THE PRINCIPLE- The Movie Big Science Does NOT want YOU to see. SEE IT NOW.



The Principle
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 28 of 28

Thread: There is no law that forces us to be US CITIZENS.

  1. #21
    Unobtanium crimethink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Mystery Babylon
    Posts
    11,315
    Thanks
    7,902
    Thanked 5,365 Times in 3,456 Posts

    Re: There is no law that forces us to be US CITIZENS.

    You cannot be "tricked" into accepting a contract. If the parties are not fully-informed of the terms, or even the existence of the contract itself, the contract is null and void.

    Any instrument or process that makes you something other than you were without your informed consent has no authority.
    crimethink - To even consider any thought not in line with the principles of Ingsoc. Doubting any of the principles of Ingsoc. All crimes begin with a thought. So, if you control thought, you can control crime. "Thoughtcrime is death. Thoughtcrime does not entail death, Thoughtcrime is death.... The essential crime that contains all others in itself."

    ==

    "Without God...everything is permitted."

  2. #22
    Unobtanium crimethink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Mystery Babylon
    Posts
    11,315
    Thanks
    7,902
    Thanked 5,365 Times in 3,456 Posts

    Re: There is no law that forces us to be US CITIZENS.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bigjon View Post
    Since no law compells me to be a United States Citizen, I chose to be a Minnesotan, which is not a United States Citizen or a Citizen.
    Citizen is a public office.

    Denouncing United State Citizenship gives me back my god given rights that were converted to civil rights.
    The Federal regime considers you a "US Citizen" whether you denounce or renounce it or not. You are its subject not by right of law, but force of arms.

    Jesus Christ was the Sovereign of the Kingdom of Heaven, but that didn't stop the Roman Empire from putting Him to death in His human form.

    This world is the Devil's, and while you should - and have the obligation to - refuse & resist, never imagine that your wishes or will shall be honored. In fact, it will be laughed at by goons with guns.
    crimethink - To even consider any thought not in line with the principles of Ingsoc. Doubting any of the principles of Ingsoc. All crimes begin with a thought. So, if you control thought, you can control crime. "Thoughtcrime is death. Thoughtcrime does not entail death, Thoughtcrime is death.... The essential crime that contains all others in itself."

    ==

    "Without God...everything is permitted."

  3. #23
    Unobtanium crimethink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Mystery Babylon
    Posts
    11,315
    Thanks
    7,902
    Thanked 5,365 Times in 3,456 Posts

    Re: There is no law that forces us to be US CITIZENS.

    Quote Originally Posted by monty View Post
    One is the union of 50 independent States combined into a 3-branch (Legislative, Executive & Judicial) Republican Form o fgovernment under a contract called: The Constitution of the United States of America.
    Who or what were the parties to this contract?

    Governments of states, or the People themselves?

    Then as now, the governments of states.

    So, by what authority does the Federal regime exercise its power over non-parties? Consent? In what manner? By participating in the sham of "elections"? Perhaps - and this would explain why the Federal regime pushes "voter registration" at every point in this society. They sure don't want your opinion, only your consent via their sorcerous scheme.

    The Federal regime cannot claim its theoretical "authority" by the fact you live on human-defined territory if God Himself placed you on that territory. Only "naturalized" persons can be subject to its authority. This does not restrain the Federal regime's power over you, however - it can and will kill you if you actively resist it, no matter your citizenship or arguments against it. For the Devil empowers all governments of this Earth.
    crimethink - To even consider any thought not in line with the principles of Ingsoc. Doubting any of the principles of Ingsoc. All crimes begin with a thought. So, if you control thought, you can control crime. "Thoughtcrime is death. Thoughtcrime does not entail death, Thoughtcrime is death.... The essential crime that contains all others in itself."

    ==

    "Without God...everything is permitted."

  4. #24
    Unobtanium crimethink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Mystery Babylon
    Posts
    11,315
    Thanks
    7,902
    Thanked 5,365 Times in 3,456 Posts

    Re: There is no law that forces us to be US CITIZENS.

    Quote Originally Posted by monty View Post
    (((Howard Freeman)))
    Just how many Jews are involved in these "free yourself with the UCC" scams?

