The constitution has no legitimate authority.

Doing THAT freedom dance baby!

Doing THAT FREEDOM dance baby!   Because we are so damned FREEEE!! lol

Freedom freedom free, liberty free freedom free. Got it? We’re the greatest free-est country that has ever existed! Take THAT rest of the world. People wear flag shorts and thongs here we are so stinking free. It is actually probably a violation of the UN charter that we have so much stinking FREEDOM!. We are freedom hoarders. lol

Let me ask you a question.  What separates tyranny from freedom?

It’s simple really.  Consent or Coercion.  The people are either consenting to the government’s authority or they are having the government coerced upon them.  In our country the entire supposed basis for our government exercising its authority rests upon the alleged authority of the Constitution. There is NO other basis for its authority. 

So the relevant question becomes, have the people in this country ACTUALLY consented to the constitution they tell us is “the supreme law of the land”?

If the answer is yes, then the constitution and all the “law” that properly flows from it have legitimate authority, but if the people have not consented, then the constitution has no authority, and neither does any of the government that flows from it.   Understand?

You may laugh at the whole idea because you are so totally convinced that the U.S. of A. is “so obviously” free and the constitution’s authority is “above question”. But have you ever even thought about it beyond the constant repetition drilled into your head from the “Wurlitzer”? I doubt it.  But if it really is such a “slam dunk” then it should be easy to prove the constitution’s authority, right?  So let’s look.

The law of consent is quite well worked out as you would expect. Consent, in legal terms, means to voluntarily agree to something after being apprised of the terms. Coercion on the other hand means you didn’t want to do it, but you were threatened, tricked or coerced into agreeing. In other words you were made to do it.

I said I don't want to go. No means no. Sheesh.

“I said I don’t want to go.  Stop trying to MAKE me go girls…. Okay, I’ll go with you..” Coercion or consent? lol

Consent is an issue in many things, especially contracts and agency theory. Agency being when you agree to have someone else act on your behalf for some reason. A fancy agency is all the government can really even claim to be exercising. They claim they are our “servants”. Servants to the public. So they are clearly claiming to be our agents when they act supposedly on our behalf, and claim to bind us with their votes.

Think about it.  Someone can be “governed” under a dictatorship they didn’t agree to, and the dictator can in some people’s opinion nonetheless, govern “benevolently”. But that still doesn’t make the people FREE.

So where do they even claim to get MY consent to be governed by the constitution or any government set up under it?

When you go to look for answers to this actual question you don’t find anything that makes much sense.  Certainly not the “slam dunk” you would expect.  Truth be told, they don’t have a good basis. It is a mish mash of vague ideas about a “union” and a “social contract” and “implied consent”. I encourage you to GO LOOK FOR YOURSELF. You should investigate it.  I mean this is the entire basis of your supposed “freedom”. Right? So go look into it, you’ll see.

And think about it, you never hear the “conservatives” or the “liberals” discuss it.   All they talk about is “getting back to the constitution” or whether it is “in” the constitution and whether the constitution is a “living document”.  But all of those arguments just beg the whole question!  Where does the constitution get ITS AUTHORITY OVER ME?  Where is the evidence that I or anyone else around here has ever actually consented to it? 

Oh, I'm sorry, I was just cleaning a bit for your morning freedom bath sir.

Sir, what are you doing?  You know  I don’t keep your consent under my skirt!  I was just cleaning a bit for your morning freedom bath.

Certainly the constitution doesn’t have my express consent.  Even the alleged scammed up vote on the constitution occurred before I was born.  It is impossible to have gotten my express consent in a vote that occurred before I was born.  So at best they must try and claim to have something the law calls, “implied consent”.

Implied consent can be read into a situation as a result of actions I take or don’t take when I should.  Sometimes it is a bit tricky to know if someone gave implied consent.  But in this case is it NOT.  Because all doubt is removed in the area of consent and you can NEVER have implied consent if the person speaks up and specifically says that they do not give their consent. So let’s clear that up right here and now. I Don’t consent.  lol

And THAT is why there is no method to either consent or Dissent from the constitution or the government it purports to create.  None. They are afraid of the outcome.  So they make sure people never ask such a basic question.  

Don't mind if I do, thank you.

I found this picture from one of my old law school text books. It was in the part discussing consent. The caption read,  Voluntary consent: “Don’t mind if I do, thank you.”

But there is yet another reason that we don’t need to get into an in depth discussion of whether there was some supposed implied consent.  It doesn’t matter if it is implied consent or express consent, ALL consent must be voluntary.  And you can’t have voluntary consent unless you are FREE TO SAY NO. 

AND IT IS SIMPLY BEYOND ANY DISPUTE THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY NO TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE GOVERNMENT IN THIS COUNTRY.  The supreme court has specifically held that we can’t leave the “voluntary union”, and I wrote about the case.

So there is no need to analyze whether there was “implied consent” because any consent I “gave” was not voluntary since nobody, including me, has a right to say no to the authority of the government.  So…. End of discussion. lol

But there is more. Not only does “consent” have to be “voluntary”, it has to be INFORMED.  But there is no way to “give” informed consent to an agent who claims to be the sole judge of the extent of its authority.  And the government tells us that the supreme court is the sole judge of what the “agreement”, (the constitution) says.  So I can’t give informed consent because I can’t be INFORMED of what powers I am giving them.   This is the insanity that passes for “law” and “freedom” in this country.

So I’m sorry, but any way you slice it, there is no way they have any valid consent, express or implied from me, zero.

So now let’s turn to agency law and see if they have an out there.

Unless I am mentally incompetent, Agencies require that I give the agent the authority to act on my behalf. And as I have said, a fancy agency is about all the government could ever even claim to be “for the people”.

So the first problem with any agency theory for the government is once again, consent.  In order for Congress or the president to be my legitimate agent, they must first get my consent to HAVE a congress and a president WITH THE POWERS they claim to hold. But once again, their “authority” is derived from the constitution and I have shown you that they don’t have my consent to the terms of that agreement and I have never gotten to vote on it.  So any agency created by it is NOT VALID against me. 

I think there has been a misunderstanding. I didn't agree to this.

I think there has been a misunderstanding. I didn’t agree to this.

But you may say, hold on, YOU do get to vote!! lol True, but not on WHETHER there will be an agent appointed, WHAT its powers will be, and HOW it will be appointed!! Those are the critical parts. I only get to choose between the whip and the cane, red or blue. 

Let me show you the difference.  What if I came up to you and told you that you will now be granted the right to “vote” on whether you wanted me or my friend to be your agent.  And, that as your agent we will now have full control of your finances.  I suspect you would say , no thanks I will handle my own finances.  But what if I then tell you that you don’t get THAT choice. THAT choice has already been made FOR YOU. Like the mob does.  Your finances are going to be taken over by an agent. THAT part has already been decided.  You are only free to choose or not choose me or my friend, but if you don’t choose, then other people will choose FOR YOU. That is criminal. It has nothing to do with consent or freedom.  

But THAT is the choice YOU are given in this country when you vote.  Do you want red or blue?   The AGENT has been forced upon you.  This does not create a VALID agency.  THAT type of “agency”would never withstand any legal challenge as the legitimate appointment of an “agent”.  It is absurd.  You have to FIRST agree that you WANT an AGENT, YOU MUST AGREE TO THE POWERS THAT THE AGENT WILL EXERCISE ON YOUR BEHALF, and you must agree to the manner of appointment for the agent.  You don’t get any of that because we never get to vote on the constitution ITSELF.

