decides, they are simply forced to do so. But nonetheless we are told that forcing a form of government on someone is the greatest tyranny. Nothing they tell us ever makes any sense with REALITY.

Telling the difference between a real law and a made up law is easy. It's this whole transgender thing that is actually confusing!

The confusion the “law and order” crowd suffers from is nothing compared to this whole transgender thing.  So Am I gay if I think she is hot?  

The confused “law and order” mentality the government has created in so many people MUST be broken so that JUSTICE can be brought back into the equation. The issue should always be JUSTICE, not compliance with arbitrary rules. Justice my friend. What you want and demand for yourself and your family and your friends. That is what everyone should get. Justice to the maximum extent.

Natural law is the science of justice. Natural law is a fascinating and complex topic that I have only just touched on. I hope you to look into it.

Okay, that’s all for now. I know I left a lot out. I have to out of necessity. It is already long. There is only so much that can be said at one time. I hope you at least learned something. Now go open the mind of a law and order drone to the concept of REAL Justice under natural law.

Take care my brainwashed Brethren. Live in the light and tell someone the truth about the law.

Legalman IS the law.

Legalman IS the law.

The First Amendment was dead on arrival.

A rare archival picture of Madison, the father of the constitution, shown here in a private moment.

A rare archival picture of Madison, the father of the constitution, shown here dressed casually in a private moment of reflection.

Americans are so proud of their supposed right to free speech and their holy first amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech

It sounds so great. So much freedomness. Of course our government never stops playing it up. And the media constantly reminds us how lucky we are and how indebted we are to our holy founding fathers’ selfless brilliance!

We are subtly indoctrinated with the idea that we should be proud to go fight and die for the politicians and the money power and to spend countless billions to avoid “losing our country” to “the enemy”. Always the concept is that we have to protect and defend what we “have” and our great traditions of freedom etc.  It really is just so much absurd propaganda aimed at the hapless and brainwashed masses they abuse and rule.

Think I am being too harsh? Well Look at this law passed in 1798. I highlighted it out so you can easily read just how outrageous it is. It is part of the Alien and Sedition acts of 1798 if you care to read the rest:

When you take the "constitution tour" in Philly, they let you use the same kind of pens our founders used when they were drafting all of our rights!

When you take the “constitution tour” in Philly, you get to see the Liberty bell and then they let you use the same kind of pens our founders used when they were drafting all of our rights!  It was all very exciting to be a part of history.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled,… That if any person shall write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or publishing, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute;… then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.

That law was passed just 9 years after the holy constitution was ratified. 9 years!  Passed by the federalists. The same party who sold us the constitution. The same party who told us all about the limits of the federal government.  The party of Madison.  Author of the “Federalist papers”, the supposed “father of the constitution”.  The man who told everyone how limited the government would be under the constitution when selling it.  A law Signed by John Adams the SECOND president. One of our holy founding fathers.

Look at that law!

How could anyone take an oath to uphold the constitution and then pass a law like that?!   What is the possible point of the oath or the first amendment if the second president is already jamming crap like this law through? Where is the protection? Where is the limited government?

Where is the honor of these men?

What does it take to wake people up and get them to stop romanticizing our founding and our holy constitution? It is and was a politically expedient document designed to seize as much power as those driving the bus at that time could sneak past the peopleI know people don’t want to accept the reality, but the constitution is just Obamacare from 240 years ago. It is sold as something is not.

I took a tour of the capital some years back and the guide was kind enough to show us the correct way to take an official oath. It was very exciting to see the way things really work.

I took a tour of the capital some years back.  I got a quick pic when the guide was kind enough to show us the correct way to take an official oath. It was almost like being an insider!  I’ve started using this system all the time. 

Now remember, that is a CRIMINAL law I just set out. They are going to put the citizens in prison for speaking out against their government! Think of the hypocrisy!  How absurd this is in light of what they tell us this country stands for?

That fine was a HUGE amount of money back in 1798. Most people made less than $500.00 per YEAR! So it is more than 4 years salary for an average person.

And the law criminalizes political speech! I thought political speech was the holy of the holies of what the 1st amendment stood for? My god the ink wasn’t even dry on the constitution when they were passing this law.

How many people have signed up to fight and die thinking they were going to protect this very “right”? Do you see how “important” that right actually was to our founders as soon as that “right” got in the way of their political ambitions?

What a total con the history is they teach us.  They act like this law was some minor thing in government history books. They brush it aside. Minimize it. Mis-teach the little they do teach of it. Of course they do. Look what it reveals about our “founding”.

How would you like to be caught up in a law like this? Do you have the money and time to “take it to the supreme court”? Do you have the money to fight laws like this today? Like the unconstitutional Patriot act? Or the civil forfeiture scams they run, or drug laws or anything else? No, you do not have the money to fight these unconstitutional laws.  Almost nobody does.  And remember even if you do win you still have to pay your lawyer! And you probably WON’T win. lol

Now think about this.  The government prosecutes you with an unconstitutional law and the best that can happen is that you spend years of your life and a fortune of your own money to try and “get your rights” in order to “prevail”. The worst? You run out of money fighting, spend time in prison and have your life ruined.

Here from the Smithsonian, is a particularly well preserved official "heads I win, tails you lose" coin. This type of coin was often used by our founding fathers when settling disputes about the constitutionality of laws. Although the custom remains in use today, it is rarely used publicly.

Here from the Smithsonian, is a particularly well preserved original “heads I win, tails you lose” coin, used to resolve policy disputes between the parties when drafting laws and other documents.  People are unaware that the technique, referred to as “flipping them off”, is still widely used today by congress and the courts.  The coins are no longer available to the public due to “national security” concerns. 

The government RISKS NOTHING when it violates YOUR RIGHTS! You must risk it all! Why doesn’t the prosecutor have to risk his life? His money? Or the judge? Or the congressmen who passed it? Do you see the scam yet? The citizens run all the risks and the rulers get all the rewards. Yet people run around defending the system as though it protects them. Dying for the system that does this TO them. The people are truly lost in a maze of lies.

Here from the NSA’s wiki, are just a few examples of the way this law was used.

Benjamin Franklin Bache was editor of the Aurora, a Democratic-Republican newspaper. Bache had accused George Washington of incompetence and financial irregularities, and “the blind, bald, crippled, toothless, querulous Adams” of nepotism and monarchical ambition. He was arrested in 1798 under the Sedition Act, but he died of yellow fever before trial.

How do you like that? Apparently there were some “financial irregularities” that old George was none too happy about being aired in the press. Remind you of Hillary and Bill and their whole foundation shakedown scam? It should. The game is the same, only thing that’s changed are the names of the players my friend. Here’s another example of a Crime they prosecuted.

In November 1798, David Brown led a group in Dedham, Massachusetts in setting up a liberty pole with the words, “No Stamp Act, No Sedition Act, No Alien Bills, No Land Tax, downfall to the Tyrants of America; peace and retirement to the President; Long Live the Vice President”.

Look at what his “crime” was! Setting up a pole with words on it? Drink in the freedom baby. Look at what he was complaining about. The exact same things we don’t like TODAY. There is no difference. You don’t see that it is all the same because they wore powdered wigs and knickers. So you think the holy founding fathers were something they were NOT.

Brown was arrested in Andover, Massachusetts, but because he could not afford the $4,000 bail, he was taken to Salem for trial.

The liberty pole remains and important part of American culture today.

The liberty pole, first made famous during the early years of our country, is no longer illegal.  And it remains and important part of American culture and political life today.  Many women are drawn to the platform as a way to “put themselves through school”.  The uses for the pole have continued to expand, which is just another testament to the freedom we have in this country.  

So the same crooked government he didn’t like is prosecuting and trying him and then sets his bail so high that he can’t pay it to be released pending trial. Bail set at twice the MAXIMUM fine. Lol. Utter kangaroo court.  Treating the man as though he was a mass murderer or serial rapist who might run from the law. IT is outrageous.

The man put up a “liberty pole” with some words on it complaining about the government’s corruption for pete’s sake. A government that we are told represents us and that we supposedly consent to and that is the greatest freedom machine ever created! What a sad joke.

They set his bail at about 500K in today’s dollars! Think about that.

Brown was tried in June 1799. Brown pled guilty but Justice Samuel Chase asked him to name others who had assisted him. Brown refused, was fined $480,and sentenced to eighteen months in prison, the most severe sentence ever imposed under the Sedition Act.

So the judge tried to force him to snitch after he pled guilty to the railroad job he couldn’t afford to defend himself against. When he wouldn’t rollover on other people, bam, they brought the hammer down on him. Fined him about a year’s salary. Where is the protection of the courts? Where is the first amendment? Where is the freedom just 9 years after the constitution was ratified??

Oh, and that holy judge abusing this man.  The “honorable” justice Chase.  The guy shaking the citizen down for daring to complain about his crooked government.  That guy.  He was a signatory to the declaration of independence!!! A justice on the supreme court!! Think of the depths of the hypocrisy of this man! A man with NO SHAME. No wonder people wanted to rail against the government. This same judge was later impeached by the opposite party.  This is the reality of our holy founding.  Partisan politics by men seeking power by whatever means they had.

Beer was very popular in early America. Here, justice Chase is shown relaxing after a long day on the bench.

Beer was very popular in early America. Here, justice Chase is shown relaxing after a long day on the bench shaking down citizens.

So Why doesn’t the government still use these tactics? Simple, because they have figured out that such a straightforward assault on the people is NOT effective. It is too easy to spot. Too easy for people to be upset by it. Too much push back. Better to do it surreptitiously while giving lip service to freedom. They learned their lesson. So they changed tactics.

You don’t know any of this because the people have allowed the government to seize control of the education system to supposedly HELP the people “learn” about their history.

So where was the freedom during our holy founding? It was nowhere people. Just like it is nowhere today. They listen in on your calls. They seize your money. They tell you how much water you can flush in your toilet.  They keep track of every financial transaction. You have to keep every receipt. They tax every dollar you make or earn at whatever rate their care to, and on and on. What does it take for you to see that the freedom you have is an illusion.

The only reason you can get away with something is because they don’t care to come get you! That is it. If they came for me what could I do? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Just like you. This is the power they wield.

My point is simple. It has NEVER been any different in this country. Any pretense of freedom or rights or anything else is a charade. A farce. An illusion sold to the masses to keep them happy and keep them from catching on, so they don’t rise up. Nothing more.

If people were taught the truth they could not be controlled so easily. Fooled so easily. Thus they are taught lies in the mandatory education with their mandatory curriculum and through the controlled media.

The government does whatever it can get away with at all times. The men in office cannot be trusted. The answer does not lie in “getting back to the constitution”. How much farther back can we go than 1798, just 9 years after it was ratified??

Our freedoms have inspired people all over the world. Here this man demonstrates how easy it is to find your rights. All you have to do is point to where you find them. Just like with our constitution.

Our freedoms have inspired people all over the world. This man demonstrates the proper way to assert your rights under our constitution.  All you have to do is point to the amendment that applies.  If the card is there, then you win your right!  It seems so easy… but it isn’t.  

The answer lies in getting rid of as much government as possible and waking people to the reality of what this country is and has been.

Oh, I know, Jefferson pardoned the people convicted a few YEARS later. Wow that’s awesome. I’m sure that made it all better. lol But remember, he didn’t even do that until he prosecuted a couple himself under the law!

The constitution is NOT an impediment to taking your freedoms. It is a way to fool you.  The example I just gave you has to show you that. If it doesn’t, then what could I bring you? How much more blatantly does the law have to violate the constitution to see that they do whatever they want. And that those who founded this country did the same things that the politicians do today.

They say one thing and do another. They talk about freedom and justice yet they pass laws like that. The founders were no different than the self seeking politicians of today. They were power hungry. They were perfectly content to abuse the people. They were perfectly content to ignore the constitution.

It is always the same. Those in charge do whatever they can get away with and say whatever it takes for people to believe the lies they tell. That is reality. All the other stuff is just wishful thinking by the naïve citizens projecting their own moral conscience onto men who do not share their scruples.

Until the people realize that talking about “getting back to the constitution” and all of the other romantic nonsense that fills their heads, can never fix the problem, they will continue to get the short end of the stick.

This guy kept mumbling in his sleep about how if you don't vote you can't complain. I didn't have the heart to wake him he seemed so happy.

This guy kept mumbling in his sleep about how if you don’t vote you can’t complain. I didn’t have the heart to wake him he seemed so happy.

If it wasn’t for the cathartic effect of getting it off my chest, I wouldn’t even bother writing about it. Why? Because most People don’t want the truth. They want a lie. People tell me all the time when I mention this type of thing that they don’t like thinking about it because they just want to “feel good” about their country. I just love that.  They prefer a set of lies that makes them feel good rather than a truth they can then build a better future upon.

Those seeking power are well aware of this propensity in the people.  So those in power give the people what they want.  Lies that they can “feel good about”. No wonder those who rule have such contempt for the people. The people earn that contempt in many ways.

The people have the power but they GIVE IT AWAY by preferring a fairy tale and a “good feeling” over the harsh reality of dealing with the truth. I can’t relate to the mindset, but I understand it is a reality.

I’m done for today. I can’t take it any more. I hope you learned something. Take care my brainwashed Brethren. Live in the light and tell someone the truth about the law.

And the truth shall set you free.

And the truth shall set you free.

The Supreme Court is not “Independent”.

A constitutional scholar is shown re-enacting the same tests our holy founding fathers ran on a model designed to represent our system of checks and balances. Nobody seems to be able to reproduce the results they claim to have gotten back in Philly that summer.

The supreme court runs an event each year for people to learn about our founding.  The people are encouraged to  “build their own constitution” just like they did in Philly, complete with the checks and balances to hold it in place.  There’s a $25,000.00 prize sponsored each year for the first to complete one that actually works using the same components we have in our documents.  Just like this guy, nobody can ever do it.  But nobody ever seems to catch on to the whole game. 

We are told from the time we can think and walk that we have this great system of government built on a system of brilliant checks and balances. It is pounded into our heads in school and in the media. The bulwark of this genius is supposedly our “independent” judiciary. It is indispensable to maintaining our supposed freedoms. It stands guard over our freedoms! The whole tale is such a load of CRAP.

Today I am going to discuss what it means to have an independent vs. a dependent judiciary. When you finish reading this you will have been given an objective framework with which to analyze the independence of the court’s performance, probably for the first time in your life, and you will then be able to articulate what the real problem is with the system. Instead of just feeling like it is broken.

You will be able to see how it is an utter FRAUD. So let’s begin.

Our entire system relies on the court being able to keep the government within its limited constitutional bounds by saying no. That was why they supposedly had to be “independent”. In other words, the entire purpose for having an independent judiciary is to be sure that the court felt free to say NO to a government that overstepped its constitutional bounds.

It is a little known fact that the system of checks and balances used by our founders used many of the same principles that cat ranchers use to herd their animals. It is brilliance you know.

It is a little known fact that Madison spent his youth on a ranch.  He allegedly incorporated many of the concepts he learned there into the constitution’s design to keep the government within strict limits.  It is brilliance you know.

Yes means allowing the other branches to do things they are not constitutionally permitted to do. No means that the court steps up and says, you can’t do that, it is not constitutional. You don’t need to be independent in order to say yes. There is no controversy in a YES. Everyone is Always free to say yes! The key is setting up a system where the court feels free to say NO.

Think about it like this. Say you want to set up a trust to provide for your child. If you make the administrator of the trust dependent on the child to keep his position, then he is much more likely to say yes when he shouldn’t. But not at all likely to say no when he should say yes.

And the flip side is that if you make the administrator independent of the child he is much more likely to say no to the child when he should, but you run the risk that the power goes to his head and he denies the child access to funds that the child should be getting.  You see?  There is no controversy in saying yes, only in saying no.

So an Independent judiciary’s advantage is that it is free to say no to the other branches in order to protect the peoples’ rights because they cannot be removed. But the danger is that they will say no too often and not allow the government to exercise authority it in fact has.  It is essential you understand this distinction.

Here’s another way to think about it. Whatever action the government takes is either constitutional or not constitutional. And the court can either uphold an action or strike it down.

Many of the justices on the court enjoy the thrill of giving. So they just give and give.

Many of the justices on the court enjoy the thrill of giving so much they don’t get enough just writing opinions that hand out new powers, so they play Santa during the holidays as well.  They just want to give and give, but the question often raised is, to whom do they give?

The dependent court is more likely to uphold actions of all sorts, both constitutional and unconstitutional. The Independent court is more likely to strike down actions of all sorts, both constitutional and unconstitutional.

There is no controversy that the court was made “independent”, ostensibly, to protect the individuals’ rights from being trampled and to keep the government within its bounds, i.e. to say NO.  Here is quote from Federalist 78 on the topic.

If, then, the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments, this consideration will afford a strong argument for the permanent tenure of judicial offices, since nothing will contribute so much as this to that independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance of so arduous a duty.

I could go on and on with quotes talking about the foundational principle of independence and staying within the constitution etc etc. But I am not going to waste your time.  If you want to brush up on the idea, then go read the sales brochure number 78 I just quoted from, or pick up any high school government book. What I have said is not controversial. It is the supposed heart of our system.

A dependent judiciary’s advantage is that it is responsive to whoever controls it but its disadvantage is that it tends to rubber stamp things.  The independent court says no a lot but you can’t control it.  It is critical to understand this distinction.

Here is an important question to ask yourself when doing an analysis of the court’s performance.  Can you think of a single time that the court struck down a law that was even arguably constitutional?

When the court heard I was challenging their independence, the court clerk was ordered to go through the different opinions and pull out the ones where the court struck down a law. She is shown in front her reviewed cases holding the proof.

I sent an advance copy of my article to the court.  As a result the court ordered this poor secretary to go through the different opinions and pull out the ones where the court struck down a law as unconstitutional. She did find one.  You can see she’s holding it  in her hands.

