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.

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

  1. Mark Skipper

    Take a look at the arguments in these cases in Texas, pending before Federal District Courts right now. The author claims Federal District Courts have no jurisdiction whatsoever outside of the District of Columbia and Territories controlled by the Federal gov’t, and by extension, his arguments include the Internal Revenue Service. He makes extremely valid and astounding arguments parallel to this author’s claims:

    https://supremecourtcase.wordpress.com/

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Thanks Mark for the comment. Yes, I am quite familiar with them and I suspect that they are technically correct. What possible use can be made of them so long as the “citizenry” continues to support the Government with police, and jailers and attorneys, and judges, well, I don’t know. lol. Is the “income tax” on your WAGE absurd? of course. It isn’t income. It is a wage. If it were legitimate then the corporations should have to pay the tax on the wage, not the person paid the wage!!! that makes no sense. There is no difference between hiring labor or hiring capital. There is a cost. What about when the company buys a machine to replace the labor? What is the “tax consequence?” Of course is it all absurd. Income tax does not cover WAGES. It never has. It CAN’T. Nobody would have agreed to such a thing. Here’s a book on it. http://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Income-You-Have-Any/dp/0971188033/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1459439267&sr=1-1&keywords=constitutional+income+do+you+have+any

      But it matters not how many arguments there are against it or anything else. So long as the population believes and SUPPORTS the government’s abuse of the people, the people will be abused. This is all simply corrected if the people stopped doing the bidding of those in power for such crumbs like “a good job” and a “pension” and for nonsense like “patriotism” which is nothing but a scheme to exploit the people. Once the government is “given” the power to choose whether to tax your wage or not and at whatever rate it sets, it is game over. It has nothing to do with flat taxes and better rates, and fairness. THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM IS PEOPLE DONT’ UNDERSTAND WHAT THE STATE IS.

      So I thank you for the comment and I’m sorry that this is the reality. People who make the “jurisdiction arguments” are often correct, technically, but they end up losing and in jail. How is that a win? There can’t be a win if you play. The best defense is understanding that the rules are rigged. You can’t go into a crooked casino and win. they won’t let you. And if you do manage to, they will hunt you down after you leave, get their money back and kill you.

      That is what the reality of the “government” is in this country. Think of the so called “civil war” which I have written on. They just wanted to leave and let everyone go their own way. They weren’t allowed to leave. Yet still people run around and buy laminated copies of the “Declaration of Independence” and teach their kids that this is what the country “stands for” etc. It is simply and demonstrably NOT true, but the people just refuse to accept reality. And that is life. Glad you’re here my friend. — L

      Reply
  2. GeorgiaCracker

    Lots to digest here! You are exactly right that the courts have seized unsurpassed control and powers never intended or given., and then you point out that the Constitution didn’t give them these powers; then you say people who want to get back to the Constitution are phonies. How so? Has it been corrupted or was it never any good? You seem to be saying two different things.
    Why do you think people have always been willing to surrender their freedom? Nothing in our society is really different from the beginning of time/history. Where on this earth is the situation really that different?

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Well hello GeorgiaCracker. I don’t say that back to the Constitutioners are phonies. I say they are mistaken. Seriously mistaken. I am quite sure the rank and file Johnny lunch bucket of that movement believe what they are saying and hearing and imagine that the constitution is some savior. Further, I suspect that most of the people hawking that crap on radio/tv/print also probably believe it, but they don’t necessarily believe it. Like political consultants or any other salesman. They are just selling whatever people are buying. They have a niche to sell back to the constitution nonsense, it works for them. The people are easy marks and gobble it up, so they give them all they will take. As to the people at the very very top, they KNOW it is laughable. THAT is what I say and that is what my position is.

      You imply that I take contradictory positions, “has it been corrupted or was it never any good?” There is nothing contradictory or internally inconsistent about thinking that the document itself, EVEN IF it were followed to the letter, whatever that would mean, has no authority at all over me, is a naked power grab, and is a complete and total conjob. And also pointing out that AS BAD AS WHAT THE DOCUMENT EVEN WOULD BE IF FOLLOWED, THEY DON’T EVEN BOTHER TO FOLLOW WHAT THE DOCUMENT CLEARLY SAYS. There is nothing inconsistent with those two position. If I blackmail you for 10k dollars and you spend time gathering the money are you not permitted to complain that I am a crook and unfair? If I claim to do it based upon a fraudulent document are you not allowed to complain about that? Of course. But then if you pay me what I demand and I come back and say that I have “re-read” the fraudulent document that supposedly gave me the right to take your 10K and now I insist you owe me 25k under it, am you foreclosed from complaining that I am not even sticking to my own original fraudulent demands?? lol Of course not.

      My point here is simple. The idea that I or most anyone else on this planet or in this “country” ever agreed to some group of people as my rulers is absurd! Yet THAT is the basis they claim for their power. And that claim is a LIE. The constitutions claim to any authority is a LIE. People ACCEPT the idea that there is some group of people who are allowed to tell them what to do and kill them and rob them based upon that LIE. That is all government is. The constitution does NOTHING to change that, nothing. THAT is my point.

      People have been brainwashed at so many levels and the first level to uncover is that the Constitution is not a holy document that has any REAL authority. Further it DOES NOT limit the government in ANY meaningful way. It does HARM because people imagine that it does. At least with a naked dictator people can see him for what he is. But our government claims to have our consent to do all they do and to be “limited” by the document they ignore! lol Did you consent to allow them to tax you at whatever rate they choose? Did you consent to exempt anyone they choose from that tax? Did you consent to allow the government to be in charge of policing itself? Did you consent to the idea that they can “declare war” and murder anyone they care to? Did you consent to the idea that they can make your skill set “illegal” to sell on an open market? And on and on.

      They do whatever they want. THAT is what I show here. That the constitution does NOT have any holy place in history. It is not some bringer of freedom and liberty. It is not what we are told and what it appears you believe it is. It is a conjob. It is a way to trick people into thinking that they are free and in control. Nothing more.

      As to your last point/question. People are easily fooled. They cling to whatever they “know”. They don’t like to admit they were fooled. And on and on. And of course our society is not any different than the rest of history EXCEPT in one critical way. The people here IMAGINE that they are so much freeer and better and are so convinced of this that they run around the world self righteously murdering people who disagree with them and blow up the people and infrastructure of those people. The people in America think they are JUSTIFIED in doing this because they claim to be spreading or protecting this imagined brilliant system of FREEDOM. And the people in this country attack and jail anyone in THIS country who disagrees with their insanity about the freedom and demand that those people either leave or be “prosecuted” for endangering the “national security” etc.

      That is my complaint. That is my issue. That is what I try and show so plainly here, Coercion is coercion. Our government is one of the WORST offenders on the whole planet of imposing coercion and murdering anyone who stands up to it, and yet the deluded masses here run around acting like we are the opposite BECAUSE of that laughable constitution. Do you see now?

      I hope I made my point. Glad you commented. Take care — L

      Reply
  3. Renfield

    Lurker coming in from the shadows. Just wanted to say thanks for your work. There’s no answer to this system but education, so your thinking out loud through this stuff is the best ‘hope for change’ we really have. I’ve shared your articles several times now and this one will be another.

    It is infuriating the degree of reverence ‘folks’ have for these overreaching lawyers and bureaucrats. We’re far too used to ‘top down government’, which is why that’s what we get. Unmasking the top and the degree of overreach is essential. People will stop worshipping their ‘betters’, who are really the same as the gods and high priests back in the day.

    Some of us will always need leaders to tell them what to do and what to think. All I ask is a choice in the matter: we do not all need or want leaders. But once we’ve decided which category we fit, the kind who wants a leader or the kind who does not, then the next part is more difficult. Our leaders are not stupid, and they know how to exploit our interconnected, co-operative human nature. What those of us who want to be leaderless need to do, is learn to exploit that same co-operativeness in the other direction. (‘Exploit’ not necessarily meant in its sinister sense, but in its sense of ‘development’.)

    The supreme court is deliberately set up to give the impression that its bureaucrats are larger than life Deciders, with its flags and robes and columns, its complex language and ritualistic procedures. Reminds me again of the high priests of old; no wonder so many people look at it in pretty much the same terms as a religion. Their ‘precedents’ doctrine looks to me pretty similar to the Catholic infallibility ‘ex cathedra’ doctrine. The whole setup is essentially religious, and we need to tear down that faith.

    Thanks again for your dissidence. You are the Nietsche to our legal worship. I look forward one day to reading “The Supreme Court is dead” as a Time magazine cover, similar to another cover we saw back in the day.

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Thank you Renfield for your very thoughtful response. You are spot on with your analogy to the church as well. People really have been brainwashed to believe these simple men are some how super men. I always like to think about these usurpers as they were in high school or junior high. Would anyone ever take orders from them??? Lol. Yet give them a few more years a robe, a uniform and some silly ceremony and poof they are magical oracles. Lol.

      You’re right that education is the only way. Each person on their own has to make a decision. The reality is that most people want to be led. So a group always takes advantage of that. When you were talking about how we need to have a choice in whether we have a leader or not it reminded me of a seemingly forgotten but critical portion of huxley’s book A Brave New World. Few realize that if you woke up from your soma induced stupor and wanted to live free from the control system that they gave you that option IN THE BOOK. You could choose different island locations with different climates and OPT OUT. the people in those places ran their own lives and were left alone.

      That is, to me, THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THE BOOK. But I have never seen it mentioned when analyzing it. I suspect because it is so important by omission in our own world. We don’t get a choice and they don’t want people discussing THAT idea. Well that and most blowhards who comment in msm about it probably never even bothered to read it. They just read about it and then commented on it. Lol. And to be fair, the book is pretty dated when you read it. But I never would have discovered that part if I hadn’t read it myself.

      Just another lesson in the price of actual a freedom and self determination. You have to do the work yourself. When you rely on others, well… You get what they give you. Glad you commented. Glad you’re here. Glad you share my stuff to people who might enjoy it. And in homage to your Nietzsche reference let me just say that positive law is dead. Most people just don’t know it. Lol. Take care. — L

      Reply
      1. Renfield

        You too, L. Jon Rappoport summed up what I suspect is your motivation: “It’s like a picnic in a park. You’re at the picnic until you get up and walk away. But after walking away, if you can’t invent something else, you’ll wander back to the picnic because it’s all you have.” The food here is getting a tad rotten, and you’ve been pointing out the smell.

        When you wrote that positive law is dead, that’s very good news. It’s only a matter of time as more and more of us leave the picnic, until critical mass ensures that some of us build something else. Maybe not so long, either. The smell is getting pretty rank.

        Sorry, I could not resist replying because that was such an encouraging comment: ‘positive law is dead’. It sounded like bells ringing to me, Ding dong, the law is dead. I’ll get off your thread now with that happy thought! You take care too, bye for now!

        Reply
  4. Brenton Talcott

    Excellent reply to Steve and the tact I try oft try to take with the semi mentally ambulatory….

    ….Be blissful my friend freedom for humanity is coming. I share your site with my student’s(private guitar) that display critical thinking skills, and frequently one idea or another bubbles up and they will say to me….just like Legalman say’s….and I smile deeply inside.

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Thank you Brenton I appreciate the sentiment. I love the idea that something I have said resonates with someone or several someones. You made my day. Take care my friend. — L

      Reply
  5. Carey Nottingham

    in a word….apropos.

    appreciate the energy you put forth to expose the con to those, like myself, who might otherwise never see it for what it truly is.

    the view is much better now…not prettier, but definitely better. and for that, I thank you.

