“Sovereign Immunity” turns the constitution on its head.

Here a Supreme court clerk is seen practicing some of the formal techniques that a justice must master before qualifying to sit for oral argument before the court.

A Supreme court clerk shown practicing a highly specialized listening technique developed by the court for oral argument.  Couples counselors have successfully brought many of these same techniques to their clients. 

What do you call a situation where the law is ignored? Tyranny.

What about where the law is turned on its head? Fraud.

What about where the government steals the rights of the people to expand its own powers? Corruption.

I think those are fair answers to those questions.  Now let me ask you this.  If I tell you that you have A Right to petition the government for a redress of grievances to protect yourself against things like I just set out, and that the government cannot make any law abridging that right, does that leave you with the impression that you in fact have that right? Of course it does.

Well, the first amendment gives everyone of us exactly that right. People don’t know this because all they ever hear about the first amendment is free speech and religion and press. And when you finish reading this article you will understand why that is all they know. So let’s get started. Here is what the first amendment says:

This right is actually found in the 6th amendment. Little used for years, it is now making a comeback.

I actually had to look this one up.  It is found in the 6th amendment. The “Warren” court “read in” the wiggle requirement during the 60’s and defense attorneys are just now exploring how it can be used.  

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Do you see it now?  That is a HUGE right. “To petition” is a legal term. A petition is something that you file in court. So clearly, the peoples’ right to legally hold the government to its deal, through the courts, is enshrined in the holy CONstitution itself.  You have a RIGHT to petition the government, i.e. to sue the government for a redress if it steps out of line.

And how would you exercise this right”?  Well you would take advantage of the supposedly brilliant system of checks and balances that includes a supposedly “independent” judiciary that is supposedly there to oversee and be sure the other branches stay within their constitutional “authority”. Here is the language from Art III from the CONstitution, setting out the kinds of cases the court can hear. 

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, …to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;…

That language is pretty clear. So taking the first amendment language and the Art. III powers together, you now should have a right to petition the independent court for a redress of grievance if the legislative or executive branch gets out of order.

Think how powerful that right could be if properly used.

One of the most potent combinations known, the Somoan "freedom sling" if properly executed, will end any predetermined fake match. Just like a well constructed s.ct. opinion.

The Samoan “freedom sling” if properly executed, will end any fake match with a realistic looking victory. Just like a supreme court opinion can eliminate your illusory rights with a realistic sounding argument.  A show is a show.

In fact the combination I just showed you is one of the key pieces that supposedly “demonstrates” that we are a country “of laws” and not of men. That the government is NOT above the law. That it must answer to the people!

And thus the freedom machine is born! All hail the freedom machine! Where’s my American flag T-shirt? I feel like putting it on!

This entire system of a “right to redress” is the opposite of many other “tyrannical” systems where the rule is that the government can only be sued if it chooses to allow itself to be sued by its subjects.  That type of system operates on what is called the rule of  “sovereign immunity”.  The governments operating in a “sovereign immunity” system are free to abuse the people without any fear of recourse.  

Obviously sovereign Immunity does more than just “abridge” the right to redress grievances with a government that asserts it.  It completely eliminates any “right to redress”You only get whatever “redress” the government decides to allow. And that by definition is not a RIGHT.  “Sovereign immunity” is the OPPOSITE of what we the people set up in this country under our freedom machine with our “right to petition for redress” and our “Art III” independent judiciary.

And so is your “right to petition the government for redress of grievances” the reality?

Sadly, as usual, no. The reality is far removed from the fantasy they teach the poor saps in their mandatory indoctrination centers.

In Cohens v. Virginia, in 1821, Chief Justice Marshall, without any analysis at all of the UNAMBIGUOUS language I just showed you in the 1st amend, simply “announced” that, “the universally received opinion is that no suit can be commenced or prosecuted against the United States.” So he imposed the “sovereign immunity” rule on us basically from the get go. Which is the OPPOSITE of what the constitution actually says.

A young court clerk is shown here discussing some of the recent briefing they have been analyzing. They are chosen for their brilliance you know.

A young court clerk ponders the constitutional significance of some recent briefing.  They learn their craft by studying the court’s old opinions. 

Marshall, the supposed genius. The brilliant jurist made it  “our law” by announcing that it is “universally received”.  In order to do that, he had to completely IGNORE the universe that includes the 1st amendment.  And so he did.   He didn’t explain how the amendment fit in with his analysis.  He didn’t discuss how it didn’t apply.  He just didn’t mention it. 

