Category Archives: Courts

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.

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.


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,


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.

Jury nullification is a game changing right.

You can never be sure, but I'm pretty sure they were impressed with my argument.  At least the parts they were awake for.

I blew the jury away with my arguments.   Well, I mean, the arguments they didn’t sleep through.

People have a very powerful fundamental right in this country that could change things  overnight … if the people would just exercise the right. The problem is that the vast majority of the people have never even heard about this right. And that is not an accident.

I am talking about jury nullification.  I suspect few things strike more fear into the hearts of a statists than the idea of the people learning about this fundamental right.

I am not going to address the entire subject. It has too many moving parts. But you really just need some basics. Today I will explain what jury nullification is, show you how powerful it is, and then show you how the Courts have screwed us all once again on this topic. So, as the non-native English speaker might say, “let’s please first to begin.”

Let’s get a working definition. What people mean when they say “jury nullification” is generally, that the jury has a right to acquit a person who technically violated the letter of the law. Thus the law is “nullified”.  It is undeniable that juries have the RIGHT, in any criminal trial, to render a verdict that IGNORES the “law” as it was “given to them” by the judge. Here is what John Jay, as chief justice of the Supreme court told a jury in 1794 on exactly this issue!

I understand your honor, I won't make the same mistake again.  I just thought the jury might want to know about their rights.

Thank you for clarifying the basis for the jury instruction.  May the record reflect that your honor is holding what appears to be a 45 caliber model 1911.  And with that, the defense will rest.

It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy.

It cannot be any clearer. Juries have the right.  Here is another example that is in the text of the Alien and Sedition act that was WRITTEN IN 1798 by our holy founding fathers themselves, They put the language in the statute itself!

And the jury who shall try the cause, shall have a right to determine the law and the fact, under the direction of the court, as in other cases.

In the off chance people are still doubting, here is what John Adams said about this exact issue. The language was quoted in the dissent of a S.Ct. case.

Hold it, let me get this straight.  Are you saying that if the human says sit we don't actually HAVE to sit?  Whoa. That is big.

Hold it, let me get this straight. Are you saying that if the human says sit we don’t actually HAVE to sit?  Yes,that is what I am saying.  Whoa. That is big.

Now should the melancholy case arise that the judges should give their opinions to the jury against one of these fundamental principles, is a juror obliged to give his verdict generally, according to this direction, or even to find the fact specially, and submit the law to the court? Every man of any feeling or conscience will answer ‘No.’ It is not only his right, but his duty, in that case, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court. . . . The English law obliges no man to decide a cause upon oath against his own judgment.

So not just a right a DUTY!  There can simply be NO doubt that the founders knew about and endorsed the jury’s right to judge the law and the facts. No doubt, it is a constitutional “right”.

The way the system is SUPPOSED TO WORK IS, the jury sits and listens to what the court and the witnesses have to say, and then the PEOPLE DECIDE IF THEY ACCEPT IT. The PEOPLE Decide if it comports with their sense of JUSTICE. So now you know if someone tries to tell you that a juror “must” follow the law as given by the court, they simply do not know what they are talking about or, much more likely, they are intentionally misleading you. It is that simple.

Here’s how jury nullification might be used. The prosecution brings a case for “statutory rape” against an 18 y.o. man for having consensual sex with his underage gf, because her parents get upset about something he did. There is no doubt it is consensual. But that is not a defense. If the jury acquitted him, that would be jury nullification. The jury, in all likelihood simply thinks the law, in this situation, is not just. So they ignore it. They “nullify it”.

People accept "speed traps" and other nonsense as though they are part of  "law and order".   Even the police probably believe it.  What a sad state the people are in.

 C.H.I.P.S. lives!!! lol People accept “speed traps” and other nonsense as though they are part of “law and order”. Even the police probably believe it.  What is the “crime”?  Driving with traffic at 6 miles over the made up speed limit?? lol What a sad state the people are in.

Same could happen in some drug possession case. Or for being in possession of a bald eagle feather, or on and on. The case is always the same. The necessary facts to prove “the crime” are basically “technically” indisputable. But the jury doesn’t convict. THAT is jury nullification.  And as you have just seen it is YOUR RIGHT.

The entire idea behind a jury trial is that the state must GO THROUGH THE PEOPLE in criminal trials. If the government is making laws the PEOPLE disagree with, the PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO IGNORE THE LAW AND ACQUIT THEIR FELLOW CITIZENS. 


The people are in charge of whether something is criminal or not. If the people don’t want the conduct criminalized, then the people CAN REFUSE to criminalize it. If the people think the prosecutor is improperly singling people out, then the people don’t convict. If the people think the law creates INJUSTICE in any case, then they have the right to IGNORE the law.

Think how powerful a right this is!  Think how many bogus “laws” there are. Jury nullification makes them irrelevant because the PEOPLE can simply refuse to convict on them.

Hot or not?  Pushing him away? loving caress? or photoshop? Hard to tell.  That's why it has to be a unanimous jury to convict the old geaser.

Hot or not? Pushing him away.. or loving caress? or maybe just photoshop? It can be hard to tell. That’s why it has to be a unanimous jury to convict the old geaser.

What is the likelihood that the prosecution could get convictions on bogus drug possession cases if the jury knew about this right? What about prostitution? What about gambling? What about “failing to come to a complete stop” at an empty intersection? What about traveling 5 miles over the speed limit? And on and on!

The vast majority of “crimes” the state uses to scare and blackmail the people are utterly bogus. They are not real crimes that protect the people. They are acts that the government “criminalizes” in order to exert control over the people through fear.

And THAT is why jury nullification scares those in power.  The last thing they want is the people knowing that they can just DISREGARD the holy judge’s LYING instruction! 

And it is crystal clear to any thinking person that if the people knew about this right, the state’s “power” would collapse overnight down to a fraction of what it is now. And now you know why nobody knows about this right.

The people remain ignorant of this right because the government took over the schools and now fills peoples’ heads with lies.  The totally controlled media all around you does its part to make sure you are immersed in a world of lies and disinformation as well. This topic is NEVER DISCUSSED OR MENTIONED.  Instead they mindlessly have you repeat slogans about your right to a jury trial, but they LEAVE OUT the most important parts of that right. So you never hear about them.

Of course the S.Ct. and every other statist tries to confuse this issue if it ever comes up. That is what they do! The court is there to support the government, because THEY are the government. Any power the jury exercises is power that is TAKEN from these egomaniacs on the court.

Make no mistake, the jurors are lied to EVERYDAY by the courts.  They are “instructed” that they “must” follow the law as the court has given it to them. That is A state sponsored INTENTIONAL LIE.

The court warned him several times to watch what he said around the jury, but my service assistant just didn't listen.  Dogs have a keen sense of justice I guess.

I warned Buddy that the court was not screwing around.  He needed to watch what he said around the jury, but he didn’t listen. Dogs have a keen sense of justice I guess.