    I suspect the peddlers of these schemes are motivated by two primary reasons:

    1) money, of course - most of this "education" is not free, and swallows up huge piles of cash from books and seminars from those who think they are then "enlightened" (Luciferian term);
    2) some of them are surely controlled "opposition," willful collaborators*, possibly even funded by the regime itself, in order to create the "argument" that the People are to blame themselves for being enslaved, for "not knowing their remedy." This would accord with the regime's rabid campaign to get everyone to "register to vote," which it considers an occult/shysteresque "consent of the governed."




    * they probably also serve to entrap unsuspecting Goyim for persecution by the regime.
    crimethink - To even consider any thought not in line with the principles of Ingsoc. Doubting any of the principles of Ingsoc. All crimes begin with a thought. So, if you control thought, you can control crime. "Thoughtcrime is death. Thoughtcrime does not entail death, Thoughtcrime is death.... The essential crime that contains all others in itself."

    ==

    "Without God...everything is permitted."

  5. #25
    Unobtanium palani's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,510
    Thanks
    512
    Thanked 2,718 Times in 1,848 Posts

    Re: There is no law that forces us to be US CITIZENS.

    Quote Originally Posted by crimethink View Post
    The Federal regime considers you a "US Citizen" ....
    There is no 'federal regime'. The scheme is a NATIONAL one rather than a FEDERAL one. This is part of the subterfuge. If they were still masking as federal I expect there would be fewer arguments.
    Make me one with everything.
    -- Zen Master to the hot dog vendor

  6. #26
    Unobtanium crimethink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Mystery Babylon
    Posts
    11,315
    Thanks
    7,902
    Thanked 5,365 Times in 3,456 Posts

    Re: There is no law that forces us to be US CITIZENS.




    He didn't know His "remedy."

    crimethink - To even consider any thought not in line with the principles of Ingsoc. Doubting any of the principles of Ingsoc. All crimes begin with a thought. So, if you control thought, you can control crime. "Thoughtcrime is death. Thoughtcrime does not entail death, Thoughtcrime is death.... The essential crime that contains all others in itself."

    ==

    "Without God...everything is permitted."

  7. #27
    Great Value Carrots
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,440
    Thanks
    1,074
    Thanked 720 Times in 420 Posts

    Re: There is no law that forces us to be US CITIZENS.

    How to Correct Your Political Status and Why

    Posted on April 23, 2017by David Robinson
    Judge Anna von Reitz

    Chances are you aren’t obligated to be considered any form of federal Municipal CITIZEN nor as a federal Territorial Citizen, but you have been entrapped in a profit-making scheme that pretends that you have knowingly and willingly agreed to act as a volunteer federal employee— specifically, as a “Withholding Agent” — a Warrant Officer in the Merchant Marine Service, and that you have purposefully and knowingly enrolled in the Social Security program which is only available to federal employees in order to receive benefits from the Public Charitable Trust (PCT) which was organized in the wake of the Civil War for welfare relief of former plantation slaves.

    What? You never worked a day for the federal government? You were never told that “Social Security” is only for federal employees and dependents? You aren’t a former plantation slave? You never got any benefits?

    Well, then, you have to stop calling yourself any kind of “US citizen” — because citizens all work for the government. They have a duty and obligation to obey every statute, code, and whim of the government as a result, and they are also liable to pay federal income taxes. You also have to stop voting in any “US elections” including “State of State” elections, because the States of States are just local franchises of the federal corporation(s) defined at 28 USC 3002 (15).

    So, Step One— withdraw and rescind any and all applications and enrollments as a “registered voter”. You have no natural interest in the elections of a foreign corporation that you don’t work for, right?

    If you don’t get a paycheck direct from the federal government and you don’t want to function as a for-free Withholding Agent and aren’t interested in any “benefits” that you pay for yourself and don’t want to be held subject to the whims of a foreign entity that is supposed to be providing you with Good Faith Service instead– then read on.

    You have been mis-characterized and defrauded and you have prima facie evidence of that readily available. You think of it as your Birth Certificate, but it isn’t. It is a “certification” that a federal MUNICIPAL “PERSON” was created and named after you and that at one point in your life you were a real American. You were born on your birthday, but the MUNICIPAL PERSON has a birth date which is several days or weeks later—the filing date shown on the certificate.

    Please note that the “Birth Certificate” is printed on bond paper. It is a security instrument. Please also note that it has been signed by the Registrar — an officer of the probate court. This is prima facie evidence that your earthly estate was probated when you were only a few days or weeks old and that it was seized upon by the State of ___________ or STATE OF_________ and operated for its benefit from that time on.

