3 easy steps to understanding your freedom.

Today we are going to learn all about the great and powerful justice system and how it protects all the people of Candyland!

Today we are going to dig down into the small print of the Candyland rule book and see how the system of justice actually works there. 

The U.S. government, in fact every government, is created and promoted for precisely one reason; to enable a very small group of people who control that government to exploit, through “authorized” force, the much larger group of people, who do not.  You and I, my brainwashed friend, are “the much larger group, who do not”.  I know that most people don’t believe this about “their country”, and that is their right.  But their failure to accept reality does not change reality. 

So what I’m going to do today is show you 3 separate cases from the supreme court, and you can draw your own conclusions about who that court and your government really serve.

The first case we’ll look at is where a State sought to sterilize a woman against her will because the State said she was an “imbecile”.

The next case involves the criminal conviction for publishing politically charged communist material advocating mass strikes to bring down the government.

The last case involves a multi-billion dollar international company getting a 2 million dollar punitive damage award levied against it to punish it for blatant consumer fraud.

So let’s look at the cases briefly and see how the court “protected your rights”.

The first case is Buck v. Bell, 1927.  The “august justice” Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the opinion “for the court”.

Although deemed an "imbecile" by the court, the Plaintiff in Buck v. Bell went on to a profitable career in TV and public speaking. Though she remained an imbecile. Ain't America grand.

Although deemed an “imbecile” by the court, the Plaintiff in Buck v. Bell nonetheless went on to a lucrative career in TV and public speaking after being released.

The basic facts, as set forth by the court, are simple. An imbecilic girl was placed into a state “institution” by her family. The person in charge of the facility wanted to sterilize her for the good of societyWe will accept the facts as presented for our purposes today.  The truth appears much more complicated.

The girl apparently had an out of wedlock child and the family felt “disgraced”.  The overall back story appears to be that the entire case was a friendly suit , unbeknownst to the poor girl of course, used to “clarify” and to thereby approve of eugenics laws which would later go on to sterilize 10’s of thousands against their will here in freedomville.  Here is an excellent law review article for those who are interested in pursuing it more closely.

The issue before the court was straightforward though far from benign. Here is how the court described the situation:

“The statute then enacts that, whenever the superintendent of certain institutions, including the above-named State Colony, shall be of opinion that it is for the best interests of the patients and of society that an inmate under his care should be sexually sterilized, he may have the operation performed upon any patient afflicted with hereditary forms of insanity, imbecility, &c., on complying with the very careful provisions by which the act protects the patients from possible abuse.”

There is a lot there.  Let me simplify it for you. If some arbitrarily appointed bureaucratic quack at some state institution you were unluckily housed at, thought, based upon the “highest science” that you weren’t what society needed or wanted, then you were getting sterilized.  But relax, the court assures us that the government has provided “very careful provision” to protect us all from abuse by this “law”.  So we’re good, you can go back to watching TV.

It is difficult to imagine a much more fundamental right that the court should protect than this.  So what did the court find? Well you can read its 1 paragraph “analysis”:

Much of the new Obamacare Dental plan has been justified under the reasoning of Buck v. Bell. Here, a politically correct orthodontist demonstrates a reimbursable procedure to induce a serious tooth ache.

Much of the new Obamacare Dental plan has been justified under the reasoning of Buck v. Bell. Here, a politically correct orthodontist demonstrates a reimbursable procedure to treat tooth ache.

“We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

I hope you re-read that and really think about what type of a court of so called “justice” would produce an opinion like that.  If you aren’t appalled by the court’s language, I can only hope that it is because you don’t understand the import of that language on your “rights”.

The court’s “analysis” is bereft of any concern at all for YOU and your rights.  The court, with a waive of its hand, finds that it would be “strange” if the state could not “obviously” sterilize you.  Why? Well because it can draft you into war and kill you, so clearly it can sterilize you. (I have written about the legitimacy of this alleged power to draft you, here .) The STATE’S interest towers over yours.  Forget batting second. You’re not even in the lineup.  So much for the court protecting your “rights”.

And let me say this.  There is so much blather about what a “great “justice” Holmes was.  Judge for yourself.    Authorizing the STATE to sterilize YOU with no analysis based upon fake facts is what he stood for when the chips were down.

So let’s look at the next case Gitlow v. New York, 1925, just a few years earlier than the previous case we looked at.

I pulled this exhibit from the State's brief. It is a compelling set of facts against allowing such a dangerous idea to spread. I mean, LOOK at those flames!! think of the children.

I pulled this exhibit from the State’s brief. It’s no wonder the court ruled as it did.  I looked through the evidence and this is a compelling set of facts.  My god man, just LOOK at those flames!! think of the children.  Enough said.

In this case the person was convicted of “criminal anarchy”.  Basically he published and promulgated a communist pamphlet about how the government was taking advantage of the working people, “the much larger group” I referred to earlier.  The pamphlet advocated for this group to rise up and throw this tyrannical abusive government off by coordinated mass strikes.

This type of political “speech” is EXACTLY what the laminated-in-every-school-room Declaration of Independence states is the peoples’ duty to do.  Throw off unjust governments.  If the first amendment is not there to protect speech like this, then what is it there for at all?

Let’s be clear.  There was no evidence of any so called revolutionary “conduct”.  The guy just published and promoted a pamphlet the government didn’t like.  In fact here is what the court said about that issue:

There was no evidence of any effect resulting from the publication and circulation of the Manifesto.

No effect means no action, no conduct.  This case is strictly about criminal liability for publishing a political manifesto.  This is precisely the kind of conduct that needs to be protected from prosecution as “un-American”.

Remember, it is only speech people DON’T like that even needs protection.  You don’t have to protect middle of the road milk toast bs like you hear and see peddled everyday on your boob tube and radio.  THAT speech is what the small group in control WANTS YOU TO HEAR.