    Reply
  6. ida marie shoemaker

    since we do have common law in this country–yet. may i suggest you get on u-tube and get to karl lentz. he is an expert on common law. quit using legalese, do not rely on supreme court rulings. after all as you say, they are nothing but opinions in that one case. it is what you as a woman or a man believes. not a person, people, you, etc. –wish, believe, i, are key words. common law is where man will have to learn how to speak and write to snatch control from these scumbags.

    Reply
  7. Jefff

    Given the box that we are forced into, what options are available to us?

    How can we escape the control, or at least defend against it? How can we prosper, protect our family, shield our assets, escape the destructive taxes and fees poured upon us? How can we avoid the licensing, compelled contracts and the heavy hand of the unelected bureaucrats?

    News articles report that dozens of big companies paid zero income tax, despite earning billions. The wealthy also pay nothing and, at least on paper, they own nothing, but control it all. They are untouchable.

    Use your legal talent to explain how the working class can use the same or similar legal techniques to avoid being ruthlessly exploited.

    Pick any topic that you like and start from there. Taxes? There’s federal taxes, state taxes, school taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, pension and social security taxes, taxes on taxes, and now there’s even municipal income taxes. How about protecting your assets? What about property rights versus all those municipal codes and zoning ordinances?

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Jeff I have given quite a few responses in part to the question over time. I don’t know how much of my site you have read. I will say only a couple of things here now. First, the reality is that there isn’t much you can do. Not nothing, but not a lot along the lines you are imagining. Think of it like this. If you were part of a town that had been taken over by a very powerful foreign force what could YOU do then to advance within THAT system? Not much. The system is set up to help a set of people you are not one of. THAT is what you face here. The system is set up to serve the rich and powerful. It is set up to TAKE ADVANTAGE of the rest. So guess what? They get taken advantage of. lol

      The only way it will change is when the system changes. And the only way the system changes is when people demand THAT. So long as people think there are actually answers WITHIN the system, like you’re searching for, well guess what? Then there is no NEED to change the system. Do you see what they have done? They have created this deeply rooted idea into people that they can MAKE the SYSTEM WORK FOR THEM. But that is a lie. BUT as long as people believe that, then the system is safe. No need to change it. You’re told YOU”RE the problem. YOU don’t understand HOW To work the system etc. When the truth is the system is fully rigged.

      Let me just make one or two more quick points. The system depends ENTIRELY upon the support/brainwashing of the people. Nothing would happen without your fellow citizens being willing to put on uniforms and come to your house with clubs and guns and teargas and battering rams etc. to kill you or put you in a cage if you don’t do what these crooked s.o.b’s say in their faked up “orders”. Do you see that? Cops, who make very little, and who actually imagine themselves to be “conservative” are the enforcement arm of the very government they claim to want to keep “small” etc. Yet they will kill you at the drop of a hat under the guise of “law and order”. Can you convince even ONE COP to quit? I doubt it. So what could I possibly have as an answer to your question if YOU can’t even do that?

      Can you convince even ONE PERSON at your work of the things I say? How bout just convince them to even READ them? I doubt it.

      Hillary Clinton is in all likelihood going to be the Dem nominee for president. Think about what kind of a mindset is necessary in a group of people in order for THAT to even be a possibility. She has support. Not just from insane people either. Just think about THAT.

      Now think about the fact that NOBODY EVEN HAS A RIGHT TO VOTE FOR THE PRESIDENT. Nobody. Yet this ludicrous charade is put on for god knows how long and they spend billions of dollars etc. on it. And the people imagine they are somehow taking part. Think about THAT.

      My friend I could go on and on, but my point is simple. You have to take care of yourself by living as though you are in occupied territory. How do you live in occupied territory? You learn to adapt and get a long. Don’t make waves. Don’t expect any justice. Don’t expect any official to protect you or your property or your rights. That is reality. And knowing that you will make DIFFERENT decisions moving forward. Over time, they add up to a better situation. But don’t waste too much time on the idea of tax shelters and investments that get around laws etc. Those are basically just snake oil.

      Always remember this. If some huckster on TV or selling books has “thought of a way around the system”, then guess what? THE PEOPLE IN THE SYSTEM KNOW ABOUT AS WELL. lol. So whatever is happening is being allowed to happen. And it can and will be shut off whenever they care to. And you will have precisely Zip to say about it when they do and Dick to do about it when they take it back.

      Like I said, try and convince some people, you will see. IT is a wall. They refuse. And as long as people can be convinced that answers lie WITHIN they system, there will never be a catalyst to throw it off. And the system is there to serve the few and the powerful. THAT my friend, is reality. Teach your children that truth and they can make a lot of much better decisions going forward than I did when I was young. That is the most valuable thing you can give them or teach them. But you will see, good luck even convincing your own CHILDREN of the reality. lol I mean, what do you know? You’re an old man!! lol Take care, sorry to bear such bad news. Maybe I should just sell a quick fix “protect yourself now” packet for 49.99 and people might gobble it up! lol — L

      Reply
      1. Alan Donelson

        A reply to a comment equal in depth and quality to the posting itself! Thank you, sir! Took words out of my mind and mouth and, in the process, secured a copyright to wisdom on the subject! Thanks to my wife who came into my life equipped (adorned? arrayed? burdened?) with a Ph.D. in Common Sense — my comparable degree in medical science, only a smidgen higher than political science — we have gravitated to the very philosophy and pragmatic approach to Life you described so well so succinctly!

        Reply
        1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

          Well thank you Alan that’s a very nice thing to say. You know this forum, unlike face to face with friends etc. is just so different. You really never know what people think. I’m glad you had such a woman come into your life. I had to beat my head against a rock and spit into the wind for 40 something years. Such is life. Or as I like to say, where ever you go, there you are. Which is similar to what Coach Bill Parcel’s used to say about teams and their record. You are what you are. lol take care. – L

          Reply
          1. Alan Donelson

            Truth about marriage (!), having achieved (again, thanks to wife of 25+ years) the ripe old if not elderly age of 68+, until 40 years passed for me, I did not meet up with wife, current and dear CEO/CFO/COO/Head of Accounting/Director of Human Resources — not to mention Chef par excellent (not official certificate, just damn good, better-than-restaurant-fare food every day), homemaker, worksteader, great Mom to her children and immediate appendages (me and two male dogs), superb Grandmama to 5 (or 6, I lose count) grandchildren, not to mention a few dozen laying hens and THEIR appendages (useless eaters — thx Mr. Kissinger), and a breeding pair of emus about to reproduce themselves. Did I mention wife also achieved “Master Gardener” certification, albeit in a county with a climate that differs greatly from where we (FINALLY!!) put down roots. If marriage is made in Heaven, then wife was heaven sent to rescue moi from a path formed of good intentions. As aspiring good stewards, we also grow things that put down roots and bear fruit and veggies organically.

            Blessings, L-man! You do great work, for which I thank you! Ever you come out our way, I can guarantee a fine feast and a celebration of your presence. Standing invitation.

          2. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

            Well you did something right during this life or one before to deserve that Alan, and I am glad for you, genuinely. And I might just put you to the test if I make a trip. About all I have managed to cobble together in this incarnation is a small bit of wisdom I hope to be able to bring back with me next time, oh and my claim to being a self-certified master practitioner. I like to throw that one out there at cocktail parties and see if the people I am “talking” to are actually listening to anything I say. If they praise me for that “accomplishment”, then I know it’s time to start talking about “getting back to the constitution” and have a bit of fun with them. All in good fun my friend, all in good fun. lol take care. –L

          3. Crocodile

            A small correction on Bill Parcells, LegalMan 🙂

            “You are what your record says you are.” – Bill
            🙂

            Thank you for your great comments.
            🙂

          4. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

            Ah yes Crocodile I stand corrected. Thank you. The actual quote rings even truer to my intentions. Thanks again. I knew I liked you. Lol. – L

  8. Hereticdrummer

    One of your finest articles thus far Legalman. You shine ever so brightly. First, it is important to note that appointments to the “Nine Swine” a.k.a. “The Three Stooges Times Three” a.k.a. “The Supreme Cult” are based on political nepotism, not by any stretch of the imagination legal sagacity or judicial wisdom. Simply put, they are nothing but bureaucratic hacks, like any other. As such, they are bound to serve the interests of their masters who put them there. With all respect L.M., personal or in personam jurisdiction is not the most important as it can be waived. Jurisdiction of the Subject Matter, meaning the court’s authority to adjudicate a given case can never be waived, under any circumstances. On its mundane level it refers to how cases are classified by facts and evidence. However its transcendent meaning mandates that procedural and substantive due process rights of any parties to a case cannot be violated. If they are, the court waives Subject Matter jurisdiction and as that is a legal impossibility, it loses it’s authority to adjudicate. Now there’s what oughtta be and there’s what is. How many millions of times in the Sanhedrins of the USSA do you think the black robed misanthropes waive SMJ yet adjudicate anyway? Can you count the number of angels on the head of a pin? It’s easy when you control the goons with the badges, tasers, cuffs, guns, and keys to the cages. I suppose in a very roundabout way I’m trying to say fuck Scalia and the rest of the 9 Swine. Ain’t the Slobocracy we live under just fucking grand?

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Thanks for the compliment heretic. Of course subject matter jur is critical. But the problem is that it is a bit more removed from personal as far as something people can relate to. They May have subject matter all day but it doesn’t bind me unless they join me. I just chose it for that reason. As I said I left a lot out. I always do for space. As it is it is already long. But the jokers are the jokers and they are not dispensing justice. Take care. – L

      Reply
  9. Steve Prewitt

    Hey L man, If this even gets to you I’d like to request you do a definitive article on the change in the form of governance in the U.S. and what John Q. Public’s relationship to the existing power structure REALLY is. I have found conflicting P.O.V. on this subject and would love to see some documentation that confirms one way or another.

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Steve p I am not sure what you are referring to and I hate to make assumptions. So if you elaborate I might consider it. Glad you enjoyed the article. – L

      Reply
        1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

          Steve I am familiar with all of that train of thought/analysis. Honestly I simply don’t spend time on it. IMHO every single piece of it fails for the same reason that all of the “organic” constitution fails. Where is the consent by the people?? I have never consented to either one of the supposed systems that create some supposed authority over me. And neither has any other person alive. Because all of the people who even could have consented would all be dead now.

          The simple fact is that a government is either one of consent or it is not. Ours is not one of consent despite the laughable lie they tell about that being our very foundation. And spending time imagining that there is some double secret system that is “really the law” is just a big waste of time. I’m not saying the people in it are control opps I’m sure many mean well and care. But they are as fundamentally off base as the standard back to the constitution guys. The simple fact is I have shown over and over that they do whatever they want. It makes no difference what is in any document. None. Therefore it makes no difference what document you look at. Do you understand?

          My friend do you really think that if you made claims using all capital letters or arguments about the incorporation of the country that they would just throw up their hands and say “okay you got us. Now you can be free.”?? Do you see what I mean? It is much much deeper than that.

          All of that stuff is stuff they laugh at. As long as people are chasing rabbit holes like that the ptb’s are happy because the people are still trying to keep the “country” together.

          The idea of a country itself is the heart of the scam. As long as they can keep people thinking that it is something to save or protect or be proud of etc they have won. I have written extensively on all of this. Perhaps you will read it.

          But I will ask you a simple question. What is the country? Answer that and you will be well on your way to understanding the real situation. Take care. – L

          Reply
          1. Steve Prewitt

            Thanks for your reply, I think:-) I will read more of your archives to fully grasp what you are saying. Regards

          2. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

            Yes Steve I hope it was helpful. It was not intended any other way. My point was not to put you down or even the people who investigate that stuff you referenced. The claims about the incorporation of the US etc., from what I have seen, does have validity. Not probably all of the stuff the people investigating it seem to believe, but certainly there is something to it. My point was that no matter how much truth there is to any of what they say, it doesn’t matter! Because the “truths” cannot be used in any way. Just like the truths I show here about the organinc constitution and what it says. They ignore what is written whenever they need to/care to. And they write in their own words whenever they want.