    So, Step Two—- ditch the federal MUNICIPAL PERSON and the responsibilities and obligations associated with it.

    You need to get the Birth Certificate authenticated if that is still possible in your state, or certified, if not, and then you need to endorse it and “surrender” it to the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury.

    (Please note the two dots between the “U” and the “S”—– the U.S. Treasury.) and make Steven T. Mnuchin the Fiduciary responsible for IT.

    The endorsement is simple but exact. The authenticated or certified Birth Certificate that the birth State Secretary of State sends back to you will have a cover page riveted or hard stapled and firmly attached to the front of the BC. You leave that cover page attached and on the front of the BC itself in the upper left hand corner and in red ink you write: “Accepted by Drawee” and sign it by: Your Upper Lower Case Signature, and date it.

    Then turn the BC over and on the back anywhere write: Pay to the Order of the United States of America, U.S. Treasury. Without Recourse. And again, write— by: Your Upper and Lower Case Signature, and date it.

    Next comes the Form 56, which is the IRS Form called “Notice of Fiduciary Relationship”. This is your Notice to Mr. Mnuchin that you are making him and his office responsible for the PERSON named after you.

    The Form 56 is very simple — the name of the PERSON is the NAME on the BC which you are returning to the Treasury.

    The name of the Fiduciary is Steven T. Mnuchin, Secretary of the Treasury. You can look up the address online. I believe it is 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20220.

    Section A (f) — “Other” — Public Commercial Trust Administration

    Section B(4) — Check (a) (b) and (h) “Other” and just say, “All forms that may be necessary”.

    On the back, Part II, 7 (C) “Other” — Surrender of federal “PERSON” to U.S. Treasury

    On the back, Part III “Court and Administrative Proceedings” — enter the name and address of the agency issuing the BC. The “date proceeding initiated” will be the File Date which is never your birthday, but a few days or weeks later. The “docket number” will be the State File Number on the BC. The time will be the time you were actually born, and the place of “other” proceedings will be “usa”.

    On the back, Part IV, “Signature” —- you write the word “by” like a by-line to a newspaper story—- by: Your Name (Upper and Lower Case), Authorized Representative, and the date.

    Underneath the Signature is a blank space. It is appropriate to say that you wish to be indemnified against claims or losses under the sovereign usa Private Registered Indemnity Bond AMRI00001 RA393427640US.

    This is basically a bond posted in behalf of all the actual states of the Union and all the people living in those states insuring them against any further claims related to the MUNICIPAL PERSON(S) they have surrendered back to Mr. Mnuchin.

    And that is that. You have now surrendered the MUNICIPAL “CITIZEN” back whence it came and you have insured yourself against any further claims or losses or charges brought against that PERSON.

    Along with the Form 56 you should include a brief letter stating that it is your instruction to operate exclusively under 100% commercial liability and without benefit of any limited liability or other benefit of the Public Charitable Trust (PCT).

    You are going to send this package of documents via Registered Mail to the Treasury. Each red and white Registered Mail label (available with instructions at all Post Offices) is unique and has an alpha-numeric identifier to track it. This includes a nine-digit number that is compatible with the federal system. As part of your assignment letter, instruct Mr. Mnuchin to open a Treasury Direct Account with that number and to please inform you when it is open for business. Also ask him to settle all debts and charges related to YOUR NAME and deposit the remainder and all other credits owed into the new Treasury Direct Account.

    Thank him for his time and attention.

    Well, that was a Royal Pain and you shouldn’t have ever been entrapped and obligated by your employees in the first place, but now you have taken action to sever the presumption that you are volunteering to act as a federal MUNICIPAL CITIZEN, and nobody can say otherwise. From now on, “IT” is Mr. Mnuchin’s problem and you are indemnified against any further claims or complaints related to “IT”.

    Step 3…. Notify both the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service at Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 480, Holtsville, New York, 11742-0480 and the Internal Revenue Office of the Commissioner, Room 3000, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20204-0002, that you have retired from all presumed federal service and you are revoking your election to pay federal income taxes effective October 1 of 2016. Send these Notices via Registered Mail, too. Save a copy and the mailing receipts and the Green Card Return Receipt Requested for your Eternally Done and Over File.

    No more Voter Registration, no more obligation to file Federal Income Taxes and no Municipal United States PERSON for the US DISTRICT COURT — that is, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DISTRICT COURT to address.

    That much is done and over.

