Tag Archives: law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did you ever think about that?

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

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

Just think about THAT.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Think about it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Think of how truly absurd that concept is. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’m done ranting. Lol

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

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

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

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

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

And the truth shall set you free.

And the truth shall set you free.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because you can’t cross examine hearsay.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A simple truth that people never apply to themselves.

A simple truth that people never apply to themselves.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now there is someone that understands ironic humor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And the truth shall set you free.

    And the truth shall set you free.

Jury nullification is a game changing right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Legalman IS the law

Legalman IS the law

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

The 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Legalman IS the law

Legalman IS the law

The constitution is designed to keep the people from having any way to stop abuses like “executive orders”.

Sometimes it takes a strong leader to really bring out the freedom in a constitution!

Sometimes it takes a strong leader to really bring out the freedom in a constitution!

I want to show you what a scam sweeping “Executive Orders” like the amnesty deal are. As usual, I am going to act as counsel for the people. I am going to make OUR case. I am going to show you the stuff they don’t bother to tell you. Then you can make up your own mind.

At its base our Government is just a legal concoction designed to steal from and control the masses under the guise of freedom and laws. We are told our government is one of laws and not men. A government of “checks and balances”. So let’s look at the “law” and see the brilliant and delicate balance it struck regarding the “executive orders” that claim to turn the immigration laws on their heads.

The obvious first step is to find out how the constitution defines an “executive order” and what its parameters are. Here’s what the Congressional Research Service, says about it.

There is no direct “definition of executive orders, presidential memoranda, and proclamations in the U.S. Constitution, there is, likewise, no specific provision authorizing their issuance.”

My Auntie likes to help me do some research. She's the one that found a lot of the stuff for this article.

My Auntie likes to help me do some research. She’s the one that found a lot of the stuff for this article.

Hold it. Wtf? Surely that has to be a mistake. But no, here’s what Wiki says.

There is no constitutional provision nor statute that explicitly permits executive orders.

No provision authorizing them, defining them or “permitting” them?? OMG I love this country! Lol Well I guess I just solved the mystery of why this whole area is so “problematic”. It is totally made up on the fly! Lol. Yet another case of the Real genius of our brilliant system on display my friend. It makes sure that there is plenty of wiggle room to screw the people at every turn! All under the guise of “following the law”.

Well can we at least get a working definition?

A presidential policy directive that implements or interprets a federal statute, a constitutional provision, or a treaty.

Okay, so this is how they define what they created out of thin air. “Interprets” or implements a statute. Hmm, I mean as a lawyer I can immediately see an out. It says interprets! So there you go. The law says they are illegal and should be deported. He is “within his authority” to “interpret” that. And he interprets that to mean that they are not illegal and not subject to deportation. Nothing but a difference of opinion I guess. Nothing to see here, move along. Lol. Do you see the idiocy of this whole thing?

People, wake up. The power is anything THEY TELL US and can force us to take at the point of a gun. Nothing more. The more they can brainwash you to believe it is legitimate, the less often they have to pull out their guns and thus the more free you THINK you are. That’s all.

So where do they even claim the power comes from?

The supreme court tells us in its opinions that the power stems from two places. The opening sentence of Art. II which says, The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. And the clause that states, he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. That’s it. That is all there is. All made up from there.

Poor "Boots", all he did was ask the good justice where there was any authority in the constitution to support the complex theories he'd written about executive orders. The justice was so angry he put boots in a time out.

Poor “Boots”, all he did was innocently ask the good justice where there was any authority to support the complex theories he’d written hundreds of pages of opinion on about executive orders. The justice was so angry he put boots in a time out.  I guess there’s no freedom in his house either.

How wide open is that? How can “we the people” have the slightest idea how an “opinion” will come down? Or whether what the president is doing is “constitutional” with something that vague? The whole phrase that it “is constitutional” has almost no meaning in this context since I already showed you that there is NOTHING in the constitution defining it or authorizing it. It is 100% implied by the nature of just “being the executive”.

What happened to this being a government that is limited and only operates on “express powers”. I guess that is all out the window. Spoiler alert: It always is whenever they want it to be. Don’t you get it yet? Here’s more of the standard line about what it “is”.

An executive order of the President must find support in the Constitution, either in a clause granting the President specific power, or by a delegation of power by Congress to the President.

But this is just empty words because I just showed you there isn’t anything there. The vast majority of “executive orders” don’t even bother to identify where in the constitution they get the power to do what they are doing, they just issue this blanket language: “Under and by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States by the Constitution and statutes of the United States, it is ordered as follows …” Which is just utterly circular nonsense that assumes away the very heart of the issue, namely WHERE exactly is he claiming to get the power from IN the constitution?

Here is how the supreme court in the “Steel Seizure Case” set out the supposed parameters of how the court will analyze the power to issue “executive orders”.

The President’s authority (to act or issue an executive order) is at its apex when his action is based on an express grant of power in the Constitution, in a statute, or both. His action is the most questionable when there is no grant of constitutional authority to him (express or inherent) and his action is contrary to a statute or provision of the Constitution. Although this framework of analysis is a helpful starting point, a deeper understanding still requires a substantive knowledge of the relevant statutory law and a President’s and Congress’s constitutional powers.

Justice Steve is looking quite spry on the S.Ct.'s league team even if he is a bit formal. He is always so sharp with his observations. It's no wonder his opinions are such brilliance.

Justice Breyer, a.k.a. “Justice Obvious” is looking quite spry on the S.Ct.’s league team even if he is a bit formal. He is always so sharp with his observations. It’s no wonder his opinions are such brilliance.

I actually laughed out loud. So let me get this straight. It is at its apex when it is authorized under the constitution and it is at its most questionable when there is no authority and the action runs contrary to the constitution! I’m telling you, I can’t make this stuff up. This is supposedly the brilliance of the supreme court.

Oh, and do you see how that last sentence they stuck in there basically just means that you will have to wade through a 100 pages of bs in their opinion in order to “know” what their answer is? Lol My god people what does it take for you to see the scam they are running?

Do you understand how these “executive orders” have been used in the past? Well here’s just a sampling:

Nixon used an executive order to set a ninety-day freeze on all prices, rents, wages, and salaries in reaction to rising inflation and unemployment. FDR prohibited the possession of gold coins and bullion. He also required the forced relocation and imprisonment of Japanese citizens living in the United States. Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, meaning arrest without any right to appeal to a judge in effect. He imprisoned thousands of civilians as a result, including many newspaper editors, and then held them for years without trial. Truman seized the steel mills of the country. Bush authorized warrantless wire taps, and gutted the transparency of presidential records.

They put this guy on TV a lot to give the other side of the executive order argument. He is quite articulate. For a normal guy.

They put this guy on TV a lot to give the other side of the executive order argument. Equal time and all you know. Fair and balanced!

None of this would be legitimate under the constitution if Congress itself passed a law doing any of it! But by exec order??? Where are the holy “checks and balances”? Where is the freedom? Oh that? Well, are you a constitutional scholar who is on TV or works at Harvard? No? well then you’re a hick, sit down and shut up. You probably support slavery too!! Lol

I am not going to bother to dissect any of the opinions from the holy oracles. What’s the point? I mean they admit that there is nothing in the constitution to INTERPRET! Whatever they say is just some crap they make up about the supposed meaning of those two sentences. That’s it.  Now You’ve seen the reality of what “the law” is in this area. It is just a fantasy. A chimera. A con job dressed up as though it is some complex issue. Obama has zero authority to turn the immigration law on its head. Zero.

Look, the constitution is AT BEST an adhesion contract between the states or the people and the federal government. It is “hornbook law” that ANY AMBIGUITY in any contract is resolved AGAINST the party drafting it. And by analogy, in this case, that means the THE FEDS. This very point was so well known and so important that they added the 10th amendment to make extra double sure that there was no mistake on this issue. It says:

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

How much clearer could they have made it? The people and the states are not granting “IMPLIED” powers in this document! The feds have to be able to point to a SPECIFIC grant of authority IN THE DOCUMENT” to DO ANYTHING and that includes the president. There is NO AUTHORITY to issue these absurd “executive orders” on any and everything.

The after parties at the Court are the BOMB baby!

The after parties at the Court are the BOMB baby!

The president is not supposed to be “the most powerful man in the free world”. He is an executive who is supposed to run a limited venture the States started to benefit THE STATES! Nothing more. He is not granted the authority to make law. Not a little. Not some times. Not kind of. Not in a boat, not with a goat. He does not have that power SAM I AM.

Implied powers like this idea of some “broad executive order” authority to freeze prices or grant amnesty are an insult to the intelligence of any thinking person. I don’t care how many “supreme court opinions” say he has the power. The document is CLEAR. He doesn’t. And THAT is why it is futile to actually “break down” whatever the supreme court says about “executive orders”. They are simply making up whatever they want and need at the time.

Of course the feds have the guns to IMPOSE this made up power on me or you. But that doesn’t make it any more legitimate or prove it is constitutional. It merely makes the abuse that much clearer and the distance we are from any real government “of laws” that much more obvious.

Look, everyone can agree that the president has the power to run his staff. That is what an executive does. But he can’t make law. When in doubt, the constitution says he doesn’t have the power. It is that simple. The only reason we even have most of these questions is because the court has allowed the feds power to grow so far beyond even the wildest wet dreams of the biggest federalist at the constitutional convention that the “form of the government” has become virtually irrelevant because its power is basically unlimited. Get it?

Now I want to take a minute to discuss another fundamental problem in this area that people just don’t get. It involves the procedural aspects. Legal theory is like a strategy in a battle. Procedure is like the logistics. Get it? It doesn’t make any difference in the world how brilliant a strategy you have, if you don’t have the fuel you need to fly the planes to IMPLEMENT IT. Same goes for legal procedure. I don’t care how “right you are”. If you don’t have an actual legal mechanism to get the issue adjudicated and enforced, then you don’t have squat.

And this is the area that the people are the most ignorant of in the law. The real problem with so many issues in the law and with our government is that there is no practical procedural thing you can do about it. Nothing. Think about the procedure of this whole amnesty joke. There is a Simple solution if the government wasn’t corrupted. The legislature would pass a bill and override what the president did. Poof, problem solved in one day.

The thing is they don’t do their job representing the people. Our employee/politicians in Washington WANT the president to have the power because it allows the government to grow surreptitiously. There is no vote. And for half the term of a two term president he is a lame duck! Do you get that? Everyone can just point fingers and blame each other and pretend to be upset and then move on to the next distraction. And this is what they really want because when it grows in power THEY grow in power.

Sure the idea is great, IN THEORY, but what does it look like to actually implement it?

Of course jeans and a tank top are a classic look.  IN THEORY.  The key issue is how does it actually get implemented?

So the people and the states are stuck trying to use procedures that don’t work. They get shoved into court to try and fix what their representatives have simply abdicated doing. And that drags on and on and takes years and you can see how wide open the outcome might be. And in the meantime the court may or may not impose an “injunction”. If it doesn’t then by the time the supreme court hears it the whole thing might be “moot”, meaning there is nothing left to hear because it makes no difference any more.

That is the reality of the procedure! The president knows he can act and there will be no actual consequence. And that is how we got all of those abuses I listed earlier. There are no actual checks and balances when it comes to practical LOGISTICS. It is all just theory and strategy because the system is totally corrupt.

Remember all the blather and the sound bites the “conservatives” made sure got out in the press about how Obama was acting like an emperor and how what he was doing was clearly unconstitutional! So if that were true, then why didn’t they draw up articles of Impeachment to hold him to account? Because it is all just a show. If it wasn’t, then they would have used THAT procedure.

Remember, as a procedural matter, YOU can’t impeach him. YOU can’t stop him, only Congress can and they don’t because they are corrupt. The court can’t issue an order to stop him until the case is actually in front of it. And that takes years. Get it? Those are procedural hurdles, i.e. questions about how we are going to actually get the fuel into the planes!

Well, I’ve said all I’m going to for now. I hope you learned something. It is always the same my brainwashed brothers. It’s all game theory. Play by their rules and you can never win. The whole thing is sad and comic at the same time to me. So simple to see through if you will just step outside the box they have you in. Just step out into the light my friend.

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

Legalman IS the law

Legalman IS the law

The nuts and bolts of how they spread tyranny through the courts.

A young Rubin Schwartz,is shown here. He is now one of the most successful lobbyist on Capitol hill. a

Not surprisingly he is now one of the most successful lobbyist on Capitol hill.

The tyranny and injustice of the courts is palpable. We all suffer with it. I see it everyday up close and personal. I have had to deal with it for more than 25 years. So I have given it a lot of thought. Understanding the actual Nature of any problem is the key to finding a solution.

Most people lump all the problems together. They see the courts don’t dispense justice, they throw up their hands and they blame it All on corruption.  And that just isn’t the reality.

Now I could go off on the courts because they do have it coming.  I could tell you about individual cases of crookedness and incompetence that are so ridiculous that you would think I was Making them up!  But I am not going to do that today. I am going to hold my tongue no matter how difficult.  Because the point I want to make is that the system is totally screwed, even without the power hungry types that get off being able to do that stuff to you and me.  And people need to understand the way the system actually operates.


Okay, it's true these are NOT examples systemic tyranny. But still, you gotta love "old economy Steve".

Okay, it’s true these are NOT examples of systemic tyranny. But still, you gotta love “old economy Steve”.

There are two general kinds of tyranny imposed on the people from the bench. One is systemic. The other is what I call “subjective tyranny”. 

Both types of tyranny are seriously problematic of course. They are both rampant. And they both erode confidence in the overall system itself.