And the state makes sure that lawyers can’t tell the jurors either.  For the most part, if a lawyer even tried to inform a potential jury panel of this right he would be called to the bench, warned, and if he did it again, the judge would hold him in contempt. Then if the judge thought the jury actually understood what they were told, he would Dismiss the entire jury panel, and bring in a new one. If the lawyer did it during trial, the court would declare a mistrial, probably sanction the lawyer and warn him not to do it again or face jail for contempt.

Up until the government seized control of the “education” of lawyers through the “licensing” procedure and “accredited” schooling etc., the right was generally well known IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION. Now, virtually no lawyer understands this fundamental right.


 The official screwing of the people began in earnest in the late 19th century when the S.Ct just ignored the peoples’ rights and made up a “new rule”.  And the screwing hasn’t  stopped since.

In a 5 to 4 decision (how convenient) after ACKNOWLEDGING THAT it is certainly the unquestioned RIGHT of the jury to judge the facts AND THE LAW, the court then held that the jury had NO RIGHT TO BE TOLD THIS! Lol  Here’s the case if you care to look. Warning it is LONG.  They always bury their lies and bulls**t under reams of distractions. It is their way.  Makes it appear “scholarly”, when it is just a load of CRAP.

Can there be a more absurd position? How does this work exactly? You have the right, you just don’t have a right to be told you have that right? Yes my friend. That is what they held. And ever since that S.Ct. opinion the Appellate courts have been repeating the same nonsensical load of crap to confuse the people. Here from the 4th circ.:

The court's same airtight "reasoning.has now made its way into the mainstream.

I guess reasonable minds can differ.   I do not agree with this guy’s assessment. I think it is a close call, but I would bang her, assuming she’s 18.     

If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused, is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision…

So the court correctly states and acknowledges your RIGHT, but then they find… :

…by clearly stating to the jury that they may disregard the law, telling them that they may decide according to their prejudices or consciences (for there is no check to insure that the judgment is based upon conscience rather than prejudice), we would indeed be negating the rule of law in favor of the rule of lawlessness. This should not be allowed.

How do you negate the rule of law by telling the jury about their right under the law? It makes NO SENSE. But there is NOBODY and NO MECHANISM by which to challenge this idiocy. It just gets imposed and then repeated as though it is rational.

And here is another example drawn from WIKI, the NSA’s own site.

In 1988, in U.S. v. Krzyske, the jury asked the judge about jury nullification. The judge responded “There is no such thing as valid jury nullification.” The jury convicted the defendant. On appeal, the majority and the dissent agreed that the trial judge’s instruction was untrue, but the majority held that this false representation was not a reversible error.

So the jury asked specifically about THEIR RIGHT to nullification, the court LIED TO THEM and that was FINE!!  What do you think would happen TO YOU IF YOU MADE A FALSE REPRESENTATION TO THE COURT??? LOL You simply cannot make this stuff up.

Now you see why this topic is so taboo. Now you see why the government makes sure you never hear about it or if you do that they fill your head with disinformation and nonsense about how “dangerous” it is TO YOU!   lol, absurd.  The only danger is to the government. Not the people.

Sure these chicks had mistaken me for some other dude who was loaded, but I remembered the S.Ct. had made it clear I didn't have to tell them sh*t. Sorry gurrls. Sucks being you. Perks of being a lawyer.

Sure these chicks had mistaken me for some other dude who was loaded, but I remembered the S.Ct. had made it clear that I had no obligation to tell them JACK…. Sooo… Sorry gurrls. Sucks being you. Perks of being a lawyer.  Read the fine print next time! lol

My friend the state is CORRECT TO FEAR JURY NULLIFICATION. And that is why the state has been very careful to lie to you. They know they are vulnerable, as always, to the PEOPLE.

But they also KNOW that given time, and the power to propagandize and lie to people in mandatory “education” and “licensing requirements” and in their monopolized court system, that the people will forget. And they are correct. The sheep just go quietly to their slaughter imagining they are “supporting law and order”. Lol Utter fools.

Congratulations, You now KNOW MORE about this fundamental right than 99.9% of the population.

If this type of thing does not make you angry, then what can I bring you? If this type of thing does not make you see that governments are there to abuse you then what would? If this does not show you that the courts are not there to protect you that they are there to ENSLAVE you, then how can I show you?

My fellow inmates, I am done for today. I know that I left a lot out. I know there is more to say. I will get around to it later. For now, I hope you learned something. I just can’t stand any more hypocrisy for one day. I am late for the 4th of July freedom parade!

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

P.S. Can you help a brother out? It’s ALL about the “LIKES”.  Don’t hate the playa, hate the game.

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.


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.


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

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.


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.


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.



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


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

Juries have to be unanimous, yet the s.ct. rules 5 to 4. But people still don’t see the scam.

The feds have a backup plan prepared if the supreme court "rules against them".

Apparently the feds have a backup plan prepared if the supreme court “rules against them”.

The Supreme court” has now “heard arguments” in the Obamacare case and it is no secret that the court is “divided”. There are 4 liberal “justices” on board 3 “conservatives” against, and 2, “swing votes”.   So now 330 million people wait to find out what they “must” do.  

I am not going to waste your time or mine going over cooked up absurd legal arguments that the federal government has funneled everyone into “having to make”.  That is just playing their game.  If you want that, there is plenty of that available on the web by countless “legal analysts” and on Fox or CNN or Newsweek etc..  Of course Obamacare is unconstitutional.  All anyone has to do is go look at Art. 1 Sect. 8 of the constitution to see that.   I want to talk about things that are much more FUNDAMENTAL.  Things that can ACTUALLY make a difference if you understand them.

First, everyone simply ACCEPTS that the supreme court has the RIGHT to “decide” this issue for the whole country.  Without getting into a big discussion about the power of “judicial review” let me just ask you:

Have you ever agreed to allow some group of 9 people you have never met or had a chance to vote for, who can never be fired, “decide” whether Obamacare OR ANYTHING ELSE can be imposed on you?

Many of the "Top constitutional law" attorneys really don't make as much money as you would think.  Washington is expensive.

I asked this “top constitutional attorney” for the secret to why he was “so good”.   He said it was all about keeping your perspective.   The man was at the top of that field for a reason.

I doubt it. I know I haven’t. People never even question THIS.  Legal analysts that the MEDIA and government/education system give you never question THIS.  Do you see the box they have ALREADY put you in before the game even begins? lol.  YOU HAVE ALREADY CONCEDED THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE WITHOUT ANY DISCUSSION OR FIGHT.  I will leave the topic of “judicial review” for another day. But I have another simple question for you.


Have you ever thought about that?  I mean c’mon, 5 to 4? That is ridiculous.  It is already ridiculous enough that in a “free country” where the people “are in charge” that just 9 unelected people could ever make such a decision. But it is beyond ABSURD that such a decision could be made by just ONE VOTE CHANGING ON THE COURT??  Well they can do that because the CON stitution is “silent” on it. So they just make their own rules up about it.  Does this sound like a republic to you?