    But there’s more.

    You also have to rebut and return the allegation of Territorial United States Citizenship. You do this by recording an Act of Expatriation.

    This is as simple as saying that your allegiance is to the soil of your native birth state, say, Louisiana, and that you act only as a private American state trading vessel and birthright member of the unincorporated private trade association doing business as The United States of America.

    Now, no matter what kind of word-smithing and duplicitous redefining of terms that goes on forever afterward, no incorporated entity or franchise of any incorporated entity can claim that you are operating as a Foreign Situs Trust belonging to them or abandoned for their benefit—- which was FDR’s fraudulent claim against Americans in 1933.

    You have declared that at home you are living on the land and at sea your Name is an American vessel engaged in international trade— not subject to federal regulation of commerce and owed all the protections of the actual Constitution and treaties backing it.

    So now they have no grounds to “presume” that you are a Territorial United States Citizen, either.

    X and X.

    Finally, the rats have created “International Organizations” and run them “in your name”. You need to seize upon these organizations and file liens against them. You do this using a UCC-1 Financing Statement Form. The organizations doing business as your FIRST MIDDLE LAST and FIRST M.I. LAST are the DEBTORS and your non-Territorial Lawful Trade Name (aka Christian Name– First Middle Last) is the Secured Party. This is not a Notice of your interest, because you have already given plenty of public notice. You can lien these organizations directly by checking the “Non-UCC” claim in Box 6.

    When filling out the UCC-1 Form be sure to write the names in the proper style. Everything related to the DEBTORS including USA should be in all capital letters. Everything related to the Secured Party should be Upper and Lower Case, except that for the Secured Party it should be “usa” — the actual organic states.

    And now, finally, you have provided your employees with a fistful of paperwork refuting all their lies and presumptions about you. They can no longer presume anything about your political status, except that it is private and that you are operating lawfully and without any obligation to them or their organization. Quite the opposite— they are in fact your employees and obligated to you.

    Your final stop should be the State Secretary of State’s Office to present him with another copy of “your” authenticated/certified BC.

    I want you to stare that man or woman right in the eye and say: “This is prima facie evidence of a Public Trust…..”

    If necessary, continue on—– “and also prima facie evidence of intent to defraud.”

    “I have reclaimed my birthright political status and I want the proper passport I am owed. If you aren’t authorized to issue it, get on the phone and find out who is.”

    If they attempt to drag you into one of their courts ask them where they will find the authority to address you? And where will they find a jury of your peers?

    The Great Fraud is over.

    The international trustees responsible for this Mess know that it is. You know that it is. It is just a matter of time before the whole world wakes up and goes—- WT…..?

  8. #28
    Iridium monty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    North of The Equator
    Posts
    5,358
    Thanks
    2,466
    Thanked 4,018 Times in 2,644 Posts

    Re: There is no law that forces us to be US CITIZENS.

    Liberty or Laws? Justice or Despotism.

    Gary Hunt at Outpost of Freedom wrote a pretty good article on the jury's role in promoting justice.

    [Sir William Blackstone was the 'mentor' of the framers of the Constitution http://constitutionalmilitia.org/william-blackstone/]

    [It has been said one of the reasons Noah Webster wrote his dictionary was to keep politicians from changing the meanings of words.]

    http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=2182

    Liberty or Laws?

    Justice or Despotism?



    Gary Hunt
    Outpost of Freedom
    July 10, 2017


    When the colonies severed their allegiance to England, in 1776, through the adoption of the Constitution in 1789, they had to have some form of law upon which to deal with matters, both criminal and civil. To do so, they adopted the Common Law of England, as it existed on July 4, 1776. This, then, became the foundation of laws upon which both the federal government and state governments began the process of developing their judicial systems.

    What is important to understand is that the laws that they adopted were concerned with Justice. For example, though Webster’s 1828 dictionary has no definition of “judicial”, an adjective, it does have one for that body that is responsible for that function of government, the Judiciary:
    JUDI’CIARY, n. That branch of government which is concerned in the trial and determination of controversies between parties, and of criminal prosecutions; the system of courts of justice in a government. An independent judiciary is the firmest bulwark of freedom.

    Through our history, there have been legal scholars who stand well above the current lot, in that their concern for justice was paramount in their considerations, and the subject of much of their scholarly writings.