Systemic tyranny is any tyranny where justice is NOT served in the situation, but where the “law” is “technically followed” by the judge. In other words where the law is DESIGNED to create INJUSTICE. There are countless examples of this.

I will give you a simple example. If I take a case on a contingency and I lose, I am not entitled to take a “deduction” for any of the time I spent pursuing that case, even though it clearly “cost me” my time, which is all I have to sell in the market. My time spent on a case IS my money. But if I take a case on an hourly basis and lose and cannot collect my fee because the party that owes me the money goes bankrupt, then I can claim that amount as a deduction. Do you see the inequity?

I have lost my time, which is all I actually have to sell in the market under each example. In one case I have a legal remedy in the form of a deduction for the loss to me. In the other I do not, even though I suffered the same type of loss. That is an example of systemic tyranny.

Another example would be where a police officer lies on his report about my conduct. I take a lie detector to try to help prove that I am telling the truth. But the law neither allows me to compel him to take one, nor does it allow me to show the jury my results and tell them that he was asked to take one and refused.

I got to play a little chess with one of the Circuit justices over the weekend. I was a little unclear on some of the rules he insisted we use. For some reason I was always black. But I didn't dare say anything since I have a case before him. Okay, it's you're move. We're having fun right?

I got to play a little chess with one of the Circuit justices over the weekend. I was a little unfamiliar on some of the rules he insisted we use. For some reason I was always black. But I didn’t dare say anything since I have a case before him. Okay, ready for another game?  We’re having fun right?

Clearly the evidence IS probative. How probative of course would be up to each juror. Many might feel it is Compelling and Material, some might find it uncompelling. But regardless, the jury does not get to hear it because it is not admissible. That is not justice. That is another example of systemic tyranny.

Note how both examples result in a tyranny of Injustice on the individual. That in fact is a common factor in virtually all systemic tyranny. The individual loses rights to the state, and to powerful interests who can afford to pay for protection from the state by making contributions, which create legal loopholes and protections.

A judge who denies my claim to the lost contingency fee deduction in tax court, or to the offer of evidence on the polygraph in criminal court, is not out to screw me. He isn’t crooked. He is quite literally, quote on quote, just following the law. He is actually “Doing his job”.

Do you see that systemic tyranny Can be meted out by a perfectly honest hardworking judge. It doesn’t take a crook or a scoundrel.

Now if the same judge Denied me my right to claim the deduction for the money lost due to bankruptcy, he would be engaging in what I call subjective tyranny. Because he would not be following the law. He would be acting outside the law.

Subjective tyranny is where the judge acts in a way that is personal and is either outside the rules, or in an area that does not have clear rules, or that is technically within his discretion within the rules, but works injustice.

The judge hated doing it to him, but hey, it's the law and we all have to follow the law. He understood of course.

The judge hated doing it to him, but hey, it’s the law and like the judge said, we all have to follow the law. He understood of course.

The motivations for this type of tyranny from the bench can be anything from simple mistakes, to laziness, to a personal grudge, to a power trip, to out right incompetence or actual corruption. I have seen all of them.

Trial judges have immense power, so do appellate judges. A trial judge can inflict subjective tyranny in many many ways.  For example, he can refuse or fail to follow the law and require that you in effect, have to “force him” to comply. He can also make rulings against you that should have gone in your favor.

The important thing to understand about subjective tyranny from both a trial judge or an appellate judge is that there is no way to tell the difference between, incompetence, laziness, intentional conduct, a grudge, or a bribe. No way. Of course the severity of the “error” and the glaring nature of the disconnect between the ruling on the law as applied to the facts can give you an indication. But you can’t know. And trust me, there are plenty of judges who are just plain Dense. Not dishonest. Just not very bright.

An example of subjective tyranny would be denying a motion that, by All objective measures, you were entitled to win. By denying the motion, the judge has now in effect required you to spend many more months or possibly years in costly discovery and litigation on issues that are not properly litigated. As a result you may very well not be able to afford to continue to successfully either defend or prosecute a valid claim you have.

The only answer to such conduct is to litigate your case through trial and hope you can win on appeal, or to “settle your case” if possible. Of course under those circumstances, the settlement value has been destroyed by the judge’s improper ruling.

I left the hearing just to get some air. I thought it was going okay until I saw the pic later.

 I thought the hearing was going pretty well until I saw the pic my client took of me giving my argument.

You have no recourse for conduct like this.

Therefore once again, the individual loses to entities like the State, and big businesses that can afford endless litigation costs.

Trial courts do the most damage to individuals as a practical matter, only because they have the most contact. Not because the judges are better or worse. They dish out systemic tyranny, even if they are a good judge. And if they aren’t a good judge, then they are likely to dish out both kinds of tyranny to you. Lol

Remember, it doesn’t take intentional conduct to screw you as I have just showed you.

At the appellate level the damage can be even worse. One, you are already at a very expensive stage of the litigation. So settlement is problematic. But even more importantly, the Only recourse you have is the  S.Ct. and the chance that they will even Look at your case is basically Zero. So whatever they do is Final.


People see the system and they see how screwed up it is and they just Assume that it is that way because most lawyers and judges are crooked or incompetent. Hence all the lawyer jokes.

I hope you at least now can see that tyranny and injustice do not require corruption by the vast majority of judges.  The problem, much of the time, is nothing more than their willingness to BLINDLY DO AS THEY ARE TOLD. Let me show you what I mean.

Known as the "machine" Justice Bryan shown here, went on to serve almost 10 more years. His "service" to his country was trumpeted by the press.

 Justice Bryan, known as the “Energizer”, served 10 more years on the appellate bench after this picture was taken. He was heralded as a brilliant scholar upon retirement. 

The systemic injustice that pours out of the courts is, for the most part, the End result of a very few bad actors. The system is Intentionally set up so that it can be Manipulated from the top down from behind the scenes. Only a very small amount of corruption needs to be inserted into the upper levels of the system over time, slowly, incrementally, imperceptibly and Insidiously, in order to create a Huge amount of injustice and systemic tyranny down the line in the trial courts.

Here’s how the system works. The S. Ct. makes law. Appellate courts and trial courts Must follow that law. Appellate courts make law that the trial courts in their Circuit Must all follow. So the trial courts Must follow the courts above them. And since they are the only court that the average person will ever be exposed to, whammo, you have just seen how the system can “touch you” without ever having to even involve itself with you.

The vast majority of cases do not involve controversial issues. So all that really has to be done is to control and affect a few key points on a few key cases at the Appellate level each year. A well placed crooked judge here and there on a case or two in each Circuit making a “well designed ruling” in a key area and you can do a lot of damage over time.

And who is watching? nobody but a few lawyers.  Do you follow oil and gas appellate law? What about arbitration law? lol When does it make news? Starting to catch on?

Now add in to this the fact that appellate judges sit for life. Just like a supreme court justice. They can have a 20 year tenure of doing damage. Maybe more, maybe 30 years, or more. Imagine the damage just ONE such judge can do if he is just Innocently incompetent.

Now picture one who is “compromised” and not at all incompetent.  Now add on to that law makers slipping in loopholes that then “become law”. Now do all of this for a decade or two or ten or twenty, like what we have now on the books and the law can become almost unrecognizable. No justice at all.

Look around, what do you see?  Right… exactly what I just described. lol And THAT is how it happens my friend.  Do you see how dangerous this is?

This is why so much has to be made about how “fair and high minded” the justices all are. Why we have to hear all the time how they are as pure as the wind driven snow. It’s the reason for all the pomp and formality.  Distractions!  

In fact you better tread lightly making allegations against a judge if you’re a lawyer. Even though Lawyers are clearly in the BEST position to KNOW who is out of line on the bench. It is more dangerous than questioning an NBA referee’s call as a coach. lol It isn’t done.

I was sure the Judicial conduct board would want to know what I found out so I sent in my complaint. Lesson learned.

I had some great information I just knew the Judicial misconduct board would want to know, so I sent it right in.  I was impressed how fast they got back to me. 

Do you see how it works now? Do you understand how easy it is to control such a system from the top down Unnoticed? And do you see how once put in place it runs itself.

The workaday judges who are the foot soldiers are, for the most part, oblivious to what they are even doing.  They probably actually believe they are “doing justice” by “following the rules”.

Of course some are meglomaniacs or narcissists. But most are basically honest but they are distracted, and busy, and intellectually lazy and they have fallen victim to the same brainwashing you have.

The real problem is that they never question the overall system of “obeying” whatever the “law” is from the appellate courts or the Supreme court. They rationalize ruling in a way they disagree with the outcome, by telling themselves that they are “following the law”, and that is what “their job is”. And THAT is the key to the system.

Convincing everyone that a judge’s Obligation is to “blindly follow the law” is the key. Once that is done. The rest is easy. They start in law school with the brainwashing of lawyers. It continues in movies and at every level of news and media.  Then they have well paid “media lawyers” write best sellers to talk about this wonderful virtue of judges only “following the law”. lol

The judges never stop to think that their job is supposed to be to actually DO JUSTICE.

i once was blindWhat a judge should be taught is that his job is to Do Justice. If the law prevents what he believes is justice then he should Ignore the Law. If the system prevents that, then ignore the system. If that means that the system gets rid of you, then so be it.

Do we really want judges sitting who don’t care if they are doing justice?

Do you now understand a little better how the system works so insidiously and why it does not require any kind of grand conspiracy?

I’m done for now. I hope you learned something.  Next time I will talk about another aspect of Judicial tyranny.

Take care my brainwashed Brethren. Don’t be down, live in the light and tell someone the truth about the law.

Legalman IS the law

   Legalman still lives

The Supreme Court does not have the “Power” to make anything “Constitutional”.

Apparently the Supreme court will be ruling shortly. on Obamacare and the advance word is that they are upholding it.

Apparently the Supreme court will be ruling shortly on Obamacare, and the advance word is that they are upholding it.   I’ve heard their “reasoning” this season is INCREDIBLE with lots of twists and unexpected characters.  Maybe even some nudity.  Yeah, nudity!

I want to talk about the supreme court’s “Power” to rule that Obamacare OR ANY OTHER piece of legislation “IS” constitutional. We all learn in government schools growing up and through countless media injections into the culture, and thus into our minds, that we have a constitutional system where there is a separation of powers between the branches. And THEN we learn that under our system it is the job of the supreme court to decide whether something IS or is not constitutional. Some especially bright people may even remember some vague details about things called “judicial review” and a case called “Marbury v. Madison”.

Of course the people have been misled, but Lawyers may actually be WORSE off when it comes to the brainwashing in this area. They had to undergo courses in “constitutional law” and civil procedure where a nonstop propaganda machine poured information into them that they “had to learn” if they wanted to graduate so they could get a government issued license to practice law in the government courts. Get it?

Most peoples’ eyes glaze over at this point but people SHOULD pay VERY close attention. Because this entire subject is a lynchpin of how the system CONTROLS you.

In general, people today, have been convinced that you have to be an “expert” in order to have a valid opinion about much of anything. News flash, you don’t. You just have to be able to think and to KEEP your mind open. But think how convenient it is for that “expert” concept to be in the peoples’ heads. It is put there by those in power so you won’t ever feel entitled to QUESTION the experts they put in front of you. The self serving nature of the whole concept is both obvious and absurd, yet still people don’t see it.

I hired this marketing firm to expand my reach and to improve my focus group attraction.  They had some pretty great ideas. That stuff is serious science.

I was having some trouble getting people to “take me seriously” as an “expert” because I like to joke around.  So I hired this marketing firm.  Here I am using their techniques.   What do you think? I look really credible don’t I?  Those guys are geniuses.   

First let me say that you don’t NEED to know much of anything in order to get the point I am going to make. In fact I assume people don’t know much of anything, lol. I am not going to discuss the details of Marbury v. Madision or the many PROBLEMS with that case. I am not going to discuss stare decisis, or any of the other myriad of somewhat more complex topics. I am going to make a much more fundamental point.

For purpose of this article I will ASSUME the standard TALE of what the constitution IS and the powers the court has. In other words, I am ASSUMING the generally accepted “read” of Marbury v. Madison and what we are told about what the framers intended is true. Got it?

While it is true that there was disagreement about what should be in the constitution when it was being drafted, there was agreement in many areas. The argument between federalist and anti-federalists was generally about HOW to accomplish the following goal.


These ideas are generally how the court, in Marbury v. Madison, justified its “right” to engage in “Art. III Judicial Review” and to THEREBY STRIKE DOWN acts by the other two branches. Of course it goes without saying that in any case where the court has a POWER to strike something down, they must also have the ABILITY to choose to uphold it, otherwise they would not be free to resolve the controversy. And here is where the mischief and confusion begin.

Justice Brennan is shown here early in his tenure on the Court. He was just beginning to learn the benefits of exercising his new found powers.

Justice Brennan is shown here early in his tenure on the Court. He was just learning all the benefits of exercising his new found powers.


The distinction can not be emphasized ENOUGH.

The main POINT of making the court independent and for CREATING a “separation of powers” was to provide for a way to keep the other two branches IN CHECK. Here is Federalist 78, the “bible” of the strict constructionists, discussing how the judiciary will work.

The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex-post-facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.

And here is just a bit more from the same Fed 78:

the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority.

… the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments.

Do you see? The court was given its power in order to protect the rights of the people by keeping the other branches within the EXPRESS limits of the constitution. The reason for this is simple and practical. When the people were forming the Feds they only gave the Feds LIMITED and EXPRESS powers.