I could not come up with a single example. I doubt anyone can, because the examples don’t exist! Nothing even close. Of the very few laws they have struck down as unconstitutional, about 176 or so, there really was no question.  The laws were laughably unconstitutional. Of course the court has struck down a few laws. It does happen. They have to in order to keep the long con running and to keep the illusion of the system’s “checks and balances” going.

But my question was, are there any laws that were struck down that were arguably constitutional?  that is a very different issue.  That is the issue that goes to independence. The few times they have struck laws down, they were so far over the line it was ridiculous. 

Now think how many 10,000’s of laws have been passed and think how far beyond the constitutional limits the court has allowed the whole system to expand.  There is example after example of the court upholding laws that are clearly NOT constitutional but none striking down laws that are even arguably constitutional!  Because they do not behave as an independent body.

It is essential that you understand the distinction and analysis I just made between what the danger is between independent and dependent courts before moving on.

Now think about any controversial issue. Abortion, gun rights, Obamacare, busing, drug laws, special required light bulbs, toilet flushing, EPA, FDA, go on down the list. What is the PROBLEM with any of those issues? Is it that the court strikes down too many laws when it shouldn’t?  NO.

Here's an old pic of me with my buddies.  I had a real problem saying yes too much when I first got out of law school. I guess I picked the habit up in ConLaw.  Actually, I had a good time that night.

Here’s an old pic of me with my buddies laughing at me. I had a tendency to say yes too much when I first got out of law school. I guess I picked the habit up in ConLaw class.  Actually, I had a good time that night.

The problem with the court is always the same.  It says YES TOO OFTEN. Yes to the expansion of the government beyond the limits of the constitution. The exact OPPOSITE problem we are supposed to have with an independent judiciary.

Think about how absurd this whole thing is. We have a court that never strikes down laws as unconstitutional when it should, constantly upholds laws that are clearly NOT constitutional and yet it is protected from removal under the guise of it being independent. Then we are told the brilliance of our system is the set of checks and balances that all revolve around the independence of the court. And the brainwashing is so deep and so effective that people actually DEFEND the system!

A dependent judiciary can be easily removed. That is why they are referred to as dependent. That is the advantage of having them be dependent. You can control them by easily getting rid of them so they can never do much damage! The downside is they never say NO when they should.

With the independent, you can’t get rid of them. They can do a lot of damage, but they are supposed to say no.  But look at the reality.  We have the worst of both the independent and dependent judiciary.

The problem with the courts that we have is UNRELATED to their independence or dependence WITHIN the system. And thus the solution has nothing to do with its independence!  That is a DISTRACTION.   The problem is the illusion that any ONE ENTITY can EVER check itself!!!  Remember, when the government’s scope of control grows the COURT’S SCOPE of power grows.  So when the court “allows” the government to grow. It is allowing its own power to grow! Thus the court has an inescapable conflict of interest.

The conflict of interest is where the problem lies, even if we put aside corruption.  And the conflict of interest is complete and it cannot be solved inside the system they have given us.  The final say must come from OUTSIDE of the Federal system. Without that change, there will never be any protection for the people.

These guys were having quite an intellectual debate about which one of them was more capable of running the prison. Who do you think won the argument?

These guys were having quite an intellectual debate about which one of them would make a better warden. Many people in this country have the same kind of debate about the elections.  Sometimes it’s easier to see the error in others way of thinking.  

Now do you see why those in charge endlessly discuss the supposed brilliance of the federal  system concerning an “independent” court and checks and balances? It is to confuse you and convince you of something that isn’t true.  They have created an entity with chinese walls that can never work and they tell you it is the cornerstone of the foundation! 

The only thing the independence of the court actually does in our system is provide cover to grow the government! It gives an illusion of a check. And the people allow it to “be final” because it is supposedly “independent”.  If the people saw the court for what it actually is, which is “dependent’, as I have just shown you, then the people would not be okay with it being final because they would know it was a rubber stamp for the other arms of the same government.

All the talk of the brilliance of the checks and balances and the independence of the court is just a show.

Why have you never been taught to think about the issue in the terms I just showed you? Because the government controls education and the media are all on the same side.  Why are the questions I have asked and the analysis I just made NEVER brought up by the so called constitutional scholars? Why is it never part of the “liberty movement” or the “back to the conjobstitution” movement?

Because those movements are not designed to actually DO anything about the REAL problems as I have told you and told you. They are there to drain off your time.  Do you see that the concepts they push can never succeed because they don’t even discuss the real problems. They act as though the holy founding documents are something they are not. That our “independent” judiciary is ESSENTIAL to our FREEDOM when it is not actually independent and it is in fact the key to our enslavement! Quite simply, they act as though the system is something it is not.

I try to break the truth tot people as easily as I can. But still, most just can't handle it.

I try to break the truth to people as easily as I can. But still, most just can’t handle it.

I have showed you that the courts should not be making non unanimous decisions.

I have showed you that they create powers where there are none.

I have showed you that they don’t have the power to make something constitutional.

Now I have showed you that that the court is not in any way acting independently.  The emperor has no clothes my friend. He never does. They just lie to us non stop from cradle to grave and do whatever they want because the people allow it.

Until the people wake up and stop romanticizing the founding and the constitution and our “institutions” as though they are something they are not, there will never be real change. Each person must re-educate themselves. Starting with what I try and show them.

I am done for today. I can only have so much hypocrisy at one sitting… doctor’s orders. Something about me having a stroke if I keep going.   I Hope you learned something. Maybe you will be able to laugh the next time you see some schmexpert from Harvard talking about the independent court and all the importance of keeping it that way. It is just a lie. An obvious, sad, and silly lie. Nothing more.

Take care my fellow inmate and tell someone the truth about the law.

Legalman IS the law.

Legalman IS the law.

They tell BIG lies about our supposed “founding documents”.

I got tired of waiting for my FOIA request to go through so I went to Maury and asked him if it was true when they said I had the freedom to choose.

I got tired of waiting for my FOIA request to go through so I went to Maury and asked him if it was true when they said I had the freedom to choose.

We are told that our country’s founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, support our right to self determination and the consent of the people to their government.  We are told that this is the hallmark of what distinguishes our country from so called tyranny.

So is what we are told true about our right to self determination and the consent of the people? Unfortunately, like most things they teach us, no, it is not true.

The Constitutional “scholars” who are presented to the people, discuss the two documents as though they are interchangeable, part of the same line of thought. That is just not true. The documents are not connected. They were written about 14 years apart for starters. Think about THAT. Some garbage Bill Clinton cobbled together back in the 90’s and then some crap B.O. tries to pass off when he is elected. That is the time lag.  But there are more fundamental problems.  So let’s look at the Declaration.

An acclaimed constitutional scholar demonstrates how the Declaration and the Constitution fit perfectly together.  Remember, they went to Harvard and wrote a book. What did you do?

An acclaimed constitutional scholar demonstrates how the Declaration and the Constitution fit perfectly together. Remember, they went to Harvard and wrote a book. What did you do?

The “Declaration of Independence” is a document that does precisely ONE THING. It makes the “political” case for why the then “colonies” were breaking away from English rule. It was drafted in a manner to try and guarantee the greatest likelihood of generating support for the colonists’ cause, from the enemies of England. That is what it did and why it was written as it was.

The romanticized nonsense they teach the people is just a fairy tale. But the people don’t know this because they remember one tiny bit of the document, and then the media and “experts” re-enforce the misconception over and over. So let’s just look at it.  This is the part of the document that everyone knows.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

It sounds high and noble and so people assume that the rest of the document continues along those same noble lines. But it doesn’t. The document, as constructed, is mostly just a long list of complaints. That language “everyone knows” that I just cited, is, in legal terms, called surplusage. It is Meaningless. It does nothing. You could just strip it out of the document entirely and not ONE MATERIAL THING WOULD CHANGE. Do you understand that?

It's not what you think.  She said it was a political statement about the irrelevance of being endowed by a creator.  I told her I din't think many people would get it.

It’s not what you think. She said it was a political statement about  a male dominated society and the hypocrisy of our founding documents claims of being endowed by a creator equally. Or at least I think that’s what she said. I told her I didn’t think many people would get it, then I asked if I could see what that kind of freedom felt like.

Remember how we all learned in our mandatory government schools about how dangerous it was to have signed the Declaration.  But think about it. If that pap about freedom and happiness was all it supposedly “stood for” then it wouldn’t have been any big deal to sign. That is my point. That language is meaningless fluff.  Here is the dangerous language. The activating language of the document stripped of the cover story:

We hold these truths to be self-evident… that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government… it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government…To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world…

Look at that language. That is why it was a dangerous document. It asserts a right for the people to choose their own government.

They teach the people about it in a way to leave the Impression that those ideals about freedom and happiness are incorporated into our government through that document. But that is NOT what the document even Claims to do. And any objective reading of the document shows it does not do that. And any objective observation of our government shows it clearly is not Operated along those lines.

The point I am making is simple.  The reality of the Declaration of Independence is that it is just a fancy sales brochure to the world of England’s enemies saying, come help us, we have a good story you can sell to your own people to justify giving us men and arms to fight. That way you can get what you want, which is to screw England, by using the cover story we have created. It is a win win.  That is the REALITY.

Most people are unaware that Jefferson pushed hard for a completely different format for the Declaration of Independence. He just didn't think the single color parchment had enough 'punch" to get the job done.  Here, from the archives is one of the few surviving mockups he proposed.

Most people are unaware that Jefferson pushed hard for a completely different format for the Declaration of Independence. He just didn’t think the single color parchment had enough ‘punch” to get the job done. Here, from the archives is one of the few surviving mockups he proposed.

And remember, it isn’t signed on behalf of the “United States”. It is signed on behalf of EACH individual State.  Each state considered itself to be the New “sovereign”. About a year later, they drafted the Articles of Confederation which formed the basis for the new government, but THAT government was nothing like our federal government. It was small and controlled by the states.

Now let me ask you. What is probably the only thing you “remember” about the articles of confederation from your government schooling? Most likely, it is that it didn’t work very well because the federal government “wasn’t strong enough” under it.  Well isn’t that a convenient thing to remember? What a laughable show.

Now you have seen what the Declaration of Independence actually is and what it stands for, so what about the Constitution ? As to the constitution in general, go read what I wrote about the supposed constitution’s creation.  Today I just want to examine whether it stands for the idea that the people have a right to self determination and to consent to their government.  Here is what the Supreme court has said about that: 

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation… The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

Everyone has the right to be what ever we want. Just like we have the right to choose our own government.

This guy was sure we were free to choose our own government.  When I asked him how he knew he said he learned it in school.  His gf didn’t say anything. 

The Supreme court cannot make it any clearer. You get no choice. “Your choice” was made by someone else a long time ago.  You can’t leave unless you win a war, or everyone ELSE agrees to give you what YOU want. Got it? Where is the right to choose and to consent? Nowhere. You don’t have it under the constitution. Period.

There is NO WAY to reconcile this position with what the Declaration of Independence says. No way. All attempts will fail. The two ideas make no sense together.

The case I cited, Texas v. White was a post civil war case about Bonds. The Civil war was about money, power, growing the federal government and MOST IMPORTANTLY ENDING your right set out in the Declaration of Independence to choose your government.  Period. Not slavery.

The distraction about the civil war being about slavery was as much of a manipulated cover story as the story that the Declaration of Independence and the constitution were about creating a government where everyone was treated equally when there was slavery in every state at the time and women couldn’t vote.  

The declaration of independence and the constitution are no more about “freedom for all”, than Obamacare is about improving access to medical care.  Until you Stop romanticizing our holy founding, you will never be able to see reality.

Try to be objective for a minute. Go down the LIST of inequalities that existed when the documents were signed.  Here is the language in the Constitution specifically allowing for slavery. Yet we are supposed to believe these writings represent the height of brilliance and freedom?

What we need is more police. At least that's what I heard on the TV from a guy in a suit.

What we need is more police. At least that’s what I heard on the TV from a guy in a suit.

No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

Slavery was enforced by government and perpetrated on the people by the same guys who were driving this supposed freedom bus. The same political class of people who now impose debt slavery on everyone through legal tender laws and fiat script, and income taxes and on and on. 

They have changed the game because they figured out that these are now a MORE EFFICIENT FORM of slavery than chattel slavery. But they were fine with chattel slavery as long as it was the best game in town.  Get it.  Don’t look at what they say, look at what they DO and did!  Please don’t tell me that you actually believe that the government is there to benefit YOU.  Surely you’re not that naïve?

And if you think that language was a fluke, then here is more from the opinion.

Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation.

I use to play poker on "justice" night down at the court.  But I just stopped going.  Here's an example of a "judges straight".  What's the point when they just change the rules.

This hand is known as “the judges straight”.  I learned about it playing at a weekend bench and bar retreat.  The hand was made famous by the Justice who drafted the opinion in Texas v. White. I tried using it later and they said that I couldn’t.  I got the message.

Look how absurd this holy opinion is.  The people in Texas had voluntarily voted to exercise the right we are told we all have under the Declaration of Independence, and the court has made it clear that there is NO such right under the Constitution. 

You see, the problem for the court and the Union was simple. If the war was not a rebellion, then that fact creates an immense number of legal complications.  Wars for “conquest and subjugation” which is what it ACTUALLY was, have very different “rules” regarding debts and “reconstruction”.  And, if it was a conquest, then it would have been impossible to justify what congress was doing as though it was “under” our constitution.  Get it?  Hence the massive lie and cover up about the nature of the war.

For example, in the Texas v. White case, it would have meant that the defendants would be off the hook from paying 10 million in bonds. Which was REAL money back then.  So the court blessed this nonsensical “indissoluble” union legal argument promoted by Lincoln to cover the Union’s proverbial ass. It is laughable from a legal stand point.

The court also blessed this argument about how the secession had been a legal nullity and had never actually occurred. Think how absurd that is. A state votes, then they go to war based on it for years, and yet, now the S.Ct. says it never happened. Yet that is how preposterous the “analysis” has to be in order to create a “coherent” legal “theory” to support the war and call it a rebellion. Which they had to do!

There is no getting around the fact that the southern states were within their so called constitutional rights to keep slaves. That was in the holy constitution. And the Declaration of Independence said they had the right to leave ANY union. And those are supposedly OUR founding documents! So when the Southern states chose to leave there was no way to logically argue that they were not within their legal rights.  So the court was left with no choice but to eliminate that right and act as though it wasn’t changing anything.  And they have covered that fact up with double talk and schmexperts and “liberty movements” ever since.

Using the reasoning from Texas v. White, this young man also went on to prove that Humpty never fell, and that he was fine and living in Akron.

An aspiring Court clerk used the reasoning from Texas v. White, to also prove that Humpty never fell, and that if he had that he had in fact been put back together and he was fine and living in Akron.

There is no way to support the idea that the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution BOTH represent our founding principles because they stand for opposite concepts!.  Any possible connection between the two documents ended with the civil war.

You are not free to choose your own government.  You do not get to consent to your government. You are a prisoner. WE are all prisoners. The court’s language is unambiguous. Just read it again. And if you still don’t believe me, then try just Discussing the right to throw off the US Gov and see what happens.

Yet the myth about self determination and the consent of the people being the basis for our country’s greatness is continually pushed. It is everywhere. How many poor brainwashed people have died for it or been maimed for it since that war?

So do you see why it is hopeless to try and create political theories and movements based upon “our founding documents”?  Quoting from Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence is DEAD LETTER.  You don’t have those rights.  Any discussion of “liberty” and self determination and consent of the people that leaves out the S.Ct. case I just showed you is a FRAUD. 

All discussions always leave this case out because it cannot be rectified with the “we’re a free people” nonsense they are pushing!! 

This guy was hitting the back to the constitution movement hard when I met him.  He told me all about how it was going to make a real difference man.  I tried to show him the impact it was actually having on him, but It's hard to get through to people once they're hooked.

This guy was hitting the back to the constitution movement hard when I met him. He told me all about how it was going to make a real difference man. I tried to show him the impact it was actually having on him, but It’s hard to get through to people once they’re hooked.

Those patriot movements are allowed to “flourish” and are financed precisely because they can never succeed in creating meaningful change.  But make no mistake, those patriot movements are succeeding brilliantly at the one thing they are actually designed to do, unbeknownst to their members. Waste everyone’s time and energy steering them into a dead end.

The “back to the constitution” movements are analogous to public education.  Public education is NOT failing! It is succeeding beyond the wildest hopes and expectations of those who dreamed it up and steer it. You see a “failure” because you are using the wrong measure of success.  YOU misunderstand what things are ACTUALLY designed to do. 

Our country’s founding documents are a myth. They can never be read together, even if they did what they claim, which they don’t. So wake up. It is all just a game to control you. Nothing more. You do not have some constitutional right to self determination set out in the Declaration of Independence. And you never have.

Okay, I’m done for today. I know I left a LOT out. I had to. There are space limitations. I will write on the topic again. But for now, I hope you learned something.

Take care my brainwashed fellow inmates. Don’t be down, move towards the light and tell someone the truth about the law.

Legalman IS the law

Legalman IS the law

Corruption, not the Constitution, stops us from firing the judges.

Remember, if you don't vote you can't complain!

Remember, if you don’t vote you can’t complain!

We the sheeple all dutifully learned in our government schools that Federal Judges are appointed for “life” and can “only be removed by impeachment” which is “complicated” and rarely used. We are told that the tyranny these brilliant jurists inflict on us is a small price to pay to enjoy the brilliance of the “fine balance” struck by our founding fathers and blah blah blah.  Always the same line from those who want to tell us what to do.

The problem is not so much the length of their term as it is them acting like lawless tyrants while serving.  So for simplicity sake I am only going to address judges removal today, not their “life term”.  Now the bulk of the arguments I propose here apply to All judges, but there are some MINOR differences between the supremes and other judges. I just wanted to mention that up front.  But let’s face it, if we could “only” clean up the lower courts, that alone would be a huge step up.

So… are we the people stuck with “only” being able to impeach judges who just ignore the law and run roughshod over us?