            The fight/issue is much more fundamental. So long as people believe that some giant thing called “government” has the power to make all the people do whatever they “order”, well, a certain class of people will seek to control that thing and tell people what to do. The only legitimate basis for any governmental structure is CONSENT. There is no consent to any governmental structure operating anywhere in the world today INCLUDING the US. NOBODY has agreed to allow the government to tax them at any rate the politicians set and to then exempt out whatever form/amount of income certain entities have etc. Nobody agrees to 90 plus percent of what the government does. And they don’t have any authority to do any of it.

            It makes no difference if the structure is a corporation operating under bylaws that nobody agreed to, or if it is an “organic constitution” nobody agreed to. They ignore BOTH. That is the real point. Whether they are acting under color of corporate/maritime law without any notice or consent, or whether they are overreaching under the “organic constitution” matters not. The result is the same. And Nobody is going to win cases that make any difference to either of them. Because the cases themselves are just a show.

            ALL OF THE POWER BEING EXERCISED BY THE US GOVERNMENT OVER THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE AT THIS POINT IN TIME IS NOTHING BUT COERCION THROUGH THREATS AND FORCE. I can prove it quite simply. Am I or anyone else allowed to simply opt out of the laws they claim to pass in return for not accepting any of the alleged benefits they claim to offer me? No. And that is that. I am forced to participate in whatever scheme they tell me they have now “made law”. And that is true regardless of whether it is incorporated or not.

            People need to understand that the nature and concept of what they are doing is not based in consent of the people. THAt is the key. Without consent, what is there? NOthing but force. And what difference does it make what form the government takes if it is nothing but coercion or force? None. That is the point that must be grasped. THat is why I said asked you to ask yourself and your friends what the country even is. Read my article on it. You will see. It is nothing but a false construct to enable a small group to control a large group with a political process. Nothing more. And if that process is not one based on actual consent, then it is nothing but a criminal enterprise like any other criminal enterprise that preys on people who cannot defend themselves.

            NOthing I am saying is new or novel. The issues have been discussed for centuries. The difference is that people today MISTAKE DEMOCRACY FOR FREEDOM BECAUSE THEY ARE TOLD SINCE BIRTH THAT THE TWO ARE THE SAME. THEY ARE NOT. they are far from it. I won’t go so far as to say they are mutually exclusive, but they are very very close. That is the real point that must be grasped. And frankly, the brainwashing is just so great that freedom IS democracy, that it cannot be overcome in most people. It just can’t. They cannot get their head around it. And thus, we will continue to be ruled and forced to do whatever those truly in charge care to impose on us. That is reality.

            I hope this cleared things up. Take care. — L

  10. ol' Pappy

    Another jurisprudential (is that a word? lol) tour de force, Legalman. I can see why it’s been so long since your last post.

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Ol’Pappy it’s good to hear from you. And of course it is a word. And I might add that your use of tour de force was quite well placed. Lol. Yes I took a bit of a hiatus. Sometimes I just can’t face the idiocy of he masses continuously. I have to step away for my own sanity. I mean the stuff is just so damned blatant yet people not only can’t see it. They actually try and tell me I am not a scholar and I don’t understand. Lol. They point to Supreme Court opinions talking about what the s.ct.’s authority is. Just think about that. They actually think that it is supposed to tell us what ITS powers are. Lol. They don’t see how idiotic that is. How far from anything sane that analysis is? They just can’t see that they are in a box. Take care o.p. – L

      Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Ray I’m glad you enjoyed it. And of course you’re right that it’s the same all over. Each criminal cabal/government has its own fairy tale that it tells the masses to convince them that their country is special etc. their traditions are all about the people and wonderous virtue. Just lies to keep everyone on the reservation. – L

      Reply
  11. Kram

    All is vanity! another development in Trobridge case. just a heads up if you are keeping tabs… I will be seeing this through as well with DOJ . on another note… I got a cool gig… one of my bents is landscaping, and I got one of those people who laid out their budget, designated an area, and trust I will create a scape they will enjoy… Just sweet to get a project like this. Patio, stone lined flower beds, a water feature and nice weather. yea! You know I love learning about how screwed the system is and how little one can do the effect any change. lol that is why i get excited about a seemingly insignificant solo landscaping job, because it is real. Law is a disappointing con and waste of time. Even the pile depicted in Holy Scripture. Im sorry but a ALL powerful Creator of the Universe needing blood sacrifices to atone original sin? I believe in a Creator, and I recognize some stellar precepts in Scripture. I am striving to love God and my neighbor and am a work in progress. Bottom line…After all my accounts are settled they will know I am honorable and peaceful. I will still ask many of the right questions while they justify themselves to my property…… truly know that i live a blessed life.
    thanks legalman

    Reply
  12. Alan Donelson

    At the risk of accusations of heresy, domestic terrorism, effete ignorance, stupid enunciation via neoliberal and/or neoconservative ideologies, I would suggest that Michael Hofmann’s seminal work, “Judaism Discovered”, along with his introductory text, “Judaism’s Strange Gods” —
    http://www.amazon.com/Judaism-Discovered-Anti-Biblical-Self-Worship-ebook/dp/B005ZK7SQE/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1319644961&sr=1-1
    http://revisionisthistorystore.blogspot.com/2010/03/michael-hoffmans-online-revisionist.html
    would reveal the answer to Qs raised by L-Man, brilliantly.

    Talmudic reasoning, friends.

    Inherent in the education.

    Check out M. Hofmann’s works. A window into that which cannot be discussed in polite company, or court rooms.

    Alan

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Thanks Alan, I will check the author out. But yes, certainly not a topic to be discussed in polite company. And certainly not anything anyone would take seriously. Just kookery and coincidence. Or possibly racist. – L

      Reply
      1. Alan Donelson

        Not to mention Anti-Amerikan, ill-liberal, non-neo-conservative, apostate (!), unvaccinated, and — to top off such a listing with DSM-V — Delusionarily Visionary, Intellectually Creamed, Sexually Both Unposed and Unpossessed, Spiritually Awakened [clinical red flag, symbolized by an image of the Confederate battle flag], and Virtually Disgusted.

        One can take this joke only so far. I offer an example.

        http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/02/21/arguments-can-only-go-so-far-why-i-have-permanently-given-up-on-david-duke/

        David Duke (DD) and Jonas Alexis (JA) have “duked it out” over Darwin, genetics, and the notion of “Jewish Supremacy”, the last mentioned phrase with which JA takes little to no issue. He argues DD lacks logic if not rationality. As comments to the posting suggest, there seems no reason to believe that genetics necessarily do more than influence human behavior, certainly none to indicate billiard-ball cause and effect.

        Do you know the work of David Duke and Jonas Alexis, L-Man? I wonder how many of your readers do. (A bunch, I’ll bet.) Here’s JA’s bio:

        Jonas E. Alexis graduated from Avon Park High School, studied mathematics and philosophy as an undergraduate at Palm Beach Atlantic University, and has a master’s degree in education from Grand Canyon University.
        Some of his main interests include the history of Christianity, U.S. foreign policy, the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict, and the history of ideas. He is the author of the new book ,Christianity & Rabbinic Judaism: A History of Conflict Between Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism from the first Century to the Twenty-first Century.
        He is currently teaching mathematics in South Korea. He plays soccer and basketball in his spare time. He is also a cyclist. He is currently writing a book tentatively titled Zionism and the West.

        I bet JA would have a cow if you yourself, or others reading this, asked Mr. Alexis about Michael Hofmann’s work and JA’s awareness of it! Just suggestin’!

        Alan

        Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *