Category Archives: Education

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because you can’t cross examine hearsay.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A simple truth that people never apply to themselves.

A simple truth that people never apply to themselves.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now there is someone that understands ironic humor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And the truth shall set you free.

    And the truth shall set you free.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reasonable but firm. That is what free people are.

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

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

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

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

And the truth shall set you free.

And the truth shall set you free.

It’s time to tell the truth; the 14th amendment was never ratified.

These Turkish guys had just gotten back from an intense seminar on the 14th amendment and how to get things done.  They said they loved America and had learned a lot from the seminar about governance.

I had been following this Turkish guy’s blog about a 14th amendment seminar he was attending.  He kept raving about how much he was learning about REAL government and how he couldn’t wait to use it when he got home.  I tried to warn him, but he didn’t listen.  Oh well, maybe he can “get back to the constitution” now.  He will have plenty of time in prison to “study” it.

The feds have seized, virtual total control, over every aspect of our lives via the 14th amendment’s “due process” clause. They have concocted a never ending series of “duties and rights” to “justify federal control” based upon that amendment. So I think it is only fair to ask a simple question.


Do you know the answer to that question? Of course not. You only know the lies you were taught in government schools and by the complicit criminal media.

Well today I am going to be the PEOPLES’ lawyer once again, and break it down for you, just like I did for the constitutional convention scam. I will make the case for the PEOPLE, not the state. The state has had its years of uninterrupted lies. It’s time for the other side. It’s time for THE TRUTH!

Now I can’t, in one article, cover all of the corruption that went on after that murderous rampage the state misleadingly calls “the civil war”. But I will show you that there is simply no doubt that the 14th amendment was never ratified in any legitimate sense of that word. NEVER. NOT EVEN CLOSE.

I had this guy for ConLaw class in law school.  I asked a few questions in the beginning because it seemed like he was leaving a lot of stuff out.  After a while I just stopped going to class.

I had this guy for ConLaw  back in school.  I was still pretty trusting back then.   Some funny older guy in class kept telling me how the guy was leaving a lot of stuff out of the lecture that was really important.  Turns out that guy was right.  

The facts I am giving are NOT disputed. YOU just don’t KNOW THEM because you were not taught them. I encourage you to check them for yourself. And to help you do that here is a cite to an opinion from a Utah Supreme court justice, writing in a PUBLISHED opinion. So let’s begin with some KEY background facts.

1. Surrender by the South occurs April 9, 1865.

2. The southern states are restored and the rebellion is declared ended by Johnson on June 30th. The southern states are now fully functioning and in the Union.

3. About 6 months later on December 6, 1865, the 13th amendment is ratified and slavery is officially ended. The ratification process involved 7 southern states ratifying this amendment. REMEMBER THAT.

Got it so far? The war ends. The southern states are “restored”, and they help to vote in the end of slavery by RATIFYING the 13th amendment. Now is when the shenanigans begin for the 14th amendment.

BEFORE a proposed amendment can EVEN BE SUBMITTED to the States for ratification, the conjobstitution “requires” that 2/3rds of both houses of Congress concur on the resolution to SUBMIT IT. In this case it was called, Resolution no. 48.

I gave an exclusive talk to a Mr. Ron Burgundy and his crew on this 14th amend ratification topic. He had some interesting comments about the whole affair in the Senate.

I gave an exclusive talk to a select group of high income individuals on this 14th amend ratification topic. The guy in charge had some insightful comments about the way the senators got kicked out.

So what happened next? Simple, on December 5th, 1865, when the 39th Congress assembled, the northern states who held a majority, voted to DENY THE SOUTHERN STATES THEIR SEATS IN THE SENATE!!

That’s right, the southern states who had ratified the 13th amendment, were then denied their right to have any representation in the SENATE! All 22 Senators from the South were excluded! How? Well the constipation allows a “majority” in the Senate and the House the right to refuse to seat a member. So the northern states “used” their majority to deny the ENTIRE SOUTH REPRESENTATION in the senate.

The house did the same thing to the Southern representatives. They denied seats to all 58 of them!!

Did you know any of this? Did you even know it was POSSIBLE? I seriously doubt it. But this is only the beginning of the corruption that IS the “ratification” of the 14th amendment.

Frankly, I could end the article right here and you would have irrefutable evidence that the entire “ratification process” for the 14th amendment was a SHAM! It is insanity to call this a representative government. And remember the 14th amendment is NOT ABOUT SLAVERY. THAT IS THE 13TH, AND IT HAD BEEN RATIFIED IN THE SOUTH AND THE NORTH!! The 14th Amendment is about the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SEIZING POWER FROM THE STATES!! Do you now see why I tell you over and over that the “civil war” had NOTHING TO DO WITH SLAVERY! It was about the feds control. Nothing more. Let’s continue with the facts.

Few people grasp the finer points of our holy constitution.  Here, the official senate security demonstrates the constitutionally correct way to remove a senator from the senate.

Few people grasp the finer points of our holy constitution. Here, an off duty senate security guard demonstrates the constitutionally correct way to remove a senator from the senate.

After denying the southern states their representation in the Senate, there were 25 states “left” and therefore 50 senators. That means they needed 33 yes votes to get the 2/3rds necessary to push out Resolution no. 48. But THE LEADERSHIP DID A HEAD COUNT AND THEY STILL DIDN’T HAVE ENOUGH VOTES! So they had to find a way to have one of the Senate “no” votes kicked out!!  My god, you just can’t make this stuff up.

But they had yet another problem now because the Constitution requires a 2/3rds vote to REMOVE a member, as opposed to just the simple majority to “not seat”. But they didn’t have the needed 2/3rds to kick the “no vote guy” from NEW JERSEY out of the Senate. So the senate “leaders” just IGNORED THAT CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT AND KICKED HIM OUT ANYWAY!! Lol

Surely NOW you have enough to see that any “ratification” process that occurs after this kind of lawless corruption just getting the “resolution” out of Congress could NEVER be valid! But there is SO MUCH more.

After denying the south any representation in both the Senate and the House, they proceed to operate on the basis that 2/3rds of the “seated” members have concurred and therefore that is “sufficient” to meet the constipation’s requirement. But the Constitution does not say 2/3rds of the seated members.

Article V says, “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary shall propose amendments to this Constitution, ……”

I have to focus like a laser when I work. And when I take a break I need to relax, so that's what I do. I earned it.

I have to focus like a laser when I work. You know, block it all out.  And when I take a break I need to relax, so that’s what I do. Here, my gf’s mom gives me a little treat.  Hey,  I earned it.

And nobody can possibly think that the People ever “agreed to” allow 2/3rds to mean, any 2/3rds left after a whole block of the country was denied their seats! That is ABSURD. But nonetheless these are the facts of how the 14th amendment’s “resolution No. 48” was then put to the states for “ratification”.

Let’s continue, because, incredibly, IT GETS WORSE.

When the “proposed amendment” went out for ratification there were now 37 States. The constipation “requires” ¾ of the states to ratify. So that meant that if 10 states said no, then it failed.

Now think about this. The entire South, which was 11 states, had been denied their congressional and senate seats. So if they say no to ratification, then how in the world can you get it passed? You can’t. It is impossible. And who in their RIGHT MIND would say yes to anything after being kicked out??!!

And in fact, by March of 1867 10 states had said NO. Thus the 14th amendment was not ratified.  It did not pass.  Period, end of STORY.

So what did those in control do? Simple, they passed the “reconstruction act” in that same month, March of 1867. And what did it do? Well it REMOVED the duly elected state governments of the Southern states, many of the same states that had ratified the 13th Amendment, and put MILITARY governments in to power in place of the civilian governments in the 10 states they needed. And those MILITARY governments voted to “ratify” the 14th amendment.

Yes THAT is how it was “ratified”. Not by the people, not by the governments elected by the people, but by the military governments forced upon them. And remember, this is NOT about slavery. That was 13th amendment.

I started my blog after coming across one of those "back to the constitution" books.  It just struck me. "hey, I can do THIS."

I started my blog after coming across one of those books written about getting “back to the constitution”.  It just struck me. “hey, I can do THIS.”

But even that is not the full story of the  corruption that IS the 14th amendment.  You see, the people in several other NON southern states were so shocked by the  lawlessness of the federal government’s action of removing duly elected state governments that 4 of them, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, and California all WITHDREW their ratification and voted NO to the 14th amendment. So this isn’t about just the South!!

So now what do the Feds do? They STILL don’t have the votes EVEN after militarily taking over 10 states!! Simple. They ignore the fact that four states have changed their votes to a NO! They just “declare” that you can’t change your vote from yes to no. Even though they had militarily changed votes from no to yes!!  Heads I win tails you lose.  That is the system.

That’s right. They simply passed a “resolution” that “declared” that the 14th amendment had been ratified and then ORDERED the secretary of state to sign off on it. That is how it was “ratified”.  The reality is that 16 states had said NO or TRIED to say NO when all was said and done.  16! when just 10 no’s was enough to defeat the amendment.  60% MORE NO’s THAN was needed to defeat it.

This is the true face of our supposed “freedom”. This is the “freedom” they tell people to go fight and die for and to “spread around the world”. This is why the entire “reconstruction era” is taught in a confused and utterly dishonest fashion. Because it is appalling! And Unlike your government schools which flunk you if you disagree with the stated “core curriculum LIES”, I ENCOURAGE YOU TO VERIFY EVERYTHING I HAVE WRITTEN.

The man the myth the legend my friend.

The man the myth the legend my friend.  Still a good look.

So where is the Supreme court in all of this? Isn’t it there to make sure the rules are followed? Ha, cue the belly laugh.  Please people, they DO NOTHING FOR YOU BUT ENSLAVE YOU. They are just part of the SHOW,

So how did the court reason around such blatant and obvious violations? Simple, they REFUSED to RULE ON THEM! That’s right.  They called all of these issues “non justiciable”. Just a fancy way to say, we aren’t going to touch it.

Think of the HYPOCRISY in the court necessary to do this. They have no problem passing on the correctness of busing and abortion, and toilet water flushing and gay marriage, and light bulbs and your health care, but when it comes to whether the people have had their basic representational rights denied. No, no, now, that is “off limits”. Lol

And remember, in Texas v. White, which I have already written about here, the court DIDN’T EVEN DISCUSS “JUSTICIABILITY” WHEN RULING THAT A STATE CAN NOT VOTE TO LEAVE THE UNION VOLUNTARILY. The court claimed EVERY RIGHT to hear a case and then rule that a state’s vote to leave the union was “void”, but the court somehow has no right to make any determination about whether the state’s vote on an amendment was properly counted as a yes or a no. So once again, heads I win, tails you lose when it comes to YOUR freedom.

Nobody would even believe such absurdities if I made them up and put them into a novel.  But people accept it as “law” and evidence of their FREEDOM when it actually HAPPENS! This is why those who rule you have contempt for you. They have NO RESPECT for the people because the people have earned that lack of respect through their utter idiocy and gullibility!

My gf friend loves it when I tell her about the constitution.  What can I say? she's a brain groupee.

I’m always a big hit with the ladies at a party.   What can I say, chicks dig it when you can talk knowledgeably about the constitution.

Your “freedom” is an illusion. A lie. Sure you can pick between Mountain Dew and Big Red, but you don’t get to choose your own government!

Now think about how many things the feds justify based upon the “due process clause”! All of that is built on an utter lie. There is no validly ratified 14th amendment. NONE. And don’t think for one second that those in power don’t already KNOW THIS. They know it all too well.  What does it take for you to see that the ENTIRE structure of the government you are living under is a fundamental LIE?

This is why they push so hard on the idea that Abe Lincoln, the war criminal, was this wonderful guy. That the “civil war” was about race. And that YOU ARE FREE BECAUSE of the holy federal government. Because if people knew the truth, those in power could not maintain control over you.

As usual, in writing this I have had to leave a lot of stuff out. Maybe I will write on it later. I simply cannot take thinking about the freedom fry fools and the brain dead drones running around talking about how we need to “get back to the constitution” any longer today.

I hope you at least learned something about your captivity my fellow inmate. Take care, 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.  If you like my site then take a second to hit the LIKE button!  Then SHARE it.  We have to stick together. You can do it. I have faith in you. It is much appreciated.

(Editorial note: A reader, DaisyK kindly pointed out a typographical error, namely, that Lincoln should read Johnson in point #2.  The text has been changed to reflect that.  The typo did not effect any issue raised and discussed. Not exactly sure how that went unnoticed for so long in light of Abe’s sudden demise on Tax Day, but I am glad she said something.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And here is why all of this matters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Legalman IS the law.

Legalman IS the law.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The natural law of cats is indisputable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you see the difference?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Legalman IS the law.

Legalman IS the law.

The First Amendment was dead on arrival.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Look at that law!

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

Where is the honor of these men?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And the truth shall set you free.

And the truth shall set you free.

“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

Exactly where does it say the President can keep secrets from the people?

Wake me when my life is over.

Wake me when my life is over.  Such is the sad condition that the STATE wants the people to live in.

Our government has become a government of secrets. They refuse to tell the people what they are doing BECAUSE they KNOW the PEOPLE would not voluntarily AGREE to LET THEM DO IT. If the people ask, then they are told it is classified etc. The vast majority of all of this secret bs is conducted by “executive agencies” like the CIA the FBI, Homeland Security, the NSA , the military intelligence services and ON an ON.  Not to mention all of the “emails” that are kept from prying eyes and all the “redacting” that goes on in 95% of all documents that they release under FOIA requests.  It is undeniable that the vast majority of secrets kept by our supposed “servants” in the government are kept secret under the guise of some vague amalgam allegedly based in “executive privilege”.

Now it is IMPOSSIBLE to discuss that entire topic in one post. In fact it is impossible to discuss anything more than just a teeny tiny portion of that issue in one post. So I am going to try and talk about one little portion. (if you want some more I have discussed it here and here already, and will be discussing it more in the future.)

I am going to pull back the curtain on one of the very HEARTS of this utterly bogus supposed “constitutional claim” of executive privilege which is the BULWARK for how they keep the vast majority of secrets. I want to show you how utterly HOLLOW it is. And when I do this I will hopefully get a “bonus play” and you can see yet another example of how the branches work TOGETHER to screw WE the people.

The elite legal "press corps" is seen here patiently awaiting its turn to ask probing questions for the Court's Spokesman.

The elite legal “press corps” is seen here patiently awaiting its turn to ask probing questions after the time honored and highly stylized “reading” of the “court’s opinion” concludes.

Oh the court hides their chicanery well amongst a bunch of high sounding garbage that really wins more by simply BORING people to death rather than REASONING them to death. They baffle em with Bullsh*t as they say. The average person, as a practical matter, has ZERO chance of being able to sort through all of the distractions in what passes for “court opinions”. Even the vast majority of lawyers MISS THE PLOT most of the time and get pulled off into paths that lead nowhere.

What I want to do today is take the primary case, hell it is pretty much the ONLY REAL case in modern times to even address the issue “directly”. That case is the “Nixon” case. That is the “famous case” when the special prosecutor for Congress was trying to get certain items from the President. The prez claimed “executive privilege” and the Supremes heard the case.

Now there are a BUNCH of problems with this case that I may discuss in later articles. But today I will only focus on ONE QUESTION:


Surely in a country, where the government is supposed to be subordinate to the people, and where the government is supposedly one of ONLY EXPRESS POWERS, this should be a pretty simple question to answer for the court. Because remember, the FEDS can only do something if they can POINT to a provision in the constitution that says they have the power to do it. That is the ENTIRE basis for why our system is supposedly “so great”.

Oh excuse me, I thought you were.  Please, go on.  Remember, it is all about the need to "respect the office".

Oh excuse me, I thought you were. Please, go on. Remember, it is all about the need to “respect the office”.

So let’s see if the issue was raised, and if so, how was it “resolved” by the court, and if resolved, then WHAT WAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS THE COURT FOUND FOR THE PRIVILEGE.

After going through a bunch of distracting and eye-glazing-over-crap we come to the section in the opinion called “The claim of privilege”. Okay, looks promising. So then we wade through yet some more procedural bs about “rule 17(c), and then we get to the meat of the issue.

So it’s time to wake up people this is going to be where they screw you, lol.

In support of his claim of absolute privilege, the President’s counsel urges two grounds, one of which is common to all governments and one of which is peculiar to our system of separation of powers. The first ground is the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties;

Bingo, this is what we’re looking for. The Prez is claiming a generalized right to have his advisers etc. be able to “advise” him in secret. So we should be expecting to find THE CENTRAL DISCUSSION FROM THE COURT RIGHT HERE. Now notice that there is a semi colon ending that quote I pulled. So here is how it continues.

the importance of this confidentiality is too plain to require further discussion.

Hold it. WHAAAT? That is NOT a typo my fellow inmates. That is the LEVEL of utter CONTEMPT the government has for YOU. That is what the court said. Are you laughing right now or are you sitting there trying to get your mind around it?

Well surely there is MORE. And yes, there is a bit more. The court continues.

Seeing through things, like the reasoning in the court, is a good thing.

I attached this to my Amicus Brief I tried to file to argue that transparency can be a good thing.  The Court un-filed it on obscure procedural grounds.

Human experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decision making process. [Footnote 15]

Okay, the “human experience” card. That isn’t constitutional exactly but we are human, so there could be something here. Granted, some people may in fact prefer to show the public one face and another in private. But so? That is not a constitutional basis for the servants to not tell their masters what they are doing. It is just an argument that some people are not very straightforward with the people they serve.

But remember, the flip side of this “reason” is that the people up there in government may very well WANT to keep things secret SO that they CAN DO THINGS IN THEIR OWN INTERESTS, hence the need for TRANSPARENCY. In fact there are many reasons for FULL transparency. Not the least of which is that maybe the people would PREFER HONESTY about the REAL reasons as opposed to being treated like children who are only told “what they need to know”. And remember, the potential for SELF DEALING is greatly enhanced if there is secrecy.

So AT BEST there are competing policies at work regarding the “need” for secrecy, and THEREFORE it is the President’s obligation to come forward to show that the CONSTITUTION supports his interpretation claiming he has a RIGHT to this veil of secrecy. Well there’s a footnote, so maybe that’s where the answer lies. Here’s what the footnote says.

There is nothing novel about governmental confidentiality. The meetings of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 were conducted in complete privacy. Moreover, all records of those meetings were sealed for more than 30 years after the Convention. Most of the Framers acknowledged that, without secrecy, no constitution of the kind that was developed could have been written. C. Warren, The Making of the Constitution 134-139 (1937). (some citations omitted.)

How is this actual CONSTITUTIONAL support or even ARGUMENT for the existence of the privilege? It is some history at best.  So?  What is the actual LEGAL argument being made? None. (and if you want to know the peoples side of what happened that fateful summer in Philly, well go read what I wrote here.)

Government education is essential.  Here a young girl is learning all about the holding in the Nixon case in her civics class.

Government education is essential. Here a young girl is learning all about the holding in the Nixon case in her civics class.

And ONCE AGAIN there is a simple reply to even the implication of this supposed basis. If it was “so obvious and necessary” and the people were all so clearly ON BOARD with this idea of secrecy, then why not just put a clause in the constitution saying the President can keep whatever secrets he deems appropriate from the people? Why not just do that? Remember, there is a clause in the constitution that empowers the Congress to create not just a post office, but also POSTAL ROADS. So it isn’t like they weren’t thinking of the consequences.

The court’s “reasoning” simply ASSUMES AWAY THE CENTRAL ISSUE.  And it does so IN A FOOTNOTE. It is beyond outrageous. If you can’t see how the branches conspire to screw you then you are blind. So let’s continue with the text of the opinion, surely there is SOME scrap of support referenced.

Whatever the nature of the privilege of confidentiality of Presidential communications in the exercise of Art. II powers, the privilege can be said to derive from the supremacy of each branch within its own assigned area of constitutional duties.

“Whatever the nature”?? Isn’t that kind of important to be able to DESCRIBE? Isn’t it ESSENTIAL to be able to define the exact nature and scope of the PRIVILEGE before you could ever “find” the existence or non-existence of the privilege? Of course it is.

Then they just say “whatever it is” it “derives” from the supremacy of each branch”. So apparently there is a limitless undefined power to keep secrets that is “implied” and “springs” from the MERE fact that there IS an executive branch? This is insulting frankly. What about the competing policy issues I already demonstrated? Totally IGNORED. What about the REQUIREMENT that the government be able to POINT to where the CONSTITUTION empowers them to do what they are doing?  All of that is out the window. This is what passes for “august reasoning” from these holy oracles. It continues:

Remember, you have to be an expert to be able to understand all of the brilliance that is in a supreme court opinion.  I mean, did you go to Harvard Law School? NO? well then sit down and shut up and listen to the experts who did.

Remember, you have to be an expert to be able to understand all of the brilliance that is in a supreme court opinion. I mean, did you go to Harvard Law School? NO? well then sit down and shut up and listen to the experts who did.

Certain powers and privileges flow from the nature of enumerated powers; [Footnote 16] the protection of the confidentiality of Presidential communications has similar constitutional underpinnings.

Okay, so this sentence makes NO SENSE. It basically says that the implied powers they are finding in this case, of EXECUTIVE privilege are similar to the powers that flow from other ENUMERATED powers. What? Implied from implied is the same as necessary from enumerated? That is crap. Why don’t you try that kind of “reasoning” with your boss and see how far you get. Well thank god there’s a footnote so let’s check that.

The Special Prosecutor argues that there is no provision in the Constitution for a Presidential privilege as to the President’s communications corresponding to the privilege of Members of Congress under the Speech or Debate Clause.

Whoa. Look what the Special Prosecutor CLAIMED. He claimed the President had NO PRIVILEGE that is similar to the EXPRESS and LIMITED privilege that certain congressional communications receive that are ACTUALLY IN THE CONSTITUTION.

So this is DEAD ON POINT. The prosecutor raised the essential issue. And notice that the court PUTS IT AND ITS REASONING IN RESPONSE TO IT, IN THE FOOTNOTE. Ahh the “majesty” and wonder that IS the supreme court.  So how do they answer the prosecutors MAIN POINT?

But the silence of the Constitution on this score is not dispositive.

Jesus H. you can’t make this stuff up! Honestly, wtf? The constitution is silent on the MAIN issue but THAT is not dispositive. What happened to the idea of a limited government with EXPRESS powers? Oh, out the window. And the court puts this in a FOOTNOTE?? Surely the court then presents SOME justification. Well here is the rest of the footnote.

Here is the lovable S.Ct. mascot "Conny" teaching the kids all about where the executive privilege to keep everything secret from the people comes from.  It helps to teach the kids EARLY about our wonderful freedoms.

Here is the lovable S.Ct. mascot “Conny the constitution” teaching the kids all about where the executive privilege to keep everything secret from the people comes from. It helps to teach the kids EARLY about our wonderful freedoms.

“The rule of constitutional interpretation announced in McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, that that which was reasonably appropriate and relevant to the exercise of a granted power was to be considered as accompanying the grant, has been so universally applied that it suffices merely to state it.

Hold it.  This quote deals with how to interpret GRANTED powers.  But they just told us that the executive privilege is NOT a GRANTED power it is an IMPLIED power that somehow “springs” from the mere existence of the “executive branch”.  So this quote doesn’t even APPLY to the nonsensical argument they are even making.  At best all that can be said about this “support” is that the court holds that the president has the privilege because the court finds that he has it.  And the proof required of the court? Well it “suffices to merely state it.”

Such is the grandeur of those brilliant jurists who we all look to for guidance. Remember it is their job to “tell us what the law is.”  And how do we know THAT?  Because they told us that is their job. Can you say Idiocracy? lol  That a mass of 330 million some odd people can be cowed and ruled by such utter nonsense really does prove that Truth is stranger than fiction my fellow inmates.

If this type of thing doesn’t wake you then what could I bring you?

The REST of the opinion uses THIS “foundation” to then “reason its way” to “other constitutional conclusions” about the extent of the “privilege” it just “found”.  I seem to remember someone saying something about a house built on sand not being able to stand, or something along those lines.

This type of opinion, in my humble opinion, is criminal. If the “holding” in this case is not something that threatens the very fabric of our supposed “constitutional system” then what could?

I mean, there is NO THERE there. It is total crap. And THAT “executive” privilege they magically “found” is how they “justify” keeping 95% of all the secrets.

Every conspiracy to screw the people requires secrecy. Executive privilege is how they claim to have the “constitutional right” to keep the BULK of the secrets they keep to spy on and control every aspect of your life.

Yeah I caught her discussion on the case. I taped it and have watched it a bunch of times.  Why do you ask?

Hell Yeah I caught her discussion on the supreme court’s opinion, it’s going viral. They were awesome.   I taped it and watched it a bunch of times with the sound off. Why do you ask?

Why do you never hear about what I have just showed you? Simple, the lawyers who are presented in the media and who are richly rewarded for being “experts” in academia etc. and whose books become bestsellers and who have radio shows etc. are either in on the whole thing or hopelessly lost in their own world. Why would they bother to change something that isn’t broken? They get rich and go on T.V. and give speeches spinning a yarn that serves those in power.  Thus they continue to do it and never question their own brilliance.

They are put there by the money powers to DISTRACT YOU.  And thus, YOU never hear or see the truth.

Keep everyone asking the wrong questions. It is ALWAYS the same game. Lol. What I do is ask the RIGHT questions. That is very dangerous indeed.  The pen and the sword my friend. The pen and the sword.

That’s all for now my brainwashed Brethren. I hope you learned something. Take care, live in the light, and tell someone about the truth about the law.

Legalman IS the law

  Legalman IS the law

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

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.

Lies and liars are not the exception, they are the rule, because real competition between the networks in the media is a LIE.

I know, it's hard to believe, but it's true. I give this information away for free.

I know, it’s hard to believe, but it’s true. I give this information away for free.

Because so many people were shocked to find out that Brian Williams’ laughable lie was “kept secret” for so long I want to spend a little time to explain how the underlying system is ACTUALLY put together.

I have already explained in my previous post about Mistake-gate that it is easy to keep a secret and naive to believe that “everyone would know”.  In fact the VERY concept that it is “impossible to keep a secret, and that “everyone would know” is just another meme they spread.  Having people believe and knee jerk react that “everyone would know” makes it that much easier to keep the secrets, because people don’t believe the secrets when they do start to leak out.  Why? Well because everyone would already HAVE KNOWN because it would have already have been “widely reported”.  lol.

NSA or Truman show? Sometimes reality and fiction can get blurred.

NSA or Truman show? Reality and fiction are becoming blurred in this brave new world.

The next most important thing to come out of Mistake-gate with the honorable Mr. Brian Williams is that any “competition” in the media is just part of the “Truman Show” they have created for you to live in and enjoy! lol Remember it’s because they care about you.

The major players are all ON THE SAME TEAM.  FOX, CBS, NBC, CNN all the SAME.  They are each there just to provide an illusion that something is happening, namely, reporting and checks and balances to the system, that is in fact just a charade.

People don’t understand that almost all media comes from the same six sources.  That’s consolidated from 50 companies back in 1983  Take a look at this infographic. Is this diverse? Is this the result of free markets?

This is just TV of course.  There is so much more inter-connectedness to the entire charade that allows things to always just coincidentally “behave” the way they do. It is all about an illusion of freedom and competition, that doesn’t exist.  Think about it, with a group this small how easy is it to get “black-balled” out of what appears to be a “large” and diverse industry?  If you don’t play along you can be finished quite quickly? 

So do you see how TV and TV news is really just one giant incestuous bunch of liars?  It isn’t hard to keep them quiet. It is EASY.  Of course if any of this actually happened, “everyone would know”.

None of this is the result of FREE MARKETS.  THIS IS ALL THE RESULT OF USING THE FORCE OF GOVERNMENT.  Those very few who basically control all the assets control the competition with their version of “Vinny the enforcer”, government. 

I use this picture on my online dating profile to give the girls an idea of the share I have in the whole thing.

I use this picture of my net worth on my online dating profile to lure the chicks.  But I’m not getting a lot of action, maybe honesty isn’t the best policy. 

Oxfam International, a poverty fighting organization, made news at the World Economic Forum in Davos earlier this year with its report that the world’s 85 richest people own assets with the same value as those owned by the poorer half of the world’s population, or 3.5 billion people (including children). Both groups have  $US 1.7 trillion. That’s $20 billion on average if you are in the first group, and $486 if you are in the second group. Rest of story here.

Do you see this?  This is the reality.  85 people have as much as HALF THE WORLD.  And THIS IS the REPORTED NUMBER. It is in all likelihood a laughable UNDERSTATEMENT of how concentrated the wealth actually is in the world.  Many super rich families don’t even make the “list” of “wealthiest” people, because they want a low profile. 

The very few at the top have it all.  They did not get it by playing by the rules you play by. THEY ARE CHEATERS, lol.  How hard is it to win if you cheat?  It isn’t complicated to see that these few people own governments and media and everything else. And they use those entities for their benefit.  It is not crazy, it is COMMON SENSE, lol. 

Here’s the list.  Notice how many people you have never heard of and notice the names NOT on there that you do know, like Rockefeller and Rothschild and decide for yourself whether you believe this “public list” actually represents the true state of affairs.

If you think the world operates like they taught you in school then you might want to consult one Mr. Rodney Dangerfield and his “testimony” in the movie “Back to School” when addressing this issue with his business professor.  Specifically when he says, “Oh you left a lot of stuff out.” lol

That's me back right. I learned more from Rodney in that one speech than I did the rest of the semester from the professor Phillip.

That’s me back right. I argued with the proffesor one day and ended up getting a “B”.  

These super rich people manipulate the entire game through access to the counterfeiting operation known as Central Banking. You create “problems” with the help of government in an industry, like a “licensing issue” in the media industry, and then buy up the competition on the cheap.

This giant scam was commonly known as a “roll up” in the 80’s and 90’s etc.  Every type of “industry” especially media types became subject to this giant scam.  The whole thing was of course presented to the masses as the operation of “brilliant individuals” in the “free markets” “honing competition” and other such nonsense. They always use the same playbook. lol

I brought the topic of I brought the topic of Roll-ups to a couple of women at my office. They said their kids loved them. And I'm sure they do. They tell the people what they want and then they give THAT to them. lolsure they do. They tell the people what they want and then they give THAT to them. lol

I brought up the topic of Roll-ups to a couple of women at my office. They said their kids loved them. And I’m sure they do. They tell the people what to want and then they give THAT to them. lol

But it isn’t just a licensing “problem” that can come up when dealing with the government.  Tax issues, immigration, audits, discrimination and on and on.  Importing, exporting, oversight and “anti-trust” are also just other cover stories operated by our friends down at government to protect those they want protected.  What does it take for people to see this?

The government is the “muscle” for the very rich who control all of the large companies and virtually everything else. It makes sure the competition is eliminated or controlled.

It is governments who allow huge multi-national corporations to operate all over and to dominate every nook and cranny of our lives and system.  The supreme court has declared that these entities are “people”.  Yes the great protector of your freedoms, the court. lol

These corporations are ostensibly “public” but the reality is that they are controlled by the board and large blocks of stock owned by many proxy entities with proxy voting and blind trusts and on and on the labyrinth of GOVERNMENT PROTECTION IN THE FORM OF LAWS AND RULES goes covering their trail and making it impossible for the masses to sort out who is REALLY pulling the strings.  Get it yet?

The absurd concentration of wealth has been AN OPEN SECRET for a long time. It is an “open secret”, just like Mr. Brian Williams’ honorable yet unfortunate “mistake” was well known in that industry. lol Supreme court Justice Brandeis wrote a whole book about the concentration of wealth a hundred years ago.  Go read it.  It was the subject of huge hearings in Congress.  What came of it? …… do you hear that?  I think that’s the sound of  “crickets”? That’s what came of it. ZERO. ZIP. NADA.  Government will never “get to the bottom of it” because one of its main purposes is to facilitate and COVER IT ALL UP.  lol

There was a study completed in 2007 in Zurich. It was the most extensive ever undertaken to try and understand the interlocking nature of of large companies.  Looking at boards and holdings etc.  Trying to dig down to figure out how much control was really concentrated in how many people or companies.  Get it?   Every heard of it? lol  Of course not.  Here are some of it’s findings.

Some things are better when they're concentrated. Some aren't. I use this stuff all the time. mmm mmm good.

I eat this stuff all the time.  I mean it is CON CEN TRATED , who doesn’t love a delicious concentrated POWDER?  The concentration makes it that much better don’t you think?

“Reality is so complex, we must move away from dogma, whether it’s conspiracy theories or free-market,” says James Glattfelder. “Our analysis is reality-based.”

Previous studies have found that a few TNCs own large chunks of the world’s economy, but they included only a limited number of companies and omitted indirect ownerships, so could not say how this affected the global economy – whether it made it more or less stable, for instance.

The Zurich team can. From Orbis 2007, a database listing 37 million companies and investors worldwide, they pulled out all 43,060 TNCs and the share ownerships linking them. Then they constructed a model of which companies controlled others through shareholding networks, coupled with each company’s operating revenues, to map the structure of economic power.

The work, to be published in PLoS One, revealed a core of 1318 companies with interlocking ownerships (see image). Each of the 1318 had ties to two or more other companies, and on average they were connected to 20. What’s more, although they represented 20 per cent of global operating revenues, the 1318 appeared to collectively own through their shares the majority of the world’s large blue chip and manufacturing firms – the “real” economy – representing a further 60 per cent of global revenues.

When the team further untangled the web of ownership, it found much of it tracked back to a “super-entity” of 147 even more tightly knit companies – all of their ownership was held by other members of the super-entity – that controlled 40 per cent of the total wealth in the network. “In effect, less than 1 per cent of the companies were able to control 40 per cent of the entire network,” says Glattfelder. Most were financial institutions. The top 20 included Barclays Bank, JPMorgan Chase & Co, and The Goldman Sachs Group.  Story here.

The public is rarely shown the portraits of certain historical figures, for national security reasons of course.

The public might be shocked to learn the truth about some of the great leaders in the past, so it is not shown certain old portraits. For national security of course.

So less than 1% of the companies controlled 40% of the entire GLOBAL NETWORK!  And this is what they could FIND OUT.  There are many things you can NEVER find out, like agreements that would be ILLEGAL and therefore secret.  Then you have family associations, and secret societies like Skull & Bones, where Bush and Kerry are both members. (so are they actual rivals, or is that all just part of a larger con?  see what I mean?)  Then you have inter-married families, friendships, blind trusts, NGO information, hidden accounts, and things that are not even on ANY record.  Just like the royal families used to inter-marry to create alliances the super rich families today do the same thing.  Of course believing any of this is conspiracy kookery. Why? well if that was really happening, then  “everyone would know”.

Further this concentration does not take into account the massive involvement of Intelligence communities in every aspect of the corporate world.  READ GOVERNMENT.

There are  something called Deep cover agents.  They can work their entire careers ostensibly as “private” individuals and yet have been a CIA or other intelligence service agent their whole career.  They appear to be something they are NOT their whole careers!  And this is just the tip of the iceberg.  The full extent and interconnectedness is only limited by the amount of time you care to spend looking into it.

Just one of many other books available.

Just one of many other books available.

There are always so many layers to the lies it is hard to sort them out. Colonel Prouty pointed this out in his book the Secret Team more than 40 years ago. And so have many others.   But still people don’t believe because it takes time to UNlearn and people are lazy. lol  They actually PREFER to live in a dreamland and search for pics of Kim K’s wardrobe “slips”.   And believe me, your overseers are more than happy to oblige with the distractions.

Think about it, the FCC licenses and thereby controls most media in this country.  And that is just ONE agency of government control over the media.  What in the WORLD are we doing having the GOVERNMENT OVERSEE THE MEDIA in this country?? How do the ones who are supposed to be BEING WATCHED get to oversee the supposed “Watchers”?? lol it is totally backward, yet the people demand more government they are so hopelessly brainwashed.

Oh and don’t believe for a second that this concentration is limited to media.  Here’s another chart showing the concentration of how a small handful of companies control nearly everything you buy and eat.  If you want more here is the story.


So do you see? It is not just the media.  It is all an illusion of competition.  The same people sell you Tide or All.  It is a game, nothing more.  The money goes into the same hands at the end.

I’m going to give you another info graphic next.  This one is a more extensive view of the MEDIA.  Look it over and once you understand what is in it you will understand why it is so easy for them to just crank up the “Wurlitzer” and dump propaganda on you from every direction.  And remember, none of this even includes the monopoly on the EDUCATION system that the government runs.  So the brainwashing is so extensive that people just don’t see it.

NOTE: This infographic is not totally up to date, but it is very close.  GE does not own NBC (or Comcast or any media) anymore. So that 6th company is now Comcast. And Time Warner doesn’t own AOL, so Huffington Post isn’t affiliated with them.

media infographic

Do you see now?  It’s easy to keep secrets.  The control is quite complete already.

One thing I have found from practicing law for so long.  No matter how much information you give to people, most people just won’t believe or won’t care.  And that is fine.  They are welcome to keep living in the Truman Show and to continue to believe that “everyone would know” and all the other silly naive ideas they have in their minds.

People, for the most part just don’t care.  They are content to drink beer, hang out and hope to “get a good job” and to try and get laid.  That is the reality.  Make friends with it. lol.

It's going to be okay. Just finish the article and then we can watch Judge Wapner.

I have hung out with this guy for years. He’s a blast. But even I have a hard time getting him to stay focused long enough to even read my stuff.  Look, just finish the article and then we can watch Judge Wapner or go back to the Casino and get some more girls.

Think about it. Just making it to the end of this article means you are UNUSUAL. lol.  Most people won’t even bother to read an article like this, and definitely not to the end. And an even smaller number will take the time to actually look at the information and links, and still even fewer will bother to buy and READ a book or two or do some of their own nosing around.   So the consolidation of control will continue by our rich cheating friends at the top. lol

And that is reality.  You have to live in reality.  But that doesn’t mean it is a reality without hope.  You can make your way through the maze.  And you can still laugh and enjoy. And we can share it together here.   I hope you have a better idea of how truly laughable the disconnect is between what you are taught and what the world actually is.

The few have control of it all.  To the extent they don’t  control you or anyone else on some business deal, it is only because they have CHOSEN not to.  Nothing more. lol. 

So I will leave you with Mr. Rodney Dangerfield’s insight in to the business world.  lol enjoy.


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

Legalman IS the law.

Legalman IS the law.

They even lie to us about something as seemingly innocuous as ARCHERY, lol

Okay, I admit I was really close, but still, that's not easy to do.

Okay, I admit I was really close, but still, that’s not easy to do.

The lies and mis-directions are continuous and complete, and they come from every direction. It is all part of the NON-linear disinformation campaign designed to create confusion and to make people give up and just watch TV or update their facebook page. The lies seep into every nook and cranny of “information” the masses are given. They are built into the very fabric of the education people get. It is not coincidence that rhetoric, logic and a study of the classics have been removed and replaced with sex ed, cultural awareness and lesbian studies.

If you studied the classics like Plato you would KNOW the way those in charge think and that would make you much more difficult to manipulate and to control. You would be exposed to big ideas about freedom and justice and you would have actually have THOUGHT about them, instead of just accepting the laughable crock of sh** they teach people in their indoctrination centers with their tightly controlled curriculum. Here is the “golden rule” that they follow and that they teach their own children.  You should NEVER forget this:

It's important to study the truly classic material.  Like George Carlin.

Now he was a classic.  It’s important to study the true classics.

They say that to do injustice is, by nature, good; to suffer injustice, evil; but that the evil is greater than the good. And so when men have both done and suffered injustice and have had experience of both, not being able to avoid the one and obtain the other, they think that they had better agree among themselves to have neither; hence there arise laws and mutual covenants; and that which is ordained by law is termed by them lawful and just. This they affirm to be the origin and nature of justice; –it is a mean or compromise, between the best of all, which is to do injustice and not be punished, and the worst of all, which is to suffer injustice without the power of retaliation; and justice, being at a middle point between the two, is tolerated not as a good, but as the lesser evil, and honoured by reason of the inability of men to do injustice. For no man who is worthy to be called a man would ever submit to such an agreement if he were able to resist; he would be mad if he did. Such is the received account, Socrates, of the nature and origin of justice. – Plato’s Republic, Book II.

You may need to read it again to be sure you digest the import.

They count on people PROJECTING out their own good intentions onto the world of others actions. That is natural. That is something people just do. But it is a big mistake when you are dealing with the people who want to control you like those in power. They, in all likelihood, DO NOT have good intentions as you imagine and project. They are just taking advantage of human tendency to project.

Never forget that they don’t play by the same rules. They think it is a VIRTUE to lie and cheat you. They teach you that they believe the OPPOSITE. Get it? If you still don’t understand this then go read my post on it.

I don't like to be disturbed when I am working on a post.

I don’t like to be disturbed when I am working on a post.

A dumbed down group is easy to control. A mass of brainwashed, drugged, sex addicted fools fighting amongst themselves to try and get scraps from each other is what those in charge want. It keeps the attention off of the real problems. If those same masses can be made to believe they are actually free and in charge, so much the better, as it is here in the U.S. of A.

People weren’t always just drone like “employees” hoping to “get a job” and then “retire”. People used to be basically independent. They had high levels of all sorts of usable skills. People use to carry weapons. People use to be something that was a difficult thing to control up close.

Before guns, and planes and drones and bombs, it was not so easy to take over an area and then to HOLD it. Killing was done up close. It was dangerous to “go collect the taxes”. It was hard to fight off a mob. It was dangerous to send a crooked judge out among the people to “dispense the kings justice”. It was hard to hide. It was hard to move your valuables and assets out of an area safely. You had to put them in a container and take them out with a wagon and some men you “trusted”. Now, they just push buttons and pooof electronically transferred.

I"m thinking about adding a product line to my site to help monetize it.  Maybe some mugs and shirts.  ??

I”m thinking about adding a product line to my site to help monetize it. Maybe some mugs and shirts. Whatcha think??

Dueling was a great equalizer as well. If someone offended you and lied about you there was a potential to get satisfaction from them, or have them ostracized from society or shown for what they were. That is why dueling is outlawed. The liars want free range to run around lying and to force you into the crooked “just a system” that they run. And they have accomplished all of this. And they have had it for a long long time.

The masses are controlled out of ignorance and sloth at this point, but the people running things do not have good intentions. People could be much more independent and much more dangerous and difficult to control, but they are not. Alas, the people have become true sheeple. And that kind of sucks for those of us who like our freedom, lol.

A reader sent me this video and I was fascinated by it. It is just over 5 minutes. Watch it and be amazed.  Then I want to make a few points about it.

I hope you watched it. If you didn’t then GO WATCH IT, lol If you did, then you are probably AMAZED, lol. Look at the skill level he has reached. Imagine the skill level people had when they were raised doing this type of thing?

Think of the level of what amounts to nothing but LIES that you have been taught about something as simple as ARCHERY. It’s not that there is no information.  He has found and read old manuals that tell the TRUE story, but you and I are not told that story. We are told a story that makes us WEAKER. Get it?

But do you see how the truth is right there in PLAIN SIGHT as it always is.  Had you ever noticed it? I know I hadn’t. But nonetheless there it was all along in old paintings that I have certainly seen, but never actually LOOKED AT.

It is always the same. Knowledge is distorted and hidden. The lie is continued and promoted and eventually, the truth is LOST to the general population. It is always the same. It doesn’t matter if it is as simple as Obama’s faked up birth certificate, which will not even go down as a footnote, or the IRS scandal, or the counsel of Nicea’s fancy footwork on the “holy documents”…. or the true history of ARCHERY.  THE SAME TECHNIQUE is always used.

I didn't really learn a lot about how to fix stuff growing up.  So I have had to teach myself.

I didn’t really learn a lot about how to fix stuff growing up. So I have had to teach myself.

Ignore, lie and then keep lying. Lol, Never ever ever come clean no matter how clear it is that you are lying. Then let time do its work.

When you can see it in one thing then it is easier to see it in the next. When you can start to see the pattern, then you can start to prevent yourself from falling prey.

Archery, who’d have thunk it? I mean the stuff that guy can do is f’ing AMAZING.

Do you see the way they have only had to tweak the truth.  They always teach the basics.  They just make a VERY SMALL adjustment to those basics, whether it is a skill or just information.  They mix in a bit of dog sh** to the recipe, as my good friend likes to say.  Oh they give you a GREAT recipe, but then they have that little bit that is wrong.  That tiny thing that makes all the difference pulled out or substituted in to make it all go wrong.  Do that and poof, the value is cut by 90%.  Think about it, all they did was start teaching how to put the arrow on the WRONG side and archery becomes a ghost of what this guy can do.  So simple.  So subtle. And this is always the way it is.

This is the heart of all disinformation and propaganda campaigns. 

Teach, but teach wrongly.  Teach mostly right, but then turn it a quarter of an inch in the wrong direction.  Once that is done they can just let it go.  Once people are asking the wrong questions and using the wrong BASIC techniques, there is nothing more to watch. 

Well it was a two for one special but I like pepperoni and she doesn't.  So we compromised.

Well it was a two for one special but I like pepperoni and she doesn’t. So we compromised.  I learned how to order like this in SCHOOL.  Makes sense, right?

Get it?  And if you think that losing this archery knowledge was all just accident and coincidence, like the guy who made the video, then I have some beach front property in Kansas that you’re going to love. Exactly how would it happen that someone started doing it wrong and wouldn’t have been corrected? I mean today if you’re learning to shoot and you put the arrow on the “wrong side” wouldn’t someone mention it?   So I’m a little unclear on how that just “happened” all  over the world over time? They some how started doing in a way that works WORSE and everyone adopted it? Makes a lot of sense that it was an accident.

How many other skills have been lost? How many other lies have we been sold?  The amount is only limited by your own imagination and your willingness to look into the truth my

As outrageous as that sounds, that is the conclusion I have reached after having dug into countless topics over the years, only to find the same rotten core each time.  My friend, they lie to us, lol.  Always the same.

So keep looking and keep reading and enjoy yourselves. Don’t buy the bs they’re selling you.

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 basics of how they control people with fear

Here let me help you little guy.  The Terror is over here.

Oh, the poor little guy doesn’t even seem to know what he should be scared of.  Here let me show you, the Terror is over here.

The entire point of my site is to try and open people’s eyes to the control systems running all around them so that they can be free. Most particularly the legal/political controls. Understanding them is freeing. But alas, so many people continuously get down as they start to wake to how pervasive they are. And I understand. But it is a process.

It is ultimately freeing to your mind, but you have to GET THERE. Before you do, it is a bit depressing.  It will get better. And once you are there, then they can NEVER take that freedom away from you. EVER.

There are many different systems of control operating at the same time on all peoples all over the world. Political, legal and religious.

I didn't get a lot of action in High School.

  I didn’t get a lot of action in High School.

There are two primary principles that enable large scale control of the masses.  First and foremost is FEAR in its many forms.  One of the most pervasive and useful to the rulers is the FEAR of being “an outsider” and not accepted. So social pressure is manipulated through the media.

The other principle at work is that most people accept the system they are born into and then “see the world” through that lens.   They don’t ever sit down and really ask fundamental questions, which is what I try and do here at the truth.

The reasons people fail to ask simple and FUNDAMENTAL questions are complicated, but a major component of it is that people FEAR being outside the acceptable cultural box. Many are scared to even admit there is a box, lest they look like fools for not having seen it before, or for having given it to it so easily.

Everyone has a preference for the politics, religion and world view that they were brought up under. Of course some people “rebel”, but most “rebellion” is quite predictable DEPENDING on the culture and amounts to nothing more than moving towards another available group.

Now that is what I call a rebel.

Rebel? or conformist? It’s hard to tell sometimes.

I’m reminded of the hilarious South Park where they went Goth because of a bad breakup with a girl. And what did you have to do in order to “be a Goth”?  Simple, “Just dress like us and talk like us and act like us”. Perfect summary of 99% of “rebellion”.

It isn’t so much that the people are actually examining the universe of choices so much as they are driven by internal FEAR of being a true outsider to one of the other “acceptable cultural” choices.  RARELY does someone actually step outside the cultural box itself entirely.  They have simply attached themselves to a new group of people who are an “acceptable” alternative.  They’ve gone “Goth”.

This is why most people who are born Muslim stay “muslim” even if they don’t “practice”. Same for Christians and Jews and Hindus etc.  Humans, for the most part, behave in a fairly predictable range. That is just reality.  Raised in a religious family, become “anti-religion” to stick it to them. Prim and proper, become a party girl and get pregnant. I could go on and on but you get the picture.

Some people want to control other people.  some just like to be brushed.

Some people want to pull the strings and control other people. some just like to be brushed.

This range and these reactions are quite well studied, and more or less understood for the masses, and control systems are in place and manipulated by the ones in charge all the time. Public pressure and fashion are amazingly powerful. People just don’t understand this, accept this, or want to believe that it applies to them, but none of that changes the fact that this is all true.

The control systems play on people’s FEAR.  Fear that you won’t fit in. Fear you won’t be handsome enough. Fear you will appear a fool.  Fear you won’t get the Girl, or the Guy.  Fear you will look “weak”. Fear you won’t be “cool”.  Do you see?  Then of course there is fear you will lose something, Social standing, money, love, or even possibly your dignity or independence or ultimately, your life.

The crowd is TOLD what to fear, like the fear of appearing poor for “not having the latest I Phone”.  Or the Fear of Terror, so the desire for more “protection”.  Fear is instilled and then manipulated

Using these principles they control the vast majority of the public conversation on issues. Very few people want to appear to be a “kook” because that is hardly rewarded by society.  They want to appear intellectual, or liberal, or conservative, or apolitical, an environmentalist, or aloof or on and on. They attach themselves to an image.   The media offers up “images” that are just fantasies, and people attach themselves. If you don’t think this works then you are in dreamland.  Just look at how many women can TELL you WHICH “Sex in the City” character they are more like.

Okay, now before I write the check I want to be sure I understand.  I buy the car and I get the chick right?

Okay, now before I write the check I want to be sure I understand. I buy the car and I get the chick right?

Or just look at advertising. It works. Billions and billions are spent to make people associate products with laughably absurd ideas about freedom and getting laid, and being smart and on and on. Buy the product and you will be “part of the group”.  Don’t buy it and you’re an outsider, a loser.  And the same thing applies to intellectual concepts in every realm from politics to law, to science. Yes the same things apply in thought.  It is just another part of GAME Theory.

The topic of getting control of your FEAR, REAL control, is a big topic. Much much too big for a single article. And I don’t in any way claim to have achieved control of my own FEARS. I just want to talk about examining and then controlling one small irrational fear.  The fear of “terror”. It is a big driver in exercising political and legal control over the population today.

The fear of terrorism is amazingly powerful. The actual danger of terrorism is laughable. But the fear is all that matters to the rulers. They create it and abuse it for their own purposes. And for the most part it is an unexamined fear. Now clearly I think “terror” is just a made up event.  It is being created and financed in order to control populations on both sides.  It is not legitimate when you get to the top. Do many street soldiers believe on both sides? Of course.  But that is hardly proof. But for the sake of argument, let’s assume it is real.

So what is it, even theoretically, that the terrorists might “DO TO US” that is so feared? Don’t all people really just want to be happy and fulfilled?  Isn’t everybody really seeking the same thing? 

And remember, the terrorists are FIGHTING US because they FEAR what we will do to them! It would be funny if not so sad.

The reality is that achieving those universal goals don’t seem to have much to do with an economic situation, or a political system or even any particular religion.  Nobody and no country seems to have a monopoly on happiness.  Everybody is seeking the same thing and who actually achieves happiness or satisfaction doesn’t seem to have much to do with the supposed “circumstances” they find themselves in.  Just look around and do some research on happiness and satisfaction.  They aren’t related to your circumstances.  They are about what is going on in your MIND.  

Dude check her out. Whoa she is hot.  Wait,which one are you talking about? I like the one with the purse.

Dude check her out. Whoa she is hot. Wait,which one are you talking about? I’m talking about the HOT one with the bag, which one are you talking about?

Plenty of rich people are miserable and plenty of poor people are happy.   Plenty of people living in Iraq and Afghanistan are happy and plenty of people here in freedomville are miserable.   There is NO connection. So why would we fear general “unhappiness and misery”  if they “take over”?

So what IS THE REAL DANGER people fear then?  Well when you ask people directly what is the ACTUAL threat they fear from “terrorism” that justifies all of the money and time and worry being spent on it you will see for yourself what they say just does not match with any actual reality of what might happen. 

Many people imagine that “Islamic extremism” threatens their lives, even though statistically that is just not true. Many people see it as threatening their economic security or some such silliness. Others fear “sharia” law or wearing a weird clothes or on and on. There is no way any of that can ever happen.  It is absurd. They don’t have the numbers or the means or anything else to do that to this country.

Terror as an almost mathematical certainty is not going to kill you. It isn’t going to put you on the street, it isn’t going to do anything in all likelihood. Nothing at all. It has been created and dreamed up in order to control you. Using these fake enemies is hardly a new concept.  Remember before Islamic “terror” there were the Germans and the “Japs”, then the Commies, and on and on.

Just listen to the actual stories of the poor soldiers sent over there to kill the “terrorists”. They talk about how the people there are just like you and me. This is ALWAYS the case in war. It’s why the one’s in charge spend so much time dehumanizing the “enemy”, because if you knew the truth you wouldn’t go kill them.

Okay, one more smoke then the breaks over and we need to seriously get back to killing each other.

Okay, one more smoke, but if we get caught they’re going to f’ing kill us.   

The Christmas truce in WWI posed a huge risk to the powers that be and had to be quashed. why? what was so dangerous about the soldiers seeing that there really is nothing worth blowing each other up over?  Simple, contact with people during all conflicts shows them again and again to be just like you and me.  Other average people are NOT OUR ENEMY. The people who take advantage of people by instilling hatred and fear of others in order to gain material power and control for themselves cannot allow that.  

And while I get that people fear losing their life to a “terrorist”, EVEN THE fear of losing your life is just that. A fear.  And the only reason you have that fear is because you believe that you live in a purely material world where you live and die and in which “bad things” can happen to you and and your loved ones and then it “ends”, with nothing more. 

And that is why the rulers in our country constantly push a purely “materialistic” view of the universe on people. Don’t accept the material limitations they try and claim are the “only intellectual” position.  Open your mind.  Do your own thinking and research.  Is the material world you see all there really is?  I don’t think so.  Think of it like this.  Right now there are forces we don’t  understand but still exist and one day will be mastered.  That is a certainty.   And that is no different than when we learned how to use X rays, or the atom bomb.  Both of those forces and powers were THERE all along.  We just didn’t see them or know how to use them. If someone suggested them 500 years ago they would have been a “kook”, certainly not an “intellectual”.  Do you see?  Those powers “couldn’t exist” then, why? well because the greatest “scientists” of the day would have said so.  See the silly limited box they try and put us all in?

And that little box serves our leaders well. They want people to believe this is all there is, because then you are much more easily SCARED and CONTROLLED. And it is why they spend so much time trying to convince people that any thing that is not “scientific” materialistic as they define science, is for fools and hicks or “fanatics”.

This whole scheme has been quite successful in our country.  The “intellectuals” now all “know”that materialism is “correct”.  If you don’t buy into materialism, then you’re not an intellectual.  ipso facto. And do you see how convenient that whole “box” is for those who seek to control you?

Some people seem to want to pick and choose the parts of "Materialism" that they accept. But a law is a law.

Some people want to pick and choose the rules of “Materialism” that they accept. But a law is a law.

Many many cultures throughout time have not feared death, just like the “terrorist” cultures we “fight”.  Their rulers use the fear of offending god as a reason to choose death over some other political system.  Do you see?  Their political system is a combination of religious and political control driven by another kind of ginned up fear. But it is the same type of CONTROL SYSTEM.

Now I don’t have time to get into an in depth discussion of why I believe death should not be something to fear.  I have explained it briefly before, and I will repeat my short argument because it is so inextricably related to the irrational fear of “terrorism”.

Either you die and that is it, over, nothing more, or you don’t. If there is nothing more then there is NOTHING to fear. Whatever you “lose” you will be unaware of. If there is something more, then once again, there is NOTHING TO FEAR from dying because it is NOT THE END. If you then say that you fear being “punished” after dying, then your fear is MISPLACED. What you should fear is not dying, but the WAY YOU ARE LIVING WHICH YOU IMAGINE TO JUSTIFY A PUNISHMENT. Anyway you slice it, fearing death is just not rational. Does it mean it is easy to conquer? Of course not in the box we were brought up in, but that just gives more reason to devote significant time to ridding yourself of that irrational fear.

Focus on the stuff that matters. Don’t let them FOCUS YOU on to things that don’t matter like terror and a FEAR that “terror” might effect “our standard of living” or kill you or anything else.

Don’t allow the people who want to run you, to SCARE you for their own purposes.  Free yourself.

Remember, you have to control your mind regardless.

I get a lot of pics like this from my followers.  She said she wanted me to see how much progress she was making controlling her mind and asked me to come see for myself.  I told her that when you look closely it’s clear that she wasn’t really tied up, so it didn’t count.

You can be free RIGHT NOW from that fear. It’s not like you are tied upside down and being beaten. You’re fine. We all are. Don’t allow yourself to just accept whatever you’re told. Examine your own thoughts. Don’t limit yourself to the parameters they set for what is acceptable to think or look into or to FEAR. Never fear the crowd my friend. Be true to yourself.  Fear of not being part of the crowd is much stronger than you imagine.


Terror is there to scare you so they can then control you.

Terrorists are not the enemy my friend because most of that is just made up. Your own fears are what you need to conquer. When you think clearly you can see that. When you think clearly and think OUTSIDE the box they try to keep you in, then you can’t be controlled with their ginned up “FEAR”. This life is a journey my brainwashed Brethren and we are all on it. We are not each others enemies.

What do you mean they are out of fries?  How do you run out of fries?  That makes no sense.  I came here for the f'ing fries.

What do you mean they are out of fries? This is an OUTRAGE.  How do you run out of fries? That makes no sense. I came here for the f’ing fries.

And I will make one final point and then let you go on your way.  if there is more than just this material world and if there is actual justice in this universe, then there is nothing at all to fear, certainly not something as silly and made up as “terrorism”.  And how dangerous would a world like that be to those who seek to control you? Dangerous indeed my friend.  So do you see why they might not want you to think about this?

I believe that there is absolute justice in this universe.  Here is my simple argument for absolute justice. There is either justice, or there is not. To have a negative you must have a positive. The concept of injustice can’t exist without the concept of justice. And injustice, which is a negative,  could not reign in a universe that was positive. And if there was not a positive force creating and holding everything together, whatever “this is” would have consumed itself a long time ago. A universe that was controlled by negative forces could not hold together and would have torn itself apart long before we experienced it. But since we are here and we do experience it, we can know it is a positive force holding the universe together and therefore there is  justice my friend.  So you can relax and stop fearing “terror” lol.

Live the life that is in your heart.  Don't give in to what they tell you is "right".

Live the life that is in your heart. Don’t give in to what they tell you is “right”.

You may not see it now, you may not understand it right now. It may not be apparent to you, but justice is there, IT HAS TO BE, as I just showed.

And when there is real justice, there is nothing to fear from any man or any organization because regardless of what happens here in this material world, it will all be made just in the end.  And what more could any man wish for than that there is justice?

So always remind yourself not to get dragged into their fear based control system.  Whenever you notice the media trying to make you fearful, know they are trying to control you.  And Just put the fear down and follow your own heart.Think for yourself.  Justice is there. Everything is going to be fine.  Take care of your own actions and justice will work its course for you.

The core of all great spiritual teachings always converge.

The core of all great spiritual teachings always converge.

Terror is just a con job being run on both hapless populations to generate fear in order to control those populations, nothing more. Don’t give into it. Don’t feed it.

That’s all for now my brainwashed Brethren. Don’t be down, move towards the light and tell someone about the truth about the law and help to free them as well.

Legalman IS the law.

Legalman IS the law.

Non-linear disinformation makes it impossible to tell what is real and what is fake.

I used to be a restless sleeper for years before I figured out the game. Here's an old pic of me during that time laying down for a nap.

I used to be a restless sleeper before I figured out the game. My Girl friend hated it so she figured out this system.  Here’s an old pic of me laying down for a nap.

Those in charge make sure that, for the most part, nothing that you see is as it is PRESENTED. The game is always the same, For GOOD reason. When a very small percentage of the population controls the system and virtually all the assets, they know the biggest weakness they have, is the people they control figuring out who is doing exactly WHAT to them. So they stay hidden and they make it very difficult to figure out who they are and what is actually happening.

Now I know that most people will never accept this truth regardless of being shown example after example of it. They will always retreat to the idea that every example is just another anomaly. It is an “exception”. It can’t be that way intentionally, etc. But whether people accept the truth or not does not change the NATURE of the truth that exists.

That's me at about 9:15

That’s me and some other students  with one of my mentor’s.  The guy was brilliant.  I’m at about 9:15

In no way do I claim to have “figured this truth out” on my own. That would be absurd. Everyone stands on the shoulders of the giants who have come before. This has been the way since the beginning. Some people in ALL times have known the truth. What has changed is that with the advent of the Internet, the truth is now available to everyone, unlike in the past. All anyone has to do is truly desire to know the truth and put in a bit of time. Yet STILL the masses refuse to see.

So clearly, the masses can probably never see. There is no other conclusion to reach. There is something else operating on their collective minds. And this is a very hard truth for those who do see and can accept reality and want to wake the masses. But once again, there is no point denying this truth either.

The law is the heartbeat of these deceptions. It appears to be something it is not. It is not there to help people and to improve society etc. It is there to control the masses and facilitate control of the assets by the few under the guise of doing “justice for the people”. Nothing else.

That’s why nothing ever works IN PRACTICE as you would expect, and that’s why this glaring FACT must always be explained away as accident, and coincidence and bungling, and one off, and a bad apple etc. Even though it just KEEPS happening again and again, same song, new verse. Any explanation that THE SYSTEM is not what it purports to be, and that it is instead actually working exactly as planned, is “kookery” and “conspiracy”. Why? Because if that were true, “Everyone would know.” lol

The cabbie said it was something about the battery not being charged that caused the accident. I don't know, but I mean, "he's the expert."

The mechanic said it was something about the battery not being charged. I don’t know,  “he’s the expert,” so I guess he must be right.

That’s why no matter how bad the schools are and how much they get worse and worse, those in charge insist they are trying to improve them even when they are clearly going in the wrong direction. This is the same for everything from the EPA to the FDA to military blunders, to Fast and furious, to Obamacare, etc. etc. The entire government, media, education system is designed to create a picture of a “world” that is a complete fantasy.

The precise form of the systems of control have varied throughout time. However, regardless of what form is being used to control the masses, the real system is always hidden to the masses. What in the world is even controversial about something that is this SELF EVIDENT and so comports with common sense? Nothing, yet still the people refuse to accept this truth and are fooled into believing that what THEY LIVE IN right now does not fit this model. Where they are, is somehow magically “exempt” from this reality. It really is quite amazing.

I recently ran across this great 5 minute “short” by Adam Curtis. The same guy that did “The power of nightmares” and “The century of self” series I suggest in my “fascinating other stuff” section. Sadly, and not surprisingly, watching those is no longer very simple like it used to be. Shockingly, they are restricting the public’s ability to see those series that blow a huge hole in the kabuki theater. If you have never watched those series I strongly suggest you go do that, wherever you can find them.

This short is great. Just take 5 minutes and watch it. It does a great job of giving the facts to you from a slightly different angle. And then, it adds a piece, I was previously unaware of, enjoy. Then I want to talk a bit about it.

Hopefully you just watched it. If not then go watch it. lol.   It is truly great, like all of his stuff. Very accessible to the average viewer. I love his style. Anyway the part I loved so much about this short beyond how obviously right it is about so many things, is that the non-linear system comes from THE ART WORLD. How interesting. And yet, it makes perfect sense. Art and entertainment and the psyche of the masses are so intertwined. The whole idea is fascinating to me.

Do you see how this non-linear system provides a SIMPLE UNIFYING explanation for an otherwise difficult or an almost impossible to explain combination of things? And why everything always seems like a giant Gordian Knot? By looking at it in terms of non-linear theory, it all falls into place. Non-linear theory as an explanation, is an excellent example of Occam’s razor.

The experts always tell us that EVERYTHING is ultimately math. So I broke it down, and it wasn't good.

The experts always tell us that EVERYTHING is ultimately math. So I broke it down, and it wasn’t good.

This non-linear system is clearly employed in almost everything, including the law. Support and create contradictory items and movements and explanations so that the people simply throw up their hands and turn over control to their “leaders”. Supreme court opinions and regulations and laws and police behavior that all contradict each other while professing to seek the “same goal” etc.  There is no way to “prove” much of anything wrong or right. Nothing is ever resolved. Just scandals, and events and “terror” and distractions and rinse and repeat endlessly. It is genius.

No longer JUST left right, up down, right wrong. Everything is a panoply of confusing and nonsensical items that don’t fit. Which is of course exactly what EVERYONE observes. And hence, the “problems” can never be resolved or solved. They just need to be managed with more and more controls.

When you’re constantly immersed in a giant non-linear show, as we all are, it is essential to question everything, but it is difficult to remind yourself of this.

This is why I constantly remind everyone that the best way to control the opposition is to run it, as Lenin said. Most opposition is FAKE opposition that has been put there for a reason. And even if it began as legitimate, it will be virtually INSTANTLY infiltrated and thereby co-opted as soon as it starts to get any real traction. Witness the Tea party movement, or Occupy, or any other “opposition”. It is clearly not legitimate AT THIS POINT, regardless of how it started. It is controlled or infiltrated.

So how do you deal with this insane world system? First in order to try and make sense of anything you must always ask, “what do we actually KNOW” as opposed to what were we told? Who told us what we were told? And “Who Benefits” if the story is believed?

I learned my investigation techniques from the best.

I learned my investigation techniques from the best.

Then you have to follow the money. Always. And the money in this country and in fact in the whole world, is in the hands of a very small group. Extraordinarily small. And that concentration is the result of world wide Central banking which exists as the result of corrupt governments. Nothing else. Not brilliance, not because they pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, not out working you, not “working smarter”, not building a better mousetrap. Those are all laughable lies they tell the people to hide the REAL game.

When you control the PRICE and supply of money, as the elite in the world do with PRIVATE fiat, fractional reserve central banking, you can control EVERYTHING else by buying it all up, or by “allowing or supporting” any and every other business or government or endeavor in order to keep the charade up. NO matter how useless the business, or corrupt the government. And it can go on and on for years and years and therefore APPEAR to be real. Just as “opposition” can be made to appear real. That is ALL there is to it. Nothing more.

OHHH, now I get it.

OHHH, now I get it. That makes a lot of sense.  Wow, they really have a way of explaining stuff.

Everything else is subservient to this simple fact. Look at CNN, it sucks. Its ratings suck. Its programming is a joke. Yet does it change? No. Does it go out of business? No. It keeps overpaying useless losers who don’t draw any audience to be on there. Why? How does this work in what we are told is a private “free enterprise” “dog eat dog” “work harder” best mousetrap wins system? Why is CNN on at all the airports? Why is it cited as though it is something it is not, i.e. a source of NEWS that people watch and trust? Why?

Those questions have no answers that make any sense as long as you look for them INSIDE the paradigm of the world you are given. But they are simple to answer when you see that something as ridonkulous as CNN is just one of many useful tools playing its part in the non-linear show. It is fully supported by the powers that be to push an agenda. Nothing more. Not a legitimate business reflecting the REAL world of ratings and response to what CONSUMERS want. Do you see this?

Because of the existence of fiat central banking, this type of example can be reproduced countless times with drug companies, car companies, movies, magazines, “celebrities”, “politicians”, “consumer advocate groups”, enemies, opposition, and on and on. Yet people refuse to accept the reality. It is just too great a disconnect for most people. It is too painful to accept that they live in a world that is not what they are told.

All of the stuff you see in the news and entertainment trying to convince people about people “building a better mousetrap” and becoming “tycoons” and all the tripe they sell on book tours about “self made millionaires” and how to books and interviews and made for TV movies and series about “tough honest” government types and the “American dream” are pushed for one reason and one reason alone. To fool the masses into believing the world they live in is something it is NOT.

I had a long conversation with this guy and he told me all about how the liberals were ruining the country.

I had a long conversation with this guy and he told me all about how the liberals were ruining the country, and how we needed to “get back to the constitution”.  I didn’t have the heart to tell him what I was thinking.

And here is another IMPORTANT KEY. All of those fairy tales they tell in news and school and in entertainment, are just slightly more sophisticated versions of the pap they sell to the masses like “Hope and Change”. Many intelligent people laugh at the hopeless masses who glom on to silly slogans like “Hope and Change”, repeating it mindlessly as though just saying it will actually DO something.

But those same people laughing at the masses about “hopiechangie” then turn and just as naively cling to ideas such as the constitution “protects them”, that, the problems in the government are because of “liberals”, that “terrorism” is organic and a legitimate threat to our country or people, that “Russia is the enemy” and that the way to “get ahead” is to “work harder and smarter”. Forget the facts. In fact, IGNORE the facts, deny the facts, lol.

Do you see that those fairy tales about “working hard” “freedom isn’t free” etc. are simply the next step up the ladder of lies from “hope and change”? They are lies and slogans that have been presented as “news and intellectual thought” and “politics”. But there is no DIFFERENCE IN KIND from “hope and change”, only a difference in quality between the two delusions. They are both kabuki theater and nothing more. Do you see that?

Does that mean that “nobody gets nominally ahead” or that there are NO people who oppose things? Of course not. But just because those things do exist, does not mean that they are who we are told. Or that they are what we are told, etc.

Damn, I should be taping this. It's just one jewel after another. I'm so glad we came to hear her.

She’s brilliant you know.  How do I know that? Because I saw a whole thing on her on the news about how brilliant she is. 

Most of the “success stories” we are constantly fed are just survival bias and pure chance. Some honest people will succeed in almost any system. But that is a long way from the FACT that the percent of people WHO SUCCEED who are cheating, dwarfs the honest ones. And that the CHANCE of succeeding by cheating, dwarfs that of being honest. And that NOBODY who is truly wealthy, hundreds of millions and billions of dollars wealthy, has done it without “help”, meaning they have CHEATED you using government and laws. Lol. That is reality, plain and simple.

It has always been the same. This is nothing new. All that is new is that the masses for the last 200 years now actually think it is different, and we now have perpetual electronic media, and a world that runs on non-linear opposition.

As long as those with control can convince those THEY CONTROL that the “controlled” are “in charge” there is nothing to rebel against. You don’t rebel against yourself.

So the “CONTROLLERS” spend endless time and effort selling the masses ideas about “go get yours” and freedom and “threats” from all sides that only “government intervention and regulation” can ever hope to “solve”.

Do your own test, see if the news you see fits with the theory of non-linear opposition. Just check out my “Distractions in the news” section.  I am quite confident of the results.

Whoa dude, isn't that Mark's truck he sold in Texas City? How'd "ISIS" get a hold of it?

F*** ISIS.  Hold, it, dude, that’s Mark’s truck. 

As always, once you see you can never UNsee. The non-linear insane faked up “opposition” and “unexpected results” are all around us all the time. I show you them in the law all the time.  That’s why it is so confusing. It is designed to confuse you so you GIVE UP control. It is intentional. The same people back all sides all the time. And hence, there is no clear path to change because all the paths are lead by the same people at the base.  Remember the truck from Texas that “ISIS” had. if you don’t I’m giving you the link.  Remember, “ISIS” is daaaaangerous and a booooogie man.  lol

As brilliant as the system is, it doesn’t work once people KNOW it is there and how it operates. So count yourself lucky my friend and tell others about the truth about the law. We few, we band of brothers, we need to stick together. The truth can be tough to accept. But no real progress is even possible unless it is in the direction of the truth. So take heart.

That’s all for now, my brainwashed Brethren, don’t be down, live in the light.

And the truth shall set you free.

And the truth shall set you free.


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