And now that you’ve seen how clear the 1st Amend language is against what he “held” it’s easy to understand why he ignored it. Because there is no way to actually form a coherent legal argument to support what he imposed on us if you have to actually address it!  So, like any other “brilliant jurist” he ignored it.

Do you understand the immense power and abuse here?  This the real face of the system. You will be confused by things like this “reasoning” so long as you continue to imagine that the system is something it is not. Once you let go of that fantasy, then it all makes sense.

Later, in United States v. Clarke, the same “august” justice Marshall made it CLEAR once again in case there was any remaining doubt, that our country was going to be one of SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY, where the people HAVE NO RIGHT to petition the government for a redress of grievance except whatever the government chooses to give them.  Despite what the 1st amend obviously says. The United States is not “suable of common right, the party who institutes such suit must bring his case within the authority of some act of Congress, or the court cannot exercise jurisdiction over it.” Again, zero analysis of the 1st amendment.  Nothing.  Just imposing sovereign immunity on us despite what our supposed fundamental law says.

They don't bother to limit themselves by the rules. Who's there to stop them?

They don’t bother to limit themselves.  Why would they?

Make no mistake.  The right to petition a government for redress which is what the constitution states, and the concept of governmental immunity from redress, which is what Marshall is imposing, are direct contradictions. There is simply no way around that glaring fact. Do you see that?

So I ask you people.  Can they make it any clearer? You don’t have rights!  How can I have a “right to petition for redress” only if the government chooses to give it to me? It is nonsensical. It is double talk. It turns the concept of a right on its head.

I will discuss one more supreme court case on the off chance that there is still any doubt.  Despite the 1st amendments  “Right of Petition” never having been directly discussed or explained at all in the sovereign immunity context, the court nonetheless in 1882 in U.S. v. Lee,  “concedes” that sovereign immunity is “the established law of this country, and of this Court at the present day.” Established? How does something that directly contradicts the unambiguous language in the constitution become “established” without ever even being addressed? 

Simple, it is “established” in the courts’ opinions by just repeating and referring to “maxims” and “settled law” and “long established traditions” and citation to other cases that all do the same thing and that all ignore the constitutional language DIRECTLY ON POINT. This is the system they use.

Much of the legal support for the court's opinions has been archived for posterity. Here is some of Justice Marshall's private collection on display.

Much of the legal support for the court’s opinions has been archived for posterity. Here are some of Justice Marshall’s private notes on “sovereign immunity”.

It’s the same thing I showed you for “executive privilege”. The court just makes its up and poof. That’s that. How can you complain? Who do you complain to? They are the final say.

Let me try and explain it like this. If the Congress passes “a law” even though the Constitution says it shall pass “no law” and the Supreme court “upholds” the law by creating an “exception”. Then what happens? How do you check them? PROCEDURALLY what is the mechanism??

Remember, the difference between legal procedure and legal argument is, Legal argument is the battle plan, legal Procedure is the logistics. It matters not how great your battle plan is, i.e. your 1st amendment argument, if you can’t get the troops to the battle because you don’t have any trains or planes that run, i.e. if the supreme court is going to IGNORE IT.

So now that the supreme court has screwed everyone, despite your “brilliant 1st amendment legal argument” what can we actually do “procedurally”? Well, nothing but a constitutional amendment. And as a practical matter, how is that ever going to get off the ground? It won’t. And thus PROCEDURE, is the unseen hand of screwing the people. 

And now think about this. In this situation, even if we were going to try and get a “constitutional amendment” what would it say?  WE ALREADY HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT THAT SAYS EXACTLY WHAT WE WOULD WANT IT TO SAY. They just ignored it! So what exactly would the new “amendment” designed to “fix the problem” say? That we weren’t kidding the first time?

The reason for all of this is SIMPLE.   The two branches ARE DESIGNED TO GROW THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT TOGETHER.  They are a teamThey are no different than the wrestlers.  They are FAKE opponents!  All the blather about checks and balances is a distraction to trick you.  And it WORKS! lol 

The idea that “Chinese walls” between two branches of the SAME ENTITY can act as a “check” on the growth of that SAME ENTITY is absurd on its face. It will never work. Over time the ENTITY will grow. And THAT was the plan all along! The only way to check the growth of ONE ENTITY is with a truly SEPARATE ENTITY.  Not a different BRANCH from WITHIN the same entity.  That makes no sense.

There's a world of differenThere's a world of difference between asking on bended knee and really meaning business. Those in power know the difference

There’s a world of difference between asking on bended knee and really meaning business. Those in power know the difference

And once you understand that the REAL CHECK on the federal government is supposed to come from the STATES THEMSELVES and from the people.  Then you can start to understand what the CIVIL war was really about.  Spoiler alert, it wasn’t slavery.  And now you see why the court cut the peoples RIGHT to check the government from the get go.

Do you see the absurdity? The futility? The utter naivete of believing that a single entity can ever check itself?

Nonetheless that is what they tell us is so UNIQUE and brilliant about OUR SYSTEM! lol.  They hold up the holy constitution and point to the freedom machine in schools and in movies and on “news shows”, but the whole thing is a scam. When the branches of the government work together, there is no solution UNDER the constitution. And THAT is the situation we have been living under for 200 years.

Do you see why “getting back to the constitution” is virtually a meaningless phrase? What possible “constitutional” ambiguity exists in this situation? None. Yet the constitution and the system it sets up provides NO protection.

My friend government IS power. That is all it is. Those who rule you know this. But they tell you it is benevolent and controlled. Of course they do. Would you voluntarily submit otherwise? Of course not.

They roll out the control and abuse slowly enough so that each generation only sees a small part. Then they mis-educate everyone with lies in mandatory indoctrination centers about what’s going on and where we came from and it becomes almost impossible to see the reality.  You are lied to so they can exercise the greatest power with the least resistance. It is devious and brilliant.

99.99% of the population have never even heard of these cases and what I have just told you.  And 99% of the lawyers don’t have a clue about this topic either.  They don’t teach it.  I wonder why? lol

Tony demanded his human rights!

Tony demanded his G** dam* human rights “right now” as Jimmy Carter had promised him.  They ignored him too.  He had to carve up a communist “real good” to get his green card.  There’s a lesson there. lol

The government Always grows in power. Always. Do you honestly think that happens by Accident? lol

Everyone thinks they are so free because they have been told they are. No other reason. And if you still don’t believe me then why don’t you head on down to your nearest federal district court and demand your constitutionally protected right to redress  of grievances and see how far you get with that. lol

The strong take what they will and the weak suffer what they must.  It has always been the case.

I hope you learned a little sumtin sumtin about your 1st amendment “rights”. Remember, the only protection the people have from tyranny is vigilance and knowledge. You must LEARN to be strong.

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

And the truth shall set you free.

And the truth shall set you free.

16 thoughts on ““Sovereign Immunity” turns the constitution on its head.

  1. John De Herrera

    The ultimate right of the people is that of alter/abolish as handed down to us from the DOI. It is not contained in the 1st Amendment, it is embodied in the convention clause of Article V.

    Reply
  2. bbb

    it seems some of the founding fathers made the same argument ie that the judicial branch would be just another arm of the legislative and executive branch.

    whether the Constitution was a legitimate idea from the beginning, or a porposely misleading scam I don’t know

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Always hard to know what actually happened anywhere of course. I have given my opinion on this in my “The People’s Case for What happened at the Const. convention”. I think the evidence/record speaks for itself. Secrecy. No records, and lots and lots of shenanigans. So I think they more than understood. Not all of course. But many of the people who were there for the Declaration of Independence were not on board with the new constitution. And that says a lot. Glad you’re here. –L

      Reply
  3. Spike

    Legalman, I’m a bit confused by your discussion of “branches.”

    The real (Article III) supreme court was abolished in 1863.

    In 1870, the DOJ was created as an Executive agency to replace the the original judiciary branch.

    The graft and hubris all become much clearer when you realize that there are NO Article III courts left in America…

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      I understand many people subscribe to that view. I am not a convert to it. I can’t say there isn’t something there, but it just isn’t practical in any way. In my humble opinion. Even trying to begin to explain all the issues that the theory is based on takes whole blogs and multi-hour videos. Right or wrong, it has been pigeon holed as “conspiracy” and that is NOT what I do. I just ask basic questions about what they TELL me is the law. There are plenty of videos and sites that go into the admiralty, corporation all capital letters things. More power to them. I have chosen to stay within certain parameters because there is so much to explain already. I don’t pass judgment here on any other theories. All are welcome. I just stick with looking at what they tell us it says and then what it actually says. Glad you’re here though. hope you enjoy it. –L

      Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Yes, yes it is. I haven’t gotten around to it yet, but you are correct. lol. The reality is that about 95% of all they do is not constitutional. That is why I am just not a big proponent of “getting back to the constitution”. lol What does it even mean? –L

      Reply
  4. Jay Clark

    Hello, Legalman.