Surely, IF we are going to be ruled by some star chamber of unelected untouchable oracles then at least all of their decisions that create more government or limit the people or the individual STATES’ rights NEED TO BE UNANIMOUS and EVERYTHING about their deliberations NEEDS TO BE PUBLIC!

Yet the people are so brainwashed they don’t even see how silly the entire construct that is IMPOSED ON THEM is, and how antithetical to any sense of a free republic IT IS. They actually think their system is the HEIGHT of freedom because they have been TOLD that it is. This is the 1984 world we live in. Slavery is Freedom. lol.

Only the elite of the elite get into the supreme court as "clerks to the court".  Here a couple of newbies are being shown what their duties will include when assisting in writing the opinions.

Only the elite of the elite from the “top law schools” get into the supreme court as “clerks”. Many later go on to become justices themselves. They are chosen for their keen minds of course.  Here a couple of eager newbies receive instruction on what their job responsibilities will be when assisting the court.

So what does the “holy constitution” the great “protector of the peoples’ rights” say about these issues?  NOTHING.  That’s right not a damned thing.  Go look. The entire section creating the “judicial branch” is only a few sentences. Go read it.

Think about that.  I have already showed you that the number of justices being set at “9” is just a number made up by Congress. It isn’t set in the constitution. Now I am telling you that the “manner” of deliberation and the “method” for “determining” a “decision” is also not discussed in the constitution. That’s right. Nowhere mentioned.

Think about it.  In a criminal trial the 12 man jury has to be unanimous in order to convict just ONE person of shoplifting! Yet our great system of a “free republic” allows a split verdict by those 9 “juror/judges” to BIND 330 million for “all time”.

Beyond the unanimous decision that is required by a jury to convict, there are OTHER analogies in the law that show the 5 to 4 “rule” that the  “esteemed” institution has put in place is a sham.

There is something called a “judgment as a matter of law”. It is a standard that is used when a court determines that “no reasonable juror” could find against the party. Lawyers and judges use the phrase, “reasonable minds could not differ” as a short hand way to discuss it. Get it?

Long considered the gold standard in jurisprudence, the "weigh the same as a duck" standard lost favor for years.  The court has recently hinted in dicta however, that it might bring the standard back for the Obamacare ruling.

Long considered the gold standard in jurisprudence,  “weigh the same as a duck” lost favor for years. The court has recently hinted in dicta however, that it might be appropriate in the Obamacare ruling.

That standard is used to grant a motion that ends the case WITHOUT a trial. It is called a summary judgment in most jurisdictions and in federal court.  Yes you CAN be denied a jury trial. Did you know that? Well despite what you “were taught” in your government indoctrination center, YOU ARE NOT entitled to a trial by jury. Again, it is just a power the courts have seized. It is not IN the constitution.

The point is this. Look at the standard that is used to do that. “Reasonable minds could NOT DIFFER”. But look at the STANDARD that the holy supreme court uses as it “protects” the people.

By definition in a 5 to 4 or 6 to 3 or 8 to 1 decision, reasonable minds ACTUALLY DIFFER, since the justices DON’T agree. Yet DESPITE that disagreement, they still IMPOSE the “decision” on 330 million people for all time.

Certainly no REASONABLE system can have justices differing. That makes NO SENSE. If it is un-reviewable and we are all going to be bound, then AT A MINIMUM in order to UPHOLD a law, the decision needs to be UNANIMOUS, just like for a criminal trial, and just like the “as a matter of law” standard.  Don’t you see that?  If ONE justice thinks it is UNconstitutional, then it should be struck down.  That is the ONLY thing that makes sense.

Virtually ALL CONTROVERSIAL supreme court cases are SPLIT, not unanimous. So virtually all of the mischief could have been avoided. It is not an accident that unanimity is NOT required.

Think about Obamacare. AT BEST even the collaborator polling propagandists have to admit that the country is DEEPLY divided. And of course the COURT is “supposedly” divided. So there would be NO chance for a binding decision.  The issue wouldn’t be “decided” for all times by whether “justice” Kennedy got some action the night before.  Do you see how you have already given up your most important RIGHTS by playing inside THEIR GAME? lol 

Sure the oligarchs just open the gate and walk in.  But it isn't like they haven't "provided" a system to get the constitution amended for the people. We just have to slip through the hole.  Nothing to it.

At least this dog is smart enough to understand that the system he has been put into is RIGGED.  He sees his owner use the GATE..

Oh but there is still more.

Now think about this. In order to get a “constitutional amendment” the “people” are required to go through this complex process that takes years and requires all of these “SUPER MAJORITIES”.  Not a mere majority. It is basically IMPOSSIBLE for the PEOPLE TO GET WHAT THEY WANT SLIPPED INTO THE CONSTITUTION.

Yet the oligarchs only have to pack the court with ONE EXTRA GUY and BAM we’re all stuck. Lol. What does it take for you to see that the system is RIGGED? You are being played.

They will give you whatever level of abuse you “the people” will accept. Your rights are not protected by the constitution. The obligation to protect the peoples’ rights is in THE PEOPLES’ hands. They have abdicated, so those who seek power have filled that void. It isn’t complicated.

And if what I have said already is not sufficient to show you what a FRAUD the system is let me make one more point to demonstrate how absurd the arbitrary “best of 9” standard is.

Is there anything in the constitution that would prevent the supreme court from making a rule that said a 1 to 8 decision was “binding”?

Do you see what I am asking? What if 8 justices vote that Obamacare is NOT constitutional, and ONE votes that it IS constitutional. Is there anything IN THE CONSTITUTION that prevents the supreme court from determining that it IS therefore CONSTITUTIONAL SINCE AT LEAST one justice voted for it?

The answer is NO. There is NOTHING in the constitution that would prevent that because there is nothing in the constitution that describes ANY of the process.  So  “using their logic”, we the people “AGREED” to that as well. Lol

This woman won a landmark discrimination case after being turned down for employment at the supreme court due to concerns that she would violate the secrecy policy regarding the court's deliberations.  The government had claimed that loose lips sink ships.

This woman won a landmark discrimination case after being turned down for employment at the supreme court due to concerns that she would violate the secrecy policy regarding the court’s deliberations. The government had claimed that loose lips sink ships and that she could not “reasonably be expected” to control her lips.

Do you see that if you take their argument to its logical extreme about “separation of powers” and the supreme court being able to “make its own rules” for how it deliberates and decides a case, and if you simply look at the constitution, there is nothing “unconstitutional” about that 1 to 8 rule? The only reason they don’t do stuff that blatantly is because the sleeping fools might actually catch on TO THAT, lol. So they pretend the whole thing is this “established” system with fancy robes and all sorts of formality and your honor this and your honorableness that. Lol.