What were the people to do if the Feds overstepped and started taking advantage of people? Well if there is no court from which to get justice, then the people are abused, and ultimately, when they have had enough, they will have no choice but to dissolve the union to avoid the tyranny. A dissolution, like the one they had JUST finished in the revolution and had gone through with the Articles of Confederation.

Dissolution is a messy process. It is inefficient. Better to have a system in place to protect the people from overreach as much as possible. Thus the court is there to SERVE the people, and it was given the POWER to strike down acts that OVER REACHED in order to protect the peoples’ rights.  

Justice Robert's transitioned to the law after suffering a career ending knee injury.  He is shown here performing his famous "double strike of justice" move. His supporters who had hoped to see him use this move on the court have been quite disappointed. He has become much more of a grab and hold kind of guy now.

Justice Robert’s transitioned to the law after suffering a career ending knee injury. He is shown here performing his famous “double strike of justice” move. His supporters who had hoped to see him use this move on the court have been quite disappointed. He has become much more of a grab and hold kind of guy now.

The government’s education system, and the legal education system the government MANDATES everyone undergo before anyone can get a law license issued by the same government to practice law in the government courts, creates the illusion that the supreme court has A mirror image “POWER” to “DECLARE” something Constitutional to its POWER to DECLARE something unconstitutional and then STRIKE IT DOWN. They act like they are flip sides of the SAME POWER. But they are not.

The only time the COURT can EXERCISE any actual POWER in a constitutional sense, is by STRIKING down an act of one of the other two branches.

Think about it. Whenever the COURT approves conduct by the other branches, the Court is not actually exercising any POWER at all. It is just issuing an OPINION.  The OPINION doesn’t actually DO anything. Really it is more accurate to say that it saw no need to USE ITS POWER over something that was done by one of the other branches. The law is already passed.  Nothing happens after the court “rules”.  The court just steps aside. Get it?  Here is how to think about it.



READ those statements again. That is the whole shebang my fellow inmate that they have screwed you and me with.  Understanding the distinction and the IMPORT of those statements exposes the great con they have run regarding the court’s “power”.

There is no FLIP side to the SEPARATION OF POWERS ISSUE. because there is no POWER being exercised on the flip side.  The money power has done one hell of a job confusing people and conflating those two distinct ideas.  But they are not a mirror image of each other. They are totally different.

One is a POWER that operates AGAINST the other branches of the government on BEHALF of the people to STOP them from DOING SOMETHING to the people. The other is merely an OPINION that sets up a consensus or Union with the acts of the OTHER BRANCHES of the government AGAINST the PEOPLE. It doesn’t DO anything. Do you see the difference yet?

Top law students hoping to get a Supreme court clerking job are seen here on vacation. The intense competition for the few coveted openings means they have to practice seeing the world like a S. Ct. Justice whenever they can.

Top law students hoping to get a Supreme court clerking job are seen here on vacation. The intense competition for the few coveted openings means they have to practice seeing the world like a S. Ct. Justice whenever they can.

There is NO evidence, and there never could be, and there is NO line of rational thought, and there never could be to to SHOW that the people GAVE the COURT THE POWER to make unconstitutional acts Constitutional by simply issuing its OPINION. That turns the entire system ON ITS HEAD. It makes NO SENSE.  The people would have put themselves at the mercy of the the unelected untouchable branch of the government.  The court would be the OPPOSITE of what it was intended to be.

There is no flip side to the “Art III” Marbury v. Madison POWER to strike down acts. None. If the branches work together to take the freedoms of the people and grow the power of the FEDS outside its constitutional limits all of that conduct is lawless. The framers were well aware of this danger. Again, Federalist 78:

“…. liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments;

Do you see?  There was no “arguing about that issue” between the Federalist and the Anti-federalist because IT was self evident that there was a problem if the court got into bed with the other branches, i.e. started “approving” and “finding” powers the government didn’t have.

And of course that is what we have had now for many many decades. The court has been  doing nothing more than running cover, providing “plausible deniability” and the APPEARANCE of a check to DUPE the people. It has been rubber stamping the EXPANSION of the government by expanding and explaining made up “constitutional powers” that IT CREATED ITSELF, lol. When it does that it is NOT exercising ANY constitutionally based “power” derived from the “separation of powers” or its authority to engage in “judicial review”, it is simply conspiring to violate the constitution. Nothing more and It is not entitled to any shred of support by the people. It is entitled to the CONTEMPT of the people.

I want to ask you a very simple question.

When is the last time the supreme court struck down any piece of legislation that was even ARGUABLY CONSTITUTIONAL? Has it EVER happened?  I means Jesus H. just look at Art. 1 Sect. 8, the Feds don’t have the power to DO JACK, yet they do EVERYTHING. Limited government  is a complete sham BECAUSE of the court.  Yes the court has struck a few items down, but the items WERE LAUGHABLY unconstitutional to begin with.  BUT let me let you in on a secret my fellow inmate.  The only reason they even do that is because if they NEVER struck anything down, the people might have seen the fraud a long time ago.

Here is some of "justice" Marshall original issue S. Ct. equipment he used to draft the opinion in Marbury v. Madison.  The equipment looks silly to us today, but it was STATE OF THE ART at the time.

Here, from the Smithsonian is some of “justice” Marshall’s original issue S. Ct. “Poker” equipment.  He had a reputation as quite the card shark.  It turns out he wasn’t so much lucky as he was “prepared to win”. The equipment looks silly to us today, but it was STATE OF THE ART at the time.

You have to throw a few hands if you want to reel in the MARK! lol


Neither of those issues are addressed IN the Constitution. They can’t be. Those are problems with CORRUPTION, not the form of the government!! AND Neither of those issues are an “outgrowth” of the court “exercising ANY power under the separation of powers doctrine.”

The government has been ever so careful in its schools to condition the People to ACCEPT whatever the court says as, “the final answer”, be it Obamacare or anything else. The people now clearly believe that the court has the power to in effect make an unconstitutional act Constitutional by simply issuing its opinion no matter how absurd the reasoning. No matter how much it bootstraps on bootstraps some made up standard that the court itself CREATED.

And the legal minds in this country, after being intentionally misled for years in “law schools” running controlled “curriculums” and prepping students for “the bar” , now actually believe that this power is “part of the structure of our government” and  is derived from the separation of powers and judicial review. But now you can see the great sleight of hand with which the PEOPLE have been fooled.

Considered the elite of the elite, Top level "educators" and "legal professionals" are shown here in a "Breakout session" at the annual joint D.O.J. Harvard Law school conference where cutting edge S. Ct. legal issues are debated.  It is by invitation only, so yeah, I don't get to go.

Considered the elite of the elite, Top level “educators” and “legal professionals” are shown here in a “Breakout session” at the annual joint D.O.J. Harvard Law school conference where cutting edge S. Ct. legal issues are debated. It is by invitation only, so yeah, I don’t get to go.

“Our fellow citizens have been led hoodwinked from their principles by a most extraordinary combination of circumstances. But the band is removed, and they now see for themselves.”Thomas Jefferson

The court’s power comes FROM THE PEOPLE. So does the legislatures. If the court is approving unconstitutional nonsense put in front of it by the legislature and the Prez then they are all just conspiring to grow the government.  If the people then go along with it, who is really to blame?    THE PEOPLE.

“The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union.”Thomas Jefferson

It is UP TO THE PEOPLE to protect themselves. The government, including the Supreme Court, doesn’t protect the people. Of course the court is acting without any LEGAL authority AT ALL when it “approves” obviously unconstitutional nonsense. That is called corruption.   It is called being power hungry. IT IS CALLED STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE FOR GOVERNMENT. Lol It is a lot of things, but it isn’t a separation of powers problem.

The PEOPLE should demand the justices be IMPEACHED immediately.  When the master allows the servants to run amok, well, the servants will run amok until brought under control, lol.

The man the myth the legend.

         The man the myth the legend.

If the situation is not what the people want then THEY must change it.  But the people have become sheeple. And sheep get slaughtered.

Step one to changing things is understanding the deeply imbedded mental constructs they have placed into the peoples’ minds to control them.  That is what this site is for.

I hope you learned something today. I hope the next time you hear some schmexpert from “Harvard law” or a “former federal prosecutor” discussing “Obamacare” or any other S. Ct case, and the court’s “POWER” under “Art III” to in effect make something “constitutional”, that you will just laugh at them for what they are. Obvious propagandists.

It matters not if they do it knowingly. The effect is the same on the people. In all likelihood they are just useful idiots of the power structure being richly rewarded for doing something they don’t even ultimately understand. They probably actually BELIEVE what they are saying. It is almost sad that people can be so easily fooled.

I hope your eyes have been opened to YET ANOTHER way the power structure takes something that is true and then turns it a “quarter of an inch” so that it is crap, lol. THAT IS THEIR METHOD, lol.  Once that is done they can step aside and let the people drain off time and energy arguing with EACH OTHER on issues that DON’T matter and never were DISPUTED. It is always the same game my fellow inmate.

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

Legalman IS the law

Legalman IS the law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh but there is still more.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Legalman IS the law

Legalman IS the law

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with why the Feds cannot regulate the PEOPLES’ right to bear arms.

It's a good look, don't you think?

     Together we grow freererer everyday!

ONWARD! The  incremental march to steal the Peoples’ freedoms continues everyday!  They have taken your “automatic” weapons. They have taken your right to own “military equipment”. They license and control virtually every type of weapon. Now they are going after the ammo. Obviously without ammo, a gun doesn’t do much good. Specifically they are thinking about banning the public from purchasing what are supposedly “dangerous” military “armor piercing” rounds of 223. Of course the government itself will still be able to buy it to use AGAINST the people if it “needs to”.

It's not so much that they're a juggernaut, it's more a case that the defense really sucks.  If it ain't broke, why fix it.  42 dive left on one.

It’s not so much that they’re a juggernaut, it’s more a case that the Peoples’ defense really sucks. If those in control can just get the ball snapped they can get 5 yards before they even have to block.  Okay, 42 dive left on one.

It really is laughable to me the way the people continue to fall for the same plays over and over by those in charge.  What do I mean “run the same plays”? Simple. They have fooled everyone using game theory once again. They have everyone arguing about a bunch of stuff that is irrelevant. What does militia mean? Is the weapon or ammo used for hunting? Is it a “military” weapon” and on and on. They have put everyone in a box from which there is NO exit.

What is the box they have everyone in? Simple, the analysis of the gun issue does not BEGIN by looking at the SECOND amendment. It does not begin by looking at the Gun Control Acts. It does not begin by looking to Supreme Court opinions about the second amendment or the gun control acts.  The analysis doesn’t ever get that far.

The feds lose at the first step, which is for them to identify where the people, in the constitution, gave them the power to take the PEOPLES guns or ammo. Do you see? THE FEDS HAVE SKIPPED INTENTIONALLY OVER the most fundamental step.

I ask a lot of people to identify where the Feds get their powers and this guy is actually a lot closer than he knows to identifying the REAL basis for the Feds authority.

I ask a lot of people to identify where the Feds get their powers. I’m pretty sure this guy didn’t even understand the question, but he actually got a lot closer to the answer than I thought he would.  The irony was lost on him.

The first step to determine whether ANYTHING the feds are EVER doing is LEGITIMATE is to POINT to a provision in the constitution where the PEOPLE gave the FEDS the power to do whatever it is they are trying to do. That is always always always step one.

So where is the provision IN THE CONSTITUTION that empowers the feds to take your guns and ammo? Please show it to me. It should be in Art. 1 Sect. 8 which ENUMERATES the powers they have been given.  It isn’t THERE.  Here is WHAT IT SAYS THEY CAN DO.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

So they are authorized to organize, arm and discipline the militia.  Well bully for them.  Knock yourself out feds.  Are you in the militia? I know I’m not.

There is nothing there about ANY right to regulate what the PEOPLE CHOOSE TO OWN OR POSSESS with their own money. The regulations they are passing have nothing to do with ARMING, ORGANIZING OR DISCIPLINING the MILITIA. NOTHING.   So where is the “authority to limit the peoples’ rights?  NOWHERE.  SO THEY DON’T HAVE THAT RIGHT.  END of analysis.  No 2nd amendment interpretation needed.  Get it?

Unlike our government, I insist on maintaining my high standards.

Unlike our government, I insist on maintaining my high standards.

That is the analysis that is SUPPOSED to be used regarding their right to take away THE PEOPLE’S guns and ammo. They have to find a provision that ALLOWS them to.

Congress is in charge of arming the militia. So?  The feds regulations never have anything even OSTENSIBLY to do with ARMING the militia. Congress is well within its right to “arm” THE MILITIA but they have no right to infringe on the PEOPLE’S RIGHTS to ARM THEMSELVES with whatever they want.  

All of these discussions about self protection and criminals and hunting and “dangerous to law enforcement” are nothing but distractions CREATED by the SUPREME COURT’S opinions that gave power to the feds that they never had.  The way our system of government is SUPPOSED TO WORK is that the feds FIRST have to be able to  point to a provision that empowers the feds to ACT in the manner they propose.  It is not MY OBLIGATION to show WHAT THEY CAN NOT DO. They have to show where they get the power to DO IT.

And that is how they have reset the game.

Apparently they've started teaching some new material since I went to school.  This girl is studying for her con law class.

Apparently they’ve started teaching some new material since I went to law school. This girl is doing some research for her con law class.


RE-read what I just wrote. Do you see how fundamentally DIFFERENT that is from STARTING with the 2nd amendment or any other amendment? It is CRITICAL to understand the distinction.