So did the court throw out the conviction as a violation of the 1st Amendment? What do you think?  Here is the heart of the justification.  It quoted from the state court’s findings and then, in effect, confirmed that.

‘As we read this Manifesto … we feel entirely clear that the jury were justified in rejecting the view that it was a mere academic and harmless discussion of the advantages of communism and advanced socialism’ and ‘in regarding it as a justification and advocacy of action by one class which would destroy the rights of all other classes and overthrow the state itself by use of revolutionary mass strikes. It is true that there is no advocacy in specific terms of the use of … force or violence. There was no need to be. Some things are so commonly incident to others that they do not need to be mentioned when the underlying purpose is described.’

So if the public has been swept into a red scare panic, then the first amendment doesn’t apply.  Gotcha.  I thought the ENTIRE purpose of the court being there to hear these cases is to be sure that this exact type of thing didn’t happen to the rights of “minorities”?  

Also, notice that the court admits that there was not only no action, but there was also no advocacy of force or violence either!  But they nonetheless uphold the conviction outlawing the speech because there was “no need to be” any such showing.  That element would be READ IN against the citizen.

I spent quite a while breaking down the reasoning in the case and determined it might take too long to explain it since it is basically all crap.

I spent quite a while making notes here and breaking down the actual reasoning in the case and determined it might take too long to explain to non lawyers who aren’t used to dealing with such complex “constitutional  concepts”.  

Now I’m not going to waste time going over which made up pseudo “constitutional analysis” the court purports to use in this situation, e.g. clear and present danger, balancing, microwave for 2 minutes -add water slowly while stirring. It doesn’t matter what they claim to use. The proof is in the tasting.  And this case tastes like proverbial sh*t.

It is only one of two things.  Either, whatever test was used by the court is faulty, or the application of the test by the court was faulty, because the only thing that matters is the result. The decision either supports the peoples’ freedom of speech or it does not.  And the result here is the court preventing the people from getting information about how they can organize and defend themselves against the government.  Regardless of how misguided or wrong headed the “information” was or is, that kind of “speech” is supposed to be protected.   So whatever “test” the court used, can’t possibly support freedom of speech as it purports to do. By definition.

And don’t for a second imagine that I support “red revolution”.  That’s laughable.  This poor confused pamphleteer thinking that another kind of “government”, communist or otherwise, was the answer, was just lost as the rest of the duped masses who stood on the side defending our system. Neither of them understands what government actually IS.

Despite what you have been told there is nothing complicated about legitimate 1st amend analysis in a case like this. The problem is the court doesn’t do that because it has another agenda. Protect the government. Look the amendment says shall make NO LAW ABRIDGING.   What part of that is unclear?  How could the language have been any stronger?  Yet STILL these jokers dream up intellectual word games to justify “laws abridging” purely political speech.

Why do they do this?  Simple.  This is what they are THERE TO DO. They are protecting who they actually serve, the government.   They make it appear as though some solemn and complex analysis is being done in order to hide that reality. What people don’t understand is that all of their opinions, first amendment or otherwise, are just reverse engineered distractions designed to justify their predetermined outcome. Nothing more. Once you understand that they all make sense.

How is picking sides in a political battle part of the court’s job under the 1st amendment?  Even if the dissemination of the “information” led to the government being overthrown, isn’t the form of the government something the PEOPLE CHOOSE, not the supreme court?  What more do they have to do for you to see reality??

So lets review what we have so far.  The court supports the state sterilizing people if the state feels it should, and the court supports the state arresting anyone who produces political pamphlets that threaten the state’s control.  Take a moment to sip on a bit of that freedom Kool Aid.

Here is one of the hundreds of photos the jury saw of previously wrecked cars sold as "new" by BMW after being "fixed". It's clear why the court reversed the judgment.

Here is one of hundreds of photos the jury saw of previously wrecked cars sold as “new” by BMW after being “fixed”. It’s clear why the court found that the jury’s award violated “elemental notions of fairness” and the supreme court felt compelled to reverse .  Okay, sure, there’s a little damage, but where’s the fraud? 

Now let’s fast forward to 1996 and finish this trifecta of justice with our last case, BMW v. Gore.  No, not Al Gore. And so there can be no charge that I am not being fair, I am going to use the NSA’s own version of the facts from Wiki:

“The plaintiff, Dr. Ira Gore, bought a new BMW, and later discovered that the vehicle had been repainted before he bought it. Defendant BMW of North America revealed that their policy was to sell damaged cars as new if the damage could be fixed for less than 3% of the cost of the car. Dr. Gore sued, and an Alabama jury awarded $4,000 in compensatory damages (lost value of the car) and $4 million in punitive damages, which was later reduced to $2 million by the Alabama Supreme Court. The punitive damages resulted not only from Dr. Gore’s damages, but from BMW’s egregious behavior across a broad spectrum of BMW purchasers over a multi-year period of time in which BMW repaired damaged vehicles and sold them as new to unsuspecting buyers as a matter of routine business operation.”

So fairly straightforward facts.  A big company was lying to people and ripping them off. Selling them repaired vehicles as though they were new.  BMW had been doing it for a long time.  This wasn’t some one off thing. This wasn’t a rogue dealer. It was BMW policy to rip people off.  Apparently the jury was none too impressed with the conduct.

So this case, at its heart, is about the citizens’ right to a jury trial so that the people, through the jury, can protect themselves against powerful interests who can easily control the government.  Again, how do you get any more fundamental than this?

The justices often practice "remitting" awards in the mirror to improve their dramatic effect. The right of the court to "pardon you" if you're a friend of the court is of course a long standing tradition.

Here a poignant picture captures a private moment where an Alabama S.Ct. justice is practicing the ancient and solemn procedure of “remittitur”.  Many justices find that practicing their craft in a mirror improves the dramatic effect in court, making the court’s actions seem more credible and therefore “official”‘ to the masses who follow them.