They have convinced the people that IT IS NORMAL that if just one MORE justice says yes, well, too bad so sad, thanks for playing, now you’re all bound. lol

To be fair to the framers, even Jules Verne didn’t have a wild enough imagination to visualize a day when the federal government would even discuss legislation as absurdly BEYOND any of their powers as Obamacare.  Still you might want to go read this and this that I wrote about our great founding to give you a perspective on our REAL founding.

Look if we’re going to have an untouchable star chamber “making decisions” for the whole nation “for all times” then we need to AT LEAST have group of say 25 or 50 judges up there representing all sorts of groups.  There can’t be any discrimination you know!! AND ALL OF THEIR DELIBERATIONS NEED TO BE PUBLIC. Then they have to give ONE unanimous decision. I mean at this point, I could probably live with that concept.  And doing that would not require a “constitutional amendment” so it should happen TOMORROW. lol

With that type of court they could only agree if there REALLY WAS NO CONTROVERSY.  Get it?

As it is, the whole thing is a laughable sham. Yet the pundits and experts all sit around discussing ridiculous points like whether Kennedy and Roberts are each getting enough fiber and how that might “affect their decision”. Laughable distractions. The MEDIA makes sure the public never gets wise to the whole game. And they RICHLY reward all of their collaborators who help to cover it all up with bs that sounds impressive to a dumbed down populace.

The court will now take questions.  Are there any questions?  Anybody?  Okay since nobody has any questions, the court will now rule.

We will now take questions. “Yes back here I have a question.”  Are there any questions? Anybody? “Yes I have a question.”  Okay since nobody has any questions, we will now let the court rule.

Look my fellow inmate, I have tried to tell you, there is never any REAL questioning of the SYSTEM ITSELF BECAUSE the system cannot withstand ANY REAL scrutiny,

As long as the people think that someone else or something else is going to be sure they get their justice they will get no justice.  It is up to the PEOPLE to INSIST on their OWN JUSTICE.

Step one is for the people to learn how to  SEE and UNDERSTAND the game they have been put into so they can start to DEMAND justice. That’s what this site is FOR.

Hopefully you now see what a joke the idea of a “split” supreme court “decision” is on Obamacare or ANYTHING else, and how pathetic it is that a country of supposedly “free men” has been reduced to a bunch of helpless children.

I hope you have learned something.  Maybe you are starting to see the scale of the scam.  As I always say, never under estimate the power of a SINGLE QUESTION my friend. 

This reporter certainly learned the power of a single question when she asked this man his name.   His answer reminds me a lot of some legal arguments I have read. Actually he is MORE COGENT than most supreme court opinions, lol.  Enjoy. 

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.


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.


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.


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.

They forced legal tender laws on us by packing the court.

A rare glimpse behind the scenes showing how they REALLY fixed the FDR court "packing" scheme.

Most people don’t know it, but I have been personally involved in “unpacking” the supreme court.

I get quite a kick out of observing how effective the brainwashing system is they use on us. As with all good brainwashing systems, the victims do not understand that they even are victims.  Most people believe that the holy Supreme Court has 9 justices on it because the holy constitution sets that number. As usual, most people are wrong. Lol The constitution says NOTHING about it.

That’s right. The number is set by Congress, which of course can OVERRIDE the president’s “veto”. Showing once again that the 3 branches are NOT equal and NEVER were designed to be EQUAL. That “co-equal” crap is just another fundamental lie you are taught in the indoctrination centers. How can Congress be equal yet “in charge” of something as fundamental as the number of justices or have the power to override the President? It is absurd.

Now that I have it figured out the scam I have a lot more time to spend on things I love, like Yoga.

Now that I have it figured out the scam I have a lot more time to spend on things I love, like Yoga.

Congress is above the court and the president. Congress can REMOVE the president. Congress can remove Justices and set the number of justices. It is not EQUAL. You have been told the “equal branches” lie again and again so that you don’t question things like the ABSURD CONCEPT that ONE unelected supreme court justice can set aside laws and MAKE laws. A simple 5 to 4 court decision and poof we are all “bound” to obey. Do you see how convenient that is for those in charge?

For the most part, the only thing anyone comes out of government schooling knowing about the Supreme court is that it “has 9 justices” and that FDR created a potential “constitutional crises” when he suggested “packing the court” with “additional justices” to get his new deal legislation passed. Why is this all that is left in most peoples minds after they attend the government schools? Well when you know the truth it makes perfect sense. So let me tell you.

It traces back to that time called “reconstruction”. War and its aftermath are continuously used by those in power to destroy evidence of their deeds and to muddy the waters and to reset the “history” that is taught. The “civil war” is a classic example. If you still believe it was fought to free the slaves I encourage you to do some research, lol. You can start here.

They said I was a shoe in for the next vacancy on the court, but when I got there it had already been filled.

They said I was a shoe in to get the next seat on the court, but you can see that when I got there the seat was taken.

If you still think Lincoln cared a wit about “freeing the slaves” consider this. The emancipation proclamation did not free a single slave in any territory that the UNION CONTROLLED.  And consider this PUBLICLY issued statement from “the great emancipator”.

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union..

Get it? The civil war had NOTHING TO DO with freeing the slaves. NOTHING. That was an issue the power elite manipulated, nothing more. The real issue that was “RESOLVED” by force in the “civil war” was the right to leave a “voluntary” union.  That war and the “reconstruction era” after it provided an opportunity for the power grabbing central government to fundamentally change “the union”.

Here is my Uncle Joe.  I don't have a lot of book learning but even I was learned in skool that they fought the civil war to free the blacks.

I may not have a lot of book learning but even I was learned in skool that they fought the civil war to free the blacks.

Since that war they have worked very hard to make it appear that anyone who tries to discuss the legal points of SECESSION is a racist “hick” who  “supports slavery”. And thus they silence the discussion. It is a simple trick of rhetoric. Nothing more. But people fall for it of course because they are fundamentally mis-educated and brainwashed.

During much of the early 19th century the number of justices in the supreme court was tied to the number of appellate circuits. That meant the number moved around and eventually there were as many as 10 justices on the court by the mid 1860’s. But then congress passed a law that would reduce the number down as some retired. It was during this time as they were retiring and the number was dropping that a very important case was decided. It was called Hepburn v. Griswold, 75 U.S. 603 (1870).

I tried to get him to pay me with chicks, but he knew the law and so I had to take his Federal Reserve Notes.

I tried to convince this wall street guy to pay me with some inside information, but he knew about the legal tender laws so I had to take his sh***y Federal Reserve Notes.

That case struck down the “LEGAL TENDER” law that congress had passed during the war. STRUCK DOWN.  Legal tender laws are how the loving government forces you to accept a fiat currency that is backed by NOTHING as opposed to being BACKED by gold or silver.  In other words a law where the government REQUIRES you exchange things of value you have for something they CREATE OUT OF THIN AIR that has NO VALUE.  Legal tender laws clearly violate the 5th amendment by allowing the government to take your property without giving you fair value for it.  Get it?

Fiat currency is the HEART of the control system for the entire economy and country. Without legal tender laws it WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE to run the current scam.

So when the court strikes down the legal tender law, what do those who really run things  do? Well they ALREADY knew that the decision was coming. Something this important never “just happens”. They were ready for it. They knew they wouldn’t have the votes so they had gotten a law passed right before it came down to BUMP UP the number of justices BACK up to 9. And while the Southern States were operated under military occupation in this great free country, they got their man Grant and the reconstruction Congress to put two justices on the court that were friendly to the concept of stealing from the people. And thus just ONE YEAR after the decision STRIKING DOWN the legal tender scam they REVERSED the decision. Knox v. Lee, 79 U.S. 457 (1871).

I have a problem taking formal events seriously.  Is that wrong?

I have a problem taking formal events seriously since they are mostly just a bunch of “top guys” giving each other reach-arounds.  I tend to like women who feel the same. Is that wrong?

Yes. The court reversed itself just ONE year later on THE EXACT SAME ISSUE. Does that make sense?  Do you see why you’ve never heard about this now? Here is how Wiki innocently describes the situation.

In Hepburn, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase held for a 4-3 majority of the Court that the Act was an unconstitutional violation of the Fifth Amendment..On the same day that Hepburn was decided, President Ulysses Grant nominated two new justices to the Court, Joseph Bradley and William Strong, although Grant later denied that he had known about the decision in Hepburn when the nominations were made.[6] Bradley and Strong subsequently voted to reverse the Hepburn decision, in Knox v. Lee and Parker v. Davis, by votes of 5-4.

Did you catch that? On the SAME DAY. Lol I’m sure that the very much sober and  honorable President Grant was certainly telling the truth when he denied any connection.  I’m sure it was all just coincidence and bungling and chance like every other coincidence of history that screws the people and serves the money power.

I have been told that I have a somewhat unusual court room manner.

I have been told that I have a somewhat unusual court room manner.

I am going to excerpt from the DISSENT in the case that REVERSED the issue just one year later. It is critical that you read it to see that the JUSTICE knew what was happening and that this is not just some “crazy conspiracy theory” by yours truly.

A majority of the Court, five of four, in the opinion which has just been read, reverses the judgment rendered by the former majority of five to three, in pursuance of an opinion formed after repeated arguments, at successive terms, and careful consideration, and declares the legal tender clause to be constitutional — that is to say, that an act of Congress making promises to pay dollars legal tender as coined dollars in payment of preexisting debts is a means appropriate and plainly adapted to the exercise of powers expressly granted by the Constitution, and not prohibited itself by the Constitution but consistent with its letter and spirit. And this reversal, unprecedented in the history of the Court, has been produced by no change in the opinions of those who concurred in the former judgment….

Get it? The court was packed in order to jam “legal tender” down everyone’s throat during the unconstitutional period called “reconstruction”. A law that 4 members of the court KNEW was unconstitutional and would wreak havoc on the people. Laws that would, about 40 years later, allow private banks to then step in with the creation of the federal reserve to create money out of thin air for a private group of bankers.

Do you see now? The system is rigged, and the “history” you are taught is a fairy tale. It is rigged long in advance with a lot of planning. And to even tell PEOPLE THIS TRUTH is considered “kookery”. That is the part I love the most.

Here I am with my Uncle George.

         Me and my Uncle George.

“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act”.– George Orwell


So why is it that NOBODY even KNOWS about this one and everyone does know about the FDR plan after attending the brainwashing centers the government runs?

Simple. You know about the FDR plan because it was allegedly  “thwarted”. That leaves the impression on you that the Constitutional system WORKS, that it protects your freedom and that the system’s integrity is INTACT. Do you see that?

What you may not know is that the reason they didn’t have to “pack the court” for FDR is because the court caved and approved the “New Deal” from just the threat.

My shrink says it's wrong to do, but my threats are an effective compliance system technique.

My shrink says it’s wrong for me to do, but I find this is an effective compliance technique so I don’t want to stop using it.   I don’t use a loaded gun, but they don’t need to know that.

So you hear all about this completely made up potential “constitutional crises” with FDR that was “somehow averted” by the brilliant constitutional system of fake ass checks and balances.  And you go away thinking that the system worked. Lol There never was any “constitutional crises” because the CONSTITUTION says NOTHING about the number of justices. The number has been changed many times and WILL be again if the money power needs to.  GET IT?

All they care is that YOU BELIEVE that the system worked because it is so great and you are so free, and that you NEVER learn about the REAL COURT PACKING SCHEME 70 YEARS EARLIER.  Classic distraction technique.

My suspicion is that had the court not folded so easily with FDR and had they NEEDED to “pack the court” to get the “new deal” through then you would not know anything about the whole charade. It wouldn’t have been “taught”.  Just like they didn’t teach you about the legal tender court pack. The first rule is always “IGNORE”.  Why stir a pot nobody is looking at? lol

Oh, you're in the wrong place, this is the County Clerk's office.

Come on in.  We the people are waiting for you in the back.

I find the whole thing quite entertaining. And if you think about it.  They are RIGHT, our political system is probably the greatest system ever conceived, but not for the reasons you are told or believe. It is the greatest system because it FOOLS the FOOLS so effectively despite what is right in front of them. lol

Congratulations to YOU if you made it to the end.  Most people just roll out and check for porn, lol.  I hope you have learned something useful.  And I hope you send it to someone who might be open to hearing the truth.

That’s all for now my brainwashed Brethren. Take care, live in the light and don’t forget to tell someone about the truth about the law.

Legalman IS the law

Legalman IS the law

P.S. Can you help a brother out? It’s All about the “LIKES”. Don’t hate the playa, hate the game.


A rare behind the scenes shot of two supreme court justices settling a disagreement in their highly formalized style rarely scene by the public.

A rare behind the scenes look at two supreme court justices settling a disagreement in their highly formalized style virtually unknown to the public.

Let me ask you a question. How many supreme court opinions have you ever ACTUALLY READ? How many? Honestly, have you ever even read ONE FULL OPINION? I seriously doubt it. Yet you IMAGINE that your general understanding of what the institution is and does within our “system of government” is generally accurate. Think how silly that is.  What do people actually KNOW about the court? ZERO. They simply BELIEVE what they have been TOLD about the court in government schools, and by the big media who support the same government. Do you see that?

Swift quoteMany otherwise intelligent people actually believe that the supreme court “protects” them and their rights. This is just an illusion, of course, it isn’t a fact. The reality is the opposite. The supreme court is one of the main weapons used against the people to eliminate their rights. It is unelected and unaccountable.

So let me just ask you this simple yet fundamental question to give you an idea of how much you either don’t know or have never thought about.  WHEN did you ever CONSENT to be bound by whatever the Supreme Court decided? Have you ever thought about that?  I doubt it.  What’s the answer the STATE gives you? Well you are bound because of a vague idea of a “social contract” that amounts to little more than that some dead people a couple of hundred years ago ALLEGEDLY gave THEIR CONSENT ON YOUR BEHALF! Think how absurd THAT idea is.  Yet, people accept it WITHOUT any question.  But that is for another time. If you have an interest in the other side of the fairy tale they tell about our “founding” go read what I wrote here.

Now let me ask you something else. Your government can rendition you and hold you without charges or a lawyer or a trial, and that same government claims it has a right to tax any and everything you have or make at whatever rate it sets, and that same government will not let you simply leave the country and take your stuff, yet, you BELIEVE that government is the free-est best on earth? Do you not see the absurdity? The inconsistency?  What I am going to try to show you is that same disconnect exists with what you THINK you know about the supreme court “protecting your rights” and the reality of what the court is and does.

I want to discuss one tiny part of criminal law and show you how the supreme court does NOTHING to protect your rights.  We’ve all heard that “ignorance of the law is no excuse”. Right? Of course. You learn it as a kid. You have said it god knows how many times. Everyone knows the saying.

What you don’t get is that the concept is total CRAPOLA. It is the OPPOSITE OF FUNDAMENTAL JUSTICE.  It is just something they have put into people’s minds. And the reason they have done so is so that the state is then FREE to CRIMINALIZE any conduct the state chooses and to then DENY YOU the right to defend ON THAT VERY ISSUE.

Here's an old picture of my trial advocacy class. I don't remember much, but I do remember IT WAS GREAT!  And I get really hungry when I hear my professor's name.

Here’s an old picture of my trial advocacy class. I don’t remember much, but I do remember IT WAS GREAT! And I get really hungry when I hear my professor’s name.

Of course basic justice requires that you be entitled to defend yourself against ANY CRIMINAL charge on the basis that WHAT YOU WERE DOING WAS NOT WRONG OR BAD OR that you could not have even KNOWN that it was FORBIDDEN.  How can any system even claim to be one “dispensing justice” if it doesn’t allow that?  It can’t.  Think about it.   People accept, without even questioning, that the state is ENTITLED to pass any law it wants and then to PUNISH the people for acts that harm no one and that the people may not even KNOW were “illegal”. 

Pay close attention to the following:

The ENTIRE difference between civil and criminal conduct is the existence of what in legal jargon is referred to as “Mens Rea” Or a guilty mind or “bad intent”. It is ESSENTIAL to justify PUNISHMENT. If you aren’t intending to do anything wrong, then you are hardly deserving of PUNISHMENT, are you?  Isn’t punishment there to PUNISH? lol.  You don’t punish behavior that is innocent, that makes no sense.

Not being able to understand that you are even “doing anything wrong” is the basis for the insanity defense. If the person can’t even understand they are doing anything wrong then you can’t CONVICT THEM OF A CRIME. Same goes for why YOUNG children can’t be convicted of crimes. THEY DON’T KNOW WHAT THEY’RE DOING IS WRONG, i.e. they are NOT responsible.

So the power structure and the courts are well aware that ignorance of the law certainly IS AN EXCUSE when it ELIMINATES MENS REASure you may owe CIVIL damages for accidents and negligence in those situations, but those are a CIVIL matters. Crimes are things the state punishes.

Mens rea is the heart of all crime.  It is the idea that you are doing something bad or wrong.  Got it? Not just that you performed an act that the state has claimed was “wrong”.

This same type of distinction is made in the ideas of  differing types of “crimes”.  Malum in se which are REAL crimes, that involve BAD ACTS, like mugging someone.  And, fake crimes the government dreams up called malum prohibitum, which are simply “prohibited” acts like failing to come to a complete stop at a stop sign when the intersection is empty at midnight.

Look it's not my fault that YOU left it on the floor.  You know the rule, if it's on the floor it's fair game.

Look it’s not my fault that YOU left it on the floor. You know the rule, if it’s on the floor it’s fair game.

Do you see how that distinction is critical? The state makes sure you never think about that.  And they make doubly sure to brainwash the students in law schools that both types of conduct are “criminal” depending on nothing more than whether the STATE says so.  Right there the state has already eliminated any LEGITIMATE basis to PUNISH you because you didn’t commit a BAD act?  Isn’t that pretty outrageous now that you THINK about it? 

But the holy supreme court, protector of the people not only allows all of that, it has taken it even further.  They allow the state to create”strict liability” crimes.  Meaning the state can now convict you of Just “doing an act”.  Look what even WIKI says!

The defendants may therefore not be culpable in any real way, i.e. there is not even criminal negligence, the least blameworthy level of mens rea.

Not culpable in ANY REAL WAY!  And this is WIKI, the NSA operated info system.   Yet still people don’t see what is RIGHT in front of them. 

So the government “criminalizes” whatever behavior it wants! and the great protector of the people the Supreme court, is fine with this.  And of course the people just go on sleepwalking without bothering to THINK FOR THEMSELVES..  Do you see that if your rulers want to, that there is nothing to stop them from “criminalizing” wearing purple shirts on Tuesday as though you committed an actual CRIME.  And then putting you in a CAGE for that? 

Yet STILL people run around draped in flags talking about freedom fries and how freedom isn’t free.

My neighbor works for the D.O.J. I took this picture of him on the way to work one morning.  He's a big believer in the system.

My neighbor works for the D.O.J. I took this picture of him on the way to work one morning. He’s a big believer in the system.

The power structure has everyone mindlessly repeating the SLOGAN that “ignorance of the law is no excuse” from the time they are a kid so that it is drilled into their head.  And now the population is so fully brainwashed, including most of the lawyers, that the people actually think it makes SENSE, lol. People repeat it and “know it”, so they ACCEPT IT. They never THINK about what it means and what it MEANS the STATE is claiming the RIGHT to do.

Of course ignorance SHOULD be a fully legitimate potential “EXCUSE”, to any CRIME. How can I be deserving of any PUNISHMENT if I am not doing anything WRONG?? Or if I don’t even KNOW I am doing anything “wrong”?  It is impossible. 

Look if I try and claim that I’m not guilty because  “I didn’t know I wasn’t allowed to steal his stuff”.  Well, that would be UP TO THE JURY TO DECIDE whether that was reasonable and BELIEVABLE.  And what is the chance that people would buy that? Zero. In fact most decent trial lawyers would NEVER put the defense on for any REAL crimes because they would be afraid they might make the jurors mad for wasting their time.  But allowing the defense would provide a tremendous BARRIER against the criminalizing of all sorts of nonsense that people have no idea is “illegal” and ISN’T BAD BEHAVIOR.  Get it?

It is a PROTECTION for the people against the state!  And hence the supreme court is gone like the wind.  Zero protection for you the people.  Yet people imagine the court is protecting them.  Why? Same reason.  They were told that’s what the supreme court does and they hear it repeated all the time in the media etc.

Soup is good food!, errr I mean, ignorance of the law is no excuse. lol sorry,  sometimes it is hard to tell one bs marketing slogan from another.

And remember, just because it isn’t a CRIME doesn’t mean you might not be liable Civilly IF SOMEONE WAS HARMED, just not CRIMINALLY.  That’s a HUGE

Did you know that it is a federal “CRIME” to possess a bald eagle feather without a “permit”? How absurd is that? Do you even know what one looks like? I doubt it. How about if you just found a feather on a hike and picked it up. What if it turned out it was a bald eagle feather? How can you be guilty of a CRIME for simply picking up a feather? There isn’t even ANY harm, let alone any bad intent. Yet you are subject to a year in the Fed Penitentiary and a $10,000.00 fine as a CRIMINAL.

How can you be convicted and sent to PRISON for such behavior? Simple, you learned it as a kid. You remember it today. Let’s all say it together,   IGNORANCE of the law is NO EXCUSE.  lol,  That’s how the brainwashing works!

The supreme court ITSELF IS just another BRANCH of the SAME government.  Yet you imagine that the Court PROTECTS YOU from its OWN employer’s “over reach”. Why? Because you have been told that’s what the court does.

I honestly don’t know what it takes for people to accept reality. It is so IN YOUR FACE and yet many people actually get upset when I try and tell them that they are delusional. In many peoples’ minds the REAL problem is PEOPLE LIKE ME!  How dare I say such things about the greatest free-est system the world has EVER known!  

The supreme court is an arm of the government, nothing more. It is not your friend. It is not your protector. It is your oppressor because the people ALLOW it to be.

I hope this opened your mind a bit.  Are you starting to see why they always make sure the system itself is never scrutinized?  Because the system CANNOT withstand any REAL scrutiny.  Once enough people see it, well, they system will stop having power.

That’s all for now my brainwashed Brethren. Don’t be down, live in the light and don’t forget to tell someone about the truth about the law.

Legalman IS the law

Legalman IS the law

The Feds claim the, “interstate commerce clause authorizes it”. The Feds lie a lot.

Constitutional scholar showing one of the many wonderful uses for the document. It is amazingly absorbent. Throw your paper towels away.

A “brilliant” Harvard law professor is demonstrating one of the  many ACTUAL uses for the constitution. He says it is amazingly absorbent and that you can throw your paper towels away.  Huh, I didn’t know that. I should go get mine out of the trash.

Let’s get something straight up front. The people who run this country do not care at all what is in the constitution. Not even a little. They laugh at the peoples’ naïveté and nostalgia about it as though it IS anything.  Oh they are ready and waiting to use it against the people whenever they need to. And, concomitantly they are ready to ignore it whenever they like as well.

Think about it. When the money power wants something the people don’t want, then the gov/media complex reminds us that we are a representative republic, and when the people want the same thing the money power wants then the gov/media complex reminds us that we live in a democracy.  It is always the same scam.

One of the most absurd, but ESSENTIAL, concepts in the peoples’ mind is that the CON….stitution has some type of exalted status in and of itself and that we MUST obey it.  It is absurd when you think about it.  Why must we? They clearly don’t.  Did you sign it? Did I sign it? Did anyone we know sign it? No. It only has whatever power AND MEANING that the people in government wielding the GUNS care to give it and nothing more.That is why “getting back to the constitution” is a losers game for the people.

Let me show you a concrete example using the “interstate commerce clause”  of how the power and scope of the feds is whatever they want it to be “under the constitution”.

"The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer" -- H. Kiss

“The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer” — H. Kiss  Sometimes you can get a little truth out of these people.  

The constitution is supposedly a grant of LIMITED and EXPRESS powers to the federal government. Those powers are listed in Art. One section 8. The states were still so concerned they put in the 9th and 10th amendments just to be sure there was NO DOUBT that the powers were only those express and stated.

The powers were so limited that when they granted the feds the power to have a post office, they ALSO granted them the right to have postal roads! What in the world good is a post office without a road to it? But do you see, the concept was that the powers were so specifically limited that there was concern that the feds would not have the power to create postal roads.  Remember that.

Of course those in power know that over time that memories fade and all can be rewritten. The people are easily fooled, the feds change the rules and the people can be tricked into giving up more and more piecemeal. That is the entire game.

The Feds power to control virtually anything stems in large part from its power to regulate interstate commerce.  Now the entire constitutional convention was a scam and I have already showed you that.  But even under the story we are told, the “interstate commerce clause” was supposedly put in to the constitution because there supposedly needed to be a way for the states to get a long and not have constant fights about the trade between the states. It in no way was intended to transfer control of what happened inside the states. But that is exactly what has happened.

The entire charade of any real limits to the FEDS powers ended rather ignominiously during WWII. in the case of Wickard v. Filburn when the supreme court took any limitation off of the “interstate commerce clause”.  Let me tell you about it.

OMG I think I forgot to tun off the implied powers generator.

I still wake in the middle of the night sometimes wondering if I forget to tun off those damned implied powers I first found in law school.   If you leave those things on they can do a lot of damage over time.  I don’t like to risk it so I normally Just get up and check to be sure.

Quick facts for the case. Now as you know I like to use Wiki whenever I can because NOBODY can argue that the NSA’s own web site is anything but a mouthpiece for the ptb’s. And in situations like this there is NO argument about the facts or the case.

A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption in Ohio. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.

Got it? Fairly straightforward. A guy has a farm. He wants to grow some wheat to keep and feed his animals etc. He isn’t even TRYING to sell this “extra wheat”. He is USING IT HIMSELF ON HIS OWN FARM. So the “limited” federal government steps in and says no no no. You can’t do that. We control how much wheat you can grow.

I ask you, can there be a more absurd extension of a power designed to control interstate commerce than this? The man is growing wheat to use on his on farm.

Official supreme court halloween picture showing 5 of those brilliant justices humbly dressed as they lived their lives.

The supreme court’s “Wickard after party” pic showing 5 of the justices strutting their new found super powers.

Well you know what’s coming of course. The holy oracles in Washington, the supreme court found that this was part of interstate commerce and therefore the feds could regulate it. Here’s how Wiki summarized it. And they get it basically right.

The Supreme Court interpreted the United States Constitution’s Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8, which permits the United States Congress “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”. The Court decided that Filburn’s wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn’s production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce. Thus, Filburn’s production could be regulated by the federal government.

Okay, so the court finds that if you grow something to eat or use yourself, that is also “traded nationally”, then your actions can be regulated and controlled under the concept of  “interstate commerce”.  Of course this “finding” turns the entire idea of “interstate” commerce on its head.  Think about it.  If you are growing your own feed to use then what you are doing is specifically NOT interstate commerce, BY DEFINITION. Yet the court just makes up this whole fantasy to expand the feds powers.

Here is the “holding”:

Whether the subject of the regulation in question was ‘production,’ ‘consumption,’ or ‘marketing’ is, therefore, not material for purposes of deciding the question of federal power before us. That an activity is of local character may help in a doubtful case to determine whether Congress intended to reach it…. But even if appellee’s activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as ‘direct’ or ‘indirect.’

Look at that.  Read it again. Drink in the freedom.  lol 

So even LOCAL activity that is not COMMERCE is now magically “reachable” by Congress using the interstate commerce clause.  I ask you, what does this authority NOT COVER? What about this is limited or expressed?  Nothing my brainwashed friend, nothing. And that is my point.

Let’s go a step further.  Take a look at the actual language in the constitution that people refer to as “the interstate commerce clause”?  To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”. That is the language.  Now think about this. 

If that language has the meaning that those jokers on the court give it, well, then the only logical conclusion is that the constitution was intended to give congress the authority to regulate the INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF FOREIGN NATIONS AS WELL.  Do you see why?  It is the same alleged grant of power.  Do you SEE the absurdity of the court’s “reasoning”?  The founders were a lot of things but they weren’t stupid.  This “reading” by the court violates EVERY RULE of Contract interpretation.  Turns it all on its HEAD! No way it is right.

The reading they have given it IS IMPOSSIBLE.  Laughable.  The states never gave the feds the right to regulate farmers growing feed for their animals.  But the problem is not that it isn’t obvious to anyone that they are wrong.  The problem is that there is NO WAY TO GET RID OF IT.  You have to convince the very people (the Congress) that have now been given the power to give the power UP!.  How can THAT ever work?  It can’t.  And it doesn’t.  That is why the constitution can NEVER WORK to do what you are told.  But it works PERFECTLY to do what it is actually intended to do!

I take back what I said. I take back what I said. The supremes reasoning did make sense. I see it now. It's right there in the cards. Damn. I just missed it for 30 years.

 Shown above is the precise array of “official constitution cards” that appeared when the Wickard majority drew them out to make their decision.  The subtle way they interpreted the array was  brilliance really.  The key, is placing that “reasons/causes” card at the bottom of a “triple drop” leading to a future card.  Without that, we might not have had the freedom we have today.  

The feds CONSPIRE to make the document say whatever they want. If the language is there and they don’t like it they read it out. If it isn’t there, they just read it in.  Heads they win, tails YOU LOSE every time my friend.

Do you see why I say the STRUCTURE of the government is there to enslave you?  You can’t have one part of the same government overseeing the other part. It makes no sense.  The court AND the congress grow in power when the AREA the court regulates grows. And so they grow the area that they control by expanding the area the feds can “regulate”.  Do you see this?  The structure of the constitution can NEVER WORK.  Surely the proof for that is in by now?  THE STATES must be in charge of limiting the feds. That is the ONLY way it could ever work.

I have one last very simple set of questions that demonstrates ONCE AND FOR ALL that the interstate commerce clause does not mean what those frauds on the supreme court have said and that 99% of everything the feds do under the “interstate commerce clause” has no legitimate basis.  NONE.

If the “interstate commerce clause” power extends out to the broad range of powers that the court claims in Wickard, then why did the framers BOTHER to include the power to create postal roads in addition to the power to create a post office?  Why?

Surely the “power” to create a “postal road” is an implied power that is subsumed in the grant to create a post office dealing with “interstate commerce”.  How can one work without the other in a “new” country with basically no roads! lol 

And now go ONE STEP FURTHER. What affects “interstate commerce” more than a POST OFFICE and its roads? NOTHING.  A post office IS interstate commerce!  So why would the framers bother to put in a specific grant of authority to create a post office AT ALL since that “power” is clearly subsumed under the power to “regulate interstate commerce” if the court is right.   

Do you see the inconsistency yet?  It is screaming at you.  lol

I do it for the people.

Only well established “court watchers” are familiar with a lot of the arcane pomp and ceremony of the court.  Here the justice prepares to read the opinion.

This is the same type of inconsistency that caught Nicholson in  “A Few Good Men”.  The old, you can’t handle the truth. Remember the scenario?  There would have been no need to order Santiago off the base if the men always followed the Colonel’s orders and if the Colonel had IN FACT ordered Santiago not to be touched.  Yet he WAS in danger.  Those two things don’t go together.  One or the other can’t be true.

Those in charge have the same problem in the constitution with all their made up blather about the commerce clause.  If the commerce clause covers what they claim, then there is no need to specifically grant congress the power to open a post office and postal roads.  But if they make such a grant, then there is no way that the interstate commerce clause is what we are now told.  Do you see it yet?

To establish post offices and post roads;

The one sentence that can’t be explained away.  Yet there it is.  It stands as a testament for all times to the lie that is the power the feds now claim. It can not be escaped. It cannot be explained away.

I don’t care how many holy decisions full of lies that group of coverup artists come down with, the truth is right there for anyone to read themselves. 

To establish post offices and post roads;

99% of the “power” the feds exercise is just a FRAUD on the people.  Top to bottom, front to back. Side to side.

Honey you don't understand. It's not what it appears. You'd have to be a woman to understand.

Hold on, it isn’t what it looks like.  He was just tired.  Nothing happened.  Plus, the supreme court has said that  this is not cheating. So are we good?

Trying to couch it in fancy terms and legal jargon or to explain it away with precedent or to try and convince people that they “have to be a constitutional scholar” or “go to law school” or any thing else to “understand it” is nothing but a sham, a cover. It is embarrassing.  That lying only makes it worse. Just  be a man about it and Admit it already YOU ARE LIARS. lol

I hope you see my point now. The constitution is not anything more than what they tell you it is. It is nothing but a way to “legitimize” their use of force to steal any and everything they want from you and me. It is not a holy document. It is a piece of junk. It does not limit the Feds.

The people should heap contempt on it not praise. As long as the people look to it as though it is something it is clearly NOT, they will live under the delusion that the government and the people who operate government have checks on them beyond the WRATH of the people they steal from. They DON’T. That is the only check.

Bobby didn't learn the lesson. Power isn't something you're is somethig YOU TAKE.

Poor naive Bobby never did learn the lesson his father taught both him and his brother J.R.    Power isn’t something you’re given…it is something YOU TAKE.

The people running it know this. That is why they are so sure to always always always talk about the constitution. They run around acting like they have to worry about whether the constitution even “permits” certain action etc.  They must laugh their asses off at you when they do that!  I bet they can’t believe you fall for this charade.  Hell, I can’t believe people fall for stuff this BLATANT.

Drones.  That is all you can say. And those back to the constitutioners have a whole cadre of well paid shills screaming about it and getting people riled up about it.  I laugh my ass off at those frauds.  Selling them books and videos and lectures.  It is hilarious to me. Those people are either in on the whole thing or hopelessly lost themselves.  Either way the result is the same. They get your time and your money and they play an essential part in keeping you on the Money Power’s reservation called “the united states”.  It’s sad really.  Sad people are so easily fooled.

If this does not wake you from your slumber what could I bring you? This is NOT a country of laws. That is a fairy tale they tell the people, nothing more.

Okay my friend, I am done for now. I can’t take anymore freedom today.  I hope you learned something.  Take care,  my brainwashed Brethren, we have to stick together.  Live in the light and tell someone the truth about the law.

Legalman IS the law

Legalman IS the law