Still not convinced?  Let me show you something else that PROVES that MY ANALYSIS is the CORRECT analysis.   

Remember back to your indoctrination class on American History during your mandatory brainwashing? Do you remember what argument was made by the “founding fathers” who were against “adding the bill of rights”?

Yeah, I'd had a few drinks, but I was fine to make a court appearance.

They try and bore you to death in school.  It almost worked on me.  I learned some tricks to  keep my mind occupied.

Come on, you can remember can’t you, or has the fluoride fried your brain? lol The opponents argued that THE BILL OF RIGHTS WERE REDUNDANT!! There was NO NEED to reassert what the feds CAN’T do BECAUSE the feds were only authorized to do the limited things that were specifically set out IN the constitution? Do you SEE?

The great con the feds have collaborated to create over time is that the analysis should somehow START by looking at what the Supreme court, which is just the federal government ITSELF, has dreamed up on a topic instead of looking at the Constitution. As soon as you do that, we the people are screwed. The government has set the parameters and created a FALSE PARADIGM from which to do the analysis. Game theory my friend. 

Once you see the distinction I just made for you, then you see the absurdity of all the arguments that the anti-gun people and the feds make. Because they all focus on the wording of the Supreme court’s opinion’s about the 2nd amendment, which is a straw man. Because the S.Ct. can’t point to anywhere in the constitution that gives the Feds ANY right to pass legislation about the PEOPLES’ arms to BEGIN WITH.

The feds can’t stop THE PEOPLE from having tanks or RPG’s or fighter jets or ANYTHING ELSE because they were not given the authority to regulate those items. That AUTHORITY was left to the states. In fact that is what the 9th and 10th AMENDMENTS were intended to EMPHASIZE.

STILL don’t believe me?  lol.  Okay I will give you this.

It's not easy to access to the archives for the Court. I got close enough to get this pic, but I was denied access again.

It’s not easy to get access to the Supreme Court’s archives for research.  I got close enough to get this pic of the “scholars”, but I was denied access again.

Here is a Supreme court case on “gun control” saying the feds can’t DO IT. U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875). It is dead on point that the feds can’t limit the peoples’ arms. (if you want more details of this case go to here where I wrote on that.)

The right there specified is that of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose.” This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called…”internal police.” — U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

Look at that language. Needless to say this case is not often cited anymore. lol.  Do you see how the court said the same basic thing I just told you.  The regulation of the PEOPLES’ arms was left to the state, i.e. the internal police, not the FEDS.

If the people want to GIVE THE FEDS the right to “infringe” the peoples’ right to bear arms they are welcome to do that. But it was clear, EVEN TO THE SUPREME COURT, that they didn’t give that power to the feds IN THE CONSTITUTION.

IT wasn’t until the 20th Century that the court started “finding” all of these exceptions to the PEOPLES’ rights to keep and bear arms.  But no amount of legal mumbo jumbo in S.Ct. opinions can EVER get around what I JUST SHOWED YOU.  Really, the more they invent on the subject the more they simply damn themselves as a corrupt institution.

Most people know intuitively that something isn't right.  But it's hard to figure it out because of all the disinformation.  Just keep coming back here and I will get you through it.

Most people know intuitively that something isn’t right with it all. But it’s hard to figure it out because of all the disinformation. Keep coming back here and I will get you through it.

Finally, the very idea that a group of people, living in the 18th century in a predominantly agrarian world, who just fought a revolution would then create a centralized government so powerful that it MIGHT be able to take their right away to hunt or protect themselves against criminals, is absurd.  That is NOT what the 2nd amendment is about.

 My friend it isn’t complicated. They want you to believe you have to be some kind of “expert” in the constitution and all of the contradictory Non-linear propaganda that has poured out of the supreme court and appellate courts in order to be able to “understand the constitutional argument”. You don’t. Just think for yourself and look at the facts.

These guys were really quite bright.  But after a couple of hours of talking to them it became clear they weren't getting it.

These guys were surprisingly bright and articulate. But after a couple of hours of talking to them it became clear they weren’t getting it.

The truth is often too radical for most people after a lifetime of “captivity”.  Like a house cat, they just aren’t equipped to live in the world outside the fantasy of “freedom” that the state has created for them. lol.

But regardless of whether they want to accept it or not, what I just showed you is THE TRUTH about the feds rights to regulate THE PEOPLES’ arms.

If what I have said so far is not sufficient to open your eyes to how much of a total distraction all of those detailed arguments are about what the 2nd amendment “allows”, then NOTHING can.  And if you are still unconvinced, or still want to keep arguing inside the game they have created about the velocity or the use of the weapon or anything else, then best of luck to you.

The point of my article is not to “win” cases in front of the supreme court.  Of course the Court will REJECT the argument I have just proved.  They would have to admit that what they have been doing in so many areas is simply lawless.  They would have to come clean and reduce their OWN POWER.  I’m not exactly going out on a limb to say THAT is NOT going to happen.

So?   That doesn’t mean the argument is not true, it just proves my underlying point that the game is RIGGED.  That is the point people need to WAKE UP TO.  As long as the people accept the rules the money power creates, then the people will lose.  Simple as that.  As soon as they wake up and realize that THEY are in charge of themselves, then the people can start to win.  But not before.

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

Legalman IS the law

Legalman IS the law

The Constitution does not permit ANYTHING to be “stamped top secret” and kept from the PEOPLE.

No, seriously, I testified that I WISH I could discuss it, but it was just too sensitive.

So did you tell them you blew all the money at the strip club? No, I testified that I WISHED I COULD discuss what happened, but it was just too sensitive.

It doesn’t matter whether it is Hillary trying to hide her STATE DEPARTMENT communications WHILE she is the Secretary of STATE by dreaming up some system to avoid FOIA etc., or some other as of yet undiscovered scam to hide information from us.  If you’re not familiar with what’s going on with her “private” email go take a look, it is pretty damned funny.  The details are unimportant.  The  government has NO constitutional BASIS to keep secrets from WE THE PEOPLE. 

The entire military/intelligence/industrial/government/media complex is built upon the idea that the bureaucrats in government get to decide what secrets they will keep from WE the people by “stamping it top secret” or some other such “classification” under the guise of “national security”. This “right” is something that is never challenged in the “public conversation”. AT BEST all you get are some discussions about whether some particular item etc. “should” be secret etc.

This guy knew how to take advantage of his 'top secret" status.

This guy knew how to take advantage of his ‘top secret” status.

Let me first show you the preposterously broad areas that our “national security” now allegedly encompasses. Here from Wiki:

Authorities differ in their choice of nation security elements. Besides the military aspect of security, the aspects of diplomacy or politics; society; environment; energy and natural resources; and economics are commonly listed.

Do you see the absurdity of this? What does it NOT include? They can justify ANYTHING if “national security” is the excuse.  And remember, the definition of  “national security” keeps expanding.  The whole “secret” classification system comes originally from an “executive order” creating the whole scamTruman issued it making the totally unsupported and UNCHALLENGED statement that he had the power to do so “vested in him”.  Really?  Where? How and when did the people agree to this?  lol  The “classifications” run the gamut from “top secret”, to “for your eyes only” to “Goldfinger” to “The spy who loved me”.  Okay that part may not be completely accurate, but you get the point.  The “standard” is whatever they decide to create.  And then poof, We the people are stuck in the dark.

My question is this.

Where does the government get the CONSTITUTIONAL authority to keep ANY secrets from “we the people”?

Shown here is the infamous deep cover agent known only as "Charlie". He was embedded near a high value target. After retiring he won a landmark pension case where he got credited for 28 years of service, the CIA had been claiming it was only 4 human years.

Shown here is the infamous deep cover agent known only as “Charlie”. He spent his entire career embedded near a high value target. After retiring he won a landmark pension and discrimination case where he got credited for 28 years of service, the CIA had been claiming he should only get the 4 human years.

Think about it. We are constantly told how “we the people” are “in charge” and the government workers are “servants” of the people etc. But if that is the case where do the servants get the right to keep secrets from the masters?

All it seems to take is to have some guy wearing a military outfit up on TV and say it is “classified” due to “national security” and poof, that’s the end of it. Don’t you find the whole concept a bit odd now that you think about it? Especially now that you see how ridiculously BROAD the definition of national security has become? What conduct couldn’t be “classified” as part of “national security”?

Remember, the government, under our constitutional system, is supposed to be OUR AGENTS acting on OUR BEHALF, under a strict set of powers authorized and explicitly set out in the constitution. THAT document is where the government gets ALL OF ITS ALLEGED AUTHORITY AND LEGITIMACY. When it acts outside of that explicit grant of authority from the people, the government acts WITHOUT ANY LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY.

Surely it should be easy for the government to answer my question about the constitutional basis for its authority, if there is in fact a legitimate constitutional basis. Right?

This whitehouse spokesman was convinced he had found the constitutional basis for the secrets, but it turned out it was just some half eaten Chinese food.

This White house spokesman was convinced he had found the constitutional basis for keeping secrets from us, but it turned out it was just some half eaten Chinese food.

So where do those crooked bastards up there in Washington get the supposed “constitutional authority” to pass laws like “the national security act” of 1947 that created this gigantic secret government system which includes things like the NSA and the CIA and all of the other alphabet scams they run on us?

They tell us that they do it under the authority of separation of powers, or the right to set foreign policy or “executive privilege” , or some vague amalgam of implied powers that “spring” from or are “subsumed under” etc. etc. The bottom line is that they don’t have a direct answer.

But despite their obvious obfuscation and avoidance, one thing is UNDENIABLE, if the government wants to keep secrets from “we the people” then it must be able to POINT TO THE SPECIFIC PROVISION IN THE CONSTITUTION that empowers the government to keep secrets FROM US.


It doesn’t say a single word about it. It doesn’t hint at it. It doesn’t imply it. THERE is NOTHING THERE ABOUT SOME “RIGHT” to keep the people in the dark about whatever the government itself decides to keep secret by some bogus “classification system” or anything else. Get it? The whole concept is a fraud on you.

Okay, so they said that they did find where we all agreed that they could lie to us and keep whatever they want secret. When I said it was just a rose, they said I didn't understand because I wasn't an expert.

They said this was proof that we all agreed that they could lie to us and keep whatever they want secret. When I said it looked like a fortune cookie that had a flower on it, they said I didn’t understand because I wasn’t an expert.

Please show me ANY place or manner that the people have ever agreed to be kept in the dark about ANY issue, much less any and everything that their agents arbitrarily decide.

Certainly, the “right” to keep the people in the dark about any and everything that the government agents care to “classify” as part of “national security” is not a power that can be “implied”. That is absurd. It certainly isn’t “inherent”. That makes no sense.

In what way would the government be “limited” if it could claim it had an “implied” or “inherent” power so broad that it authorized the government to act in any way it chose to the extent it “affected” any of those areas and to then keep their conduct secret?

Certainly keeping conduct and information secret from the people themselves is ANATHEMA to the entire CONCEPT of a “free republic” UNLESS the people themselves have EXPRESSLY GRANTED that power to the government.

So what about the idea that they have “passed a law” or “issued an executive order” that “empowers” them to classify information etc.? Doesn’t that “cure the problem”? lol, no, it doesn’t.

The WHOLE idea of a LIMITED constitutional government is based upon the fact that they must FIRST be able to point to a provision that allows them to CREATE the legislation or the executive order. Not the other way around.

He was supposed to be building a foundation. He said it would work just as well. I don't know. I know I'm not an "expert" but it just doesn't look that stable to me.

I hired this guy to build a foundation for a deck I wanted and he built this.  He said I had to trust him because how it worked  was a secret.  I know I’m not an “expert” but it just doesn’t look that stable to me. I tried to find him after he cashed my check, but his number was out of service.

And no, giving some limited information to some representatives, “in closed session” on the “house intelligence committee” etc. who then DO NOT pass it on to me is NO BETTER. It is just another diversion that’s part of the scam.  It is NOT sufficient.  NOT EVEN CLOSE.

The concept of a principal giving an agent authority to act on his behalf and then being allowed to keep the conduct secret from him is WELL KNOWN IN THE LAW. So it would have been simple to have put it into the constitution if the PEOPLE had wanted to have secrets kept from them. Do you see that?

Take the example of a blind trust. The trust is operated on behalf of the person and for their benefit, and in order to avoid potential conflicts of interest etc. the beneficiary of the trust (the principal) CHOOSES to be kept in the dark about what types of things the trust is involved in through its agents.

Not surprisingly, when such a grant of authority is given by a principal the PRINCIPAL SETS the parameters and they are EXPLICIT and well defined, and there are always methods to keep track of the agent’s conduct and to investigate it and to be sure that the requirements and limitations are being complied with in order to PROTECT THE PRINCIPAL who set it up.

And of course, all of this makes perfect sense. If you are going to give someone the right to do things on your behalf, and to then KEEP THEM SECRET FROM YOU, you will have very explicit provisions etc. describing and PROSCRIBING the conduct permitted. Understand?

Think about it, how would you feel if your agent was out there doing all sorts of things in your name with your money etc. yet they wanted to keep it all secret? It is absurd. Now imagine the types of things your agent claimed he was entitled to do under this alleged grant of authority might involve imprisoning you or killing you or someone else. Are you willing to allow that to occur without a very specific and EXPLICIT grant of authority? I seriously doubt it.

My agent said that the Cheetah was a completely legitimate use of the funds. I didn't really understand, but I'm sure he's watching out for me.

Trust is a delicate matter.  My ex promised me that it “wasn’t about the money” when we “broke up”, but then I saw her riding around with this dude.  

It is such a fundamental violation of the agency agreement for the agent to act in secret without authority from the principal, that it doesn’t require any argument to demonstrate how “screwed” that would be. (to use a bit of legal jargon, lol) But that is exactly the situation with regards to the government keeping secrets from you and me. There IS NO DIFFERENCE because the government is supposedly the “agent” of you and me acting under the authority of the constitution.


How can you be free and in charge if those you are supposedly “in charge of” have the right and the ability to do whatever they care to, to both you and anyone else and then label it “a matter of national security” and keep anyone from finding out about it?

That situation turns the entire concept of who is in charge on its head. It exposes the laughable lie about “we the people” being in charge. But still people refuse to see this or to accept the reality of their situation. The cognitive dissonance created by seeing this is just too great for most people. So they stick their heads in the sand.

If we the people DECIDE that we NEED to be kept in the dark about some stuff for our own good it isn’t complicated to do it LEGALLY. The people need simply agree to some set of information or conduct that they want to allow the government to keep from them and then they just need to put that IN THE CONSTITUTION. Then the government would be authorized to keep those secrets from THE PEOPLE.

But right now there is no CONSTITUTIONAL authority whatsoever to keep secrets from the people. It is just another area where the government has seized a power it was not given. Every branch of the government then assists in maintaining and wielding that power by using the peoples’ own money against them.  Sometimes by creating propaganda and lies in the form of “opinions” from government agents called “judges” in the judicial branch, and sometimes in the form of threats and imprisonment from “attorney generals” from the executive branch.  All of this is directed at the citizens who question the government’s “authority”.

Is it just me or are these a LOT more roomy than than I remember?

Hey Steve, is it just me or are these a LOT roomier than I remember? … It’s just you dude.

But the people in this country not only put up with all of this, they actually run around proclaiming how “free they are” despite it and call those who point it out, unpatriotic. It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so pathetic.

Think how outrageous this whole “national security secrets” thing is now that you understand how to think about it? Now that you are not thinking about it within the false paradigm they have GIVEN YOU in their schools and in their controlled media? It is laughable that people accept the concept that they will be “kept in the dark”, without any question at all. So hopelessly brainwashed are the people that they don’t even SEE the issue.

Do you see why your “leaders” have such contempt for you the people they claim to “serve”? They see the people as absolute fools, and in a way, sadly, they are right, the people are fools who are so easily fooled. lol.

Our rulers in government tell us whatever they care to and nothing else, as though we are their children, as though THEY ARE OUR MASTERS. Get it? And under what CONSTITUTIONAL authority do they do all of this? Lol, NONE.

The constitution is a useless JOKE. An actual agent of harm when you are honest about it, because people think it protects them when it clearly does NOT, and so they rely on it to “protect their freedoms” when it cannot be relied upon. Do you see that?

Such is the power of paradigms. Those in charge understand the power of paradigms and they make sure to tightly control the ones that you exist in through propaganda in education and the media.

Game theory my friend. It’s all game theory.

They brought Miley in to testify about the need for more national security. She seemed credible to me.

They brought Miley in to testify “in closed session” about the need to “protect” our “culture” from “attack” .  Here’s a leaked picture from the testimony she apparently gave.  She seems credible to me.

I hope you have learned a bit about “national security” and what a joke it is. And I hope that the next time some guy in a military uniform, or some “white house spokesman” etc. gets on TV and starts talking about confidential this and secret that and national security protection this, you can just laugh at him for being such a blatant and obvious collaborator in this whole scam. Certainly you can no longer take them seriously can you? And that, my friend, is freeing. And knowing this you will NEVER be fooled again by their scam. So enjoy it.

I will leave you with a bit of comedy.  Finally, a candidate for president who makes some sense.  She knows all about the dangers of keeping things secret from the people.  Give it a minute or two, I think you’ll like it.  She would have gotten my vote, if I voted, which I don’t. Lol.

That’s all for now my brainwashed Brethren. Take care, live in the light and tell someone about the Truth about the law.

And the truth shall set you free.

And the truth shall set you free.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here I am with my Uncle George.

         Me and my Uncle George.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Legalman IS the law

Legalman IS the law

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

More “tragic deaths” and a quick lesson in how everyone is equal but some are more equal than others.


These babes were doing pretty well so I slipped in to join the table.

I took these babes to Atlantic City to try and impress them, but they ended up hooking up with some  younger guy. 

distraction in news man1-23-15 George Soros makes “another brilliant move”. lol.  I love ZH, it’s a great site.  I suspect because it has gotten so big in the last few years that it is fully infiltrated, but I don’t care. They still have a lot of great news.

The way the political system works is like the mob.  You’re either in or out.  The laws are there to reward and protect those on the inside at the expense of us on the outside.  It isn’t complicated. I have tried to briefly explain how “licensing and regulation” is there to make sure that anyone they care to protect is protected and anyone who they don’t get’s “investigated” and hassledThe financial markets are completely and totally rigged from top to bottom.  Financial news is a laughable cover story for the masses to buy into.

Forget the giant bail out in 2008 when it blew up.  Forget the 60 to 80 BILLION a month in QE’s for years that went right to the insiders.  There are constant manipulations. They constantly hold out certain people to the public like Soros or Buffet.  The press claims they are “geniuses”.  The guys write books and they talk about the long road up etc. etc.  All just a load of crap.  They are cheaters from way back in my opinion.

Much like Soros, there is no actual risk when he goes to the table.

Much like Soros, there is no actual risk when he goes to the table.

Soros of course is  main mouthpiece and a totally made man.  He won’t lose. He “gets’ the email” telling him whatever is going to happen with plenty of time to avoid a problem.  lol  Here’s his latest “brilliant investing move” that the public will imagine is just him being a whole bunches of bunch smarter than dem”.  It is all sillyness.  It is rigged.

George Soros, was betting against the Swiss franc in the fall before it removed those bearish positions.  Why did the Soros so conveniently take off a bet which, with leverage, could have resulted in massive losses for his hedge fund? The WSJ says he did so after “viewing the risk as too high relative to potential gains, said people close to the matter.”

Oh man that was a CLOSE CALL.  A 30% move in a currency in one day blew up a lot of people. Good thing he’s a genius and pulled his bet before it happened. 

So we are treated to the idea that he is brilliant by the Wall Street Journal, a laughable mouthpiece for the powers that be.  How do we know there was no funny business?  Well because they told us so, of course.  And don’t worry the “regulators” are watching.  You know the porn watching guys at the SEC, lol.  You remember all of that don’t you? lol

Report: SEC staffers watched porn as economy crashed

Well, I feel confident that they have gotten all that cleaned up now and they are back on the case.  How do I know? Because they told me.




This movie was a lot more realistic than what passes for the news.

This movie was a lot more realistic than what passes for the news.

1-23-15 First up the poor guy investigating corruption in Argentina.  I guess he just doesn’t understand that it is all fun and games until someone loses and eyeHe must have thought his job was to actually prosecute the real culprits, like that dead French police guy who thought his job was to solve crimes.  Their jobs are to run cover for the crooks.  Sheesh, is it that complicated? If you get too much traction, well, you are going to have an accident.   I already wrote about this in the banker deaths distraction.  It is the same all over the world…Here’s the news article on the guy so tragically dying, feel free to read the rest.

But first, let’s recap what’s known about Nisman’s death. On Monday, he was supposed to have presented his evidence against Kirchner and members of her government at a parliamentary hearing. But on Sunday night, the 51-year-old special prosecutor was found in a pool of blood in the bathroom of his 13th floor apartment. A .22 caliber Argentine-made Bersa semi-automatic pistol and a shell casing were found next to the body, and there was an entry wound in his right temple, but no exit wound.

Okay, got it so far.  Multi year investigation and he is due to make his report MONDAY.  Then, well, he kills himself the night before.  So, nothing to see here.

It really is a tragedy.

It really is a tragedy.

Nisman did not own a gun. He reportedly borrowed this one from someone in his office the day before, although the reasons he gave for wanting a pistol are not clear. There were no traces of powder on his right hand, but investigators say that is conceivable with such a small-bore pistol.

Nisman had a police protection detail that included ten bodyguards, but none of them were present at the apartment late Saturday night or Sunday morning, which is when he appears to have died.

Man I hate it when that happens. Supposed to have protection and then, pooof all gone right when you might need them.  These darned coincidences are killing me, so to speak.

The people in Argentina are not fooled. They are in the streets. Oh, what you didn’t hear about this?  Well, relax I’m sure they will get to the bottom of it.  There are more and more stories about it. If you care to check it out, here’s the latest from Reuters

Oh, and they are beginning to pull out the non-linear crap.  Up is down, contradictory stuff. Basically make is so nobody can ever get to the bottom of it.  It’s always the same my friend it’s always a lot of coincidences. Such a shame.

Here is an update on this from 2-4-15.  Yet more information that it is what we suspect all along.  Here’s an excerpt from the story that you can read all of here:

BUENOS AIRES — Alberto Nisman, the prosecutor whose mysterious death has gripped Argentina, had drafted a request for the arrest of President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, accusing her of trying to shield Iranian officials from responsibility in the 1994 bombing of a Jewish center here, the lead investigator into his death said Tuesday.

The 26-page document, which was found in the garbage at Mr. Nisman’s apartment, also sought the arrest of Héctor Timerman, Argentina’s foreign minister.

The new revelation that Mr. Nisman had drafted documents seeking the arrest of the president and the foreign minister illustrates the heightened tensions between the prosecutor and the government before he was found dead on Jan. 18 at his apartment with a gunshot wound to his head. He had been scheduled the next day to provide details before Congress about his accusations against Mrs. Kirchner.

So he had planned to present an arrest warrant as well the next day. hmm.  Such a tragic suicide.  And such a shame his security team had “left him” right when “he did it to himself”.

My friends, they lie to you.  They lie to us all, all the stinking time. 




Hey who's that guy?  Oh,probably nobody.

Hey who’s that guy leaving the scene? Oh,probably nobody.

This guy was a very high up I.T. guy who did a lot of work with a lot of agencies doing a lot of stuff they aren’t supposed to be doing and the people aren’t supposed to know about.  I guess he stumbled into something, or decided he couldn’t do it anymore.  Either way, he clearly didn’t understand the reality of the world.  EVERYONE can be reached.  Here’s a bit of the story.

The 16,000 square-foot Annapolis mansion of millionaire IT executive Don Pyle, 55, went up in flames so fast on Monday, investigators believe a chemical agent must have been used. The house, dubbed “the castle” by neighbors, was fully engulfed by the time the fire department got there. It took 85 firefighters to finally put the blaze out. Pyle, his wife and four grandchildren are currently presumed dead.

Some 20 agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives have been called in to investigate and foul play is suspected.

ExSqueeze me while I laugh.  20 ATF agents called in for a fire investigation?  Right, makes sense.  Not agents there to cover it up or create fake evidence, there to investigate.  Gotcha.  So what did this guy do or who did he work for?

They put their top guy on this case.  No one else is allowed access to the evidence.  Federal jurisdiction and all.

They put their top guy on this case. No one else is allowed access to the evidence. Federal jurisdiction and all.

Not only was he the COO of ScienceLogic, a company which regularly conducts business with the military and intelligences communities and which monitored the online networks for both the Department of Defense and the FBI (among others), but he was also CEO at Netcordia, another IT company which has contracted with both the National Security Agency and U.S. Army to manage their online networks. He had just taken the position at ScienceLogic in October.

Wow, doesn’t take a genius to figure this whole thing out. Still a shame.

The interesting thing to me is that this type of thing is more of a message than it is just a way to get rid of someone. I mean, VERY public. Very obvious. And a lot of innocents killed. This makes me think they killed him to also SEND A MESSAGE to some other people who might be thinking of doing whatever it is that he was thinking of doing. Get it?

The message is clear. We can reach you. We will not only reach you, we don’t mind killing your grandchildren etc. Don’t get involved with them. They cannot be reasoned with. In for a penny, in for a pound. There is no getting out, just like the mob.

I have tried getting the word out a lot of ways.  They say you always start with a joke to capture your audience.  Hello, is this thing on?  So a duck, a Rabbi, and a cowboy walk into a bar.

I have tried getting the word out a lot of ways.  I never get a lot of traction.  Hello, is this thing on? So a duck, a Rabbi, and a cowboy walk into a bar.

Oh yeah, 2 as of yet unidentified people also in there.

We can have no idea what really happened or why and we never will, especially with this “investigation”. They could have all been dead before the fire started, or drugged or god knows what. We will never know. We can just say, a fire like this is a message. I’m quite sure the message was received, loud and clear.

I guess “we need some better procedures or policies or maybe a new law or regulation or investigation”. Or maybe, you should spend a lot of your own personal time going door to door ginning up votes for the “new guy” who will be sure to “get to the bottom of this and make sure it doesn’t happen again.” You know?  lol, okay, maybe not.

That’s all for now my brainwashed Brethren.  Take care and tell someone about the truth about the law. 
Legalman IS the law

Legalman IS the law

More on the Laughable Show from the “Paris Tragedy” 1-13-15 Quick hits: Distractions in the “news”

This post also appears in Distractions in the "news".

This post will also be posted in Distractions in the “news”.



French President Francois Hollande is surrounded by Heads of state including (LtoR) Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Mali's President Ibrahim Boubacar Keita, Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel, European Council President Donald Tusk, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Italy's Prime Minister Matteo Renzi and Switzerland's President Simonetta Sommaruga as they attend the solidarity march (Marche Republicaine) in the streets of Paris January 11, 2015. REUTERS-Philippe Wojazer1-13-15 The picture almost brings tears to my eyes.  The great leaders of the world gathered to stand in unity with the marchers in Paris.  Right?  I mean the US was apparently embarrassed by not having sent a high enough rep to the show.  Remember all of that?  Here’s the opening from the Reuters story discussing the great show and march.

(Reuters) – World leaders including Muslim and Jewish statesmen linked arms to lead more than a million French citizens through Paris in an unprecedented march to pay tribute to victims of Islamist militant attacksfull story here.

My God where do I sign up to go fight?  lol  Doesn’t it make your heart swell with pride that these brave leaders are here to stand in unity and show that they are not scared of the “terrorists”!!  Oh great leaders just tell us what you want and you shall have it. lol  Here’s another sample of the praise heaped on them.

World leaders join mass Paris march to honour attack victims

Got it? They were there, they were leading the march.  They stood up to terror. The only problem with it all.  It is just more staged up bulls**t that the “news” outlets all go along with to fool the people.  Here is what the REAL picture looked like.  This is what actually happened.  A staged load of CRAP for public consumption.

Embedded image permalink

Oh, but Legalman they couldn’t “risk” being out there with the “steerage class” the plebes they rule! We must protect our great leaders.  lol.  My point is simple. The news reports were intentionally and KNOWINGLY MISREPRESENTATIONS OF THE EVENTS THEY CLAIMED TO BE COVERING.  That is exactly what PROPAGANDA IS.  The news is not NEWS, it is shaped propaganda and the mainstream news ALL go along.  They LIE TO YOU. 

And there is even more on the Paris sham.  Remember how the video showed that there was no blood where the “policeman was executed”.  Absurd.  If you haven’t seen it go watch it here.  But there is more everyday of course.  People are always watching.  If you want to see a sample go here.  But let me at least give you this.

Proof of Paris fakery

The “shooting” in order to appear real had to have a very precise angle, so if it was “so staged” then how did that just “happen”.  Well it turns out there was an CROSS marked on the street for the “car that stopped to film” etc.  See it in the pic upper right?  lol.  It really never ends people.  It is laughable that people believe this stuff when it is exposed everywhere. 

This is nothing new.  They have been doing it for decades.  It HAS BEEN KNOWN FOR DECADES.  The governments have a vested interest in lying.  They need to be “needed” to protect you so they dream up fantasy “enemies”.  The Church hearings gave you all you need to know and that was 40 years ago.  The people simply choose to remain ignorant and believing a lie.  So the rulers CHOOSE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE of you. lol  Look here’s a 3 minute video with old footage.  The News is nothing but lies.  It is much much worse today then it was then. 

Why does everyone insist on bending over backwards to make excuses for these cowards who are not leaders and the propagandists who call themselves NEWS organizations? It is all part of the laughable scam they are running. Nothing more. What does it take for people to see?





Okay so what did we hit and who did we blow up? I don't understand the question? We dropped bombs for freedom because we follow orders.

Okay so what did we hit and who did we blow up? I don’t understand the question? We dropped bombs for freedom because we follow orders.

1-13-15 Just a couple quick hits for the “Distractions”.  I know there are millions marching in Paris for “solidarity” and peace etc.  But just put the questionable nature of the “incident” and what even happened aside for a moment. Why don’t things like THIS story make more news?  Here’s a few excerpts from the story that broke.

A U.S.-led coalition airstrike killed at least 50 Syrian civilians late last month when it targeted a headquarters of Islamic State extremists in northern Syria, according to an eyewitness and a Syrian opposition human rights organization….

McClatchy located two sources who confirmed a high civilian death toll from the strike. One witness, an activist in Al Bab, gave the death toll as 61 civilian prisoners and 13 Islamic State guards. The Syrian Network for Human Rights estimated the death toll at 80, and said 25 of those were Islamic State Guards and another 55 were either civilians or imprisoned fighters from non-Islamic State rebel groups….

He said some 35 of the prisoners had been jailed shortly before the airstrike for minor infractions of the Islamic State’s harsh interpretation of Islamic law, such as smoking, wearing jeans or appearing too late for the afternoon prayer.

I guess some kids get to live and we blow others up for freedom.

Well Jimmy if you waive this flag we love you and if you waive another flag we blow you up.  Got it?.

Civil defense volunteers had to demand access to the site, and it took days to clear the rubble and extricate the bodies, he said. After they finished their work, they handed over the bodies of 50 prisoners to their families in Al Bab, nine to families in the nearby town of Bza’a, and one to a family from Ikhtrin. The Islamic State claimed the 13 bodies of its own guards, he said.

Why is this not worthy of investigation?  Why is it okay to possibly blow up 50 people and not a peep from our news outlets?  What does it take to open your eyes to the propaganda show? How in the world is this justified?  The utter hypocrisy of the whole situation is amazing to me.  “Outrage and horror” at an “event” that pales in comparison to this gets wall to wall coverage.   We blow up people who are 8000 miles away who are locked up in a prison by our “enemy” and everyone waives flags and talks about how we are “defending” ourselves.  There apparently is no limit to the brainwashing.

That’s all for now my brainwashed Brethren.  Take care and wake someone to the truth about the law.

Legalman IS the law

Legalman IS the law


Confirmation that the “Sony Hack” was a contrived event.


This post also appears in Distractions in the "news".

This post also appears WITHOUT THE UPDATES in Distractions in the “news”.



1-5-15 I originally posted this back on 1-5-15 but in light of the mass of new “cyber threats” in the wake of the laughable “paris event” I felt compelled to update it with the latest and repost it here in this section as well.  I will indicate the update in brackets.  

Of course we have all known that what Obama and the FBI told us about North Korea “hacking” Sony has been a lie since the beginning.  How have we known?  Well First and foremost BECAUSE they told us that was the case, lol. WHATEVER they tell you can be ruled out as the truth 99% of the time.  That is about the ONLY thing you can rule out lol.   Within a few days all sorts of “problems” with the NK hack theory were every where. 

The official narrative fell apart almost immediately because of the Internet, like almost every “news story” now days if you just look around.  But the MSM continues to push nonsense of course and gives lip service to other possible events.  Then, they IGNORE the real point which is NOW clear.  Here it is.  The “event” will be used as a catalyst for “hearings and more regulation and control” of course.  For our own protection.  

Same as it always is.  It always comes back to needing more government control.  It is going to take a lot of these types of “events” to “show the public” that the “ONLY’ solution is to have a single password access to the internet that everyone must use each time, and I’ll give you one guess who operates that password control system,  Don’t be too surprised if there is a “terror plot” to attack the grid that is “foiled” by their dedication. lol.

BEGIN UPDATE       [Here is the SCREAMING Banner headline from the Drudge Report today, 1-12-15. That is one of THE most important sites to “get the word out” to the conservative and libertarian “believers”.  In other words it is a limited hangout/disinformation distributor.

“ISIS HACKS MILITARY SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS”  Get it?   Be very scared!!!  Then it continues the promotional materials at the top left of the site.  Drudge posts the following stories and headlines.

CENTCOM’s Twitter Hacked By ISIS?

U.S. Central Command Twitter account compromised: Pentagon official

Islamic State Hacks CENTCOM Twitter Feed as Obama Talks Cybersecurity

Are you scared yet?  Are you concerned yet?  WELL YOU SHOULD BE!!! lol, And that last story is all about how “our great leader” is talking about the need for more government “protections and controls of course”.  Here is an out take from the story.

I should have taken the DHS warnings more seriously and CHECKED UNDER MY BED for ISIS. Now they have taken over.

I should have taken the DHS warnings more seriously and CHECKED UNDER MY BED for ISIS. Now it’s too late, they have taken over.  See something say something my friend. It’s there for a reason.

ISIS is already here, we are in your PCs, in each military base. With Allah’s permission we are in CENTCOM now,” said one tweet sent from CENTCOM’s account.

The apparent hack came as President Obama addressed the nation regarding cyber security. He is expected to propose two pieces of cyber security legislation and to address the effort in his upcoming State of the Union address.

The hackers subsequently tweeted images of spreadsheets containing the home addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses of dozens of current and former senior U.S. military officers.


Hackers appear to have also compromised CENTCOM’s official YouTube page, where they posted a pair of IS propaganda videos.

Can the threats “sound” any more cliche and absurd?  Does anyone believe that ISIS actually hacked CENTCOM?  As I said originaly, the Sony hack was clearly sanctioned by the FEDS if not DONE by them.  It was kind of a “kick off party without the swag” to start putting the issue in front of the public’s attention.  A way to always remind people with something they’d remember.  Bread and circuses reference point.  All part of a process to grab the public’s attention about the “need” for “more government oversight” of the Internet.  For your protection of course.  And for the protection of our “freedom fighters” dropping bombs on people all over the world.  ]  End of update.


I'm sure if he was "misled" there will be serious consequences.

I’m sure if he was “misled” by the other part of the government that  there will be serious consequences.

But of course the entire story has now turned into a classic case of NON LINEAR bs.  We are told contradictory things.  Now the President himself may have “been misled” by “the intelligence community” itself who “tracked the hacker”.  lol.  This is the nonsense they spin.

UNSOLVABLE because all the “evidence” is in the hands of the government and is always “classified”.  Get it?

I had my own theories, could have been a promotion gone bad when Sony got blackmailed by the guys they paid to do it.  That’s still a distinct possibility as far as how it STARTED.  Not necessarily how it is being used now.  Now if there is some obscure “insurance policy” floating around for a movie that bombs or has a some unexpected event like this, well now my antenna would really be up. I haven’t seen anything about such a policy yet, but honestly I haven’t looked that much because the story didn’t interest me that much.  It was obviously some type of set up, I didn’t care that much WHICH type.

The movie sucks, but it makes no difference.

The movie sucks, but it makes no difference.

I still think one of the most interesting parts of the story is how Quickly and thoroughly the underlying INFO and EMAILS themselves died as a story.  Nobody seemed to care about continuously running with the story of what these people had supposedly SAID.  Why wasn’t that a bigger story?  hmmm, could it be that the ones who would have to report it were worried that THEIR own emails would get out and expose them for who they ARE? lol, no, that couldn’t be the reason.  It makes no difference, the real stories died.  The real stories are that the government lied to us again, and the people in hollywood are racists and homophobes and nothing like what they portray.  End of story.

False flags, non-linear opposition, and made up nonsense for the masses to consume.  I had suspected a private event possibly about insurance or a minor promo gone bad by a blackmailing hacker, but now it is clear.  This is a SANCTIONED hack by the feds to create a ground swell and evidence for the “need” for more Internet regulation.  No doubt in my mind anymore.  Enjoy the show my friends.

That’s all for now my Brainwashed Brethren.  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

A real time lesson in Non-Linear disinformation: A Distraction in the news 1-9-15

This post also appears in Distractions in the "news".

This post also appears in Distractions in the “news”.

A real time lesson in Non-Linear disinformation.

I'm still a little unclear on the rules here.

Here, let me clear up the confusion about your freedoms. 

Non-linear mind games are constantly being used.  I do my best in the “Distractions in the “news” section to point these out.  It is such an important point though.  The game, in everything is to keep people confused.  Hide the ball. Never let them know what is actually going on.  Nothing is a greater offender in this area than “financial news”.

From top to bottom it is nothing but lies.  Forget that there is NO WAY to ever audit a fully digital money system like the world runs on.  Think about it.  How can you ever TRACE what is actually in the system?  You can’t, anyone with access to the REAL codes can simply insert money into their account.  Do you see this? There is no pile of money to go count and then trace.  It is made up by nothing but entries into a computer.  There is no way to know whether a Deposit from another bank represented an actual deposit or whether it was just a “hack” or a fake.  Unless you go do a full audit on that bank and all of its “deposits”from other banks ad infinitum!  get it? It can’t be done.  

Money is  a medium of exchange that has VALUE.  But people have been convinced that it is simply a number in an account.  Nothing more.

I get a lot of feedback like this after people read my site.  The phrase "pounding sand" is often used.

I hired this “top guy”  to give me an assessment, it wasn’t so rosy.  He kept using the phrase “pounding sand” .

But that is a discussion for another time.  I want to make a point about non-linear news and disinformation.  If you haven’t read my post on it then go do it now with this link.  The hallmark of it is always that it is contradictory and confusing and you can’t make sense of it, so you give up. And the information is such that you can use PARTS of it to prove just about anything, and therefore there is no way to know WHAT is true.  Got it?

Now look at this.  This is how the “good news” about the unemployment “NUMBER” was reported.  We’ve all seen and heard this “number released” countless times in our lives.  See if you can make any sense of it if you DON’T understand that it is all just a non-linear con job.

Businesses had been creating jobs at a monthly pace of 224,000, though wage growth remained modest and the drop in the headline rate had come in large part due to a decline in the labor force participation rate. Indeed, the participation rate continued to plummet, falling to a fresh 37-year low of 62.7 percent.

Job quality did not fare well either, with wages actually declining for the month by 5 cents an hour, pulling the annualized gain down to 1.7 percent. The average work week held steady at 34.6 hours. However, the amount of full-time workers surged by 427,000 while part-time positions dropped by 269,000.

The total number of employed Americans increased by 111,000, while the actual size of the labor force declined by 273,000.

Got it so far? lol.  And this is what was REPORTED officially.  The unemployment rate is dropping which is good news.  But the reason is because the total number of people in the labor market is dropping. ??  And how does this happen when the country’s population is growing?  It can’t unless more people are not working.  But they just said that unemployment went down? lol get it?