    GREAT post. Excellent analysis providing further
    proof that the supreme court is totally corrupt.
    It was always that way.

    You wrote:
    “”I hope you learned a little sumtin sumtin about your
    1st amendment “rights”. Remember, the only protection
    the people have from tyranny is vigilance and knowledge.
    You must LEARN to be strong.””

    I would ADD the following to your wise recommendation:

    “”I hope you learned a little sumtin sumtin about your
    1st amendment “rights”. Remember, the only protection
    the people have from tyranny is vigilance and knowledge.
    You must LEARN to be strong. YOU MUST ALSO KEEP
    YOUR GUNS AND AMMUNITION AT HAND, AND LEARN
    HOW TO SHOOT STRAIGHT AND WITH NO MERCY WHEN
    DEFENDING YOUR RIGHTS.””

    Also, “”THE PEN IS MIGHTIER THAN THE SWORD” is such a brilliant
    piece of deadly brainwashing when people believe such
    nonsense. Do you want proof? I don’t see the government,
    any government in the world, going after our PENS. They
    ALL go after our guns because they know that “”the one who
    has the guns gets to control and rule everybody else.””

    Thanks for YOUR BRILLIANT REMINDER!

    Jay.

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Lol, well yes there are a lot of people who believe what you say. I lean more towards the peaceful resistance, don’t cooperate model. Just personal preference in that I believe it is more effective in the long run. But I certainly support the citizenry’s right to arm themselves. Personally, I think the police, for the most part, should not carry guns. They want to disarm us, but I think the answer lies closer to disarming them and letting that inherent violence out of the balloon and then seeing what effect that has. If people didn’t have to fear being killed, then there would be an immediate reduction in violence. When police are armed, well, if you are a “criminal” then you have to fear being killed if you don’t shoot first. If the cop is not armed, except with a camera and non lethal items, well, much less need or urgency to escalate. The police are so quick to draw down on people. THAT along with the idea that they might do that at any point has already introduced violence to the situation. And that is what THEY want. I just think non-violence works better. The visual is just much more powerful and persuasive. It is a complicated question of course and requires much more than a brief comment. So glad you’re here. — L

      Reply
  5. RayofLight

    I REAL-EYES Carey that you were being “funny” about OUR OBVIOUS , EXCESSIVE NEED FOR REDRESS . At this juncture , possibly YOU , l , legalMAN and a few more enlightened souls DAILY ; who have escaped their ” EGOS ” . . . . . KNOW , That WE must not ” react ” out of fear and ignorance ( and enabling our ego(s) to fool us into thinking we know Anything , and in far too many cases for some . . . EVERTHING ) !!!

    Waking-Up and KNOWING TRUTH requires getting rid of the ” little me (ego) world view ” !

    As WE Share and Fully Express OURSELVES Through LOVE , HUMOR , HEARTFELT PLAY , And JOY OF UNDERSTANDING . . . . . Things Quickly Begin to CHANGE For US ! ! ! ! !

    Google this site folks : WakeUp-World ! And Thank You Carey for Allowing Me to PLAY off of You , It was the ” Perfect ” Set-Up for My Spike . Get Ready for MORE TIMELY Volleys , Set-Ups , And Spikes In This Prolonged Discovery of Truth and Ascension . . . . . My Friends . And Thanks A-Gain Legalman .

    Reply
    1. Carey Nottingham

      Anytime RayofLight. Glad I could lend the ‘knee-up’ with which to spike. *wink*

      … And thank you. I’ll check it out.

      Reply
  6. Carey Nottingham

    Well, thank the Lord that we don’t actually have any grievances which need to be redressed *rolls eye*

    They clearly have only the best intentions…

    Reply
      1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

        Yes, ass backwards indeed. Perhaps I can introduce that term into the legal lexicon. lol. and btw I really like waking times. Interesting site I read it often. Glad you enjoy the post. –L

        Reply
      2. Crocodile

        Your link leads to an article where Bobby thinks we are in class warfare.
        He wrote a pile of sh*it !
        You should refuse to be manipulated by such Communist garbage.

        Reply

Leave a Reply

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