There are other problems with the “agency theory” as well but I won’t bother to get into them all for reasons of space. Suffice it to say that having a “secret vote” where nobody knows who voted for which agent and only the agent counts the votes, and then the agents claim to not have any liability to any of the specific “principals” i.e. voters, creates a LOT of problems.  Creating an agent with “secret principals” has strict requirements of liability and accountability.  Just think about it.   You can’t have both the agent and a secret principal claiming no responsibility for anything the agent does, yet purporting to bind all sorts of other people to the arrangement??  THAT makes no sense and is not recognized in the law.   Yet nonetheless that is what our “government agents’ claim is the law.  Are you getting the picture?

My friend, the truth has been out there a LONG Time.

My friend, the truth has been out there a LONG Time.

Another red herring argument the apologists make is that we the people have somehow “waived” any objection to the system by voting, or even by just living here! It is absurd.  Waivers have to be knowing AND VOLUNTARY, meaning you must be able to say NO to the waiver, so the same consent problem. Further, when were you ever apprised of some imaginary right to opt in or out?  Never, because it doesn’t exist.  Thus you have never KNOWINGLY WAIVED ANYTHING. 

But even more importantly, waivers only operate once some THING already IS THE LAW.  Do you understand?  Take the mob “finance example” I gave above.  If I presented you with that choice and you went ahead and “voted” for me just so I would leave your house have you “waived” your right to stop me from taking over your finances?? lol  Of course not. Why?  Because I had no authority to put you to such a CHOICE.  Before I can argue waiver I have to be able to FIRST show that I had a right to put you to such a choice.   And so does the government.  By making the waiver argument the apologists once again try and assume away the heart of the argument regarding the very basis for the government’s authority!

Look you can HAVE the pizza, I just want you to leave.

Look you can HAVE the pizza, I just want you to leave.  This man is a master of subtle coercion.  He loves the plausible deniability. lol

Finally, in order to get around the sticky problem of so many people clearly stating that they DO NOT CONSENT, and thus the government being exposed for the blatant coercion that it is,  the apologists claim the consent (by vote before you were born) or the waiver (you have never actually made) is or was somehow IRREVOCABLE.

Making such a ridiculous argument should be embarrassing to the followers of the constitution. Agencies are there to SERVE the person  making the agency, NOT the agent! lol  The agent can’t come in and claim the principal has no right to change its mind and to GET RID OF THE AGENT.  WHAT DO YOU THINK THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE EVEN WAS?? LOL.  Their argument in this area turns the whole concept they claim to be supporting about freedom and self determination under the constitution on its head. Plus, as a legal matter, Irrevocable agencies and “consent” have very special rules and this whole constitution thing doesn’t meet any of them.

And finally, I saved the best for last.  The high priests of the religion of the constitution have no answer to this objection and NEVER WILL so pay attention.

There is nothing in any law anywhere to support the idea that some person who I never met and who is long dead, had, has, or ever could have the power to create a binding agency AGAINST ME or to “consent for me” and for all other people for all times! That is beyond ridiculous

Remember, "if you don't vote you can't complain!" lol

Remember, “Get out the vote!!”  lol

But that is exactly what the back to the constitution crowd is in effect claiming.  That someone else’s vote 200 years ago irrevocably bound me and everyone else to that document.  Just think HOW FAR from freedom that idea is.  Ludicrous is the only thing that comes to mind.  Bordering on  mentally unstable really to believe that such a concept is even related to freedom?  Much less that it is the FOUNDATION of our freedom? lol

The simple fact is that the people running the whole scam and benefiting from it have intentionally confused the masses to their very core in order to control them, manipulate them and to steal from them.  Nothing more.  They have intentionally conflated the ideas of “voting” for a candidate with the concept of freedom.  That confusion is the heart of the “freedom” and “constitution” SCAM.  


What we actually have in this country is not a government of consent that we chose that has LEGITIMATE authority.  What we have is a government that has been HANDED to us that we specifically DO NOT get a choice in.  We, meaning you and me, haven’t chosen it.  Of course our whole lives we have been constantly TOLD that the government is based upon the consent of the people.  But that just is not true, and I just showed you that.

If the people ever caught on to the scale of the real scam being run on them what do you think would happen?  Well, let’s just say that I suspect the people might be a bit upset.  lol   Now you see why those in power insist on controlling education and everything else they can get their hands on.  They know their “authority” is balanced on the head of a pin because it is laughably ILLEGITIMATE!  So they lie and lie and lie and talk nonstop about freedom and the holy constitution.  Because they want to keep you distracted and the party going baby!   lol

Finally, a candidate with a plan that can actually WORK!

I finally found an honest back to the constitution guy.  He was giving this whole lecture on who the constitution had authority over and how it worked etc.  He kept disappearing periodically whenever he talked about the key points.  I had to say, his argument was persuasive.  

My friend, the whole “get back to the constitution” movement is just another controlled operation of those who benefit from the constitution scam.  Those who run the system PUSH that crap!  They finance it. They promote it. They reward the leaders of that nonsensical crap because it helps those in power continue their REAL SCAM.  And the real scam has nothing to do with left right conservative liberal nonsense.  Nothing. It is about control and MONEY.

The constitution has ZERO authority except for the working end of the guns the brainwashed government agents point at their own people.  Everything to the contrary is either part of the scam, or wishful thinking  people who have been brainwashed to imagine they are free. That is an undeniable fact.  You can face it or run from it. It makes no difference to me.

I hope I have made my point clear.  Any and all talk about freedom and a government of, by and for the people under the constitution is a complete fraud.  Nothing more.  

I am done for today.  Take care my brainwashed Brethren.  Move towards the light and tell someone the truth about the law.

Legalman IS the law.

Legalman IS the law.

39 thoughts on “The constitution has no legitimate authority.

  1. Absoluterights

    I’ve read quite a bit of your posts, and now wish to comment on this particular. Nice writing by the way 🙂

    The error is thinking that somehow “the people” established each government through its constitution.
    That is not correct.
    A super minority chartered organizations with the power to make, enforce, and uphold rules. Then that minority picked up guns (and rhetoric) and subjugated the balance of society to those rules.

    The state and federal charters are not contracts, they’re blueprints for tanks parked outside our living rooms. Does it matter when the blueprint was written? Who wrote it? Or that they’re all dead?

    The only thing that matters is that people keep jumping in the driver’s seat and aiming that big gun at our head 😉

    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Thank you Absolute for the compliment I’m glad you have enjoyed them. And you’re right of course. The people didn’t do anything. All you have to do is look at who could or even supposedly did “vote’ to send delegates to supposedly “ratify” the constitution. And then of course the very sticky problem that I haven’t agreed to ANY of it. So what do I care if some person in the past even did “ratify” it. It isn’t biding ON ME unless I RATIFY it.

      And of course the duped masses run around imagining that the constitution is something. That is has authority. That it is somehow “supreme law” because it is written on parchment with some sealers. It is asinine of course. But the people love their traditions. And they are told they have this proud history and so they support it. They want to be proud. So instead of looking at what they are actually supporting, they just run around “proud”. Not having any idea what they are even saying.

      Until the people stop allowing those who enforce these made up rules to live in peace amongst them, the people will be controlled. It is just that simple.

      And that of course is why the ptb’s spend untold millions upon millions of dollars on movies and tv and propaganda showing police being brave and protecting us from dangers. Show them as selflessly seeking justice. Same with D.A.’s and judges and the military and the government officials. THAT is the the absolute key to their game. Keep the people imagining that their neighbors who put them in cages for doing what everyone knows is the wishes of crooked politicians, are “doing the right thing” and upholding “law and order” and “keeping us safe”.

      The game has always been the same. It’s just that now they have electronic means to beam it into everyone’s heads constantly and to corrupt any “news” or other information so the masses continue to imagine that the government protects. If that were ever to go away, then there would not be police to enforce their made up rules, or judges to put people in cages, or people who would work as a prison guard for 30k a year and on and on. But that day is not coming from what I see. If anything the people are moving further away from reality and deeper into the fantasy that there are dangers everywhere that only government can protect us against.

      It really is just beyond silly. Frankly I have a very hard time having any real respect for the average person because they are so easily fooled. That doesn’t mean I would actively put them in cages or take advantage of them, but I understand why those in charge have no respect and do feel completely entitled to stick it to the people. If they will believe something this patently and obviously ABSURD and will go along and help them to exploit them, then why not give it to them. I think that is clearly the mindset of those in charge. And frankly, from a practical point of view it is hard to argue with. lol. it really just comes down to whether you are trying to be a good person or not. If you don’t care about that because you believe in the law of the jungle, well, then there is no reason. I don’t believe this is all there is, so I am stuck trying to do the right thing. lol, which of course is a losers game in this world. But knowing what the REAL game is and not playing is a whole other world of protection compared to imagining you’re playing the real game when you aren’t. That is the real lesson. Learn the reality. Then it is up to each person what they choose to do with that knowledge. — L

      1. Kram

        Nice Legal “Little Big” Man, getting into a bunch looking for remedies for all this is squarely an exercise in futility. My situation with the PTB’s is the extraction of my time and assets. I will openly and peacefully resist because I do not choose to voluntarily feed a primarily psychopathic grossly obese gluttonous parasite. Many going through indoctrination simply and silently comply to avoid any focus on themselves or backlash from so called authority period. They have seen what happens to the “boat rockers” and want no part… lol. I have questioned authority most of my life. There was a very crucial time my senior year in HS in which I had applied for the Air Force Academy had my letters from Congressmen, my GPA was appropriate and SAT’s within range…HooYah (My point*…Now if my application had been accepted lol my story would have been much different) … but as fate would have it I received a letter from the Academy that informed me that they wanted me to “retake” the SAT’s … well I had met a girl I was not committed to a sport as the Wrestling season had ended and I decided I was not going out for Track. I liked the girl, I liked the freedom. I was ready to party. I did not re-take the SATs… *if I had been accepted I would have learned NOT to question anything Authority dished out., including following orders to drop bombs on suspect humanity in faraway places.. I am fortunate that I followed a path away from further indoctrination. lol not that I care for either evil but I would rather be persecuted than be a persecutor. Peace … it is not just a word. Keep ur head down and keep posting those ideals.

  2. Kram

    I am having the time of my life. A dude said a couple of thousand years ago “Choose this day who you shall serve” either way you are a slave…. At least knowing has a freeing effect. Thanks Legalman. I am in 5 different Lawsuits and am a seeker on the fast track. Strangely calm and feeling blessed. Clearer than I have ever been. I will hang out here for a while. Peace.

  3. Tess Gardner

    So let’s launch a class action lawsuit … Citizens vs America … grounds: intentionally inflicting emotion distress … and seek both punitive and compensatory damages in the sum of whatever will bankrupt uncle sam, lol

    1. Hereticdrummer

      Uncle Sam is already bankrupt Tess, (or at least he pretends to be) but I admire your spunk. Some years ago I read about a legendary pro se litigant named Nathaniel Denman who sued the U.S. Congress and won. Unfortunately I don’t know the specifics of the case, but talk about a David and Goliath story.

      1. Tess Gardner

        Wonder if that was the eminent domain proceeding … anywhoo. .. my brain is throbbing, lol … so until the next post, thank you for engaging me in conversation.

  4. Hereticdrummer

    Another outstanding post Legalman. Con-artist-servatives of the blight wing bore me to tears when they bray like jackasses in a pepper patch about the “sacred” constitution. The framers did say that they ordain for themselves and their posterity this constitution, did they not? Well, I don’t know about the rest of you folks, but I sure as fuck ain’t of the posterity of those oligarchic, masonic, slave owning, scumbags and I seriously doubt anyone else here is as well. Besides, at last count there are approx. 4 million laws, statutes, and ordinances in Soviet America. The constitution clearly states that all laws contrary to it are null and void ab initio. How many of those 4 million does any person with two brain cells to rub together suppose could pass constitutional muster? A few hundred? A few thousand at most? That is a very generous estimate. Yet all of them are ruthlessly enforced by the system and its hirelings and sycophants. Further, the black robed, masonic swine known as judges at all levels have repeatedly ruled that the constitutional is pliable and subject to interpretation meaning that it has no meaning. It means whatever some halloween costumed, Bar mafia, ass wipe says it means for any given situation at any time. So what the fuck is the point then in even having a constitution under such ludicrous conditions? There is no point. It is all theatre for the masses who are asses. Power concedes nothing to the powerless.

    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      LOL nice one Hereticdrummer. The system really will create a reaction when you think about it. What a SHAM. I like the “halloween costumed” comment a lot too. lol. Oh wait, Rust has said I shouldn’t use lol, so… that made me laugh. — L

      1. Hereticdrummer

        Thanks Legalman, keep on punching brother. As we used to say in the red, white, and blue murder machine, fuck’em if they can’t take a joke. The joke is this Hamerican Slobocracy.

  5. rust

    Any author who uses “LOL” has no basis for legitimate discussion. If he had written, for example, “It makes me laugh out loud”, I would not object. Leave the LOLSPEAK for chat rooms and Twitter.

    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Bill R I would only say this. The NAME of the url is going to jar a lot of people. lol. But relax people, the site logo is a swastika with AN X’d OUT THROUGH IT. So it means NO nazisociopaths. Okay, nuff said. — L

        1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

          Well Bill, consider it done. If you want I will eliminate this response and your response as well so it appears as you originally desired. But you have to understand that I need to check simply because I have no interest in creating problems for my own site. Just let me know your desire. — L

  6. Publius

    The Constitution is an Iron clad contract for We the People and enforceable in a court of law.
    The judges/courts in this country are to act wholly and distinctly separate from that of legislative and executive power of state! This so the judges/ courts can protect the citizen from the overreaches and oppressions by the legislative and or executive powers of state. The judge despite what is written on their pay checks, they work for the people.
    We are a country built on the idea that no man, or set of men, are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community/country, but we seeing just the opposite happening.
    There are a small number to documents written from june 1776 to 1791 and most have never read them or can comprehend the intent and meaning.
    I can go on here but it would take many pages and days.

    1. Tess Gardner

      The Constitution derives its power from “we the people” and since “we the people” have allowed rogue authority to rule over us, far too many “unconstitutional” precedents have been set forth. .. reminds me of a Canadian “bobbie” … stop! Or I’ll say STOP again

      1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

        Well Tess in all fairness, I think the constitution derives its visible power from the guns that the government wields against we the people. But the real power lies in the people having been intentionally misinformed about what their government is. So the power lies in the ignorance of the people, not in the “we” of the people. — L

          1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

            No Tess, I have no idea if those who wrote it had good intentions or not. I have my theories, but that’s all they can be. The disinformation is that the constitution IS the law of the land we need to get back to. People need to understand that every person in every generation is responsible for their own agreements and that trying to bind people and coerce people is not right. If there are things in the constitution that make sense, great, we can use them. If there are things that don’t, then we need to ignore them.

            The trick they play is acting like there is this ONE LAW which of course they exempt themselves from all the time, and simply impose on us to get what they want. I can no more bind you than you can bind me. And I can no more bind people who aren’t born or aren’t here than they can bind me. Just like the supreme court can no more bind me in a case I wasn’t a part of EVEN IF the supreme court wanted to. It is all just made up. Once you eliminate the idea of divine rule, then the powers that be are stuck trying to come up with any kind of legitimate way to RUN, read CONTROL such a large mass of people. So they dreamed up this nonsense about voting for people who then bind everyone. Not saying as a practical matter you don’t need something on a small scale. But the thing is they want to run everyone, so they have to use systems that simply do not make any sense and are not about freedom or liberty or anything else. They are about controlling a large mass of people in order to drain them dry. That is what we live under. — L

          1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

            Ahh Tess, there’s the rub. lol. That is why they lie about the so called “civil war”. I have written about that as well. You can’t have a voluntary pact, that you can’t leave. The constitution might work fine IF AND ONLY IF it was clear the states could leave anytime they wanted. AND any local area within a state could also opt out of the state and the “country”. That is what real freedom is about. But THAT is what they specifically DON’T allow. lol — L

    2. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Well Publius I think I just showed that it is not. Nobody can enter into a contract for me but me or someone I agree to let do that. So it fails step one. Thus NO CONTRACT. There is no such thing as “we the people”. Those people are all dead. I was not born. Thus I am not included in the we the people for whatever authority that “contract” had. As to it being enforceable, no it is not. I have no standing to seek enforcement of it. You are not entitled to challenge the validity of the “iron clad contract”. So the idea that it is an iron clad contract for we the people and enforceable is just, sadly, not true. As to the judiciaries “independence” despite what’s on their check. That, my friend is called a FATAL conflict of interest. Would it be okay for a judge to sit on your trial who was on the payroll of the people suing you? Of course not. No matter how many hail mary’s the judge said and swore how he would be independent. The relationship SPEAKS FOR ITSELF and the relationship destroys any legitimate independence. The kangaroo courts that the people laugh at all over the world have nothing on our system. That is reality. — L

  7. t45

    Of course it has a legitimate authority, on paper. That would be Vatican in first instance, followed by the british crown.

    All our laws are based on the papal bull from the 1200’s which declared the world as “property of God”, with the church being the legal representant of God. All later laws are based on this, from Magna Carta to all the modern constitutions.

    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Lol, yes Tess, I think that is normal. When the full scope of the fraud is unveiled it is quite disturbing. For me one of the most disturbing aspects was how thoroughly I had believed the lies I had been told. I really thought I was free! lol — L

  8. dan koston

    When I tell people that moeny isn’t real, the irs is a criminal organization, and the earth is flat, they give me that “your fucking crazy dude” look.

    1. Grey

      It’s all bullshit. To think we believed we were stuck to the side of a huge ball that spins over 1000 miles per hour and travels around the sun at 67,000. Not only that but we follow the sun spiraling through space at 600,000 miles per hour while our galaxy rotates around the center of the known universe at 6,000,000 miles per hour, yet the stars above our heads haven’t changed in thousands of years (despite the fact that we supposedly traverse trillions of miles of space every year)!

      Oh yeah, vote Republican this year! (sarcasm).

      1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

        Lol, nice Grey. I cannot admit or deny any knowledge regarding that comment. lol I will only say that I find it curious that the moon’s illumination is supposedly due to its changing orbital position around the earth. Yet during a new moon, the data from the Navy itself shows that the moon’s illumination often remains at 0% for more than a day. How? Has it stopped moving? lol Very curious. I have searched for explanation without any success. Perhaps someone else knows the answer.

        I agree with you Grey, EVERYthing must be suspect at this point. They lie lie lie lie lie! lol — L

        1. Grey

          Right on Legal man!

          I have to say that everything is suspect also, and that I really don’t know very much. I suspect some things, no doubt but what do I really know? Human beings are very trusting of their “authorities” and it has always been our downfall. I’ve been reading your articles for at least a year (and probably read some here and there over the years) and it seems to me that the constitution is a bunch of bullshit. It naturally follows that everything else coming from these people is most likely a lie also.

          NASA – Never a straight answer.

  9. Mindblower

    Freedom does not exist.
    Everything you know is learned from others, school, parents, society, culture.
    Even the words you use and your thoughts are not your own.

    You have to accept the reality as it is imposed on you otherwise you go crazy, but finding out that it is all fiction and that there are no real solutions, that there is no way out, who knows what will happen or not.


Leave a Reply

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