Oh and the quality of the job is declining. So how is that good news? more “worse paying jobs”?  So what does it all mean for “rates” from the fed?

I get this guy's newsletter it is chock full of good financial advice.

I get this guy’s newsletter, he’s on TV all the time commenting.  He’s a real pro, not sure why he always wears the 80’s style glasses.

The headline rate already had fallen below the central bank’s target before it would start raising rates, but the lack of wage pressures means the Fed can still operate on its own timetable. Most market participants expect a rate hike by midyear, though some believe that the Fed could justify an earlier move.

Gotcha, we’ve reached the goal, so they can start raising rates, but they still may not because the goal may not have been reached. So on track to raise by mid year, but maybe not. lol It can’t be made sense of, because it is designed to NOT make sense.  

Here is just one small sample of how just one of countless “experts” summed it up for you.

Today’s solid employment report caps off a strong year for the U.S. labor market, which achieved a number of important milestones in 2014,” Jason Furman, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, said in a statement. “Total job growth last year was the strongest since 1999, while the unemployment rate fell at the fastest pace in three decades.”

Although nominal wages fell in December, inflation-adjusted wages have generally been rising, and job growth has picked up in sectors that traditionally provide good, middle-class jobs,” he added.

TThe guy from the The government guy said that I was welcome to see his proof.see his proof.

The government guy said that I was welcome to see their numbers.

So nominal wages fell and inflation adjusted wages rose. Do you see the constant confusion? It’s down, but it’s UP. lol And remember THEY GIVE YOU the inflation “numbers” to make the calculation with to “determine” what’s happeningThey give us everything.  We can never know what they have.  Next we have comments about how great the labor market is/was.  Does that make sense with what you observe? Was it a strong year for the U.S. labor market? He says it was the Strongest since 1999. And he’s the expert don’t you know? lol  It is total cognitive dissonance.  None of it makes ANY sense.  This is what the financial news is.  Lies and more lies.  Just nonsensical non-linear crap that pours out from all sides. Nothing more.

And this is just ONE REPORT from ONE DAY on ONE TOPIC.  Think of the volume they produce to confuse and confound any attempt to make sense of anything?  Utterly impossible.  So what is the result? People throw up their hands and “leave it to the experts” in the government etc. to control them and TELL them what is happening and WHAT THEY SHOULD DO.

The reality is not complicated.  The debt being accumulated to a set of private bankers through the federal reserve is hollowing out the actual earnings and savings of about 95% of most americans.  That is all.  During virtually all of my adult lifetime there has been no actual GROWTH in the economy.  It has been a grand illusion created by debt. Here’s the debt.

This is reality my friends.

This is reality my friends.  Individual people can “appear” to be doing great as well, right before they file for bankruptcy.  Get it?

Here is a chart of “GDP” with the debt stripped out.  And this doesn’t take into account that the population in 1980 was 225 million and today it is 320 million. About 45% HIGHER, so just to MAINTAIN we would have to be 45% higher. 

Take a close look.  This is reality.  NO GDP growth since around late 70's.

Take a close look. This is reality. NO GDP growth since around late 70’s.

It was unclear to me whether the chart was inflation adjusted. But even if it was, it would have used official inflation numbers. not the REAL inflation numbers which are way higher.  Remember the “government doesn’t count food or energy in inflation!  lol.  Absurd.

And now here is the way WHATEVER THERE EVEN IS, is being “distributed”.  Do you see a pattern? lol


And these three simple charts are the basic reason that all the financial information MUST be lies, because the reality would cause revolution if people understood.  As it is, for the most part the only people who actually understand these facts are BENEFITING from them.  They are financial people. The entire economy has been “financialized”.  And that is why the financial news is a charade. The ones “giving it to us” are doing so in more ways than one. The assets of the country and the people are all being slowly drained UP to them.  By using NON-LINEAR disinformation in conjunction with mis-educating the population, the people think financial news and politics are “boring” and “too complicated” and the “don’t care”.  So those doing the screwing are more than happy to keep giving it to you.

A quiet night at home for one of the Federal Reserve Presidents.

A touching shot of one of the Federal Reserve Presidents working at home.  They are fighting inflation you know.

The reality is that Real wages are stagnant and DECLINING and have been for decades.   That’s why more kids live at home.  That’s why it now takes two people to work to support a family instead of just one.  And this will continue.  Because if you take on debt you have to get something for it.  Something REAL.  And it has to be enough to offset the debt and the interest you have taken on.  We have not been doing that.  Blowing stuff up in perpetual war, and transferring the money to people in welfare, both corporate, think “Solyndra”  and other ways is not creating anything.  Got it?  A “service” economy where everyone works at the Apple store or at Applebee’s is not a real economy that is sustainable over time.

The only reason our entire system has not collapsed all around us like a banana republic is because we have a huge military that forces the world to stay on the US Dollar as a world reserve.  NOTHING ELSEHere is an interactive version of that same map of the world.  It shows where we are as best as we can.  Go check it out. 

Remember, it's about "our" safety. lol.  And that is true, it's just that YOU aren't part of the THEY that makes up the "YOUR". lol.

Remember, it’s about “our” safety. And that is true, it’s just that YOU aren’t part of the THEY that makes up the “OUR”. lol.  Always parse my friend.

We are the biggest bullies on the block and 95% of the people in this country have NO IDEA of the truth.  WE are the one’s who screw over everyone else using economic war to keep them impoverished by forcing them to accept the US Dollar system in order to continue to cling to our ever declining standard of living.  Those are the realities.   The harm we do to everyone around the world by propping up this system AT THEIR EXPENSE is much worse than all the supposed “terrorism” in the world.  But it is unseen by the people.  What we do with the “law” in this country to direct the money up the ladder to the cheaters we must use the MILITARY to do to foreign countries.  That is the game. 

My friend, it is always the same.  This is how they operate. Lies and confusion.  All designed to control the assets and the people who are also ASSETS.   It is no different with the law in this country.  It is not what it appears to be.  So they use non-linear disinformation to keep people in a state of constant confusion.  New regulations and interpretations and opinions and rulings and stories of enforcement and then no enforcement and then more regulation to fix the other regulation, and changing administrations to clear up the enforcement, and new rules to make regulations simpler but yet they aren’t and they are trying their best to be responsive, but they need a new internal investigation to know what to do and on and on.

Early training helps "Johnny grow up strong".

Early training helps “Johnny grow up strong”.

It will not change because IT IS NOT BROKEN.  It is working exactly as it is designed. 

So go and enjoy the great employment report since you probably can’t find a job and if you do it doesn’t pay jack sh*t.  Up is down, right is wrong, freedom is slavery.  1984 my friend. It is worth re-reading.  Uncannily accurate.

Now go wake someone up and tell them about the truth about the law and maybe we can save one other person from being sucked into the game of lies.

That’s all for now my brainwashed Brethren, take care and live in the light.

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 difference.help

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

There are never any REAL consequences to the government’s investigations of ITSELF, and there never will be.

Several of the people who may be called in the CIA scandal hearings meet before going before going in front of the committee to be sure they know what they are supposed to do.

Several potential “star” witnesses hoping to be “discovered” in the CIA scandal hearings meet to rehearse their testimony.  

The current distraction in the News cycle is the CIA report.  The details are really irrelevant.  It is just a show.  Nothing but a distraction for sure. What, if anything else this current “scandal” may be covering up, we CAN NEVER KNOW. But I will go on record now saying that Nothing will actually happen of substance as a result of this whole show. Nothing. Nobody is going to prison for 25 years. Nobody is going to even be tried, much less convicted and do hard time. I predict this is a total NON STORY within a month, probably less.  The DOJ has ALREADY said it won’t be prosecuting anyone.  Get it?  The Federal government has decided it won’t prosecute itself. I for one am shocked.

All of these “scandals” and “investigations” are just Entertainment.  They are directed at people who have created an image of themselves where they are “informed” because they read the NY Times or the Wall Street journal or some paid propagandist “in the know” columnist, or they watch Fox News, etc. etc. They think because they get to “gossip” about this news show that they are “doing their part” and participating in democracy, or some such other fantasy.  But the truth is that following the details of the latest “scandal” in the news is no Different than discussing what happened on “The Real Housewives of Atlanta”. They are both just REALITY TV.

CNN has apparently completed its year long investigation and the results are going to ROCK WASHINGTON.

CNN has apparently completed its year long investigation and the results are going to ROCK WASHINGTON.  A preview of those results is shown here.

What is even new in this current CIA story? Honestly. I see Nothing. Are you telling me it is actually news that the CIA lies to congress or to the American people? Please. Are you telling me it is news that they interrogate people or torture them? Please. How bout is it even news that they screw stuff up? No. none of it even is “new” or surprising.

What in the world is the point of having these show hearings? One reason the stories are always cropping up and changing is to distract people from ever having enough time to notice what the real issues are with the corruption.  That is a huge part.  That is why the “scandals” so often seem to go on and on, even when the facts don’t seem to justify it. And why other “news” that breaks that is ACTUALLY potentially much more important, flashes and then is gone.

Personally, however, I suspect, the MOST important thing this type of show is designed to do is to LEAVE THE IMPRESSION THAT THE PRESS ACTUALLY DIGS UP DIRT and that “things” actually get “discovered” through oversight by congress and that EVERYONE INCLUDING THE “GOVERNMENT”  is subject to “the law”.  Those concepts are CRITICAL to keeping the ruse up. Of course that is laughably naïve to believe.

Let me ask you, how can we know if anything at all in the report is EVEN TRUE? Honestly.  How can we know if ANY of it is true?  We can’t. We have to trust that the same entity, the federal government, is telling us the truth through one department now, about what they lied to us about for years through another department. It is ABSURD.

Shown here is the hide out for the most notorious bandit in Nigerian history.  It's location was confirmed by a local who runs the tour of the cave.

Shown here is the hide out for the most notorious bandit in Nigerian history. It’s location was confirmed by a local who has now begun charging for  tours of the cave.

Do you see? All of this discussion and analysis and “hearings” and then more analysis of the hearings and editorials and 24 hour news shows and panels and talk radio opinions and people irate and calling in and theorizing about who might lose their job or step down or what else “might come out of it” and arguments with your spouse or co-worker and on and on, and yet there is NOT ONE SINGLE THING ABOUT ANY OF THE THINGS BEING DISCUSSED THAT WE CAN EVEN KNOW IS REAL. Not a single thing.  They could be making it all up. We don’t know. And at the VERY least, they almost assuredly are withholding the actual damaging information if there is any. 

Do you see how utterly absurd this whole charade is? It is no different than discussing who is going to get eliminated on “Master Chef” of “The Voice”. It isn’t real. All of these “scandals” are simply a way to make it appear that the oversight apparatus “is working”.

If there was ANYTHING at all REAL about any of this then there would be ACTUAL consequences involved. Meaning entire departments would be dismantled. Hundreds of people would be shot or imprisoned for decades. Get it? That is what REAL consequences for decades long lying to congress and committing unauthorized torture etc. looks like. Don’t you see that? Is that even on the table? Of course not.

He's been a great contestant, lets give him all a big hand.

He’s been a great contestant, lets give him a big hand.  He’s going on now to work at Bechtel as a lobbyist.

At best all that ever happens is people “step down” take their pension and move on to a better paying private sector job. Maye we will get some “new regulations” to “improve oversight” and to “be sure this doesn’t happen again”.   Truly laughable.  None of those potential “consequences” are commensurate with what we ARE TOLD are the allegations in all of these “scandals”.  Complete disconnect.  But is any of THAT ever discussed? ummmm…., NO?  YOU ARE CORRECT.

Further, if any of this was real then All of the documents, and all of the people who are potential witnesses would need to be available for independent verification and questioning, polygraphs, voice stress tests. Including the habitual liars in congress who claim “they didn’t know” along with ALL OF THEIR STAFF and advisers. Get it? That’s a REAL investigation.

Will any of this happen? No, Here only the government will investigate ITSELF!  That is laughable, yet people ACCEPT it as real.  They  politicize the scandal each time and turn it into a red/blue debate soap opera for the people to “follow”, not significantly different than what the celebrity magazines do with gossip.  These “scandals” are simply gossip for a more “intellectual” crowd. That is all.  

In the current “CIA report” scandal they will use a trusted old standby plot.  The red team will argue that we “have to do this type of “terror” investigating to protect us” and the blue team will say we have to stand for human rights etc. even “for terrorists”. Predictable, absurd, non event.


Yet people actually go around talking about these “scandals” as though they are discussing something “important” and real. Many of those same types of people look down their noses at people who follow fantasy football. They don’t see there is NO difference. In fact, at least the people following fantasy football know it is a fantasy league.

Come ON SAY, "I wasn't in the loop on that one".  Come on baby needs a new pair of shoes. Say IT.

Come ONNNN, SAY…. “I wasn’t in the loop on that one”. Come on, baby needs a new pair of shoes. Say IT, “I wasn’t in the loop on that one.”

Now I might support the whole charade if they went ahead and formally called  this a fantasy news “league”. Then you could put together your own “team” of experts who “might testify” or “write a column” and follow them and bet on what each media member or congressmen or staffer etc. might say and when, I might actually care to follow the details at that point.  That would be ACTUAL entertainment. But what they do now, it is just silly.  It is so obviously not real. Look, as long as the masses believe this is real, then the show serves its real purpose.  Think I am being too harsh? I think I am being TOO EASY.

Let’s review a few similar “scandals” and events from this fantasy news league that captured the “public’s attention” over the last couple of years. Just stuff off the top of my head. And let’s see what the result of any of those were.