The top guys and "experts" are only there to guide you. Remember, they got there because they are smarter than you and me.

The top guys and  legal “experts” are only there to guide us in the right direction. Remember, they got there because they are smarter than you and me.

Here is precisely everything Art. III of the holy constitution says about judges’ tenure and their removal.

Judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Where is the “can ONLY be removed by impeachment language”? Oh did I forget to mention that there is nothing actually IN the constitution that says that? lol.   That’s right.  It’s the same old scam they pull all time.

Nothing in Art. III even describes how to remove a judge, let alone LIMITS us to impeachment. Nothing.  Just let that sink in.

They tell us the “judicial mandatory Impeachment provision” is found in Art. II, which is where the executive power is described. Basic contract construction theory tells me that this is fishy. But let’s not jump to conclusions just yet.  Here’s the Art. II judicial reference.

and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

Here Justice Stevens is shown demonstrating the constitutional "hook grip" that is used to shoe horn in various legal arguments.

A  power lifter is shown attempting to USE the theoretical construct called a “constitutional hook grip” suggested to him by scholars as a better lifting system.  It doesn’t seem to work outside an academic setting.  The “scholar” who invented it is an accomplished weight lifter.  How do I know?  He told me he was.

The president “nominates” and with the undefined term of “advice and consent” then appoints the judges. And this connection is the alleged “hook” to why we must supposedly ONLY remove judges with impeachment.

So let’s look at the actual impeachment language, it is the last sentence of Art. II.

The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Okay, so this is what we have to work with people.  Let’s look at the language closely. First notice that the term JUDGES is NOT included in this section even though they were specifically mentioned in the list. That is HUGE. They are different from all the others on the list. They are in a different constitutional branch. That isn’t nothing.

But Now notice what the section actually says. It says that they shall be removed from office on impeachment. It doesn’t say they shall ONLY be removed from office on impeachment. Again, let THAT sink in. 

They tell us that judges can ONLY be removed by impeachment and they say this is the section controlling their “removal”.  But when you go to look, there is no limiting language.  There is no there there to their “argument”, as usual.

And why doesn’t it say “only” be removed in this section if our framers were such genius legal scholars? Simple, because the “civil officers” this provision is referring to all WORK FOR the president and he can simply fire those other people, because they work in the Executive branch!  They don’t need to be impeached. They are rarely impeached. Thus no need for them to “only” be impeached. Ambassadors, chief of staff, Secretaries of defense etc. Every single one can be fired by the president.

This “impeachment” provision is there to give Congress  a method to get rid of crooked Executive branch “civil officers” like the president, and the people who work for the president, like the Secretary of Defense, When the President wasn’t willing to FIRE THEM.

It is a little known fact that some original drafts for how to get rid of the judges included an idea that was later the basis for a hit TV show.

It is a little known fact that some original drafts for how to get rid of the judges included the words “you’re fired”.  They were deleted from the final draft as surplasage in light of the good behavior clause. 

This impeachment provision is a check and balance on the executive branch. And THAT is why it is IN the executive branch section. Judges are not part of the executive branch.  Thus they can’t just be fired by the President!

And now you can understand why the impeachment provision does NOT say shall ONLY be removed.

Frankly, if a junior lawyer brought me this constitution and told me that he was trying to draft it to say what they tell us it says about judges only being removable through impeachment. I would tell him that it was a nice first cut at it, but that the way he has constructed the document, it doesn’t do that.

You can’t claim that the judges can “only be removed” by impeachment if you rely on impeachment language from another section that doesn’t mention them and that does not state that it is the ONLY way to remove the people covered. It makes no sense.

What those who control us have told we the people, as usual, does not JIVE with what the document actually says. But yet we are told that it “is the law”. Just read it again and think about what I said. The provision makes perfect sense when read as I just described, and makes NO sense when read as they claim.

The judges are NOT mentioned in this impeachment section, because it doesn’t apply to them.  I just showed you that.  But there is more.  

There is a fundamental rule of contract interpretation that says: every term must be given meaning if it can be. The law presumes that if it’s in there, it is in there for a reason. All the more so with something like a constitution where the wording is so allegedly “careful”.

Here is one of the original Supreme court appointments issued in 1789. The form has changed very little, though now it is common that the certificate be filled in before granting it.

Here is one of the original Supreme court appointments issued in 1789. The form has changed very little.   This one does not have any of the “gold stars” that are  attached whenever a Justice is able to discover a “new power” for the federal government in his opinion.

The document says they sit during “good behavior”. So that MUST mean that they are not entitled to sit if their behavior is NOT good. And so if that phrase is going to mean anything then someone has to have the power to judge when their behavior is not good. And someone must also have the power to do something about their continuing to hold their position, when the behavior is “not good”. Do you follow?

Good behavior, and the manner of the termination of the appointment when there is no longer “good behavior” is NOT DEFINED, just like “advice and consent”, is NOT defined. And so, they are left to Congress to define for themselves as they see fit!

It is straight forward. The Senate, who gives its “consent” gets to define what “consent” means, and what “good behavior”means.  AND how the appointment is terminated if the “good behavior” requirement is violated.

So with my explanation, the document,  i.e. the constitution, is now read so that the States’ representative, i.e. the Senate, has the power to terminate the appointment of the judges if the term of the appointment, namely, good behavior, is violated. And THIS interpretation makes perfect sense.  The states are not hostages to the courts.  That is just something those who want to rule us have told you.

Do you see how simple this SHOULD be.

I am well aware that the holy founders used impeachment to remove judges. Bully for them. I’m sure those judges had it coming. The founders were welcome to do that. Of course I believe that a judge CAN be impeached because there is nothing in the constitution that says they cannot be impeached! That is not my point. My point is that there is NOTHING in the constitution that REQUIRES that impeachment is THE ONLY WAY a judge can be removed. NOTHING.

The Senate can set up WHATEVER type of judicial review and oversight it chooses to oversee compliance with the “good behavior” proviso the appointment is subject to. Just like they are empowered to DEFINE what advice and consent means!!   There is nothing to prevent an ongoing review panel keeping watch on the judges and their opinions and when the judges violate “good behavior” as defined by the Senate, then the Senate could have a SIMPLE method to terminate the appointment. They don’t HAVE to impeach the judges.  And if the PEOPLE or the STATES don’t like the oversight system set up then they can CHANGE IT!

One of my readers took me up on the challenge to find the language. She said it is right there. It's just that they used invisible ink to enhance the freedom factor.

This constitutional scholar took me to task on my challenge to find the language about mandatory impeachment in the document. She claims it is right there,  and it is just hard to see because they used invisible ink to enhance the freedomness factor.

And if you still think they “can only remove through impeachment”, then show me the language in the document that says that. You can’t. Nobody can because it isn’t there.

But there is even more.  Judges have been impeached for drunkenness and for abuse of power. How? The supposed “mandatory impeachment” language says, “for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” But drunkenness and abuse of power are not crimes!

Where do they get the authority to ignore language in the document, since the impeachment “provision” they are supposedly relying upon requires criminal behavior, but then in the next breath claim that their hands are tied by language that isn’t even in the document!!

Do you see? It is always the same. They just make up whatever they want to justify whatever outcome they want.  If the words are there they ignore them. If they aren’t there, they read them in!  What does it take for you to see this?

Now think about the Procedural issues at work here.  The early Congress Chose to use impeachment.  Okay.  That doesn’t mean we HAVE to use it.  Do you see the difference?  Think about it.  Who was there to complain?  How would they complain?  There is no mechanism even possible.

Surely the UNELECTED court does not get the final say on how the unelected judges get to hold their office. That is beyond an absurd conflict of interest, My god, if the people don’t even get to choose how to enforce this, then please, stop saying we are free. Just stop.

The judge made it clear that if there were objections to the ruling to step forward to the bench. Apparently none of the defendants went forward. So I guess they agreed. lol

The judge asked anyone who objected to his proposed ruling to step forward to the front of the bench. None of the defendants went forward. So the judge ruled that they had agreed with his finding.  I guess that means it was fair since the judge ruled and all.

And do not give me any of this “framers’ intent” crap.  I  don’t care! Parole evidence rule.  The document is clear!  You don’t need or even GET to pull in extraneous crap about what someone said about what he wanted.  You READ the document.  And it is CLEAR.  End of story. 

But I have yet another argument that Congress is welcome to terminate judges below the supreme court without impeachment.  The constitution gives Congress the power to completely eliminate all the courts except for the supreme court. Do you understand that? There really can’t even be any argument about that. Here is the language from Art. III.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Do you see it? It says MAY. Not shall. That is permissive under basic contract interpretation. Not Mandatory. Thus Congress has the power to eliminate any judge’s job by just eliminating the judge’s COURT. And there wouldn’t even be a “good behavior” requirement. Certainly a party who has the authority to eliminate your job entirely WITHOUT CAUSE doesn’t have to impeach you to get rid of you. That makes NO sense.

Lawyering up means different things to different people. Just remember, they are not going to play fair.

Lawyering up means different things to different people. Just remember, they are not going to play fair, we have to bring the big guns.

And finally ask yourself this. If the Senate did exactly what I just said, and set up a judicial review panel and started reviewing and terminating judges for violation of the “good behavior” requirement, who would stop them? The court? That makes NO sense. The president? How? Just as a procedural matter, there is no way.

People have been so “scared” in to believing that some theoretical “constitutional crisis” must be avoided at ALL COST.  Why?  The entire system is already in crisis because virtually everything the feds do is UNconstitutional!  What about THAT crisis? oh, that, we’re supposed to put up with.  But the idea of the people taking control of the system, well that.. THAT is something that has to be avoided at all cost.  

Look, all I am doing is asking basic questions and “lawyering up” the deal. LIKE THEY DO!  It is about time someone did it FOR THE PEOPLE!  Do you see how important it is to ask fundamental questions? And why they never allow these questions?

“Conservatives” politicians are always complaining about the “activist court” as though it is out of control and there is nothing they can do about it. They are just playing the people!  It is amazing to me that people buy this crap.  How can anyone believe that ANY politician is actually upset that the court is expanding the power of the very government they seek to run! But people still do.

My parents and teachers made sure I got plenty of Kool Aid growing up! It's fun and good for you! drink up.

My parents and teachers made sure I got plenty of Kool Aid growing up! It’s fun and good for you! drink up.

Of course people who are NOT IN GOVERNMENT want the government to have less power. That makes sense. Where the fantasy begins is projecting your desire onto a politician! Of course they SAY they are for smaller government.  How else would they get elected?? lol. But look around.  There is no ACTUAL evidence of the government ever shrinking when they HAVE power. And there never will be.

The courts are the means of “legitimizing” the alleged authority of the feds. They are the essential part of the fake wrestling match! When the politicians do something that any 12 year old can see is unconstitutional, what does everyone do? Well the people have all been TRAINED that the “correct” thing to do is to wait to see “how the court rules”. And it matters not how obviously absurd the ruling is, like in Obamcare. That “is the law”. lol.  Think how preposterous that is.  Yet people run around draped in flags as though the system is genius!

Is it any wonder that those in charge have contempt for a people who will allow themselves to be treated like this?  We are not prisoners to the courts. We can terminate the judges. We are in charge. Not them.

Okay, I can’t take it anymore. I am done for today. lol.  I hope you learned something. I hope your eyes have been opened to the show they put on for you.

Take care my brainwashed Brethren, don’t be down, and tell someone the truth about the law.

Legalman IS the law

Legalman IS the law

“Sovereign Immunity” turns the constitution on its head.

Here a Supreme court clerk is seen practicing some of the formal techniques that a justice must master before qualifying to sit for oral argument before the court.

A Supreme court clerk shown practicing a highly specialized listening technique developed by the court for oral argument.  Couples counselors have successfully brought many of these same techniques to their clients. 

What do you call a situation where the law is ignored? Tyranny.

What about where the law is turned on its head? Fraud.

What about where the government steals the rights of the people to expand its own powers? Corruption.

I think those are fair answers to those questions.  Now let me ask you this.  If I tell you that you have A Right to petition the government for a redress of grievances to protect yourself against things like I just set out, and that the government cannot make any law abridging that right, does that leave you with the impression that you in fact have that right? Of course it does.

Well, the first amendment gives everyone of us exactly that right. People don’t know this because all they ever hear about the first amendment is free speech and religion and press. And when you finish reading this article you will understand why that is all they know. So let’s get started. Here is what the first amendment says:

This right is actually found in the 6th amendment. Little used for years, it is now making a comeback.

I actually had to look this one up.  It is found in the 6th amendment. The “Warren” court “read in” the wiggle requirement during the 60’s and defense attorneys are just now exploring how it can be used.  

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

Do you see it now?  That is a HUGE right. “To petition” is a legal term. A petition is something that you file in court. So clearly, the peoples’ right to legally hold the government to its deal, through the courts, is enshrined in the holy CONstitution itself.  You have a RIGHT to petition the government, i.e. to sue the government for a redress if it steps out of line.

And how would you exercise this right”?  Well you would take advantage of the supposedly brilliant system of checks and balances that includes a supposedly “independent” judiciary that is supposedly there to oversee and be sure the other branches stay within their constitutional “authority”. Here is the language from Art III from the CONstitution, setting out the kinds of cases the court can hear. 

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, …to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;…

That language is pretty clear. So taking the first amendment language and the Art. III powers together, you now should have a right to petition the independent court for a redress of grievance if the legislative or executive branch gets out of order.

Think how powerful that right could be if properly used.

One of the most potent combinations known, the Somoan "freedom sling" if properly executed, will end any predetermined fake match. Just like a well constructed s.ct. opinion.

The Samoan “freedom sling” if properly executed, will end any fake match with a realistic looking victory. Just like a supreme court opinion can eliminate your illusory rights with a realistic sounding argument.  A show is a show.

In fact the combination I just showed you is one of the key pieces that supposedly “demonstrates” that we are a country “of laws” and not of men. That the government is NOT above the law. That it must answer to the people!

And thus the freedom machine is born! All hail the freedom machine! Where’s my American flag T-shirt? I feel like putting it on!

This entire system of a “right to redress” is the opposite of many other “tyrannical” systems where the rule is that the government can only be sued if it chooses to allow itself to be sued by its subjects.  That type of system operates on what is called the rule of  “sovereign immunity”.  The governments operating in a “sovereign immunity” system are free to abuse the people without any fear of recourse.  

Obviously sovereign Immunity does more than just “abridge” the right to redress grievances with a government that asserts it.  It completely eliminates any “right to redress”You only get whatever “redress” the government decides to allow. And that by definition is not a RIGHT.  “Sovereign immunity” is the OPPOSITE of what we the people set up in this country under our freedom machine with our “right to petition for redress” and our “Art III” independent judiciary.

And so is your “right to petition the government for redress of grievances” the reality?

Sadly, as usual, no. The reality is far removed from the fantasy they teach the poor saps in their mandatory indoctrination centers.

In Cohens v. Virginia, in 1821, Chief Justice Marshall, without any analysis at all of the UNAMBIGUOUS language I just showed you in the 1st amend, simply “announced” that, “the universally received opinion is that no suit can be commenced or prosecuted against the United States.” So he imposed the “sovereign immunity” rule on us basically from the get go. Which is the OPPOSITE of what the constitution actually says.

A young court clerk is shown here discussing some of the recent briefing they have been analyzing. They are chosen for their brilliance you know.

A young court clerk ponders the constitutional significance of some recent briefing.  They learn their craft by studying the court’s old opinions. 

Marshall, the supposed genius. The brilliant jurist made it  “our law” by announcing that it is “universally received”.  In order to do that, he had to completely IGNORE the universe that includes the 1st amendment.  And so he did.   He didn’t explain how the amendment fit in with his analysis.  He didn’t discuss how it didn’t apply.  He just didn’t mention it. 

And now that you’ve seen how clear the 1st Amend language is against what he “held” it’s easy to understand why he ignored it. Because there is no way to actually form a coherent legal argument to support what he imposed on us if you have to actually address it!  So, like any other “brilliant jurist” he ignored it.

Do you understand the immense power and abuse here?  This the real face of the system. You will be confused by things like this “reasoning” so long as you continue to imagine that the system is something it is not. Once you let go of that fantasy, then it all makes sense.

Later, in United States v. Clarke, the same “august” justice Marshall made it CLEAR once again in case there was any remaining doubt, that our country was going to be one of SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY, where the people HAVE NO RIGHT to petition the government for a redress of grievance except whatever the government chooses to give them.  Despite what the 1st amend obviously says. The United States is not “suable of common right, the party who institutes such suit must bring his case within the authority of some act of Congress, or the court cannot exercise jurisdiction over it.” Again, zero analysis of the 1st amendment.  Nothing.  Just imposing sovereign immunity on us despite what our supposed fundamental law says.

They don't bother to limit themselves by the rules. Who's there to stop them?

They don’t bother to limit themselves.  Why would they?

Make no mistake.  The right to petition a government for redress which is what the constitution states, and the concept of governmental immunity from redress, which is what Marshall is imposing, are direct contradictions. There is simply no way around that glaring fact. Do you see that?

So I ask you people.  Can they make it any clearer? You don’t have rights!  How can I have a “right to petition for redress” only if the government chooses to give it to me? It is nonsensical. It is double talk. It turns the concept of a right on its head.

I will discuss one more supreme court case on the off chance that there is still any doubt.  Despite the 1st amendments  “Right of Petition” never having been directly discussed or explained at all in the sovereign immunity context, the court nonetheless in 1882 in U.S. v. Lee,  “concedes” that sovereign immunity is “the established law of this country, and of this Court at the present day.” Established? How does something that directly contradicts the unambiguous language in the constitution become “established” without ever even being addressed? 

Simple, it is “established” in the courts’ opinions by just repeating and referring to “maxims” and “settled law” and “long established traditions” and citation to other cases that all do the same thing and that all ignore the constitutional language DIRECTLY ON POINT. This is the system they use.

Much of the legal support for the court's opinions has been archived for posterity. Here is some of Justice Marshall's private collection on display.

Much of the legal support for the court’s opinions has been archived for posterity. Here are some of Justice Marshall’s private notes on “sovereign immunity”.

It’s the same thing I showed you for “executive privilege”. The court just makes its up and poof. That’s that. How can you complain? Who do you complain to? They are the final say.

Let me try and explain it like this. If the Congress passes “a law” even though the Constitution says it shall pass “no law” and the Supreme court “upholds” the law by creating an “exception”. Then what happens? How do you check them? PROCEDURALLY what is the mechanism??

Remember, the difference between legal procedure and legal argument is, Legal argument is the battle plan, legal Procedure is the logistics. It matters not how great your battle plan is, i.e. your 1st amendment argument, if you can’t get the troops to the battle because you don’t have any trains or planes that run, i.e. if the supreme court is going to IGNORE IT.

So now that the supreme court has screwed everyone, despite your “brilliant 1st amendment legal argument” what can we actually do “procedurally”? Well, nothing but a constitutional amendment. And as a practical matter, how is that ever going to get off the ground? It won’t. And thus PROCEDURE, is the unseen hand of screwing the people. 

And now think about this. In this situation, even if we were going to try and get a “constitutional amendment” what would it say?  WE ALREADY HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT THAT SAYS EXACTLY WHAT WE WOULD WANT IT TO SAY. They just ignored it! So what exactly would the new “amendment” designed to “fix the problem” say? That we weren’t kidding the first time?

The reason for all of this is SIMPLE.   The two branches ARE DESIGNED TO GROW THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT TOGETHER.  They are a teamThey are no different than the wrestlers.  They are FAKE opponents!  All the blather about checks and balances is a distraction to trick you.  And it WORKS! lol 

The idea that “Chinese walls” between two branches of the SAME ENTITY can act as a “check” on the growth of that SAME ENTITY is absurd on its face. It will never work. Over time the ENTITY will grow. And THAT was the plan all along! The only way to check the growth of ONE ENTITY is with a truly SEPARATE ENTITY.  Not a different BRANCH from WITHIN the same entity.  That makes no sense.

There's a world of differenThere's a world of difference between asking on bended knee and really meaning business. Those in power know the difference

There’s a world of difference between asking on bended knee and really meaning business. Those in power know the difference

And once you understand that the REAL CHECK on the federal government is supposed to come from the STATES THEMSELVES and from the people.  Then you can start to understand what the CIVIL war was really about.  Spoiler alert, it wasn’t slavery.  And now you see why the court cut the peoples RIGHT to check the government from the get go.

Do you see the absurdity? The futility? The utter naivete of believing that a single entity can ever check itself?

Nonetheless that is what they tell us is so UNIQUE and brilliant about OUR SYSTEM! lol.  They hold up the holy constitution and point to the freedom machine in schools and in movies and on “news shows”, but the whole thing is a scam. When the branches of the government work together, there is no solution UNDER the constitution. And THAT is the situation we have been living under for 200 years.

Do you see why “getting back to the constitution” is virtually a meaningless phrase? What possible “constitutional” ambiguity exists in this situation? None. Yet the constitution and the system it sets up provides NO protection.

My friend government IS power. That is all it is. Those who rule you know this. But they tell you it is benevolent and controlled. Of course they do. Would you voluntarily submit otherwise? Of course not.

They roll out the control and abuse slowly enough so that each generation only sees a small part. Then they mis-educate everyone with lies in mandatory indoctrination centers about what’s going on and where we came from and it becomes almost impossible to see the reality.  You are lied to so they can exercise the greatest power with the least resistance. It is devious and brilliant.

99.99% of the population have never even heard of these cases and what I have just told you.  And 99% of the lawyers don’t have a clue about this topic either.  They don’t teach it.  I wonder why? lol

Tony demanded his human rights!

Tony demanded his G** dam* human rights “right now” as Jimmy Carter had promised him.  They ignored him too.  He had to carve up a communist “real good” to get his green card.  There’s a lesson there. lol

The government Always grows in power. Always. Do you honestly think that happens by Accident? lol

Everyone thinks they are so free because they have been told they are. No other reason. And if you still don’t believe me then why don’t you head on down to your nearest federal district court and demand your constitutionally protected right to redress  of grievances and see how far you get with that. lol

The strong take what they will and the weak suffer what they must.  It has always been the case.

I hope you learned a little sumtin sumtin about your 1st amendment “rights”. Remember, the only protection the people have from tyranny is vigilance and knowledge. You must LEARN to be strong.

That’s it for now my brainwashed Brethren. Take care, live in the light and tell someone the truth about the law.

And the truth shall set you free.

And the truth shall set you free.

The constitution is designed to keep the people from having any way to stop abuses like “executive orders”.

Sometimes it takes a strong leader to really bring out the freedom in a constitution!

Sometimes it takes a strong leader to really bring out the freedom in a constitution!

I want to show you what a scam sweeping “Executive Orders” like the amnesty deal are. As usual, I am going to act as counsel for the people. I am going to make OUR case. I am going to show you the stuff they don’t bother to tell you. Then you can make up your own mind.

At its base our Government is just a legal concoction designed to steal from and control the masses under the guise of freedom and laws. We are told our government is one of laws and not men. A government of “checks and balances”. So let’s look at the “law” and see the brilliant and delicate balance it struck regarding the “executive orders” that claim to turn the immigration laws on their heads.

The obvious first step is to find out how the constitution defines an “executive order” and what its parameters are. Here’s what the Congressional Research Service, says about it.

There is no direct “definition of executive orders, presidential memoranda, and proclamations in the U.S. Constitution, there is, likewise, no specific provision authorizing their issuance.”

My Auntie likes to help me do some research. She's the one that found a lot of the stuff for this article.

My Auntie likes to help me do some research. She’s the one that found a lot of the stuff for this article.

Hold it. Wtf? Surely that has to be a mistake. But no, here’s what Wiki says.

There is no constitutional provision nor statute that explicitly permits executive orders.

No provision authorizing them, defining them or “permitting” them?? OMG I love this country! Lol Well I guess I just solved the mystery of why this whole area is so “problematic”. It is totally made up on the fly! Lol. Yet another case of the Real genius of our brilliant system on display my friend. It makes sure that there is plenty of wiggle room to screw the people at every turn! All under the guise of “following the law”.

Well can we at least get a working definition?

A presidential policy directive that implements or interprets a federal statute, a constitutional provision, or a treaty.

Okay, so this is how they define what they created out of thin air. “Interprets” or implements a statute. Hmm, I mean as a lawyer I can immediately see an out. It says interprets! So there you go. The law says they are illegal and should be deported. He is “within his authority” to “interpret” that. And he interprets that to mean that they are not illegal and not subject to deportation. Nothing but a difference of opinion I guess. Nothing to see here, move along. Lol. Do you see the idiocy of this whole thing?

People, wake up. The power is anything THEY TELL US and can force us to take at the point of a gun. Nothing more. The more they can brainwash you to believe it is legitimate, the less often they have to pull out their guns and thus the more free you THINK you are. That’s all.

So where do they even claim the power comes from?

The supreme court tells us in its opinions that the power stems from two places. The opening sentence of Art. II which says, The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. And the clause that states, he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. That’s it. That is all there is. All made up from there.

Poor "Boots", all he did was ask the good justice where there was any authority in the constitution to support the complex theories he'd written about executive orders. The justice was so angry he put boots in a time out.

Poor “Boots”, all he did was innocently ask the good justice where there was any authority to support the complex theories he’d written hundreds of pages of opinion on about executive orders. The justice was so angry he put boots in a time out.  I guess there’s no freedom in his house either.

How wide open is that? How can “we the people” have the slightest idea how an “opinion” will come down? Or whether what the president is doing is “constitutional” with something that vague? The whole phrase that it “is constitutional” has almost no meaning in this context since I already showed you that there is NOTHING in the constitution defining it or authorizing it. It is 100% implied by the nature of just “being the executive”.

What happened to this being a government that is limited and only operates on “express powers”. I guess that is all out the window. Spoiler alert: It always is whenever they want it to be. Don’t you get it yet? Here’s more of the standard line about what it “is”.

An executive order of the President must find support in the Constitution, either in a clause granting the President specific power, or by a delegation of power by Congress to the President.

But this is just empty words because I just showed you there isn’t anything there. The vast majority of “executive orders” don’t even bother to identify where in the constitution they get the power to do what they are doing, they just issue this blanket language: “Under and by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States by the Constitution and statutes of the United States, it is ordered as follows …” Which is just utterly circular nonsense that assumes away the very heart of the issue, namely WHERE exactly is he claiming to get the power from IN the constitution?

Here is how the supreme court in the “Steel Seizure Case” set out the supposed parameters of how the court will analyze the power to issue “executive orders”.

The President’s authority (to act or issue an executive order) is at its apex when his action is based on an express grant of power in the Constitution, in a statute, or both. His action is the most questionable when there is no grant of constitutional authority to him (express or inherent) and his action is contrary to a statute or provision of the Constitution. Although this framework of analysis is a helpful starting point, a deeper understanding still requires a substantive knowledge of the relevant statutory law and a President’s and Congress’s constitutional powers.

Justice Steve is looking quite spry on the S.Ct.'s league team even if he is a bit formal. He is always so sharp with his observations. It's no wonder his opinions are such brilliance.

Justice Breyer, a.k.a. “Justice Obvious” is looking quite spry on the S.Ct.’s league team even if he is a bit formal. He is always so sharp with his observations. It’s no wonder his opinions are such brilliance.

I actually laughed out loud. So let me get this straight. It is at its apex when it is authorized under the constitution and it is at its most questionable when there is no authority and the action runs contrary to the constitution! I’m telling you, I can’t make this stuff up. This is supposedly the brilliance of the supreme court.

Oh, and do you see how that last sentence they stuck in there basically just means that you will have to wade through a 100 pages of bs in their opinion in order to “know” what their answer is? Lol My god people what does it take for you to see the scam they are running?

Do you understand how these “executive orders” have been used in the past? Well here’s just a sampling:

Nixon used an executive order to set a ninety-day freeze on all prices, rents, wages, and salaries in reaction to rising inflation and unemployment. FDR prohibited the possession of gold coins and bullion. He also required the forced relocation and imprisonment of Japanese citizens living in the United States. Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, meaning arrest without any right to appeal to a judge in effect. He imprisoned thousands of civilians as a result, including many newspaper editors, and then held them for years without trial. Truman seized the steel mills of the country. Bush authorized warrantless wire taps, and gutted the transparency of presidential records.

They put this guy on TV a lot to give the other side of the executive order argument. He is quite articulate. For a normal guy.

They put this guy on TV a lot to give the other side of the executive order argument. Equal time and all you know. Fair and balanced!

None of this would be legitimate under the constitution if Congress itself passed a law doing any of it! But by exec order??? Where are the holy “checks and balances”? Where is the freedom? Oh that? Well, are you a constitutional scholar who is on TV or works at Harvard? No? well then you’re a hick, sit down and shut up. You probably support slavery too!! Lol

I am not going to bother to dissect any of the opinions from the holy oracles. What’s the point? I mean they admit that there is nothing in the constitution to INTERPRET! Whatever they say is just some crap they make up about the supposed meaning of those two sentences. That’s it.  Now You’ve seen the reality of what “the law” is in this area. It is just a fantasy. A chimera. A con job dressed up as though it is some complex issue. Obama has zero authority to turn the immigration law on its head. Zero.

Look, the constitution is AT BEST an adhesion contract between the states or the people and the federal government. It is “hornbook law” that ANY AMBIGUITY in any contract is resolved AGAINST the party drafting it. And by analogy, in this case, that means the THE FEDS. This very point was so well known and so important that they added the 10th amendment to make extra double sure that there was no mistake on this issue. It says:

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

How much clearer could they have made it? The people and the states are not granting “IMPLIED” powers in this document! The feds have to be able to point to a SPECIFIC grant of authority IN THE DOCUMENT” to DO ANYTHING and that includes the president. There is NO AUTHORITY to issue these absurd “executive orders” on any and everything.

The after parties at the Court are the BOMB baby!

The after parties at the Court are the BOMB baby!

The president is not supposed to be “the most powerful man in the free world”. He is an executive who is supposed to run a limited venture the States started to benefit THE STATES! Nothing more. He is not granted the authority to make law. Not a little. Not some times. Not kind of. Not in a boat, not with a goat. He does not have that power SAM I AM.

Implied powers like this idea of some “broad executive order” authority to freeze prices or grant amnesty are an insult to the intelligence of any thinking person. I don’t care how many “supreme court opinions” say he has the power. The document is CLEAR. He doesn’t. And THAT is why it is futile to actually “break down” whatever the supreme court says about “executive orders”. They are simply making up whatever they want and need at the time.

Of course the feds have the guns to IMPOSE this made up power on me or you. But that doesn’t make it any more legitimate or prove it is constitutional. It merely makes the abuse that much clearer and the distance we are from any real government “of laws” that much more obvious.

Look, everyone can agree that the president has the power to run his staff. That is what an executive does. But he can’t make law. When in doubt, the constitution says he doesn’t have the power. It is that simple. The only reason we even have most of these questions is because the court has allowed the feds power to grow so far beyond even the wildest wet dreams of the biggest federalist at the constitutional convention that the “form of the government” has become virtually irrelevant because its power is basically unlimited. Get it?

Now I want to take a minute to discuss another fundamental problem in this area that people just don’t get. It involves the procedural aspects. Legal theory is like a strategy in a battle. Procedure is like the logistics. Get it? It doesn’t make any difference in the world how brilliant a strategy you have, if you don’t have the fuel you need to fly the planes to IMPLEMENT IT. Same goes for legal procedure. I don’t care how “right you are”. If you don’t have an actual legal mechanism to get the issue adjudicated and enforced, then you don’t have squat.

And this is the area that the people are the most ignorant of in the law. The real problem with so many issues in the law and with our government is that there is no practical procedural thing you can do about it. Nothing. Think about the procedure of this whole amnesty joke. There is a Simple solution if the government wasn’t corrupted. The legislature would pass a bill and override what the president did. Poof, problem solved in one day.

The thing is they don’t do their job representing the people. Our employee/politicians in Washington WANT the president to have the power because it allows the government to grow surreptitiously. There is no vote. And for half the term of a two term president he is a lame duck! Do you get that? Everyone can just point fingers and blame each other and pretend to be upset and then move on to the next distraction. And this is what they really want because when it grows in power THEY grow in power.

Sure the idea is great, IN THEORY, but what does it look like to actually implement it?

Of course jeans and a tank top are a classic look.  IN THEORY.  The key issue is how does it actually get implemented?

So the people and the states are stuck trying to use procedures that don’t work. They get shoved into court to try and fix what their representatives have simply abdicated doing. And that drags on and on and takes years and you can see how wide open the outcome might be. And in the meantime the court may or may not impose an “injunction”. If it doesn’t then by the time the supreme court hears it the whole thing might be “moot”, meaning there is nothing left to hear because it makes no difference any more.

That is the reality of the procedure! The president knows he can act and there will be no actual consequence. And that is how we got all of those abuses I listed earlier. There are no actual checks and balances when it comes to practical LOGISTICS. It is all just theory and strategy because the system is totally corrupt.

Remember all the blather and the sound bites the “conservatives” made sure got out in the press about how Obama was acting like an emperor and how what he was doing was clearly unconstitutional! So if that were true, then why didn’t they draw up articles of Impeachment to hold him to account? Because it is all just a show. If it wasn’t, then they would have used THAT procedure.

Remember, as a procedural matter, YOU can’t impeach him. YOU can’t stop him, only Congress can and they don’t because they are corrupt. The court can’t issue an order to stop him until the case is actually in front of it. And that takes years. Get it? Those are procedural hurdles, i.e. questions about how we are going to actually get the fuel into the planes!

Well, I’ve said all I’m going to for now. I hope you learned something. It is always the same my brainwashed brothers. It’s all game theory. Play by their rules and you can never win. The whole thing is sad and comic at the same time to me. So simple to see through if you will just step outside the box they have you in. Just step out into the light my friend.

That’s all for now my brainwashed Brethren, don’t be down, take care and tell someone the truth about the law.

Legalman IS the law

Legalman IS the law

The nuts and bolts of how they spread tyranny through the courts.

A young Rubin Schwartz,is shown here. He is now one of the most successful lobbyist on Capitol hill. a

Not surprisingly he is now one of the most successful lobbyist on Capitol hill.

The tyranny and injustice of the courts is palpable. We all suffer with it. I see it everyday up close and personal. I have had to deal with it for more than 25 years. So I have given it a lot of thought. Understanding the actual Nature of any problem is the key to finding a solution.

Most people lump all the problems together. They see the courts don’t dispense justice, they throw up their hands and they blame it All on corruption.  And that just isn’t the reality.

Now I could go off on the courts because they do have it coming.  I could tell you about individual cases of crookedness and incompetence that are so ridiculous that you would think I was Making them up!  But I am not going to do that today. I am going to hold my tongue no matter how difficult.  Because the point I want to make is that the system is totally screwed, even without the power hungry types that get off being able to do that stuff to you and me.  And people need to understand the way the system actually operates.

THE BASIC MECHANICS OF TYRANNY AND INJUSTICE.

Okay, it's true these are NOT examples systemic tyranny. But still, you gotta love "old economy Steve".

Okay, it’s true these are NOT examples of systemic tyranny. But still, you gotta love “old economy Steve”.

There are two general kinds of tyranny imposed on the people from the bench. One is systemic. The other is what I call “subjective tyranny”. 

Both types of tyranny are seriously problematic of course. They are both rampant. And they both erode confidence in the overall system itself.

Systemic tyranny is any tyranny where justice is NOT served in the situation, but where the “law” is “technically followed” by the judge. In other words where the law is DESIGNED to create INJUSTICE. There are countless examples of this.

I will give you a simple example. If I take a case on a contingency and I lose, I am not entitled to take a “deduction” for any of the time I spent pursuing that case, even though it clearly “cost me” my time, which is all I have to sell in the market. My time spent on a case IS my money. But if I take a case on an hourly basis and lose and cannot collect my fee because the party that owes me the money goes bankrupt, then I can claim that amount as a deduction. Do you see the inequity?

I have lost my time, which is all I actually have to sell in the market under each example. In one case I have a legal remedy in the form of a deduction for the loss to me. In the other I do not, even though I suffered the same type of loss. That is an example of systemic tyranny.

Another example would be where a police officer lies on his report about my conduct. I take a lie detector to try to help prove that I am telling the truth. But the law neither allows me to compel him to take one, nor does it allow me to show the jury my results and tell them that he was asked to take one and refused.

I got to play a little chess with one of the Circuit justices over the weekend. I was a little unclear on some of the rules he insisted we use. For some reason I was always black. But I didn't dare say anything since I have a case before him. Okay, it's you're move. We're having fun right?

I got to play a little chess with one of the Circuit justices over the weekend. I was a little unfamiliar on some of the rules he insisted we use. For some reason I was always black. But I didn’t dare say anything since I have a case before him. Okay, ready for another game?  We’re having fun right?

Clearly the evidence IS probative. How probative of course would be up to each juror. Many might feel it is Compelling and Material, some might find it uncompelling. But regardless, the jury does not get to hear it because it is not admissible. That is not justice. That is another example of systemic tyranny.

Note how both examples result in a tyranny of Injustice on the individual. That in fact is a common factor in virtually all systemic tyranny. The individual loses rights to the state, and to powerful interests who can afford to pay for protection from the state by making contributions, which create legal loopholes and protections.

A judge who denies my claim to the lost contingency fee deduction in tax court, or to the offer of evidence on the polygraph in criminal court, is not out to screw me. He isn’t crooked. He is quite literally, quote on quote, just following the law. He is actually “Doing his job”.

Do you see that systemic tyranny Can be meted out by a perfectly honest hardworking judge. It doesn’t take a crook or a scoundrel.

Now if the same judge Denied me my right to claim the deduction for the money lost due to bankruptcy, he would be engaging in what I call subjective tyranny. Because he would not be following the law. He would be acting outside the law.

Subjective tyranny is where the judge acts in a way that is personal and is either outside the rules, or in an area that does not have clear rules, or that is technically within his discretion within the rules, but works injustice.

The judge hated doing it to him, but hey, it's the law and we all have to follow the law. He understood of course.

The judge hated doing it to him, but hey, it’s the law and like the judge said, we all have to follow the law. He understood of course.

The motivations for this type of tyranny from the bench can be anything from simple mistakes, to laziness, to a personal grudge, to a power trip, to out right incompetence or actual corruption. I have seen all of them.

Trial judges have immense power, so do appellate judges. A trial judge can inflict subjective tyranny in many many ways.  For example, he can refuse or fail to follow the law and require that you in effect, have to “force him” to comply. He can also make rulings against you that should have gone in your favor.

The important thing to understand about subjective tyranny from both a trial judge or an appellate judge is that there is no way to tell the difference between, incompetence, laziness, intentional conduct, a grudge, or a bribe. No way. Of course the severity of the “error” and the glaring nature of the disconnect between the ruling on the law as applied to the facts can give you an indication. But you can’t know. And trust me, there are plenty of judges who are just plain Dense. Not dishonest. Just not very bright.

An example of subjective tyranny would be denying a motion that, by All objective measures, you were entitled to win. By denying the motion, the judge has now in effect required you to spend many more months or possibly years in costly discovery and litigation on issues that are not properly litigated. As a result you may very well not be able to afford to continue to successfully either defend or prosecute a valid claim you have.

The only answer to such conduct is to litigate your case through trial and hope you can win on appeal, or to “settle your case” if possible. Of course under those circumstances, the settlement value has been destroyed by the judge’s improper ruling.

I left the hearing just to get some air. I thought it was going okay until I saw the pic later.

 I thought the hearing was going pretty well until I saw the pic my client took of me giving my argument.

You have no recourse for conduct like this.

Therefore once again, the individual loses to entities like the State, and big businesses that can afford endless litigation costs.

Trial courts do the most damage to individuals as a practical matter, only because they have the most contact. Not because the judges are better or worse. They dish out systemic tyranny, even if they are a good judge. And if they aren’t a good judge, then they are likely to dish out both kinds of tyranny to you. Lol

Remember, it doesn’t take intentional conduct to screw you as I have just showed you.

At the appellate level the damage can be even worse. One, you are already at a very expensive stage of the litigation. So settlement is problematic. But even more importantly, the Only recourse you have is the  S.Ct. and the chance that they will even Look at your case is basically Zero. So whatever they do is Final.

SYSTEMIC INJUSTICE IS INTENTIONALLY BUILT INTO THE SYSTEM.

People see the system and they see how screwed up it is and they just Assume that it is that way because most lawyers and judges are crooked or incompetent. Hence all the lawyer jokes.

I hope you at least now can see that tyranny and injustice do not require corruption by the vast majority of judges.  The problem, much of the time, is nothing more than their willingness to BLINDLY DO AS THEY ARE TOLD. Let me show you what I mean.

Known as the "machine" Justice Bryan shown here, went on to serve almost 10 more years. His "service" to his country was trumpeted by the press.

 Justice Bryan, known as the “Energizer”, served 10 more years on the appellate bench after this picture was taken. He was heralded as a brilliant scholar upon retirement. 

The systemic injustice that pours out of the courts is, for the most part, the End result of a very few bad actors. The system is Intentionally set up so that it can be Manipulated from the top down from behind the scenes. Only a very small amount of corruption needs to be inserted into the upper levels of the system over time, slowly, incrementally, imperceptibly and Insidiously, in order to create a Huge amount of injustice and systemic tyranny down the line in the trial courts.

Here’s how the system works. The S. Ct. makes law. Appellate courts and trial courts Must follow that law. Appellate courts make law that the trial courts in their Circuit Must all follow. So the trial courts Must follow the courts above them. And since they are the only court that the average person will ever be exposed to, whammo, you have just seen how the system can “touch you” without ever having to even involve itself with you.

The vast majority of cases do not involve controversial issues. So all that really has to be done is to control and affect a few key points on a few key cases at the Appellate level each year. A well placed crooked judge here and there on a case or two in each Circuit making a “well designed ruling” in a key area and you can do a lot of damage over time.

And who is watching? nobody but a few lawyers.  Do you follow oil and gas appellate law? What about arbitration law? lol When does it make news? Starting to catch on?

Now add in to this the fact that appellate judges sit for life. Just like a supreme court justice. They can have a 20 year tenure of doing damage. Maybe more, maybe 30 years, or more. Imagine the damage just ONE such judge can do if he is just Innocently incompetent.

Now picture one who is “compromised” and not at all incompetent.  Now add on to that law makers slipping in loopholes that then “become law”. Now do all of this for a decade or two or ten or twenty, like what we have now on the books and the law can become almost unrecognizable. No justice at all.

Look around, what do you see?  Right… exactly what I just described. lol And THAT is how it happens my friend.  Do you see how dangerous this is?

This is why so much has to be made about how “fair and high minded” the justices all are. Why we have to hear all the time how they are as pure as the wind driven snow. It’s the reason for all the pomp and formality.  Distractions!  

In fact you better tread lightly making allegations against a judge if you’re a lawyer. Even though Lawyers are clearly in the BEST position to KNOW who is out of line on the bench. It is more dangerous than questioning an NBA referee’s call as a coach. lol It isn’t done.

I was sure the Judicial conduct board would want to know what I found out so I sent in my complaint. Lesson learned.

I had some great information I just knew the Judicial misconduct board would want to know, so I sent it right in.  I was impressed how fast they got back to me. 

Do you see how it works now? Do you understand how easy it is to control such a system from the top down Unnoticed? And do you see how once put in place it runs itself.

The workaday judges who are the foot soldiers are, for the most part, oblivious to what they are even doing.  They probably actually believe they are “doing justice” by “following the rules”.

Of course some are meglomaniacs or narcissists. But most are basically honest but they are distracted, and busy, and intellectually lazy and they have fallen victim to the same brainwashing you have.

The real problem is that they never question the overall system of “obeying” whatever the “law” is from the appellate courts or the Supreme court. They rationalize ruling in a way they disagree with the outcome, by telling themselves that they are “following the law”, and that is what “their job is”. And THAT is the key to the system.

Convincing everyone that a judge’s Obligation is to “blindly follow the law” is the key. Once that is done. The rest is easy. They start in law school with the brainwashing of lawyers. It continues in movies and at every level of news and media.  Then they have well paid “media lawyers” write best sellers to talk about this wonderful virtue of judges only “following the law”. lol

The judges never stop to think that their job is supposed to be to actually DO JUSTICE.

i once was blindWhat a judge should be taught is that his job is to Do Justice. If the law prevents what he believes is justice then he should Ignore the Law. If the system prevents that, then ignore the system. If that means that the system gets rid of you, then so be it.

Do we really want judges sitting who don’t care if they are doing justice?

Do you now understand a little better how the system works so insidiously and why it does not require any kind of grand conspiracy?

I’m done for now. I hope you learned something.  Next time I will talk about another aspect of Judicial tyranny.

Take care my brainwashed Brethren. Don’t be down, live in the light and tell someone the truth about the law.

Legalman IS the law

   Legalman still lives

Exactly where does it say the President can keep secrets from the people?

Wake me when my life is over.

Wake me when my life is over.  Such is the sad condition that the STATE wants the people to live in.

Our government has become a government of secrets. They refuse to tell the people what they are doing BECAUSE they KNOW the PEOPLE would not voluntarily AGREE to LET THEM DO IT. If the people ask, then they are told it is classified etc. The vast majority of all of this secret bs is conducted by “executive agencies” like the CIA the FBI, Homeland Security, the NSA , the military intelligence services and ON an ON.  Not to mention all of the “emails” that are kept from prying eyes and all the “redacting” that goes on in 95% of all documents that they release under FOIA requests.  It is undeniable that the vast majority of secrets kept by our supposed “servants” in the government are kept secret under the guise of some vague amalgam allegedly based in “executive privilege”.

Now it is IMPOSSIBLE to discuss that entire topic in one post. In fact it is impossible to discuss anything more than just a teeny tiny portion of that issue in one post. So I am going to try and talk about one little portion. (if you want some more I have discussed it here and here already, and will be discussing it more in the future.)

I am going to pull back the curtain on one of the very HEARTS of this utterly bogus supposed “constitutional claim” of executive privilege which is the BULWARK for how they keep the vast majority of secrets. I want to show you how utterly HOLLOW it is. And when I do this I will hopefully get a “bonus play” and you can see yet another example of how the branches work TOGETHER to screw WE the people.

The elite legal "press corps" is seen here patiently awaiting its turn to ask probing questions for the Court's Spokesman.

The elite legal “press corps” is seen here patiently awaiting its turn to ask probing questions after the time honored and highly stylized “reading” of the “court’s opinion” concludes.

Oh the court hides their chicanery well amongst a bunch of high sounding garbage that really wins more by simply BORING people to death rather than REASONING them to death. They baffle em with Bullsh*t as they say. The average person, as a practical matter, has ZERO chance of being able to sort through all of the distractions in what passes for “court opinions”. Even the vast majority of lawyers MISS THE PLOT most of the time and get pulled off into paths that lead nowhere.

What I want to do today is take the primary case, hell it is pretty much the ONLY REAL case in modern times to even address the issue “directly”. That case is the “Nixon” case. That is the “famous case” when the special prosecutor for Congress was trying to get certain items from the President. The prez claimed “executive privilege” and the Supremes heard the case.

Now there are a BUNCH of problems with this case that I may discuss in later articles. But today I will only focus on ONE QUESTION:

WHAT CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS DID THE COURT FIND FOR THE PRESIDENT’S CLAIM OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE THAT IS NOW USED TO KEEP SECRETS FROM THE PEOPLE?

Surely in a country, where the government is supposed to be subordinate to the people, and where the government is supposedly one of ONLY EXPRESS POWERS, this should be a pretty simple question to answer for the court. Because remember, the FEDS can only do something if they can POINT to a provision in the constitution that says they have the power to do it. That is the ENTIRE basis for why our system is supposedly “so great”.

Oh excuse me, I thought you were.  Please, go on.  Remember, it is all about the need to "respect the office".

Oh excuse me, I thought you were. Please, go on. Remember, it is all about the need to “respect the office”.

So let’s see if the issue was raised, and if so, how was it “resolved” by the court, and if resolved, then WHAT WAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS THE COURT FOUND FOR THE PRIVILEGE.

After going through a bunch of distracting and eye-glazing-over-crap we come to the section in the opinion called “The claim of privilege”. Okay, looks promising. So then we wade through yet some more procedural bs about “rule 17(c), and then we get to the meat of the issue.

So it’s time to wake up people this is going to be where they screw you, lol.

In support of his claim of absolute privilege, the President’s counsel urges two grounds, one of which is common to all governments and one of which is peculiar to our system of separation of powers. The first ground is the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties;

Bingo, this is what we’re looking for. The Prez is claiming a generalized right to have his advisers etc. be able to “advise” him in secret. So we should be expecting to find THE CENTRAL DISCUSSION FROM THE COURT RIGHT HERE. Now notice that there is a semi colon ending that quote I pulled. So here is how it continues.

the importance of this confidentiality is too plain to require further discussion.

Hold it. WHAAAT? That is NOT a typo my fellow inmates. That is the LEVEL of utter CONTEMPT the government has for YOU. That is what the court said. Are you laughing right now or are you sitting there trying to get your mind around it?

Well surely there is MORE. And yes, there is a bit more. The court continues.

Seeing through things, like the reasoning in the court, is a good thing.

I attached this to my Amicus Brief I tried to file to argue that transparency can be a good thing.  The Court un-filed it on obscure procedural grounds.

Human experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decision making process. [Footnote 15]

Okay, the “human experience” card. That isn’t constitutional exactly but we are human, so there could be something here. Granted, some people may in fact prefer to show the public one face and another in private. But so? That is not a constitutional basis for the servants to not tell their masters what they are doing. It is just an argument that some people are not very straightforward with the people they serve.

But remember, the flip side of this “reason” is that the people up there in government may very well WANT to keep things secret SO that they CAN DO THINGS IN THEIR OWN INTERESTS, hence the need for TRANSPARENCY. In fact there are many reasons for FULL transparency. Not the least of which is that maybe the people would PREFER HONESTY about the REAL reasons as opposed to being treated like children who are only told “what they need to know”. And remember, the potential for SELF DEALING is greatly enhanced if there is secrecy.

So AT BEST there are competing policies at work regarding the “need” for secrecy, and THEREFORE it is the President’s obligation to come forward to show that the CONSTITUTION supports his interpretation claiming he has a RIGHT to this veil of secrecy. Well there’s a footnote, so maybe that’s where the answer lies. Here’s what the footnote says.

There is nothing novel about governmental confidentiality. The meetings of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 were conducted in complete privacy. Moreover, all records of those meetings were sealed for more than 30 years after the Convention. Most of the Framers acknowledged that, without secrecy, no constitution of the kind that was developed could have been written. C. Warren, The Making of the Constitution 134-139 (1937). (some citations omitted.)

How is this actual CONSTITUTIONAL support or even ARGUMENT for the existence of the privilege? It is some history at best.  So?  What is the actual LEGAL argument being made? None. (and if you want to know the peoples side of what happened that fateful summer in Philly, well go read what I wrote here.)

Government education is essential.  Here a young girl is learning all about the holding in the Nixon case in her civics class.

Government education is essential. Here a young girl is learning all about the holding in the Nixon case in her civics class.

And ONCE AGAIN there is a simple reply to even the implication of this supposed basis. If it was “so obvious and necessary” and the people were all so clearly ON BOARD with this idea of secrecy, then why not just put a clause in the constitution saying the President can keep whatever secrets he deems appropriate from the people? Why not just do that? Remember, there is a clause in the constitution that empowers the Congress to create not just a post office, but also POSTAL ROADS. So it isn’t like they weren’t thinking of the consequences.

The court’s “reasoning” simply ASSUMES AWAY THE CENTRAL ISSUE.  And it does so IN A FOOTNOTE. It is beyond outrageous. If you can’t see how the branches conspire to screw you then you are blind. So let’s continue with the text of the opinion, surely there is SOME scrap of support referenced.

Whatever the nature of the privilege of confidentiality of Presidential communications in the exercise of Art. II powers, the privilege can be said to derive from the supremacy of each branch within its own assigned area of constitutional duties.

“Whatever the nature”?? Isn’t that kind of important to be able to DESCRIBE? Isn’t it ESSENTIAL to be able to define the exact nature and scope of the PRIVILEGE before you could ever “find” the existence or non-existence of the privilege? Of course it is.

Then they just say “whatever it is” it “derives” from the supremacy of each branch”. So apparently there is a limitless undefined power to keep secrets that is “implied” and “springs” from the MERE fact that there IS an executive branch? This is insulting frankly. What about the competing policy issues I already demonstrated? Totally IGNORED. What about the REQUIREMENT that the government be able to POINT to where the CONSTITUTION empowers them to do what they are doing?  All of that is out the window. This is what passes for “august reasoning” from these holy oracles. It continues:

Remember, you have to be an expert to be able to understand all of the brilliance that is in a supreme court opinion.  I mean, did you go to Harvard Law School? NO? well then sit down and shut up and listen to the experts who did.

Remember, you have to be an expert to be able to understand all of the brilliance that is in a supreme court opinion. I mean, did you go to Harvard Law School? NO? well then sit down and shut up and listen to the experts who did.

Certain powers and privileges flow from the nature of enumerated powers; [Footnote 16] the protection of the confidentiality of Presidential communications has similar constitutional underpinnings.

Okay, so this sentence makes NO SENSE. It basically says that the implied powers they are finding in this case, of EXECUTIVE privilege are similar to the powers that flow from other ENUMERATED powers. What? Implied from implied is the same as necessary from enumerated? That is crap. Why don’t you try that kind of “reasoning” with your boss and see how far you get. Well thank god there’s a footnote so let’s check that.

The Special Prosecutor argues that there is no provision in the Constitution for a Presidential privilege as to the President’s communications corresponding to the privilege of Members of Congress under the Speech or Debate Clause.

Whoa. Look what the Special Prosecutor CLAIMED. He claimed the President had NO PRIVILEGE that is similar to the EXPRESS and LIMITED privilege that certain congressional communications receive that are ACTUALLY IN THE CONSTITUTION.

So this is DEAD ON POINT. The prosecutor raised the essential issue. And notice that the court PUTS IT AND ITS REASONING IN RESPONSE TO IT, IN THE FOOTNOTE. Ahh the “majesty” and wonder that IS the supreme court.  So how do they answer the prosecutors MAIN POINT?

But the silence of the Constitution on this score is not dispositive.

Jesus H. you can’t make this stuff up! Honestly, wtf? The constitution is silent on the MAIN issue but THAT is not dispositive. What happened to the idea of a limited government with EXPRESS powers? Oh, out the window. And the court puts this in a FOOTNOTE?? Surely the court then presents SOME justification. Well here is the rest of the footnote.

Here is the lovable S.Ct. mascot "Conny" teaching the kids all about where the executive privilege to keep everything secret from the people comes from.  It helps to teach the kids EARLY about our wonderful freedoms.

Here is the lovable S.Ct. mascot “Conny the constitution” teaching the kids all about where the executive privilege to keep everything secret from the people comes from. It helps to teach the kids EARLY about our wonderful freedoms.

“The rule of constitutional interpretation announced in McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, that that which was reasonably appropriate and relevant to the exercise of a granted power was to be considered as accompanying the grant, has been so universally applied that it suffices merely to state it.

Hold it.  This quote deals with how to interpret GRANTED powers.  But they just told us that the executive privilege is NOT a GRANTED power it is an IMPLIED power that somehow “springs” from the mere existence of the “executive branch”.  So this quote doesn’t even APPLY to the nonsensical argument they are even making.  At best all that can be said about this “support” is that the court holds that the president has the privilege because the court finds that he has it.  And the proof required of the court? Well it “suffices to merely state it.”

Such is the grandeur of those brilliant jurists who we all look to for guidance. Remember it is their job to “tell us what the law is.”  And how do we know THAT?  Because they told us that is their job. Can you say Idiocracy? lol  That a mass of 330 million some odd people can be cowed and ruled by such utter nonsense really does prove that Truth is stranger than fiction my fellow inmates.

If this type of thing doesn’t wake you then what could I bring you?

The REST of the opinion uses THIS “foundation” to then “reason its way” to “other constitutional conclusions” about the extent of the “privilege” it just “found”.  I seem to remember someone saying something about a house built on sand not being able to stand, or something along those lines.

This type of opinion, in my humble opinion, is criminal. If the “holding” in this case is not something that threatens the very fabric of our supposed “constitutional system” then what could?

I mean, there is NO THERE there. It is total crap. And THAT “executive” privilege they magically “found” is how they “justify” keeping 95% of all the secrets.

Every conspiracy to screw the people requires secrecy. Executive privilege is how they claim to have the “constitutional right” to keep the BULK of the secrets they keep to spy on and control every aspect of your life.

Yeah I caught her discussion on the case. I taped it and have watched it a bunch of times.  Why do you ask?

Hell Yeah I caught her discussion on the supreme court’s opinion, it’s going viral. They were awesome.   I taped it and watched it a bunch of times with the sound off. Why do you ask?

Why do you never hear about what I have just showed you? Simple, the lawyers who are presented in the media and who are richly rewarded for being “experts” in academia etc. and whose books become bestsellers and who have radio shows etc. are either in on the whole thing or hopelessly lost in their own world. Why would they bother to change something that isn’t broken? They get rich and go on T.V. and give speeches spinning a yarn that serves those in power.  Thus they continue to do it and never question their own brilliance.

They are put there by the money powers to DISTRACT YOU.  And thus, YOU never hear or see the truth.

Keep everyone asking the wrong questions. It is ALWAYS the same game. Lol. What I do is ask the RIGHT questions. That is very dangerous indeed.  The pen and the sword my friend. The pen and the sword.

That’s all for now my brainwashed Brethren. I hope you learned something. Take care, live in the light, and tell someone about the truth about the law.

Legalman IS the law

  Legalman IS the law

The Supreme Court does not have the “Power” to make anything “Constitutional”.

Apparently the Supreme court will be ruling shortly. on Obamacare and the advance word is that they are upholding it.

Apparently the Supreme court will be ruling shortly on Obamacare, and the advance word is that they are upholding it.   I’ve heard their “reasoning” this season is INCREDIBLE with lots of twists and unexpected characters.  Maybe even some nudity.  Yeah, nudity!

I want to talk about the supreme court’s “Power” to rule that Obamacare OR ANY OTHER piece of legislation “IS” constitutional. We all learn in government schools growing up and through countless media injections into the culture, and thus into our minds, that we have a constitutional system where there is a separation of powers between the branches. And THEN we learn that under our system it is the job of the supreme court to decide whether something IS or is not constitutional. Some especially bright people may even remember some vague details about things called “judicial review” and a case called “Marbury v. Madison”.

Of course the people have been misled, but Lawyers may actually be WORSE off when it comes to the brainwashing in this area. They had to undergo courses in “constitutional law” and civil procedure where a nonstop propaganda machine poured information into them that they “had to learn” if they wanted to graduate so they could get a government issued license to practice law in the government courts. Get it?

Most peoples’ eyes glaze over at this point but people SHOULD pay VERY close attention. Because this entire subject is a lynchpin of how the system CONTROLS you.

In general, people today, have been convinced that you have to be an “expert” in order to have a valid opinion about much of anything. News flash, you don’t. You just have to be able to think and to KEEP your mind open. But think how convenient it is for that “expert” concept to be in the peoples’ heads. It is put there by those in power so you won’t ever feel entitled to QUESTION the experts they put in front of you. The self serving nature of the whole concept is both obvious and absurd, yet still people don’t see it.

I hired this marketing firm to expand my reach and to improve my focus group attraction.  They had some pretty great ideas. That stuff is serious science.

I was having some trouble getting people to “take me seriously” as an “expert” because I like to joke around.  So I hired this marketing firm.  Here I am using their techniques.   What do you think? I look really credible don’t I?  Those guys are geniuses.   

First let me say that you don’t NEED to know much of anything in order to get the point I am going to make. In fact I assume people don’t know much of anything, lol. I am not going to discuss the details of Marbury v. Madision or the many PROBLEMS with that case. I am not going to discuss stare decisis, or any of the other myriad of somewhat more complex topics. I am going to make a much more fundamental point.

For purpose of this article I will ASSUME the standard TALE of what the constitution IS and the powers the court has. In other words, I am ASSUMING the generally accepted “read” of Marbury v. Madison and what we are told about what the framers intended is true. Got it?

While it is true that there was disagreement about what should be in the constitution when it was being drafted, there was agreement in many areas. The argument between federalist and anti-federalists was generally about HOW to accomplish the following goal.

THE FRAMERS AND THEIR OPPONENTS WERE SEEKING A CONSTRUCT THAT MADE THE COURT STRONG ENOUGH TO STAND UP TO THE OTHER TWO BRANCHES IN ORDER TO KEEP THEM WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE CONSTITUTION, BUT NOT SO STRONG THAT THE COURT WOULD OVER REACH AND THEREBY THWART THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

These ideas are generally how the court, in Marbury v. Madison, justified its “right” to engage in “Art. III Judicial Review” and to THEREBY STRIKE DOWN acts by the other two branches. Of course it goes without saying that in any case where the court has a POWER to strike something down, they must also have the ABILITY to choose to uphold it, otherwise they would not be free to resolve the controversy. And here is where the mischief and confusion begin.

Justice Brennan is shown here early in his tenure on the Court. He was just beginning to learn the benefits of exercising his new found powers.

Justice Brennan is shown here early in his tenure on the Court. He was just learning all the benefits of exercising his new found powers.

THERE IS A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE POWER EXERCISED BY THE COURT WHEN STRIKING DOWN ITEMS THAT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION AND THE OPINION ISSUED BY THE COURT WHEN IT UPHOLDS ITEMS ASSERTING THAT THEY CONFORM TO THE CONSTITUTION.

The distinction can not be emphasized ENOUGH.

The main POINT of making the court independent and for CREATING a “separation of powers” was to provide for a way to keep the other two branches IN CHECK. Here is Federalist 78, the “bible” of the strict constructionists, discussing how the judiciary will work.

The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex-post-facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.

And here is just a bit more from the same Fed 78:

the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority.

… the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments.

Do you see? The court was given its power in order to protect the rights of the people by keeping the other branches within the EXPRESS limits of the constitution. The reason for this is simple and practical. When the people were forming the Feds they only gave the Feds LIMITED and EXPRESS powers.

What were the people to do if the Feds overstepped and started taking advantage of people? Well if there is no court from which to get justice, then the people are abused, and ultimately, when they have had enough, they will have no choice but to dissolve the union to avoid the tyranny. A dissolution, like the one they had JUST finished in the revolution and had gone through with the Articles of Confederation.

Dissolution is a messy process. It is inefficient. Better to have a system in place to protect the people from overreach as much as possible. Thus the court is there to SERVE the people, and it was given the POWER to strike down acts that OVER REACHED in order to protect the peoples’ rights.  

Justice Robert's transitioned to the law after suffering a career ending knee injury.  He is shown here performing his famous "double strike of justice" move. His supporters who had hoped to see him use this move on the court have been quite disappointed. He has become much more of a grab and hold kind of guy now.

Justice Robert’s transitioned to the law after suffering a career ending knee injury. He is shown here performing his famous “double strike of justice” move. His supporters who had hoped to see him use this move on the court have been quite disappointed. He has become much more of a grab and hold kind of guy now.

The government’s education system, and the legal education system the government MANDATES everyone undergo before anyone can get a law license issued by the same government to practice law in the government courts, creates the illusion that the supreme court has A mirror image “POWER” to “DECLARE” something Constitutional to its POWER to DECLARE something unconstitutional and then STRIKE IT DOWN. They act like they are flip sides of the SAME POWER. But they are not.

The only time the COURT can EXERCISE any actual POWER in a constitutional sense, is by STRIKING down an act of one of the other two branches.

Think about it. Whenever the COURT approves conduct by the other branches, the Court is not actually exercising any POWER at all. It is just issuing an OPINION.  The OPINION doesn’t actually DO anything. Really it is more accurate to say that it saw no need to USE ITS POWER over something that was done by one of the other branches. The law is already passed.  Nothing happens after the court “rules”.  The court just steps aside. Get it?  Here is how to think about it.

THE SUPREME COURT HAS THE POWER TO STRIKE DOWN ACTIONS BY THE OTHER TWO BRANCHES WHEN THEY ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, BUT;

THE SUPREME COURT HAS NO “POWER” TO MAKE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACT CONSTITUTIONAL BY ISSUING AN OPINION OR BY DOING ANYTHING ELSE.

READ those statements again. That is the whole shebang my fellow inmate that they have screwed you and me with.  Understanding the distinction and the IMPORT of those statements exposes the great con they have run regarding the court’s “power”.

There is no FLIP side to the SEPARATION OF POWERS ISSUE. because there is no POWER being exercised on the flip side.  The money power has done one hell of a job confusing people and conflating those two distinct ideas.  But they are not a mirror image of each other. They are totally different.

One is a POWER that operates AGAINST the other branches of the government on BEHALF of the people to STOP them from DOING SOMETHING to the people. The other is merely an OPINION that sets up a consensus or Union with the acts of the OTHER BRANCHES of the government AGAINST the PEOPLE. It doesn’t DO anything. Do you see the difference yet?

Top law students hoping to get a Supreme court clerking job are seen here on vacation. The intense competition for the few coveted openings means they have to practice seeing the world like a S. Ct. Justice whenever they can.

Top law students hoping to get a Supreme court clerking job are seen here on vacation. The intense competition for the few coveted openings means they have to practice seeing the world like a S. Ct. Justice whenever they can.

There is NO evidence, and there never could be, and there is NO line of rational thought, and there never could be to to SHOW that the people GAVE the COURT THE POWER to make unconstitutional acts Constitutional by simply issuing its OPINION. That turns the entire system ON ITS HEAD. It makes NO SENSE.  The people would have put themselves at the mercy of the the unelected untouchable branch of the government.  The court would be the OPPOSITE of what it was intended to be.

There is no flip side to the “Art III” Marbury v. Madison POWER to strike down acts. None. If the branches work together to take the freedoms of the people and grow the power of the FEDS outside its constitutional limits all of that conduct is lawless. The framers were well aware of this danger. Again, Federalist 78:

“…. liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments;

Do you see?  There was no “arguing about that issue” between the Federalist and the Anti-federalist because IT was self evident that there was a problem if the court got into bed with the other branches, i.e. started “approving” and “finding” powers the government didn’t have.

And of course that is what we have had now for many many decades. The court has been  doing nothing more than running cover, providing “plausible deniability” and the APPEARANCE of a check to DUPE the people. It has been rubber stamping the EXPANSION of the government by expanding and explaining made up “constitutional powers” that IT CREATED ITSELF, lol. When it does that it is NOT exercising ANY constitutionally based “power” derived from the “separation of powers” or its authority to engage in “judicial review”, it is simply conspiring to violate the constitution. Nothing more and It is not entitled to any shred of support by the people. It is entitled to the CONTEMPT of the people.

I want to ask you a very simple question.

When is the last time the supreme court struck down any piece of legislation that was even ARGUABLY CONSTITUTIONAL? Has it EVER happened?  I means Jesus H. just look at Art. 1 Sect. 8, the Feds don’t have the power to DO JACK, yet they do EVERYTHING. Limited government  is a complete sham BECAUSE of the court.  Yes the court has struck a few items down, but the items WERE LAUGHABLY unconstitutional to begin with.  BUT let me let you in on a secret my fellow inmate.  The only reason they even do that is because if they NEVER struck anything down, the people might have seen the fraud a long time ago.

Here is some of "justice" Marshall original issue S. Ct. equipment he used to draft the opinion in Marbury v. Madison.  The equipment looks silly to us today, but it was STATE OF THE ART at the time.

Here, from the Smithsonian is some of “justice” Marshall’s original issue S. Ct. “Poker” equipment.  He had a reputation as quite the card shark.  It turns out he wasn’t so much lucky as he was “prepared to win”. The equipment looks silly to us today, but it was STATE OF THE ART at the time.

You have to throw a few hands if you want to reel in the MARK! lol

A HUGE portion of the problems we experience are because the COURT HAS EITHER APPROVED OBVIOUSLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL LEGISLATION OR IT HAS LEGISLATED FROM THE BENCH AND CREATED NEW OBLIGATIONS FOR THE PEOPLE.

Neither of those issues are addressed IN the Constitution. They can’t be. Those are problems with CORRUPTION, not the form of the government!! AND Neither of those issues are an “outgrowth” of the court “exercising ANY power under the separation of powers doctrine.”

The government has been ever so careful in its schools to condition the People to ACCEPT whatever the court says as, “the final answer”, be it Obamacare or anything else. The people now clearly believe that the court has the power to in effect make an unconstitutional act Constitutional by simply issuing its opinion no matter how absurd the reasoning. No matter how much it bootstraps on bootstraps some made up standard that the court itself CREATED.

And the legal minds in this country, after being intentionally misled for years in “law schools” running controlled “curriculums” and prepping students for “the bar” , now actually believe that this power is “part of the structure of our government” and  is derived from the separation of powers and judicial review. But now you can see the great sleight of hand with which the PEOPLE have been fooled.

Considered the elite of the elite, Top level "educators" and "legal professionals" are shown here in a "Breakout session" at the annual joint D.O.J. Harvard Law school conference where cutting edge S. Ct. legal issues are debated.  It is by invitation only, so yeah, I don't get to go.

Considered the elite of the elite, Top level “educators” and “legal professionals” are shown here in a “Breakout session” at the annual joint D.O.J. Harvard Law school conference where cutting edge S. Ct. legal issues are debated. It is by invitation only, so yeah, I don’t get to go.

“Our fellow citizens have been led hoodwinked from their principles by a most extraordinary combination of circumstances. But the band is removed, and they now see for themselves.”Thomas Jefferson

The court’s power comes FROM THE PEOPLE. So does the legislatures. If the court is approving unconstitutional nonsense put in front of it by the legislature and the Prez then they are all just conspiring to grow the government.  If the people then go along with it, who is really to blame?    THE PEOPLE.

“The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union.”Thomas Jefferson

It is UP TO THE PEOPLE to protect themselves. The government, including the Supreme Court, doesn’t protect the people. Of course the court is acting without any LEGAL authority AT ALL when it “approves” obviously unconstitutional nonsense. That is called corruption.   It is called being power hungry. IT IS CALLED STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE FOR GOVERNMENT. Lol It is a lot of things, but it isn’t a separation of powers problem.

The PEOPLE should demand the justices be IMPEACHED immediately.  When the master allows the servants to run amok, well, the servants will run amok until brought under control, lol.

The man the myth the legend.

         The man the myth the legend.

If the situation is not what the people want then THEY must change it.  But the people have become sheeple. And sheep get slaughtered.

Step one to changing things is understanding the deeply imbedded mental constructs they have placed into the peoples’ minds to control them.  That is what this site is for.

I hope you learned something today. I hope the next time you hear some schmexpert from “Harvard law” or a “former federal prosecutor” discussing “Obamacare” or any other S. Ct case, and the court’s “POWER” under “Art III” to in effect make something “constitutional”, that you will just laugh at them for what they are. Obvious propagandists.

It matters not if they do it knowingly. The effect is the same on the people. In all likelihood they are just useful idiots of the power structure being richly rewarded for doing something they don’t even ultimately understand. They probably actually BELIEVE what they are saying. It is almost sad that people can be so easily fooled.

I hope your eyes have been opened to YET ANOTHER way the power structure takes something that is true and then turns it a “quarter of an inch” so that it is crap, lol. THAT IS THEIR METHOD, lol.  Once that is done they can step aside and let the people drain off time and energy arguing with EACH OTHER on issues that DON’T matter and never were DISPUTED. It is always the same game my fellow inmate.

That’s all for now my brainwashed Brethren. Take care, live in the light and tell someone about the truth about the law.

Legalman IS the law

Legalman IS the law

You lost 2nd Amend. rights in a S.Ct. case where the defendant didn’t even appear!

This guy goes around the country trying to wake people up about what the supreme court really thinks about your 2nd amendment rights.

I would love to be able to hire a guy like this to hammer home what the supreme court REALLY thinks about your 2nd amendment rights.

I was originally going to explain why everyone is afraid to even discuss the import of the peoples’ right to bear arms. But it is now clear that I first need to show you an example of how “we the people” get tricked into discussing certain “exceptions” and “tests” that the supreme court simply dreams up out of thin air.

So what is the first question to ask when doing the analysis?  Of course, how did her hair get dry so fast.

So what’s the first thing you notice when you see her coming out of the pool?  Right, obviously, how did her hair dry so fast? See how easily the people are distracted? lol

I  showed you in my last post how the correct analysis of any issue relating to the PEOPLES’ right to bear arms never even GETS to the second amendment BECAUSE there is NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT GRANTS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ANY AUTHORITY TO REGULATE WHAT ARM’S THE PEOPLE CAN “BEAR”.  If you haven’t read my piece on that then GO READ IT because I will be assuming you already understand this CRITICAL point.

So how did we get to this point of “needing” to discuss all sorts of distinctions between military use and hunting and self defense etc. when discussing THE PEOPLES’ rights under the “2nd amendment”?  I am going to show you just ONE of the S. Ct. cases where they created one of the “tests”.

Once you see it, you will understand a lot more about the entire scam they run on you.  Once you see what happened in that case, you will see what a bunch of propagandist those on the court and in the government media  education complex are, and how they have used GAME THEORY on you once again to put you  in “the wrong box”.

Here is the language where the entire “military application” concept involving the 2nd amendment “began”. It is from a 1939 supreme court case called “Miller”. And THAT is the case where they stopped letting THE PEOPLE have sawed off shotguns, even though the police and military still use them all the time.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

I reviewed the pertinent case law on this and honestly, I just can't tell you if it meets the standard or not.

I reviewed the pertinent case law and honestly, I just can’t tell you if it meets the Court’s standard or not for “military use”.

When you read that language you are clearly left with the impression that the court is referencing some “well worn” court  “standard” about needing to show that possession “has some reasonable relationship” to preserving a militia etc.   And in fact that very STANDARD is NOW ASSUMED in all legal arguments and is used by CONGRESS and the ATF to JUSTIFY TAKING YOUR GUNS and ammo.

There are probably volumes written on this “standard” or “test” I just showed you.  Here is the “honorable” justice stevens writing in the “venerable” Washington Post in the mid 2000’s about the alleged state of the law and its supposed history.

For more than 200 years following the adoption of that amendment, federal judges uniformly understood that the right protected by that text was limited in two ways: First, it applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes…. in 1939, the court unanimously held [in the Miller case] that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that sort of weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated Militia.”

It sounds impressive and convincing.  And it is, unless you LOOK INTO THE DETAILS of what he is REFERRING TO, which they KNOW you won’t .  And they KNOW the media will NEVER INFORM YOU EITHER. lol  So what exactly was the Miller case? since that case is supposedly the genesis of what looks to be a pretty important “rule” which has justified a LOT of federal gun control laws.

Miller grew out of a 1938 prosecution of two bootleggers (Jack Miller and Frank Layton) for violating the National Firearms Act by possessing a sawed-off shotgun without having paid the required federal tax. The federal district court dismissed the indictment on the grounds that the National Firearms Act violated the Second Amendment. Did you CATCH THAT??  They WON at the trial court. The court found that the federal act was UNCONSTITUTIONAL because it violated the 2nd amendment.

Shown here was the scene outside the court room.  Apparently even they were unaware that defendants weren't even present.  But

Supporters of Miller and Layton march outside the Supreme court. Apparently they had no idea that the whole case was a show, the defendants were never even there. 

So what happened next?  Miller and Layton were never heard from again.  That’s right, they TOOK off.  They were bootleggers, lol.  Exited stage left as they say.  So if that’s the case then how did the case get to the supreme court?  Simple, the government took a DIRECT APPEAL bypassing the appellate courts.

But wait, how does that work? how in the world can you have an appeal and an argument and an alleged “decision” on a constitutional issue that affects ALL the people, when ONLY THE GOVERNMENT MAKES AN APPEARANCE AND FILES A BRIEF?  That doesn’t make any sense.  Especially when you REMEMBER that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is not only who the RIGHT is a protection FROM, but it is also the party who is  arguing the case AND THE PARTY HEARING AND DECIDING THE CASE. This sounds like the kind sham kangaroo BS they ran in Stalinist Russia.  Ahh, now you’re seeing what YOUR “just-a-system” actually is my brainwashed friend.

There was no BRIEFING OTHER THAN THE GOVERNMENT’S when the court “heard the case”.  What a FRAUD.  When there was counter briefing at the trial court the FEDS LOST.    And remember the way Stevens, and the court itself in its opinions refers to “Miller”.  You WOULD NEVER KNOW ANY OF THIS. They talk about the “unanimous decision” as though it was REAL. lol Are you seeing this?  Do you see how they commit this transparent fraud on the people by dreaming up new “restrictions” on the peoples’ rights and actually  “make a constitutional ruling” without there even being any DEFENSE FOR THE PEOPLE. It is laughable to call this a “justice” system.

This is the great “protection” you get from the constitution and the “court”. Then those in charge crank up their propaganda machine after the decision and act as though it was a real case and that the “law made” is legitimate.  Just go look yourself.  It is like I try and tell you all the time.  They hide in plain site, lol.

A rare behind the scenes look at one of the Justices in the Miller case warming up before writing the opinion.  The case required some pretty serious acrobatics to pull off.

A rare behind the scenes look at Justice Stevens warming up to  write his Washington Post Op Ed where he deftly concocted a tale that implied that  the  Miller standard had been around for 200 years.   

If, in Miller, they had just been REstating a long standing rule about “military use” as Stevens clearly IMPLIES with his 200 year comment, then at least that would be a hell of a lot LESS damning. But that is NOT the case.  Far from it. MILLER takes what the court had held in the past, and turns it on its head.  It creates this bogus “military standard” out of whole cloth. For Stevens to imply or claim that “Miller” was just restating a “long standing” rule is what in polite circles they call doing “mental gymnastics”. Most people just call it lying.

So let me show you one of the VERY few cases that dealt with FEDERAL restrictions on guns for the people BEFORE MILLER.  Let me give you the BACKGROUND on the case.  I want you to see how the facts could probably NEVER be more outrageously IN FAVOR of limiting the peoples rights and yet STILL the court did not find for the Feds.  And I want you to see that this case does not say ANYTHING about any “military use” standard.   It is a SUPREME court case I discussed in the previous article, U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).

During Reconstruction Congress criminalized private conspiracies to violate civil rights under something referred to as the Enforcement Acts.  Congress was especially concerned about the disarming of “freed blacks” by the Ku Klux Klan and similar gangs.  So are you getting the idea?  Federal law to keep people from abusing recently freed blacks.  Pretty STRONG motivation IF there is ANY authority. Here’s what happened to give rise to the case.

This is a little known legal "term of art" that is applied when the People lose rights in a case such as the "Miller" case, where they weren't even represented.

Chuckmate,noun. A legal “term of art” applied when the People lose fundamental constitutional rights despite not being represented in the case.

After a rioting band of whites burned down a Louisiana courthouse which was occupied by a group of armed blacks (following the disputed 1872 elections), the whites and their leader, Klansman William Cruikshank, were prosecuted under the Enforcement Acts. Cruikshank was convicted of conspiring to deprive the blacks of the rights they had been granted by the Constitution, including the right peaceably to assemble and the right to bear arms.

So what happened?  The Supreme Court held the Enforcement Acts unconstitutional.

Do you see this?  The Supreme Court held that Congress did not have the authority to limit the right to bear arms by the citizens even in a CASE LIKE THIS.  Here is the pertinent part of the court’s opinion once again.

The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose.” This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called…”internal police.” — U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

As a result of the court's continuously overlooking the obvious facts and law in the recent 2nd amendment cases they brought in an expert to help them the next time.

Coming under immense public pressure as a result of the court’s continuously overlooking the obvious facts and law when writing their opinions, they have brought in this expert. 

Do you see what a bunch of DISINGENUOUS propagandists the “justices” are for failing to inform the people of the facts of “MIller” and then IGNORING THIS CASE?  There is no 200 year history of some “military purpose” standard  BEFORE the FRAUD of the MILLER case.  What “justice” stevens said in his op ed is just a complete load of crap.  He doesn’t care a wit about lying directly to the people. And why would he. He is unelected, untouchable and working to EXPAND the power of the ONLY ENTITY that could EVER REMOVE HIM from office, HIS EMPLOYER the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

Do you see the con people?  You can NEVER EVER have a system where an entity is in charge of LIMITING ITSELF.  That makes NO SENSE.  Yet THAT is what the people have been told MAKES our system SO GREAT.  Man they must laugh their ASSES OFF THAT PEOPLE believe something THAT stupid.  

I am going to show you one more example of Supreme court language, in what is called “dicta”, which is nonetheless DIRECTLY ON POINT, that the honorable “justice” stevens was apparently UNaware of or perhaps “forgot” when he said that for 200 years that “federal judges uniformly understood that the right protected by that text… applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes…”  And remember, there really are no other supreme court cases discussing FEDERAL gun laws restricting the PEOPLES’ RIGHTS to keep and bear arms  before Miller in the 1930’s, because Congress hadn’t passed any laws like that since IT KNEW IT HAD NO AUTHORITY and the court had CONFIRMED THAT FACT.

Here’s some language from the Supreme Court from the mid 1850’s.

The powers of the Government and the rights and privileges of the citizen are regulated and plainly defined by the Constitution itself….It has no power of any kind beyond it…  the Federal Government can exercise no power over his person or property beyond what that instrument confers, nor lawfully deny any right which it has reserved. A reference to a few of the provisions of the Constitution will illustrate this proposition.

Sometimes the Court takes evidence.  You have to admit, she makes a good point when you look at the court's reasoning.

Few people know that Hillary actually argued a gun case in front of the Court. She clearly knew what the Court wanted to hear as “legal” argument. 

So far this sounds a lot like the POINT I MAKE all the time and MADE in my last article.  Now read the rest.

For example, no one, we presume, will contend that Congress can make any law in a Territory respecting the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people of the Territory peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for the redress of grievances.

Nor can Congress deny to the people the right to keep and bear arms, nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel anyone to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding.

These powers, and others in relation to rights of person which it is not necessary here to enumerate, are, in express and positive terms, denied to the General Government... Scott v. Sandford

Do you see?  There was no 200 year history of some made up “military use” exception/standard etc.  The Court just invented it 1939 in a case where there was NO OPPOSITION TO THE GOVERNMENT.  And now, everyone runs around as though it is real and legitimate and “the law”.

Honestly people if you don’t see that those in charge laugh at you, you are willfully BLIND.  Hell, I laugh at you. lol  I have told you that the Feds do whatever they want.  The whole idea of a “constitution” and “limits” and rights is a fairy tale they tell you to keep you on the reservation. The real rule is that those who wield the guns under the color of law do as they care to do and those on the other end suffer what they must.

Dude, there's no way we can get away with it.  Relax, I'm in charge of writing the opinion.

Dude, there’s no way we can get away with it. I mean look at him.  How can we convince them he’s okay?  Relax, they do whatever I tell them.  Oh.. excellent.

The 3 branches of THE SAME ENTITY are collaborating to incrementally eliminate your right to bear arms as fast as they can.  IT ISN’T complicated.

Okay my fellow inmates, I’m done for today. I hope you have learned something today.  The lessons from history are there to be heard, if you simply open your ears.

Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not.” —Thomas Jefferson

“When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.” — Thomas Jefferson

Now for something a bit on the lighter side.  I want to show you what a REAL hero looks like .  A visionary!  lol, This cat has taken the lesson of the brilliant 16th century political philosopher Mr. Boetie to heart.  IF the PEOPLE in this country had half the brains and balls that this cat does, they’d already be free.  Here is the advice Boetie gave more than 500 years ago!

Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces. 

Étienne de la Boétie

Watch the video. This cat makes Gandhi look like an amateur at peaceful resistance in this short clip.  lol. Enjoy my fellow inmates.

 

That’s all for now my Brainwashed Brethren.  I hope you learned something.  Take care, live in the light and tell someone about the TRUTH about the law.

Legalman IS the law

Legalman IS the law

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with why the Feds cannot regulate the PEOPLES’ right to bear arms.

It's a good look, don't you think?

     Together we grow freererer everyday!

ONWARD! The  incremental march to steal the Peoples’ freedoms continues everyday!  They have taken your “automatic” weapons. They have taken your right to own “military equipment”. They license and control virtually every type of weapon. Now they are going after the ammo. Obviously without ammo, a gun doesn’t do much good. Specifically they are thinking about banning the public from purchasing what are supposedly “dangerous” military “armor piercing” rounds of 223. Of course the government itself will still be able to buy it to use AGAINST the people if it “needs to”.

It's not so much that they're a juggernaut, it's more a case that the defense really sucks.  If it ain't broke, why fix it.  42 dive left on one.

It’s not so much that they’re a juggernaut, it’s more a case that the Peoples’ defense really sucks. If those in control can just get the ball snapped they can get 5 yards before they even have to block.  Okay, 42 dive left on one.

It really is laughable to me the way the people continue to fall for the same plays over and over by those in charge.  What do I mean “run the same plays”? Simple. They have fooled everyone using game theory once again. They have everyone arguing about a bunch of stuff that is irrelevant. What does militia mean? Is the weapon or ammo used for hunting? Is it a “military” weapon” and on and on. They have put everyone in a box from which there is NO exit.

What is the box they have everyone in? Simple, the analysis of the gun issue does not BEGIN by looking at the SECOND amendment. It does not begin by looking at the Gun Control Acts. It does not begin by looking to Supreme Court opinions about the second amendment or the gun control acts.  The analysis doesn’t ever get that far.

The feds lose at the first step, which is for them to identify where the people, in the constitution, gave them the power to take the PEOPLES guns or ammo. Do you see? THE FEDS HAVE SKIPPED INTENTIONALLY OVER the most fundamental step.

I ask a lot of people to identify where the Feds get their powers and this guy is actually a lot closer than he knows to identifying the REAL basis for the Feds authority.

I ask a lot of people to identify where the Feds get their powers. I’m pretty sure this guy didn’t even understand the question, but he actually got a lot closer to the answer than I thought he would.  The irony was lost on him.

The first step to determine whether ANYTHING the feds are EVER doing is LEGITIMATE is to POINT to a provision in the constitution where the PEOPLE gave the FEDS the power to do whatever it is they are trying to do. That is always always always step one.

So where is the provision IN THE CONSTITUTION that empowers the feds to take your guns and ammo? Please show it to me. It should be in Art. 1 Sect. 8 which ENUMERATES the powers they have been given.  It isn’t THERE.  Here is WHAT IT SAYS THEY CAN DO.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

So they are authorized to organize, arm and discipline the militia.  Well bully for them.  Knock yourself out feds.  Are you in the militia? I know I’m not.

There is nothing there about ANY right to regulate what the PEOPLE CHOOSE TO OWN OR POSSESS with their own money. The regulations they are passing have nothing to do with ARMING, ORGANIZING OR DISCIPLINING the MILITIA. NOTHING.   So where is the “authority to limit the peoples’ rights?  NOWHERE.  SO THEY DON’T HAVE THAT RIGHT.  END of analysis.  No 2nd amendment interpretation needed.  Get it?

Unlike our government, I insist on maintaining my high standards.

Unlike our government, I insist on maintaining my high standards.

That is the analysis that is SUPPOSED to be used regarding their right to take away THE PEOPLE’S guns and ammo. They have to find a provision that ALLOWS them to.

Congress is in charge of arming the militia. So?  The feds regulations never have anything even OSTENSIBLY to do with ARMING the militia. Congress is well within its right to “arm” THE MILITIA but they have no right to infringe on the PEOPLE’S RIGHTS to ARM THEMSELVES with whatever they want.  

All of these discussions about self protection and criminals and hunting and “dangerous to law enforcement” are nothing but distractions CREATED by the SUPREME COURT’S opinions that gave power to the feds that they never had.  The way our system of government is SUPPOSED TO WORK is that the feds FIRST have to be able to  point to a provision that empowers the feds to ACT in the manner they propose.  It is not MY OBLIGATION to show WHAT THEY CAN NOT DO. They have to show where they get the power to DO IT.

And that is how they have reset the game.

Apparently they've started teaching some new material since I went to school.  This girl is studying for her con law class.

Apparently they’ve started teaching some new material since I went to law school. This girl is doing some research for her con law class.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT, LIKE ALL OF THE AMENDMENTS, IS JUST A RE-CLARIFICATION OF CERTAIN THINGS THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WAS NEVER GIVEN ANY AUTHORITY TO LEGISLATE.

RE-read what I just wrote. Do you see how fundamentally DIFFERENT that is from STARTING with the 2nd amendment or any other amendment? It is CRITICAL to understand the distinction.

Still not convinced?  Let me show you something else that PROVES that MY ANALYSIS is the CORRECT analysis.   

Remember back to your indoctrination class on American History during your mandatory brainwashing? Do you remember what argument was made by the “founding fathers” who were against “adding the bill of rights”?

Yeah, I'd had a few drinks, but I was fine to make a court appearance.

They try and bore you to death in school.  It almost worked on me.  I learned some tricks to  keep my mind occupied.

Come on, you can remember can’t you, or has the fluoride fried your brain? lol The opponents argued that THE BILL OF RIGHTS WERE REDUNDANT!! There was NO NEED to reassert what the feds CAN’T do BECAUSE the feds were only authorized to do the limited things that were specifically set out IN the constitution? Do you SEE?

The great con the feds have collaborated to create over time is that the analysis should somehow START by looking at what the Supreme court, which is just the federal government ITSELF, has dreamed up on a topic instead of looking at the Constitution. As soon as you do that, we the people are screwed. The government has set the parameters and created a FALSE PARADIGM from which to do the analysis. Game theory my friend. 

Once you see the distinction I just made for you, then you see the absurdity of all the arguments that the anti-gun people and the feds make. Because they all focus on the wording of the Supreme court’s opinion’s about the 2nd amendment, which is a straw man. Because the S.Ct. can’t point to anywhere in the constitution that gives the Feds ANY right to pass legislation about the PEOPLES’ arms to BEGIN WITH.

The feds can’t stop THE PEOPLE from having tanks or RPG’s or fighter jets or ANYTHING ELSE because they were not given the authority to regulate those items. That AUTHORITY was left to the states. In fact that is what the 9th and 10th AMENDMENTS were intended to EMPHASIZE.

STILL don’t believe me?  lol.  Okay I will give you this.

It's not easy to access to the archives for the Court. I got close enough to get this pic, but I was denied access again.

It’s not easy to get access to the Supreme Court’s archives for research.  I got close enough to get this pic of the “scholars”, but I was denied access again.

Here is a Supreme court case on “gun control” saying the feds can’t DO IT. U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875). It is dead on point that the feds can’t limit the peoples’ arms. (if you want more details of this case go to here where I wrote on that.)

The right there specified is that of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose.” This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called…”internal police.” — U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

Look at that language. Needless to say this case is not often cited anymore. lol.  Do you see how the court said the same basic thing I just told you.  The regulation of the PEOPLES’ arms was left to the state, i.e. the internal police, not the FEDS.

If the people want to GIVE THE FEDS the right to “infringe” the peoples’ right to bear arms they are welcome to do that. But it was clear, EVEN TO THE SUPREME COURT, that they didn’t give that power to the feds IN THE CONSTITUTION.

IT wasn’t until the 20th Century that the court started “finding” all of these exceptions to the PEOPLES’ rights to keep and bear arms.  But no amount of legal mumbo jumbo in S.Ct. opinions can EVER get around what I JUST SHOWED YOU.  Really, the more they invent on the subject the more they simply damn themselves as a corrupt institution.

Most people know intuitively that something isn't right.  But it's hard to figure it out because of all the disinformation.  Just keep coming back here and I will get you through it.

Most people know intuitively that something isn’t right with it all. But it’s hard to figure it out because of all the disinformation. Keep coming back here and I will get you through it.

Finally, the very idea that a group of people, living in the 18th century in a predominantly agrarian world, who just fought a revolution would then create a centralized government so powerful that it MIGHT be able to take their right away to hunt or protect themselves against criminals, is absurd.  That is NOT what the 2nd amendment is about.

 My friend it isn’t complicated. They want you to believe you have to be some kind of “expert” in the constitution and all of the contradictory Non-linear propaganda that has poured out of the supreme court and appellate courts in order to be able to “understand the constitutional argument”. You don’t. Just think for yourself and look at the facts.

These guys were really quite bright.  But after a couple of hours of talking to them it became clear they weren't getting it.

These guys were surprisingly bright and articulate. But after a couple of hours of talking to them it became clear they weren’t getting it.

The truth is often too radical for most people after a lifetime of “captivity”.  Like a house cat, they just aren’t equipped to live in the world outside the fantasy of “freedom” that the state has created for them. lol.

But regardless of whether they want to accept it or not, what I just showed you is THE TRUTH about the feds rights to regulate THE PEOPLES’ arms.

If what I have said so far is not sufficient to open your eyes to how much of a total distraction all of those detailed arguments are about what the 2nd amendment “allows”, then NOTHING can.  And if you are still unconvinced, or still want to keep arguing inside the game they have created about the velocity or the use of the weapon or anything else, then best of luck to you.

The point of my article is not to “win” cases in front of the supreme court.  Of course the Court will REJECT the argument I have just proved.  They would have to admit that what they have been doing in so many areas is simply lawless.  They would have to come clean and reduce their OWN POWER.  I’m not exactly going out on a limb to say THAT is NOT going to happen.

So?   That doesn’t mean the argument is not true, it just proves my underlying point that the game is RIGGED.  That is the point people need to WAKE UP TO.  As long as the people accept the rules the money power creates, then the people will lose.  Simple as that.  As soon as they wake up and realize that THEY are in charge of themselves, then the people can start to win.  But not before.

That’s all for now my brainwashed Brethren. Take care, live in the light and tell someone about the truth about the law.

Legalman IS the law

Legalman IS the law

The Constitution does not permit ANYTHING to be “stamped top secret” and kept from the PEOPLE.

No, seriously, I testified that I WISH I could discuss it, but it was just too sensitive.

So did you tell them you blew all the money at the strip club? No, I testified that I WISHED I COULD discuss what happened, but it was just too sensitive.

It doesn’t matter whether it is Hillary trying to hide her STATE DEPARTMENT communications WHILE she is the Secretary of STATE by dreaming up some system to avoid FOIA etc., or some other as of yet undiscovered scam to hide information from us.  If you’re not familiar with what’s going on with her “private” email go take a look, it is pretty damned funny.  The details are unimportant.  The  government has NO constitutional BASIS to keep secrets from WE THE PEOPLE. 

The entire military/intelligence/industrial/government/media complex is built upon the idea that the bureaucrats in government get to decide what secrets they will keep from WE the people by “stamping it top secret” or some other such “classification” under the guise of “national security”. This “right” is something that is never challenged in the “public conversation”. AT BEST all you get are some discussions about whether some particular item etc. “should” be secret etc.

This guy knew how to take advantage of his 'top secret" status.

This guy knew how to take advantage of his ‘top secret” status.

Let me first show you the preposterously broad areas that our “national security” now allegedly encompasses. Here from Wiki:

Authorities differ in their choice of nation security elements. Besides the military aspect of security, the aspects of diplomacy or politics; society; environment; energy and natural resources; and economics are commonly listed.

Do you see the absurdity of this? What does it NOT include? They can justify ANYTHING if “national security” is the excuse.  And remember, the definition of  “national security” keeps expanding.  The whole “secret” classification system comes originally from an “executive order” creating the whole scamTruman issued it making the totally unsupported and UNCHALLENGED statement that he had the power to do so “vested in him”.  Really?  Where? How and when did the people agree to this?  lol  The “classifications” run the gamut from “top secret”, to “for your eyes only” to “Goldfinger” to “The spy who loved me”.  Okay that part may not be completely accurate, but you get the point.  The “standard” is whatever they decide to create.  And then poof, We the people are stuck in the dark.

My question is this.

Where does the government get the CONSTITUTIONAL authority to keep ANY secrets from “we the people”?

Shown here is the infamous deep cover agent known only as "Charlie". He was embedded near a high value target. After retiring he won a landmark pension case where he got credited for 28 years of service, the CIA had been claiming it was only 4 human years.

Shown here is the infamous deep cover agent known only as “Charlie”. He spent his entire career embedded near a high value target. After retiring he won a landmark pension and discrimination case where he got credited for 28 years of service, the CIA had been claiming he should only get the 4 human years.

Think about it. We are constantly told how “we the people” are “in charge” and the government workers are “servants” of the people etc. But if that is the case where do the servants get the right to keep secrets from the masters?

All it seems to take is to have some guy wearing a military outfit up on TV and say it is “classified” due to “national security” and poof, that’s the end of it. Don’t you find the whole concept a bit odd now that you think about it? Especially now that you see how ridiculously BROAD the definition of national security has become? What conduct couldn’t be “classified” as part of “national security”?

Remember, the government, under our constitutional system, is supposed to be OUR AGENTS acting on OUR BEHALF, under a strict set of powers authorized and explicitly set out in the constitution. THAT document is where the government gets ALL OF ITS ALLEGED AUTHORITY AND LEGITIMACY. When it acts outside of that explicit grant of authority from the people, the government acts WITHOUT ANY LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY.

Surely it should be easy for the government to answer my question about the constitutional basis for its authority, if there is in fact a legitimate constitutional basis. Right?

This whitehouse spokesman was convinced he had found the constitutional basis for the secrets, but it turned out it was just some half eaten Chinese food.

This White house spokesman was convinced he had found the constitutional basis for keeping secrets from us, but it turned out it was just some half eaten Chinese food.

So where do those crooked bastards up there in Washington get the supposed “constitutional authority” to pass laws like “the national security act” of 1947 that created this gigantic secret government system which includes things like the NSA and the CIA and all of the other alphabet scams they run on us?

They tell us that they do it under the authority of separation of powers, or the right to set foreign policy or “executive privilege” , or some vague amalgam of implied powers that “spring” from or are “subsumed under” etc. etc. The bottom line is that they don’t have a direct answer.

But despite their obvious obfuscation and avoidance, one thing is UNDENIABLE, if the government wants to keep secrets from “we the people” then it must be able to POINT TO THE SPECIFIC PROVISION IN THE CONSTITUTION that empowers the government to keep secrets FROM US.

But they can’t do that, because THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION GIVING THE GOVERNMENT THE POWER TO KEEP ANY SECRETS FROM US.

It doesn’t say a single word about it. It doesn’t hint at it. It doesn’t imply it. THERE is NOTHING THERE ABOUT SOME “RIGHT” to keep the people in the dark about whatever the government itself decides to keep secret by some bogus “classification system” or anything else. Get it? The whole concept is a fraud on you.

Okay, so they said that they did find where we all agreed that they could lie to us and keep whatever they want secret. When I said it was just a rose, they said I didn't understand because I wasn't an expert.

They said this was proof that we all agreed that they could lie to us and keep whatever they want secret. When I said it looked like a fortune cookie that had a flower on it, they said I didn’t understand because I wasn’t an expert.

Please show me ANY place or manner that the people have ever agreed to be kept in the dark about ANY issue, much less any and everything that their agents arbitrarily decide.

Certainly, the “right” to keep the people in the dark about any and everything that the government agents care to “classify” as part of “national security” is not a power that can be “implied”. That is absurd. It certainly isn’t “inherent”. That makes no sense.

In what way would the government be “limited” if it could claim it had an “implied” or “inherent” power so broad that it authorized the government to act in any way it chose to the extent it “affected” any of those areas and to then keep their conduct secret?

Certainly keeping conduct and information secret from the people themselves is ANATHEMA to the entire CONCEPT of a “free republic” UNLESS the people themselves have EXPRESSLY GRANTED that power to the government.

So what about the idea that they have “passed a law” or “issued an executive order” that “empowers” them to classify information etc.? Doesn’t that “cure the problem”? lol, no, it doesn’t.

The WHOLE idea of a LIMITED constitutional government is based upon the fact that they must FIRST be able to point to a provision that allows them to CREATE the legislation or the executive order. Not the other way around.

He was supposed to be building a foundation. He said it would work just as well. I don't know. I know I'm not an "expert" but it just doesn't look that stable to me.

I hired this guy to build a foundation for a deck I wanted and he built this.  He said I had to trust him because how it worked  was a secret.  I know I’m not an “expert” but it just doesn’t look that stable to me. I tried to find him after he cashed my check, but his number was out of service.

And no, giving some limited information to some representatives, “in closed session” on the “house intelligence committee” etc. who then DO NOT pass it on to me is NO BETTER. It is just another diversion that’s part of the scam.  It is NOT sufficient.  NOT EVEN CLOSE.

The concept of a principal giving an agent authority to act on his behalf and then being allowed to keep the conduct secret from him is WELL KNOWN IN THE LAW. So it would have been simple to have put it into the constitution if the PEOPLE had wanted to have secrets kept from them. Do you see that?

Take the example of a blind trust. The trust is operated on behalf of the person and for their benefit, and in order to avoid potential conflicts of interest etc. the beneficiary of the trust (the principal) CHOOSES to be kept in the dark about what types of things the trust is involved in through its agents.

Not surprisingly, when such a grant of authority is given by a principal the PRINCIPAL SETS the parameters and they are EXPLICIT and well defined, and there are always methods to keep track of the agent’s conduct and to investigate it and to be sure that the requirements and limitations are being complied with in order to PROTECT THE PRINCIPAL who set it up.

And of course, all of this makes perfect sense. If you are going to give someone the right to do things on your behalf, and to then KEEP THEM SECRET FROM YOU, you will have very explicit provisions etc. describing and PROSCRIBING the conduct permitted. Understand?

Think about it, how would you feel if your agent was out there doing all sorts of things in your name with your money etc. yet they wanted to keep it all secret? It is absurd. Now imagine the types of things your agent claimed he was entitled to do under this alleged grant of authority might involve imprisoning you or killing you or someone else. Are you willing to allow that to occur without a very specific and EXPLICIT grant of authority? I seriously doubt it.

My agent said that the Cheetah was a completely legitimate use of the funds. I didn't really understand, but I'm sure he's watching out for me.

Trust is a delicate matter.  My ex promised me that it “wasn’t about the money” when we “broke up”, but then I saw her riding around with this dude.  

It is such a fundamental violation of the agency agreement for the agent to act in secret without authority from the principal, that it doesn’t require any argument to demonstrate how “screwed” that would be. (to use a bit of legal jargon, lol) But that is exactly the situation with regards to the government keeping secrets from you and me. There IS NO DIFFERENCE because the government is supposedly the “agent” of you and me acting under the authority of the constitution.

AND YET THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT POINT TO ANY CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION THAT EVEN HINTS AT ALLOWING THEM TO KEEP SECRETS FROM THE PEOPLE. Let alone allows them to keep such a vast array of secrets of all sorts. Do you see this?

How can you be free and in charge if those you are supposedly “in charge of” have the right and the ability to do whatever they care to, to both you and anyone else and then label it “a matter of national security” and keep anyone from finding out about it?

That situation turns the entire concept of who is in charge on its head. It exposes the laughable lie about “we the people” being in charge. But still people refuse to see this or to accept the reality of their situation. The cognitive dissonance created by seeing this is just too great for most people. So they stick their heads in the sand.

If we the people DECIDE that we NEED to be kept in the dark about some stuff for our own good it isn’t complicated to do it LEGALLY. The people need simply agree to some set of information or conduct that they want to allow the government to keep from them and then they just need to put that IN THE CONSTITUTION. Then the government would be authorized to keep those secrets from THE PEOPLE.

But right now there is no CONSTITUTIONAL authority whatsoever to keep secrets from the people. It is just another area where the government has seized a power it was not given. Every branch of the government then assists in maintaining and wielding that power by using the peoples’ own money against them.  Sometimes by creating propaganda and lies in the form of “opinions” from government agents called “judges” in the judicial branch, and sometimes in the form of threats and imprisonment from “attorney generals” from the executive branch.  All of this is directed at the citizens who question the government’s “authority”.

Is it just me or are these a LOT more roomy than than I remember?

Hey Steve, is it just me or are these a LOT roomier than I remember? … It’s just you dude.

But the people in this country not only put up with all of this, they actually run around proclaiming how “free they are” despite it and call those who point it out, unpatriotic. It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so pathetic.

Think how outrageous this whole “national security secrets” thing is now that you understand how to think about it? Now that you are not thinking about it within the false paradigm they have GIVEN YOU in their schools and in their controlled media? It is laughable that people accept the concept that they will be “kept in the dark”, without any question at all. So hopelessly brainwashed are the people that they don’t even SEE the issue.

Do you see why your “leaders” have such contempt for you the people they claim to “serve”? They see the people as absolute fools, and in a way, sadly, they are right, the people are fools who are so easily fooled. lol.

Our rulers in government tell us whatever they care to and nothing else, as though we are their children, as though THEY ARE OUR MASTERS. Get it? And under what CONSTITUTIONAL authority do they do all of this? Lol, NONE.

The constitution is a useless JOKE. An actual agent of harm when you are honest about it, because people think it protects them when it clearly does NOT, and so they rely on it to “protect their freedoms” when it cannot be relied upon. Do you see that?

Such is the power of paradigms. Those in charge understand the power of paradigms and they make sure to tightly control the ones that you exist in through propaganda in education and the media.

Game theory my friend. It’s all game theory.

They brought Miley in to testify about the need for more national security. She seemed credible to me.

They brought Miley in to testify “in closed session” about the need to “protect” our “culture” from “attack” .  Here’s a leaked picture from the testimony she apparently gave.  She seems credible to me.

I hope you have learned a bit about “national security” and what a joke it is. And I hope that the next time some guy in a military uniform, or some “white house spokesman” etc. gets on TV and starts talking about confidential this and secret that and national security protection this, you can just laugh at him for being such a blatant and obvious collaborator in this whole scam. Certainly you can no longer take them seriously can you? And that, my friend, is freeing. And knowing this you will NEVER be fooled again by their scam. So enjoy it.

I will leave you with a bit of comedy.  Finally, a candidate for president who makes some sense.  She knows all about the dangers of keeping things secret from the people.  Give it a minute or two, I think you’ll like it.  She would have gotten my vote, if I voted, which I don’t. Lol.

That’s all for now my brainwashed Brethren. Take care, live in the light and tell someone about the Truth about the law.

And the truth shall set you free.

And the truth shall set you free.