    Perhaps the best known of these legal scholars was Sir William Blackstone (1723-1780), and his seminal “Blackstone’s Commentaries. From Book 1 of those Commentaries, we find some familiar phraseology:
    “[A] subordinate right of every Englishman is that of applying to the courts of justice for redress of injuries. Since the law is in England the supreme arbiter of every man’s life, liberty, and property, courts of justice must at all times be open to the subject, and the law be duly administered therein.”“And we have seen that these rights consist, primarily, in the free enjoyment of personal security, of personal liberty, and of private property.”

    Of course, personal security is best defined as “life”, as without it, we have nothing. And, Blackstone used the common term, “property”, as did most of the declarations of independence that predate Jefferson’s more poetic version.

    What else did Sir Blackstone tells us about justice that was of extreme importance then, and should be equally so, now. When he discusses Felony Guilt, he states his understanding and then refers to another scholar, Sir Matthew Hale (1609-1676), from Book 4:
    “Presumptive Evidence of Felony. All presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer. Sir Matthew Hale lays down two rules:
    (1) Never to convict a man for stealing the goods of a person unknown, merely because he will not account how he came by them; unless an actual felony be proved of such goods.
    (2) Never to convict any person of murder or manslaughter, till at least the body be found dead.”

    This subject can easily be set aside by the government simply stating that “times have changed”, since Blackstone wrote the Commentaries in the 1760s. However, that discounts the fact that justice cannot change, only the misapplication of justice can change. That latter is quite simply defined as injustice.

    The Constitution provided two means by which the constitutionality of a law could be challenged. The first, found in Article I, § 9, clause 2:
    The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

    See Habeas Corpus – The Guardian of Liberty

    The second is, of course, the right to a trial by jury. But, how can that provide for justice instead of simply the laws? Quite simply, since the government is “of the People”, those People were to be the final arbiter of the laws enacted by the legislature. Absent such protection from unconstitutional or unjust laws, the People would be subject to the whims of the legislators or administrative agencies, without recourse. That, as you will see, results in despotism.
    Revisiting the two methods, the former, habeas corpus, is a judicial function whereby an individual can challenge the constitutionality or the applicability to his person, of any law that has led to his incarceration. The latter is the collective group, the jury, judging they law, also, as to constitutionality and applicability, as well as justice.

    The government might argue that we left behind English Common Law so that we could adopt a better system. So, let’s look at the better system that was adopted after the Constitution, and is still embodied in the Maryland Constitution, and in the Declaration of Rights:
    Art. 23. In the trial of all criminal cases, the Jury shall be the Judges of Law, as well as of fact, except that the Court may pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction.

    Clearly, this article, this inherent right, is suggestive of the intent of the jury trial process, both in England and in the fledgling United States of America.

    Though not specifically expressed, the governments, both the states and the federal have not, for good cause, enacted a law prohibiting a jury from judging the law, as well as the facts. Instead, it has been left to the discretion of the judge to endeavor to deny that fundamental right, a right that serves not only the defendant, but the people as well.

    There have been periods in our history where nullification of laws by juries has resulted in the legislative branch realizing that the law enacted was not consistent with the will of the people, and then sought to repeal those laws. Here are two examples of such impact on such legislation.

    First was a constitutional amendment, the 18th Amendment (1919) prohibited the “manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors”. Many juries refused to convict violators of the laws enacted under the authority of the Amendment. Ultimately, this led to the repeal of the Amendment by the 21st Amendment (1933). The will of the People was heard and addressed.

    Next has to do with another law enacted under authority of the Constitution, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Just two years later, in 1852, Lysander Spooner wrote “An Essay on the Trial By Jury“, which addressed the inherent right of the jury to judge the law, also to encourage people to find those charged with violation of the slave act, to judge the law and find them not guilty. In so doing, he gave us additional insight into the inherent right of the jury:
    “FOR more than six hundred years that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215 there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused;
    but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such laws.

    Unless such be the right and duty of jurors, it is plain that, instead of juries being a “palladium of liberty” a barrier against the tyranny and oppression of the government they are really mere tools in its hands
    , for carrying into execution any injustice and oppression it may desire to have executed.

    But for their right to judge of the law, and the justice of the law, juries would be no protection to an accused person, even as to matters of fact; for, if the government can dictate to a jury any law whatever, in a criminal case, it can certainly dictate to them the laws of evidence
    . That is, it can dictate what evidence is admissible, and what inadmissible, and also what force or weight is to be given to the evidence admitted. And if the government can thus dictate to a jury the laws of evidence, it can not only make it necessary for them to convict on a partial exhibition of the evidence rightfully pertaining to the case, but it can even require them to convict on any evidence whatever that it pleases to offer them.