I am giving you a few links. Not thorough research. Just enough to jog your memory so you can remember what was going on during “that season” or “that episode” of the fantasy news.  Hopefully you’ll see how it is always the same.  Uncheckable made up stuff that is “a scandal” and it goes NOWHERE.  This may help to give you some perspective on how this CIA thing, or the Immigration thing, or anything else is just one part of an ongoing TECHNIQUE that is used. They are not REAL scandals or investigations.  They all follow the same pattern. The same story line.  Boy meets girl, boy falls in love….

Gruber gate and Obamacare/intentional lying to sell it. This one JUST happened. Is Gruber going to prison? Is Obamacare being repealed based upon fraud? Is ANYTHING going to happen? No. Obama simply makes up a story that is a known lie and it GOES away.

Immigration executive order that is unconstitutional. Another recent event. What happened? Nothing, the states are stuck taking him TO FEDERAL Court. lol Are there impeachment proceedings being drawn up?  Is there any actual consequence to the participants? No. It will be politicized and ‘expertised” into the ground.  The facts are the facts. I laid them out.

The obamacare website/ absurd costs and insider deals. Remember this one. The thing didn’t work it kept crashing. Absurd amounts were spent on it and it was all no bid insider deals. Did anyone go to prison? Is anything ever going to happen? No no no no no. Get it?

IRS scandal/destroyed hard drives lies. Remember all of this. With the destroyed documents and hard drives and perjury and hearings and on and on. What has happened? Nothing. What will happen? Nothing.

Benghazi/people die. Things burned. Records were destroyed, covered up. What happened? Nothing Hillary stepped down to get some money for a new book that was bought up by non-profits to give her more money, and the whole thing is washed out. Nobody goes to prison. No consequences. Still an “ongoing investigation” that will produce nothing and nobody will go to prison. At best you will get some “new procedures” put in to “be sure it doesn’t happen again.”

Fast and Furious/holder won’t give records. This went on and on. Remember all the bluster from the red team about contempt for Holder and Impeachment etc. What happened? Nothing, they’re probably still selling the guns.

I waited like 3 hours to get access to that damn terminal just show I could finish this post.

I waited like 3 hours to get access to that damn terminal just so I could look some stuff up to finish this post. I didn’t feel like waiting to get the rest of the links. Nobody looks at them anyway someone said. 

Now like I said, I didn’t bother giving you a full report on those. You are welcome to go do your own research. My point was merely to remind you of the basic facts and how big a scandal EACH WAS at the time.  And how NOTHING happened. There is never any follow up.  Never any consequence.  They just “create” a new “scandal” and the people forget.

And I am not even going to bother to discuss the NSA/snowden deal, the strange stuff around Bin Laden shooting and his body.  Sandy hook.  The Naval yard shooting.  The shooting outside the capital when they killed that lady in her car.  The Boston bombing.   And on and on.

You get the point. Nothing they say can be trusted. Nothing they say can BE CHECKED.  Nothing they say is ever investigated. There are never are any actual consequences. Nothing ever changes. And nothing ever will change as long as people continue to believe and to get suckered in EACH and EVERY time by the same scam.

It is a show and nothing more. The Real game they are playing is control and theft on a global scale. It is about controlling your “money” and YOU.  The real game is NEVER part of the show. It is “conspiracy kookery”. It is about running the long con on everyone to believe they are free and in charge so nobody bothers to rise up.  It is never made part of even a show of a show of an investigation. And it never will be.

Follow the details of the current episode of fantasy news if you care to, but know that you are simply watching a show. Nothing more. That’s all for now my fellow inmates go enjoy your life and direct your friends to the truth, right here.  That actually is SOMETHING that will DO something. lol.

Be well my brainwashed Brethren. Don’t be down, live in the light.

Legalman IS the law

Legalman IS the law

So can it be fixed?

One of my devoted readers trying her best to make me hear her.  But the method she is using can never work.

One of my devoted readers trying her best to make me hear her. Unfortunately for her, the method she is using can never work.

I often hear the lament, “I get it. It’s screwed up Legalman. So what do you Propose we actually do about it?” I find that kind of funny. I guess it isn’t enough that I have showed you truths you haven’t seen on your own for god knows how many years. It isn’t enough that I explain things that you have misunderstood your whole life. It isn’t enough that you can now live in reality instead of dreamland. It isn’t enough that I provide a place for you to feel like you’re not the only one who thinks things are broken. No no no I also have to fix it all. Lol

I have said this again and again. The FIRST STEP to REALLY “fix the problem in the system” is to wake enough people up.  I am doing more than my part to try and do that. But face facts, most people do not want to wake up and they NEVER will. And you know what it’s like when you try and wake up a teenager who is sleeping. They are grumpy, they make some snide comment, and then they ignore you and go back to sleep. That is most people when it comes to the REAL truth.  Get it.

But you said you WANTED to go to the mall.

I’m telling you his new POST is GREAT.  You need to read it.

Let me ask you a few simple questions. Can you go down to your local school and get them to change the curriculum they are teaching if you disagree with it? Can you? Of course not. Can you get your local school to change its hours of operation? Cut the days of the year the kids are forced to sit there when they learn nothing? Can you go down and get a zoning law changed that you don’t like? Can you get the IRS to change even ONE REGULATION? I seriously DOUBT IT.

So why are you upset with me or anyone else if I tell you that you aren’t going to be able to change a WAY BIGGER system? A system that has trillions of dollars invested in keeping it in place?

If it makes you feel better to go and vote, or support some candidate, or go door to door, or hand out pamphlets, or get a petition signed, or hold a rally, then go do it. But don’t expect my endorsement. Because IT WON’T WORK. It is a WASTE of time. A waste of YOUR LIFE.

What has the direction been for 200 years? It hasn’t been toward more freedom. It hasn’t been toward less taxes. It hasn’t been toward smaller government. That has NEVER happened. Is that because there haven’t been millions of people passionately working towards these goals? No. It is because they are spending their energy in the wrong way. They are working within the system in a way that CAN’T work. So why spin your wheels doing stuff that doesn’t work?

It's hard to see me, I'm in the back, mostly covered by a sign. But yeah, I was really active.  we made a big difference. Maybe you heard of us?

It’s hard to see me, I’m in the back, mostly covered by a sign. But yeah, I was really active. we made a big difference. Maybe you heard of us? At least I DID something.

For me the question is, can doing any of that inside the box stuff even be called “trying”? Because I think the answer to that question is a big fat NO. It is not even trying. It is in fact anti-trying. Because it drains off time that you could be productively using actually waking people up or making sure you don’t get taken down by the system.

Listen, if there is a nuclear bomb about to be dropped on your city, does it make sense to run down and “try and catch it” to prevent it from exploding? Does that actually constitute “at least trying” to stop it from exploding? How about if there is a freight train with 3 engines and 150 cars going down the track at 70 miles per hour. Can you be said to have “tried” to stop if you run stretch a rubber band across the track and tie one end to a tree and hold the other to “slow it down”? Are you “entitled” to credit for “at least trying, what’d you do Legalman”?

Is any of that even worthy of being called “trying”? For me it is not. For me, necessarily subsumed within the concept of “trying”, is the concept that there is SOME reasonably measurable, even if very unlikely chance, that you can SUCCEED by doing what you are doing. Without that chance to succeed you are not really trying to stop it. You are engaged in a futile act. A futile act is not trying, by definition to me.

There is no evidence that you can effect any meaningful change using those inside the box tools. Period.

Are there groups out there selling the idea of community action and getting out the vote and all the other standard deals. Of course there are. Some are astro-turfed groups designed to draw out potential activists and waste their time and keep an eye on them and intentionally misdirect them. Some are just money making scams for the organizers. Some are well meaning misguided naïve efforts that still waste everyone’s time. Now if you want to join one to try and pick up girls by looking like “you care and you’re a nice guy”, well, NOW you’re trying and you HAVE my full endorsement.

I agree, I mean I was at that rally last weekend. We're making some signs later back at my place maybe you guys want to come over.

I agree, I mean totally.  I was at that rally last weekend. We’re making some signs later back at my place maybe you girls want to come over.  Or maybe check out my website or something, I don’t know. What do you think?

But look, if it makes you feel better to just “go do something” knock yourself out. Start joining. Start signing. Start knocking doors and making calls. Support your local candidate. I am NOT right behind you. Lol What tangible progress have they made? ZERO. How much will they ever make? ZERO.

What is the compulsion to “at least try and do something” when you KNOW in your heart it won’t work? The only reason people feel a compulsion to do that, from what I’ve seen, is because they really haven’t ACCEPTED the REALITY of what the world is. It is just TOO depressing to them. They want to cling to a tiny bit of the fantasy they were raised on. That is why they continue to come back to the idea that they should try. And they are WELCOME to do that. But it WON’T work.

Once you accept that those things REALLY won’t work, it makes no sense to do them, and you will no longer feel like you need to. The same reason you don’t feel a need to catch the bomb or stop the train with a rubber band. And that is why I am convinced that people who feel compelled to still do any of that after they supposedly understand, really have not ACCEPTED the reality.

I say spend your time doing something you want to do. If that means banging your head against the wall, be my guest. But why not just go to the gym with that time? Go meditate. Go outside and just breath in the chemical laden air. Lol. Or even better, Go drive traffic to my site if you want to effect some real change.

Here's the plan I've been working on for a while.  I am just waiting for the right time to announce it. I'm sure people will love it.

Here’s the rest of my plan I’ve been working on for a while. I am just waiting for the right time to unroll it. It’s going to WORK, I KNOW it.

Alright, you’re still not convinced. Okay, here are a few suggestions of things that WOULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN THE SYSTEM. Which ones do you think you or I could ever get accomplished. None of these require a constitutional amendment.

Require that any decision by the Supreme court must be unanimous.

Require the justices write all supreme court opinions out by hand. Not their clerks.

Require that no candidate can win without a minimum of 80% of the vote.

Require 80% of the vote to pass any bill in the house or the senate.

Require that all bills submitted in the house and the Senate be hand written by the member submitting them. Hand written.

Require that all congressmen sign a document, subject to perjury, that states that they have read and understand every bill before they cast a vote on that bill.

Require that all congressmen sign a document, subject to perjury, summarizing their personal understanding of what any bill they cast a vote on is intended to do, and under which constitutional delegation of power it is authorized.

Provide all jury panels with information about jury nullification. 

Require all conversations of all congressmen that involve anyone but their friends and family to be recorded and available to the public. Same for president and the top 3 members of all government agencies.

All emails for all government employees must be available for review by the public.

Eliminate any ability to make any document or project secret in any way from the public.

I could go on and on here, but you get the point. There are PLENTY of things I can think of “to do”. Can you get ANY of those DONE? Of course not. And that is my point. It has nothing to do with “not being able to come up with things that would help”.


As long as your efforts are directed at trying to “get a new guy in” or trying to massage the system. IT WON’T WORK. This is why I say until enough people understand that THE SYSTEM is the problem, it can’t change. That is the most important step. It must occur first. Without that STEP, nothing will work. Get it?

You want to help? Drive traffic to my site. That would help. That would help to wake people up. It isn’t like you even have to do the work to write and research. Just drive people to it. That is something. Do you do that? If people read it, they might see the truth. That is the essential STEP ONE.

I actually found THE ANSWER.  I am shown holding it here.

It is not well known, but this Russian dude developed a sauce that goes perfectly with ANY dish.  Turns out people couldn’t even be convinced to try it.  So the company went bankrupt.

Can you even get your close friends or family to bother to even LOOK at the truth that is here? Probably not. Yet you are worrying about “what we can do” to change the WHOLE system?  Do you see why I say not get too wrapped up and worried about fixing it NOW.  It is a process. And it will take time. That is why I say you need to protect yourself.

Look, JUST knowing the truth is HUGE progress. It is a HUGE help.  Think about it. If you live in a neighborhood and you don’t know a gang runs it, how easy is it to run afoul of that gang? Easy. But if you know it then you can work and live there much easier.

Now what about if you don’t know that not only is there a gang there but also that the cops are totally paid off in your neighborhood? If you don’t know that you could again run into more trouble. But if you know, then you are better off. Your life runs better.

Now go to the federal level. If you thought the FBI was straight when it was paid off and you tried to “clean things up” or contact them when they were also crooked, again, you’re screwed. Get it?

That is the point of this site. It shows you the reality of the world and can save you a lot of headaches. FIRST SAVE YOURSELF. You are doing that when you learn. Even if you can’t fix the system. You are also doing someone a favor by turning them on to the truth. Because that is the necessary STEP ONE. Get it?

Look just check it out.  I think you'll like it.  It won't kill you.

Here I am trying to stir up interest for my site.  Look just check it out. I think you’ll like it. It won’t kill you.  Yet they still won’t take it.

But even if you tell them, most people won’t even bother to come here and look. Then of those who come here, many will not bother to really read. Many more STILL won’t believe. And most will never come back and certainly won’t wake anyone else.

Do you see? That is why you shouldn’t get too frustrated. It is a small group that will ever be open to hearing the truth. A smaller group still that can accept it. AND THAT IS OKAY.

You can improve your own life without anyone else. You DON’T need anyone else to improve it. Except for maybe Legalman. Lol

Okay, I think this addresses this issue. Go forth and drive traffic my brainwashed Brethren if you want to “do something”. Or, just go to the gym or watch something funny.  The world will continue to turn regardless.

I hope this has cheered you up a bit if you were down about the “crooked system and what we can do about it”.

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

Legalman IS the law.

Legalman IS the law.