After getting the 4 million dollar jury award against it, BMW went to its friends at the Alabama supreme court.  That court did the bidding for their masters and summarily cut the award in half.  How?  They used a procedural trick called “remittitur”, which is a scam the people have never heard of. The court claims the right, in the interest of justice of course, to substitute its own judgment for that of the jury.  That is a small taste of what your right to a jury means in actual practice.

So how had the jury come to the amount of the punitive damages awarded?  Simple, it took the actual damages in the case, the 4k, and then multiplied that by the number of similar fraudulent sales by BMW.  So they were just saying in effect, you got caught in this case, we’re gonna punish you for all the sales you weren’t caught on as well.  What is unreasonable about that?  Nothing.  But still the Alabama court cut it in half right off the top.

But even being cut in half wasn’t enough for BMW, they kept going. And guess what? The supreme court reached out and took this case.  The court takes about one in a hundred cases.  One in a hundred.  Do you think they’d take yours?  But for some “unknown” reason the court felt it “needed” to take this case.

Maybe it will be to vacate the remittitur and to re-instate the full award the jury found for egregious and deceptive conduct by BMW? Maybe?  Probably not.

Here’s what happened.  The court dreamed up a new sophisticated sounding 3 prong so called “constitutional test”, then “applied it” to the supposed facts and presto chango the jury’s award “failed” the test.  What an unexpected TWIST! The truth of the matter is that this so called 3 prong constitutional “test” is NOT a constitutional test at all.  That is absurd.  If it was, then how was it unknown for more than 200 years? The fact is the complex sounding 3 part test is just a made up thing imposed on the people to cover the court’s tracks while it protects the real interests of those who control the government.

I got access to the court's archives and pulled this draft of the "BMW" 3 prong test the court was working on. You have to admit , it does have promise.

I got access to the court’s archives and pulled this draft of the “BMW” 3 prong test the court was working on. You have to admit , it does have promise. I’m not sure it’s not, as is,  better than the final they released.

Here is what the court said in concocting the new 3 step test:

“Elementary notions of fairness enshrined in our constitutional jurisprudence dictate that a person receive fair notice not only of the conduct that will subject him to punishment but also of the severity of the penalty that a State may impose. Three guideposts, each of which indicates that BMW did not receive adequate notice of the magnitude of the sanction that Alabama might impose for adhering to the nondisclosure policy adopted in 1983, lead us to the conclusion that the $2 million award against BMW is grossly excessive: the degree of reprehensibility of the nondisclosure; the disparity between the harm or potential harm suffered by Dr. Gore and his punitive damages award; and the difference between this remedy and the civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases. We discuss these considerations in turn.”

Are we clear people? A 2 million dollar award for outright fraud against a huge multi BILLION dollar company is “grossly excessive”.  Remember a billion is a Thousand million! So how is a 2 million dollar award in any way “grossly excessive” AS A MATTER OF LAW against a multi- BILLION dollar company??  That is absurd on its face.

And don’t miss the fact that the court refers to BMW as a “person”!

So the court comes to the aide of BMW by using high sounding platitudes about justice and fairness and goes so far as to concoct a whole new 3 prong test to cover its trail. But the same court condones the STATE forcibly sterilizing an actual person against their will on nothing more than the summary conclusions of some bureaucratic QUACK, with a brush of the hand and no analysis.  Do you see the pattern yet?

And now do you understand why the court reached out and took this one in a hundred case?

And make no mistake about it.  This is the kind of case that the “back to the constitution conservatives” are fooled into supporting under the rubric of being so called “pro business”, anti-slip-and-fall lawyer, and to “help create jobs”.  The work a day people who are tricked into supporting this “philosophy” have no idea what they support. None.  But to be fair, big business does run on massive government protected fraud, so when you think about it, this is a classic pro business case after all.

And just to put a bow on all of this let me show you how it ended for Dr. Gore and his BMW, according to Wiki:

Look, I'm just saying I would like to go over the options again. I'm not sure I understand my choices here.

Hold on babe. I’m not saying no.  I’m not saying yes yet either.   I’m just saying I may be confused.  I would like to go over my options again. This feels like a pivotal decision.  What is it you want me to do?

“On remand, the Supreme Court of Alabama ordered a new trial unless plaintiff accepted a remittitur of all but $50,000 of the punitive damages awarded.”

Yes, you read that right.  The Alabama S.Ct. made the good doctor an offer he couldn’t refuse.  And for anyone with half a brain and any sophistication as to how the process works this outcome was crystal clear.

Message sent.  Message received.

So the case goes from the front page screaming headline of a “4 million dollar out of control jury verdict” that the masses are told justifies “tort reform”, to a take it or leave it 50k dollar award years and years later reported on the back page.  THAT my friend is what the just-a-system in the United States actually looks like for you and me who make up, “the other large group, who do not” control the government.

I could show you dozens and dozens of more cases just like these.  The only reason this stuff surprises you is that you don’t understand the system or what government actually is That’s all. It’s not your fault, you were lied to by the government in its mandatory schools.  But it is your fault if you continue to refuse to accept that you have been fooled and you then continue to support and defend this kind of exploitation.

Do you now see how the system works?  Do you now see what your “constitutional rights” are in practice?  Do you now see what the courts are actually there to do TO YOU, not for you?  Do you now see the fantasy you live in?

Make no mistake.  THIS IS THE CONSTITUTION IN ACTION.  These cases ARE the result of the constitution.  They are not aberrations.  They are not “unconstitutional”.  They are not outside the system.  They are the system.

I know none of this will get through to people, because nothing gets through to people.  They will continue to believe that they live in a freedom fest.  Why? Because they’ve been told they do all their lives.  Their parents told them. Their teachers told them.  The nice man on the news told them.  All their Hollywood heroes live out the glorious freedom on the big screen. Everyone has been raised on a steady diet of propaganda and lies about what their system is, and so the cognitive dissonance is just too great for most people to overcome.

I wondered over to a demonstration a while back and started talking to some of the people to see if I might open their mind a bit. Before I knew it they had me on the ground and they wanted to know why I "hated america". It was weird.

I wandered over to a back to the constitution demonstration a while back and started talking to some of the people to see if I might open their mind a bit. Before I knew it they had me on the ground and they demanded that I tell them why I “hated america so much”.  Needless to say they made it hard for me to make my point.   That was a was weird day.

If you try and show the great mass of people the truth they get angry at YOU.  They will say that you hate America and you should leave.  They are utterly irrational.  They get viscerally upset.  It is amazing to watch. They defend the country and the system that does what I just showed you by imagining that those cases and all the others just like them are all mistakes and bungling or the result of “liberals” and that it is “still the best system out there”.  It is  dark comedy to watch such stubborn ignorance.  They refuse to accept the hard truth that these cases are examples of what the system is designed to do. The system is not benign.  Can you say Stockholm syndrome?

The vast majority of the people are not reachable.  No point trying.  They are the third class of people who Da Vinci said, “can’t see”.  Or as Albert Jay Nock said, are ineducable.  Or as the masses like to say in the vernacular, “you can’t fix stoopid”.  And they are all right.  Don’t lose any sleep trying.  It ain’t gonna happen.

And that, my fellow inmate, is why I no longer even try and convince people of these truths anymore than I try and teach my cat about the constitution.  It is a waste of time.  I write for my own sanity and for an honest record.  Nothing more.  And that has to be enough.

That’s all for now my brainwashed Brethren.  I have stared at the sun-of-freedom long enough today. I think I’ll have drink.  Take care, move toward the light and tell someone the truth about the law.

And the truth shall set you free.

   And the truth shall set you free.

 

55 thoughts on “3 easy steps to understanding your freedom.

  1. sully

    I vividly remember Johnny Cochran at the outset of the OJ “trial” stating to the court: “What is the nature of the person whom you seek?” or something similar. And he won the case for his client. When he clearly should have easily lost. Interesting. I make no claims to know what that was about.

    Also, I met Johnny Cochran once. Nice guy. Very charming and charismatic. That is just an irrelevant trivium here.

    In re locus for me, when it comes to it… I’m thinking small, neutral english speaking countries, like Belize or Ireland. Out of the way. Low profile. Might buy a little bit more time and peace…

    Reply
  2. DeBranco

    A subject that has always fascinated mua is, (the law of commerce, or law of merchant. Since we are all creatures of commerce. I would like to initiate further understanding and constructive discussions, with proven definitions.

    Reply
  3. DeBranco

    The game of word definitions. As promised. “Human being”. See monster. Monster (mon’ster). A human-being by birth, but in some part resembling a lower animal. “A monster …hath no inheritable blood, and cannot be heir to any land, albeit it be brought forth in marriage; but, although it hath deformity in any part of its body, yet if it hath human shape, it may be heir.” [Page 830]. Law Dictionary with Pronunciations, by James A. Ballentine, 1948 Edition.
    Breaking it down, “but in some part resembling a lower animal”? 2- “A monster . . . hath no inheritable blood and cannot be heir to any land”? 3- “in may be heir.”? Any constructive feedback?

    Reply
    1. Andrew John

      Not true. The word Human actually derived from humus meaning the soil of the earth. Interestingly, Lord God created the first man from the dust i.e. soil of the earth. A being is a living thing. You were taken from the soil of the earth and you will return to the earth as soil. The Soul and Spirit are predestined to either Heaven or Hell.

      Reply
      1. DeBranco

        True or not, by definition, is what it is, by your lords. Decline to comment on religious beliefs. Another subject for the ones, outside the Matrix of believes. What we have being told, is NOT what it is.

        Reply
  4. Hereticdrummer

    There is a lot of patriot mythology flying around here. None of it means spit. Legalman knows the score. Do you honestly think that by mumbling some esoteric legal mumbo jumbo and putting such on court papers with a motion and brief in support, the black robed whores of the power system are going to throw up their hands and declare you exonerated and the winner? Give me a fucking break. Power concedes nothing to the powerless. Concomitantly, power never abdicates sans bloodshed. Hey, I’m not advocating revolution here. I’m a good citizen who realizes the game is hopelessly rigged. Dig it, every case, regardless of jurisdiction, federal or state, criminal or civil, comes down to just three things. Law, facts, and procedure. Carriage bolt them together, pitch and pray. Justice in Scumerica is what you can afford.

    Reply
    1. DeBranco

      Knowledge forever govern ignorance. “if you have realized the game is hopelessly rigged” what can you do about? Written law, is law, facts are facts and procedures are procedures. We are not going to throw our arms in the air, just because the system is “rigged”? What can you do? Education is knowledge and knowledge is for ever govern ignorance.

      Reply
      1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

        DeBranco, I know you directed this to HereticDrummer and I have no interest in inserting myself between any discussion you two have, I just thought I might say something in addition. I suspect we are all very close in our ultimate opinions, and we are certainly much closer together than we are far apart. Knowledge is power, for sure, we all agree on that. As to whether you can “do anything” is probably the sticking point. The question for me becomes, what does it mean to “do something” about it?

        Personally I believe that you are doing something quite concrete when you actually understand and ACCEPT what you are up against. You have “done something” quite important. In fact, I would argue that you have done the most important thing anyone can ever do which is to start to see the world for what it is. That is not easy. There is a lot of brainwashing to overcome. Most of us here have been through many if not all of the stages of awakening to what governments in fact are. Certainly I spent years of my life in the dreamland of “fixing” the problem through “the process” here in the U.S. Imagining that the constitution was what I was taught. I was ALL IN to the back to the constitution crowd. That’s why I am so familiar with it and also why I KNOW it can’t ever work. Because the document is not what you think.

        But then the next step is to understand the nature of actual government. That is the CRITICAL stage. If you care to understand it then read Lysander Spooner’s “No Treason” or Albert Nock’s “Our enemy, the State”, or Franz Oppenheimer’s “The State from a Sociological standpoint”. Of course there are many many others as well. But the key is to understand that the state, as it exists all over the world is the problem. You can’t FIX the state. And since the vast majority of the people live under the delusion that the state is fixable and that the state they live under is basically “good’ but just needs some “tweaking”, well, there is nothing you can do to change that situation.

        You are going to live under the tyranny of the state. Period. THAT is what there is nothing you can do about. And the key is understanding that it is a waste of time to try and “fix the state”. And it is a waste of time to hope that you will get a better result from some “new and improved” state or from some demagogue running for office. The state is the arm of the exploiters. It is the scorpion to the frog. Once you see that you will stop expending time that is all wasted trying to fix it and start spending time on something that might help you. Namely, letting others know, or working within the reality of the system.

        Once you see the reality you will no longer expect the state to help you. You won’t waste time at council meetings or trying to raise awareness on issues for the state to fix them.

        So the answer to your question what can you do is that you learn to live in reality. You don’t blunder into problems because of naivete. You live your live understanding that there is a criminal gang in charge and you behave accordingly. That is all. But there is tremendous value in that. The difference between the naive fool who doesn’t understand that the mafia runs his neighborhood and that the police and FBI and DA’s and courts are ALL in on it has no chance compared to the person who lives in that neighborhood and understands exactly how it is actually run. Do you see?

        So you are doing something when you break through the brainwashing and accept the reality. And you will benefit. The earlier in life you come to the reality, the more you will benefit. And that is my two cents. Take care my fellow innmate. — L

        Reply
        1. DeBranco

          L. Your assertions are well taken in real time. Not being a US birth citizen, but a traveler from North to South of the Equator. The problem we are all facing is universal.

          Reply
          1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

            Thank you DeBranco, I suspected from the way you phrased things that you were not working in your native tongue. And yes, the problem is universal. And it isn’t something that was created recently. It is the nature of the state itself. Always has been, always will be. Take care. Glad you’re here. — L

        2. Hereticdrummer

          Legalman, you put things so beautifully sometimes I think you missed your calling and should have been an artist. There’s what oughtta be and there’s what is. Put another way, you deal with reality or reality will deal with you. The simplest most powerful truth is this: Power concedes nothing to the powerless. The best we citizen serfs can hope for is to learn to game or play the power system to the best of our ability or to try and become invisible to it, flying under the radar. Be like the reeds in a fierce wind. Bend with it so it doesn’t break you. Keep punching Brother.

          Reply
          1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

            Thanks Heretic. That’s a nice thing to say. We really are all stuck lol. I love the movie “Get Carter” There’s a great scene where the guy coming after him for not taking care of the business he was supposed to says to him, “Say, Jack, when I said, “You take care of the business or the business will take care of you,” did we have a bad connection on the cell, or maybe you weren’t listening?” lol

            Truer words were never spoken. Take care of the business or it will take care of you. Oh and a side note. I held off on “approving” a note you sent in before you had all the relevant information it referred to. If you still want me to post it I will. Otherwise I will just leave it unposted. “Fight the power”. lol — L

          2. Hereticdrummer

            Greetings Legalman. Please post it if you will, if for nothing else than to refresh my memory. Thanks.

      2. Hereticdrummer

        ” … knowledge is for ever govern ignorance”? Nice grammar and syntax there DeBranco. If that gibberish is what you deem knowledge, thanks but I’ll pass.

        Reply
  5. Renfield

    Great stuff. It is not up to you to furnish solutions — just unmasking the chicanery is difficult enough, and I appreciate that somehow you manage to keep it fun to read.

    I think my big takeaways from this are the following:

    1) The whole system relies on trust: trust that these ‘high priests’ know more than you do, that their ‘authority’ is to some degree expert, informed or righteous, and that they have public interest at heart. Remove that trust, and the whole system is left to rely on violence, which usually fails fairly quickly.

    2) The Middle East has the right idea: black markets and guerrilla tactics are essentially the only paths to success. Which is why the official media gives you only 3 options, none of which work: a) expensive legal pushback in a rigged court system; b) street protest; c) if you don’t like it you can leave. Which means that if you really want effective change, you’re back to black markets and guerrilla tactics.

    Hence, the revolution will not be televised.

    I think we may be at the stage now where trust is eroding so fast that the violence behind it is beginning to take over, which only erodes trust even faster. In other words, this rigged Rothschildian system is finally beginning to fall.

    What comes next, nobody knows. Whichever faction succeeds in toppling the others will try for another rigged plantation system, of course, but after this one is so thoroughly unmasked it is difficult to see how another could succeed, at least on the scale this latest one did. It has taken hundreds of years to build so if it actually does fall, I think they will try to resurrect it under a mask, similar to the Constitution which was the mask covering the first centralisation of power in the newly-independent America at the time. Perhaps we can look forward to a new ‘constitution’ in the westernised countries of the world, under some new global ‘overseer’ which will strive to become our latest high priest class. (Will they dare to call themselves a ‘government’, I wonder?) If they try this, will it work?

    I continue to wait and watch. Thank you for educating my waiting time. You are very good at putting into sequential words what generally exists as vague suspicions and concepts for most of us. I appreciate your focused research. You give me some of the language that I can use to ask questions and hold (short) conversations. The one ability we have right now is to erode a blind, misplaced trust.

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      I’m glad it is helpful Renfield. You’re right about the false choices they give as well. So many people demand I provide solutions. Absurd. I provide the only actual solutions available, namely, understand reality. I wonder what the collapse will look like. I know it is wrong for me to say but I really do want to be around for it. It isn’t that I would choose a massive reset if there were other options. But since it is inevitable I want to see it. I don’t wish the insanity on people, but they are bringing it on themselves, so I might as well get the satisfaction of watching it blow up. Like woody harrelson’s character when he keeps doing his broadcast at the edge of the super volcano right until he gets blown up with it. Lol.

      I started the site to simply get the truth off my chest and to commiserate with like minded people who see the same insanity. If I can help provide some clarity then I am happy. Take care. — L

      Reply
    2. DeBranco

      Yes, that is the key word, “trusts” via “consent”. Consent, via silence and consent/voluntarily signing their docs, without understanding, or (under-standing) their word game, or words of art.

      Reply
  6. DeBranco

    Folks, the US Constitution, does NOT apply to you. A a matter of fact, you never signed it. Your name is NOT in it. You are not a party to it. US Constitution is a commercial contract, between States and Federal States.

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      DeBranco, many of the people here are aware of the maritime law/ constitution is a different kind of “contract” arguments. And while I have researched them quite a bit, my position on them is that they simply have no practical application because the courts don’t recognize them. Now I’m not saying that the courts even follow the “organic” constitution or any other constitution. The points I try and make here are that it makes no difference what ANY written document says. Those in control do as they please. Period. Until people stop taking paychecks to abuse their fellow citizens as cops, jailers, judges, bailiffs, parole officers, and anyone else who “works in government”, it matters not how “technically correct you may be”. And I am not saying their arguments are correct or not. Was there an incorporation? yes. But so? The first amendment says shall make no law abridging and they ignore that. What in the world makes someone think that if you file the right form and say the right magic words that they will throw up their hands and concede their power? They won’t. The problem is much more fundamental. Until people understand what Government is, constitutional or otherwise, there will be no change. And I am quite sure the people are never going to understand the true nature of government in my life time, if ever. They are much much much too far gone. But I hope you get my point. Not intended to denigrate the issues you raise. I am just hoping you see that they are merely another dead end. The real change that needs to occur is much deeper and beyond most people. So the idea is to understand the reality and act accordingly. Take care. — L

      Reply
      1. DeBranco

        Yes, I am in agreement with your points. Correct, the system is so convoluted, beyond anyone’s wildest imagination. One thing we must keep in mind is, by not consenting, to their tyranny and stop signing their docs, is a step in the right direction. I guess knowledge is power and can not be defeated. I personally have done so with few traffic tickets, challenging them in commerce. Your point is well taken.

        Reply
    2. george anthony

      What was stated has additional aspect that require understanding, IE; The 55 delagates on Philadelphia needed to address the limitations of “COMMERCE” with the Articles of Confederation which btw has not been repealed. They were the monied statists of the time and wanted in on commerce. Sixteen were for a monarchy, just not the British version and 34 were lawyers which ordinarily write concise well defined contracts. However the constitution is poorly written and widely open for interpretation by design, such as the neccesarry and proper clause, general welfare clause and the achilies heel to all, the commerce clause. The constitutional delegation of authority for gov to act in the states that are to be 50 separate countries required the trickery of getting everyone to be assumed/presumed to be acting in commerce which makes them “SUBJECT” to the claimed authority. To say the constitution is a contract is partially correct, as those that take an oath to it agree to be bound by it, however it merely describes their duties and obligations, which makes it a “trust indenture” since it doesn’t apply to us. We don’t have constitutional rights, rather un-alien-able rights given to us by our creator. If we have the ability to do something, we have the right to do it already as long as its exercise doesn’t injure another man or his property. The courts trick people by getting them to unknowingly volunteer to trading places with the magistrate as beneficial user of a trust to being the trustee. NOBODY goes to prison for breaking a law, they go for breaching trust which is the equivalent of murder in the real world, thus the reason people in prison have the subroquet of TRUSTEE. They were tricked by a commercial court that is not an article 3 or 7 court, making them all commercial administrative courts. We’ve been told in plain sight they administer. What can they administer? Not people, but the paperwork PERSON or artificial non-living creation mental construct that is merely the color of man, thus not the real man. If we admit to being the NAME, they have authority as we are considered wards of the court for being so crazy that we don’t know we can’t be living and dead at the same time so parens patrie comes into play where the STATE is the parent. We lose when we let them be the Logos.

      Reply
      1. DeBranco

        The “State being the parent” or the State being the third parent is an understatement. That is why, lately, the cat has been out of the bag, by watching cases where the State Agencies, have taken the children into their custody. Why? Parents are ill educated, of the hidden power of the State, given to them by their loyal State citizens, called “consent”. NAME? as suggested by you does not matter and is NOT a subject of discussion, as there is no lawful definition of it. It is the presumption and implying that you are all “persons” by their own legal definition. Name’s as such, person, individual, US citizens, are the hidden weapon, in which their hide.

        Reply
  7. DeBranco

    Who ever made a statement above, “Government has no rights to control “human beings”. There is a very interesting definition in the Ballantine’s Law Dictionary, “if defined by the same dictionary at law”. A human being resembles and is by definition a monster. Human and being are two different definitions. What is a name? A name is a thing. What is a thing? A thing, like person, like individuals, are words of art, used by the actors and applied by the system at large. Here is an interesting definition; “PERSON. A man considered according to the rank he holds in society,with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. no 137. By the same; A human being considered as capable of having rights and of being charged with duties; while a “thing” is the object over which rights may be exercised. By the same; Artificial persons. Such as are created and devised by law for the purposes of society and government.” These actors, like Hollywood, are constantly giving us hints, and more hints.

    Reply
  8. thedoctor

    An other fine article. You mention “person” in the context of the supreme courts efforts to define the “rights” of those who are dragged before it. There are endless web pages devoted to what a person is, all caps, lower case letters and so on. I find that when in doubt, look up what the law dictionary says a person is. Black’s Law dictionary defines a “Person” two ways? One is a “Natural Person,” who is not subject to the law and another is a “Person” who is actually a corporate employee who is subject to the law and the men in black robes who rule over it.

    Okay so a person can mean two things. Except at the court level a Person means one thing: corporation. IT IS IN THE DEFINITION FOR GOD’S SAKE!!!!! And the government has not only the right, but the god given responsibility to control business and commerce. The government has NO right to control human beings, but if there is no definition of a human being in the law, or if the law sees all places where “person” is written as solely a corporation, then clearly any human being can be sterilized without question, as the only act taking place is responsibly controlling a business and preventing it from ruining other businesses.

    Important distinction, in fact while a Natural Person was the primary definition of Black’s Law version one, it was moved to secondary definition in version two – why? What? Did you just notice that, the SECONDARY definition of person is Human Being, so everywhere you see “person” EVERYWHERE (DL, SSC, CLV, deliver mail) the law, by DEFINITION, is referring to a business, a business which the government must control by its mandate.

    Taking a trip down the rabbit hole of legal definition is fucking enlightening and explains everything. What is beyond disgusting is the lawyers I know have no idea, none, zero, what that simple legal dictionary entry means for us all – zero, they are simply brain dead to man/woman.

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Yes thedoctor I share your generalized feeling about the law and the mind numbing ignorance of lawyers. Basic truths are not hidden. But the duped masses insist on being blind. They prefer it. Maybe the new VR googlefacebook Occulus insanity will truly be the final stage. Don’t forget to stop off at your neighborhood sterilization office before picking up the latest VR edition of the game “Cheerleaders for justice no. 4” brought to you by obamaworldporn, enterprises. Frankly, I don’t think we’re that far from it. lol — L

      Reply
    2. george anthony

      The hue-man is the color of man, just as in color of law, color of authority. They need all parties to be of like kind, thus accept hue-man when we should just be called man, as hue-man in proper syntax grammar is still a type of man. BTW, human in a Ballantines law dictionary says “see monster”. It is hidden in plain sight.

      Reply
  9. Defiant

    “The U.S. government, in fact every government, is created and promoted for precisely one reason; to enable a very small group of people who control that government to exploit, through “authorized” force, the much larger group of people, who do not. ”

    After such a jaundiced and inaccurate FIRST sentence…you lost me.

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Well Defiant, as Mark Twain so famously said, “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you in trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” Your comment certainly reveals what you “know for sure”. lol The masses really just can’t see. — L

      Reply
    2. Bill in IL

      Hahahahaha, another sheep in a coma heard from. Please explain how the first sentence is “jaundiced and inaccurate.”

      Reply
        1. Bill in IL

          I don’t either Legalman, but I do love poking these folks with a stick. Sometimes, hilarity ensues!

          Reply
          1. Carey Nottingham

            hahahaha! poking ’em with a stick. that’s so funny!

            Thanks, Bill for giving me a few laughs this morning.

          2. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

            lol, yes Bill, sometimes it does, and it can be. They often go apoplectic as soon as you expose their sincere ignorance. They mistake passion and anger for knowledge and facts. I’m sure he is self righteously off to the next article to put in his two cents. lol, and if he starts reading something that doesn’t fit what he “knows for sure”, well he’s off to find something that does confirm it. He has a lot to learn and he thinks he knows it all. — L

    3. george anthony

      The whole thing is an illusion as is voting. If it accomplished anything, we wouldn’t be allowed to do it. The court is nothing more than a protection racket for the RICO operation they run. We need to make the distinction of the meaning of words. Persons are NOT living beings so all statues, codes, ordinances, rules and regulations are for PERSONS, which are corporations, partnerships, trusts etc., dead fictional entities. This is why BLACK’S law is referred to as the book of the dead, as it is about fictional constructs of the mind. Bouvier’s and Balantines are the real law dictionaries that refer to the living. They use semantic deciept to trick people. One will find person defined also as a natural person. This is an oxy-moron for the proper syntax grammar is still a TYPE of person, thus a living corporation. Who is a living corporation? The trick is to get people to volunteer by ignorance and not to object to the patented, trade marked, copy writed BLACK’S private lexicon. If they have control over the LOGOS, we give them the second master the bible says to no allow. Recall the Bible says first there was the word and the word was god and god was the word. It is much like the jar of spagetti sauce where the first ingrediant is the most important. Why is that the first in the Bible? BTW, the courts do use biblical law when they get past the admiralty maritime and Roman civil law. Every time a magistrate leaves and comes back, the type of court has been changed, tricking people yet again. We must not go in as the fiction name to give jurisdiction.

      Reply
  10. Carey Nottingham

    all of your posts have slowly awaken me from the perpetual state of obliviousness that I have existed in for nearly 40 years, but I have to say this particular post has me wanting to share it on every social front I can think of with the hashtag #wakethehelluppeople. the fact that the constitution does nothing to protect the citizens. the fact that those in power will do whatever, whenever, forever, to whomever as long as it serves them. the fact that it has been this way since government began and there is no “fixing” it, there is no “10-step plan” to make it better, there are no “simply add water and stir” directions to get out of it, yet people are still blindly, and enthusiastically, clamoring for a the answers.

    I really don’t know if I will share it yet because social media is where the greatest number of the blind seem to exist, but what it has done is reaffirmed the absolute necessity to be ever-aware, ever-present, and to continue to work toward my own development without getting upset that it cannot or will not be changed. so there’s that… *smiling*

    Reply
    1. opt out

      Quoting Ronald Regan…
      “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”
      “The taxpayer – that’s someone who works for the federal government but doesn’t have to take the civil service examination.”

      There are countless Constitutional groups on the Internet, asking for donations and volunteers. They are all attempting to get back to the Constitution and hold government accountable in one manner or another. Do any of them ponder why they are unsuccessful at their task? Two possible explanations come to mind… 1) They are a front group designed to divide and conquer the masses with the two party paradigm argument. 2) They don’t understand the Constitution of 9/17/1787 and they mistakenly believe they are a party to the compact and that their rights come from that instrument.

      Folks are looking in the wrong place for the solution… The solution involves getting your status correct via the passport application and parting ways with all of the benefits and privileges that were used to lure the unsuspecting masses into becoming federal employees in the United States. The masses have mistakenly contracted out of their proper status for an inferior status. There are a number of web sites that focus exclusively on status and the steps to correct the record. sedm.org is one such web site among others that offer comprehensive analysis on status and the written Law. They offer deep analysis on status, taxation and countless other topics that are all part of obtaining jurisdiction [in personam/subject matter] over the masses.

      The legally blind and legally deaf walking dead are not going to ever get it or wake up barring some major event… don’t waste your time on them…

      Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Well I understand Georgia. But pray tell what is the better option? Is it better to continue to live in an illusion or to at least face the facts? Remember there is no REAL hope unless you at least dealing with the truth. — L

      Reply
    2. FlyinMonkey

      I think I’m in the acceptance stage, ready to bury my hubris. Not sure what to do with myself now, unfortunately.

      Reply
      1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

        Ah FlyingMonkey, as Austin Powers said, allow myself to introduce myself. lol I am mr. denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance. It is a lonely road and I applaud your progress Sir/madame. At least we inmates can commiserate together. lol — L

        Reply
  11. Hereticdrummer

    Legalman you are the mostest! (a 1950s expression). Anyone with two brain cells to rub together should be able to realize that a constitution should be like cliffs against pounding waves of the ocean, immutable. If it is constantly subject to judicial interpretation and revision on a case by case basis to satisfy political expediency, what the fuck is the point in even having one? It is at the mercy of judicial whim and caprice and oh, what capricious morons those black robed motherfuckers are when it comes to serving mammon. For the pain and damage they have wrought, Hell hath no place too hot. Be well Brother.

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Well thank you heretic. And so long as we are digging into the vault let me quote Garfield the cat, I resemble that remark. Lol. Yes. The laughable oracles in their black robe costumes sitting elevated above the rabble really are funny. There has rarely been a disconnect as great as that between how they are portrayed and what they really are. They come from the church of what ever’s working for you lately if anyone ever has. Precedent is critical– unless it’s not. Lol. Virtually all of the decisions are just reverse engineered outcome determinative double talk designed to appear complex and intellectually honest. When nothing could be further from the truth. Truth is something that is so rarely any part of our justice system that for all practical purposes it might as well have been banned lol. Yet still the duped masses lay down their life to protect it thinking they owe some duty to do so. Mind bending.

      Glad you enjoyed it. Always good to know it resonates with some people. Take care. — L

      Reply
  12. Bill in IL

    Another great article Legalman, ripping back the mask and exposing the corrupt system in which we are forced to live. It is no wonder we find ourselves on the cusp of totalitarianism. The first case is yet another example of the State making things worse in all regards. They tried to sterilize stupid people and we now a a glut of them running around demanding we either “return to Constitution” on the right, or go full retard socialism on the left. Beam me up Scotty!

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Lol yes Bill they are very good at f’ing it all up aren’t they? I’m sure it is all just bungling and accident that always just so happens to lead to more and more control. Amazing how that happens. Glad you enjoyed it. Thanks for letting me know. We few, we band of brothers have to stick together for our own sanity. — L

      Reply
      1. Bill in IL

        I always enjoy your articles and have tried to get some of my more “awake” friends to visit. As far as I know, only one has taken me up in the offer to read your entire site.
        Yes, we do have to stick together for our sanity, lately a sustenance existence in the wilds of Alaska is sounding more and more appealing.

        Reply
        1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

          Bill, I’m surprised anyone has agreed, but one is something. It is really just up to each person whether they care to open their eyes and face the truth. Most don’t want to as you know. I will be interested to hear if you ever get an update from that person.

          As to being left alone in the wild, I agree it is sounding pretty damned good. lol even just having to interact with such truly brain dead drones on a daily basis is exhausting. The utterly idiotic things I hear all the time are just jaw dropping. And they come out of people who fancy themselves to be “informed”. — L

          Reply
          1. DeBranco

            The system is, so convoluted, that the average man and woman, have no chance of understanding, the lingo and twists of the lingo the system uses. Did you say businesses and commerce? We are all commercial creatures, the moment we step out of our castles. It’s all commercial 24/7. Cops are driving creatures of commerce, so we.

          2. Bill in IL

            I ran across one the other day, swore up and down how the “legitimate” news sources of ABCCBSFNMSNBCNBCPBS are where the only true journalists are practicing “responsible” journalism. I told him he was too stupid to have a conversation with and bid a good day to him. You are absolutely correct dealing with these brain dead morons IS exhausting.

          3. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

            LOL Wtf? Those are the only ones doing legitimate news? lol Hilarious. You were right to excuse yourself and be on your way. Reminds me of a great line from the movie “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” when Aldous Snow is asked whether he ever listened to the demotape the guy gave him and he says, “oh yeah, that, well I was going to listen to it, and then I just went on living my life, so no, I didn’t.” That is truly classic. — L

          4. Bill in IL

            They’re out there, they vote and they are absolutely convinced they are the only ones informed enough, intelligent enough to make all the decisions for the rest of us holy poly. Simply amazing! I would just like to know how I woke up in the movie Idiocracy.

          5. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

            I might prefer the full on Idiocracy lifestyle. At least I’d be the smartest man in the world, and every consumer product and service was available with a happy ending. I think that would be preferable. lol — L

Leave a Reply

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