    That the rights and duties of jurors must necessarily be such as are here claimed for them, will be evident when it is considered what the trial by jury is, and what is its object.

    “The trial by jury,” then, is a “trial by the country” that is, by the people as distinguished from a trial by the government
    .

    It was anciently called “trial per pais” that is, “trial by the country.” And now, in every criminal trial, the jury are told that the accused “has, for trial, put himself upon the country; which country you (the jury) are.”

    The object of this trial “by the country,” or by the people, in preference to a trial by the government, is to guard against every species of oppression by the government. In order to effect this end, it is indispensable that the people, or “the country,” judge of and determine their own liberties against the government; instead of the government’s judging of and determining its own powers over the people. How is it possible that juries can do anything to protect the liberties of the people against the government, if they are not allowed to determine what those liberties are?

    Any government, that is its own judge of, and determines authoritatively for the people, what are its own powers over the people, is an absolute government of course. It has all the powers that it chooses to exercise. There is no other or at least no more accurate definition of a despotism than this
    .

    On the other hand, any people, that judge of, and determine authoritatively for the government, what are their own liberties against the government, of course retain all the liberties they wish to enjoy. And this is freedom. At least, it is freedom to them; because, although it may be theoretically imperfect, it, nevertheless, corresponds to their highest notions of freedom
    .”

    What has happened, over time, however, is that the courts have assumed the role that is rightfully that of the jury. This has been accomplished by methods that absolutely reject the idea of justice.
    First is what came into being in 1872 called the “case law method”, developed by Harvard University.

    Theodore Roosevelt, one of the early students taught the “case law method”, while a student at Columbia University. In describing his concern over case law, he wrote, “we are concerned with [the] question of what law is, not what it ought to be.” And, that “is” is what the courts decided what it “is”, not what the legislature might have thought “is” was when they enacted the law.
    However, the legislature has no remedy, so case law prevails in our current judicial system.

    The “case law method” favors decisions made in lower courts, both appellate and occasionally district, have been used to ‘interpret’ what was ‘intended’ when a law was written by the Legislative Branch of the government. In so doing, most often there is “case law” that supports one side and then “case law” that supports the other side, of a criminal prosecution.

    The second method, and extension of the first, is the discretion of the judge, who then determines who is right and who is wrong, assuming a role that should be the purview of the jury. However, that decision, what the law is, is made even before the jury hears the matter.

    The “case law” is bantered about long before the case goes to trial, during what might rightfully be deemed “the Paper Chase”. Thus depriving the jury of the benefit of what a written law means, since the court has determined what instruction the jury will be given. The jury must come to a verdict, not on the written law, rather on what the court says that the written law says.

    [Note: Some previous articles that discuss the “case law method”:Camp Lone Star – Act Two: The Contradictions Scene 3: To Be, or Not to Be – Forthright, Camp Lone Star – Act II – A Kangaroo Court – Scene 1 – How Case Law Subverts the Constitution, Camp Lone Star – The King Can Do No Wrong, or Can He?, and Burns Chronicles No 25 – Juror Shopping & Secrecy.]

    This, then, brings us full circle, back to what the Founders wrote when the purpose of the Constitution was explained in the Federalist Papers. It was James Madison, in Federalist #62, that discussed “The mischievous effects of a mutable government” when he addressed the purpose of laws:


    The internal effects of a mutable [def: liable to change] policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?”

    They are voluminous because there are tens of thousands of previous cases (case law) that often present many dozens of interpretations of a written law. For those who have read case law, many decisions are less than coherent; they are often nearly undecipherable and contradictory. They tend to change between court decision made upon the same statutory law, and are, quite frankly, outside of the mental capacity of most people to understand just what is, and what is not, the law.

    So, just how can that be “a rule of action”, when it cannot meet the simple standards set forth by Madison?
    From that which so many strived for, over two hundred years ago, we have slowly digressed in what Spooner described as “despotism”. Just 76 years before Spooner scribed those words, Thomas Jefferson had advised us,“But when long trains of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide for new guards for their future security.”

    Share this:








    Like this:

    http://constitutionalmilitia.org/
    "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State"

    "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the most Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." July 4, 1776

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •