There Is A Strategy

July 22, 2024 | Civil Liberties, Constitution, General, Militia, Sovereignty

by Nicholas Testaccio

I am going to start with a story that is worth telling. It is the story of a man, whom I met many years ago. A man of great courage, honor, and dignity. A man, the likes of whom, we need today, one of exemplary fortitude and the willingness to face his humanity, but more importantly, to face one of the most corrupt institutions that operate as a so-called legitimate agency.

Robert L. Schulz held a hunger strike at the Capitol demanding that the IRS cite the law that makes the average citizen, who simply earns a living, liable to pay an income tax. The IRS did not answer the question, although the hunger strike was ended at the behest of men like Ron Paul who negotiated with the IRS to answer the questions. As a note to this, Ron Paul had publicly stated that the income tax was being misapplied.

Importantly, the courts have ruled;

Sims v. Ahrens, 167 Ark. 557, 271 S.W. 720, 733 (1925):

Lead Opinion

“From these cases it is seen that occupations which are of common right are not privileges, and cannot be taxed by the State, because this clause by limiting the State tax to privileges necessarily excludes taxes on all occupations which are not privileges.”

Concurrence

“[T]he Legislature has no power to declare as a privilege and tax for revenue purposes occupations that are of common right, but it does have the power to declare as privileges and tax as such for state revenue purposes those pursuits and occupations that are not matters of common right…”

Jack Cole Co. v. MacFarland, 337 S.W.2d 453, 455-56 (Tenn. 1960):

“Realizing and receiving income or earnings is not a privilege that can be taxed.

“Since the right to receive income or earnings is a right belonging to every person, this right cannot be taxed as a privilege.”

Of course, there are supreme court decisions that clarify the purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment, which prevented the misapplication of taxes rather than what it has become through corruption. – See Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916) and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916), in which the court reiterated its clarification of the proper interpretation of the Amendment. The Amendment was instituted to prevent a direct tax on the wages and earnings of the citizen. The purpose was to prevent occupations of common right to be placed in the category of an excise. 26 U.S.C. confirms this by specifically listing sources and activities that are taxable.

Why is the misapplication of the income tax so important, particularly at this time when our national debt has exceeded THIRTY-FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS, and our National Debt increases by more than a staggering ONE TRILLION DOLLARS every three months.

Most people believe that the purpose of the income tax is to run government. When properly applied as an excise, impost, or tariff that would make it so. Many  suppose that taxation is in part to affect a redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor. There is nothing further from the truth. The intent of the current application of the income tax is to steal from the lower classes and enhance the wealth and power of the elites.

Think critically about our monetary system. The Treasury prints FIAT dollars, or the FED adds zeros, in huge quantities to the bottom line of large institutions to bolster the economy. Why does the Treasury issue bonds for borrowing money when they can just print what is needed,  tax accordingly, and save Trillions in interest payments? What reason other than to increase the wealth of the elite and place the tab on the back of the average citizen?

The debt will continue to increase, and taxes will continue to sap the wealth of the lower classes in order that “public officials” may  bring about their sinister agenda. We need only look to the WEF (World Economic Forum) whose stated goal is to take everything. The rich will become richer, and the poor will suffer under the boot of an authoritarian state.

There are mechanisms, means by which we can thwart what appears to be inevitable now. Bob Schulz went to the NRA and proposed a plan of making a two sided attack against the abuses of government.

The National Rifle Association is the largest organization of its kind in the world. Over Five Million Members who could turn the tide if they chose to do so. Envision a movement demanding that the IRS cite the law that makes you and I liable to pay an income tax on our gross income. A term that is, at best, ambiguous within the code, in addition, to which the code enumerates specific sources and activities that create a liability. The specificity detailed within the code must be followed to the letter.

However, the NRA refused to join forces. Why? Fighting winning battles does not work well with such organizations or alternative media personalities. I have been out on the street talking to people for  years. The percentage of people who believe that there is nothing they can do, and that their vote does not count is quite disconcerting. I have news for the likes of Ben Shapiro, Charlie Kirk, Dan Bongino, Tim Pool, Steven Crowder, Alex Jones, and a host of others. We already know that something is very wrong. What we need to know is how “We the People” fix it, using the Laws we created. Your disregard, or misunderstanding of our unique form of Law is, at best, sad.

I will repeat myself. The Constitution is a uniform document that enumerates powers, and  prohibitions. “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” Those words are quoted from Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, to which “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution”. Ask yourself, what “Privileges and Immunities”  have we retained?

Please don’t tell me that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights” do not include the authorities found in Law, and history, upon which the Framers relied. Do not pretend that the Framers were unclear in the ratification; “In expounding the Constitution of the United States, every word must have its due force, and appropriate meaning, for it is evident from the whole instrument, that no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added. *** Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation and its force and effect to have been fully understood.”– Williams v United States 289 U.S. 553

Let us not pretend that the Framers were without the foresight to provide themselves and their posterity with the authority and power “to execute the Laws of the Union”. As it is today, then, the ink was not dry on the Constitution when those seeking power contorted and demeaned the carefully constructed wording and function.

The Constitution must be read by “What *** those who framed and adopted [the Constitution] underst[oo]d [its] terms to designate and include.” – Pollack v. Farmers Loan and Trust Company, 157 US 429, 558. I quote Pollack here because it is a tax case, on a direct tax, that overturned the 1893 act of congress, and subsequently led to the Sixteenth Amendment’s clarification of the original definition at Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, which lists “Imposts and Excises *** to pay the debts of the United States”.  

Lift the Veil, cast aside that curtain that blinds us and prevents the reclamation of the Republic. We must learn some truths and throw off the yoke that holds us down. What form of enforcement would the Founders recognize, and then codify to hold all government accountable, at every level?

Captain John Parker mustered on the Lexington Greens with his 70 Militia who were organized, armed, and disciplined according to statute. They were not volunteers as so many believe, or choose to believe today as an excuse to avoid participation. Yes, there were volunteers who were passed the age of maturity. Men such as Samuel Whittemore, who at 79 engaged the British Regulars in hand to hand combat, killed at least three Regulars, and was shot and bayonetted numerous times. Samuel lived another Fifteen Years and remarked that he would do it again for his country. Very different from the men of today who insist that Militia was voluntary, and that the Second Amendment is about an “individual right” that imposes no duty, creates no office, nor has it any force of law, or that we must do this peacefully when we condone the use of violence, every day, from acts perpetrated by unconstitutional agencies. Peace is our goal, but we must remember that the “execut[ion] of the Laws of the Union” is too often a violent enterprise. Turning a blind eye to belligerent acts of government agents, ignoring the trauma of the January 6^th prisoners, does not make us peace loving people. What it does is place us in the same category as the January 6^th committee, FBI, ATF, DHS, and the host of other unconstitutional ‘law enforcement’ prohibited by Article I, Section 8, Clause 15.

In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) SCOTUS ruled;

The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power –

“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”

With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia — civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. “A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.” And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”

In just a couple of pages, Justice McReynolds writing for the court, included the history, the authority, and the organization of the Institution that the Framers of the Constitution specifically defined as the only recognized authority in the land to enforce the Law. His writing, is in stark contrast to the Heller decision, which was explained in Sixty-Five pages of mumbo-jumbo that completely ignored their prior decision in Miranda; “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”  Yet, Scalia wrote in Heller, “How far it is in the power of the legislature to regulate this right, we shall not undertake to say, as happily there has been very little occasion to discuss that subject by the courts.”

Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 specifically states, “To provide for calling forth the Militia, to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions”.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 specifically states, “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States”.

For the codification of those Clauses, congress wrote the Militia Act of 1792; “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company…”

For those ill equipped to understand the English language, or for those who refuse to comprehend “What *** those who framed and adopted [the Constitution] underst[oo]d [its] terms to designate and include”, Militia was not a voluntary group of men, but rather an Institution with regulation, fitness, form, function, and importantly operated as an autonomous body, manned and regulated by the able-bodied men of this nation who “when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”

It is important to note to those who are constitutionally ignorant that Clauses in the Constitution cannot be altered to change “the sense in which [the words were] generally used by those for whom the instrument was intended.” – Ogden v. Saunders, 25 U.S. 213, 332

The Constitution came complete with the methodology for change. Article V specifically states, “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments…”

“[T]he term Militia appears *** in *** the history and legislation of Colonies and States.” It is from there we take its meaning, and its lawful authority recognized in the Constitution. Not from the propagandist, the ignorant, or the ambivalent. The Constitution can only be changed through the Amendment process. Even there, change would fail, because each state would have to amend their constitution, and revoke all their militia statutes. The Militia is a state institution, comprised of the People who would, hopefully, hold sacred their liberty and freedom from an oppressive government.

It can, however, fall by the refusal of able-bodied men to perform the Duty the Founders deemed “necessary to the security of a free State.”

We no longer have the Militia the Framers of the Constitution designated as the lawful authority “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions”. It has been relegated to the dust bin of history through ignorance, laziness, and ambivalence from one side, and hatred of freedom from the other.

Imagine a nation where its Founders were foresighted enough to create government limited by not only words, but also by the fact that the People were the ultimate authority to preserve and protect their liberty, freedom, their “Privileges and Immunities”.

Imagine a nation wherein the alarm for assistance was not limited to a 911 call and the availability of some emergency services, but instead was resolved by neighbors, who are also fellow Militia, trained to perform as needed.

Imagine a nation wherein Constitutional Militia would march to the Internal Revenue and take into custody all the agents and prosecutors who have blatantly, and with unlawful action destroyed the lives of so many by assisting corrupt  ‘public officials’ in plundering the wealth of the People.

Imagine a nation wherein Constitutional Militia would march to the Department of Justice and arrest the Attorney General, the FBI Director, and every other usurper of the power and authority specifically stated in Article I, Section 8, Clause 15.

Imagine a nation, instituted in a manner that you and I are the watchdogs, holding in check, not just street crime, but also that, which takes place daily in every branch of government. As the Constitutionally recognized authority we can stop voter fraud; we can stop governors violating election law; stop the imposition of taxes that sap the wealth of the people; secure our own border rather than that of another nation; and properly enforce the tax code so that industry must return to the United States where it once flourished, and provided Americans with prosperity.

Imagine the tears of joy of the people and families of the Jan-Sixers who have endured as political prisoners, to be released and given just compensation for their suffering.

Neither congress, nor the president can create agencies that usurp the authority specifically stated in the Constitution. It is unlawful on its face. We must, to quote Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., A.B., A.M., Ph.D., J.D., “revitalize the Militia” if we are to stop the march toward tyranny. To take the challenge from Steven Crowder, “Change my mind.”

No Comments »

This Fourth Of July 2024

July 1, 2024 | 2nd Amendment, Constitution, Foreign Policy, Founders, Founding Documents, Sovereignty

Some say we are headed toward WWIII. Others say we are already there. Some fear nuclear Armageddon, while others believe it to be highly unlikely. Too many, assisted by a corrupt media see only what they are told to believe while the world burns. Most will never accept their responsibility in making poor choices when casting their ballot. Ignorance, and ambivalence cover the social and political spectrum. Lies, hatred, and foolishness have fueled our downfall.

However, the Founders of this Nation, as I have stated in the past, were men of great sagacity. They understood the willingness to corrupt and be corrupted. They had languished in desperation realizing “that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

For some, the yoke is never too restrictive. For some, ignorance is never too burdensome. For most, ambivalence is the easiest course.

So, what did the Founders leave their posterity that we might overcome the foibles that we are prone to exhibit?

Article I, § 8, Cl. 15 grants congress the authority “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”. Militia is distinct from the army as SCOTUS has ruled on separate occasions. Article I, § 8, Cl. 16 grants congress the authority “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States”, and then it imposes a duty on the states “reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress”. The Law, by which “the discipline prescribed by Congress” states “That each and every … able-bodied … male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years … shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company.” It goes on “That every citizen, so enrolled … provide himself with a … good rifle … and shall appear so armed … when called out to exercise or into service”. Each state has its own concurring statutes that have been updated over the years. SCOTUS has ruled that “The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress … The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ‘A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.’ And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”

Congress has no authority to “unorganize” the militia. Therefore, Congress is restricted to “organize, arm, and discipline” the Militia. They are restricted under the legal doctrine “Expressio unius est exclusio alterius”. Those men 18-45 are not members of the armed forces, but rather militia. The purpose of placing militia in the Constitution was derived from the fear of standing armies, and the unconstitutional creation of agencies that might usurp the power of the People to hold government in check.

The Constitution is a uniform document created by thirteen sovereign states. The states granted congress the limited delegated authority to do certain things, but all those authorities rest on the state’s ability to enforce or deny, and that is why Militia is a critical part of our Law. If you read the Constitution in its entirety, you will note that everything is explained except for Militia. Why? Because it was already a pre-existing Institution that operated with detail of enrollment and organization. Militia statutes existed long before our Declaration.

•[1624 and 1632] “That no man go or send abroad without a sufficient partie will armed” and “[t]hat men go not to worke in the ground without their arms (and a centinell upon them).”

•[1672] “[A]s against all tymes of danger it ought to be the care of all men to provide that their armes and habiliments for war, be alwayes kept fixed and fitt for service[.]”

Here is a current statute from PA that is easy to find but incomplete.

“Title 51 § 507. Draft from militia for emergency. “The Governor shall have the power to order out for actual service with the Pennsylvania Guard by draft as many persons from the militia as necessity demands during a war or other emergency. The Governor is hereby authorized to form, adopt and prescribe such rules and regulations….” Those people will, more than likely, not be trained and made to be fodder.

I could not find the regulations related to § 507, so I sent a ‘Right To Know’ request to the governor and is the Open Records agency asking for the regulations. I got a run around for a while and then a denial.

This is not a subject that you discuss lightly because revitalizing the militia as required by law would return all power to the people. I have learned over years that when you tell men that there is an obligation to serve in the militia, they turn a blind eye, and deaf ear. It’s none more prevalent than in the so-called pro-2nd and patriot community who will use any excuse to avoid any commitment they perceived as something other than what history and law correctly defines.

However, in this time in history, when the doomsday clock for nuclear Armageddon has been moved up to 90 seconds, I find it particularly disturbing that there are just a few of us who want to stop the destruction of the world. The Founders of this nation were not lacking in their recognition that to prevent government of evil intent, the people would have to maintain sovereign powers over state actors. They already knew how, and with what Institution. Pollack v. Farmers Loan and Trust Company, 157 US 429, 558 notes “What *** those who framed and adopted [the Constitution] underst[oo]d [its] terms to designate and include”.

The real question in all of this is why anyone would ignore the responsibility to prevent what governments around the world perpetrated in the last Century; over Two Hundred Sixty Million people murdered through genocide.

Why anyone would turn a blind eye to what the Founders knew to be “the common parlance of the times in which the Constitution was written” – US v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association, 322 US 533, 539, and why anyone would fight to keep the means of total destruction in an institution Thomas Paine labeled; “Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one”

Let us summarize. Long before the U.S. became a sovereign Nation, the Laws of the colonies were enforced by the Militia. As noted in Miller, “The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators.” We know that the Militia has historical and legislative bona fides. “These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ‘A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.’ And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”

When Captain Parker and his men mustered on Lexington Green to intercept the British Regulars ordered to disarm the militia and empty their armory of weapons and ammunition, Parkers Company were, by law, organized, armed, and disciplined in accordance with statutes. They were not volunteers. They were Militia with recognized powers and duties. One of those duties being to own and maintain a “good rifle” with adequate ammunition, to keep said weapons in good working order. In addition, the lieutenant of the county would periodically inspect. I note here that militia regulations would prevent questionable people from going unnoticed.

In “the common parlance of the times in which the Constitution was written” (US v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association, 322 US 533, 539), and the “accepted meaning [of the words] in that day” (Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393, 418), those who debated and ratified the Constitution, and the People, knew Militia to be an Institution with statutory powers, authorities, and obligations. Able bodied men were “severally and respectively [] enrolled in the militia” in accordance with the age requirement. Militia is not some fictional entity, but a state Institution composed of the People, contracted to the Constitution to perform stated duties.

When the members of the Constitutional Convention, and the state legislatures debated the Constitutional wording, they knew Militia to be as they knew it had operated for more than 165 years in this land.

At Article I, § 8, Cl. 15, congress is dependent on “The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train”, “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions”. How will this Constitutional command be executed if we do not have Militia as those who ratified the Constitution, and placed such authority in this specific Institution be satisfied if the People do not fulfill all the principles and obligations?

I have already pointed out, but it bears repeating, our government is prohibited by Article I, § 8, Cl. 15 from creating agencies with law enforcement powers. Why? The Constitution recognizes one specific Institution with that power, which banned the creation of another.

I have been teaching and arguing these points for years. What I have learned is that the vast majority will do nothing to protect their rights, family, and community from any harm perpetrated by anyone, including government. No excuse, or argument is too extreme to avoid the duty we have to one another. In this time when we are inching towards WWIII, and possible nuclear holocaust, we still argue that we have no duty to stop the insanity.

This Fourth Of July, make the choice to fact check me while I ponder what it will take for the People to reclaim their powers, and authority. Will we wait until there is no chance of redemption, and our children will suffer the consequences of our ambivalence? Will we bequeath to our posterity chains, or far worse, a barren planet?

No Comments »

Follow The Law

June 10, 2024 | Constitution, Founders, Founding Documents, History, Judicial, Militia

by Nicholas Testaccio

Following “the Laws of the Union” requires integrity, and diligence. We have swayed so far from the rule of law that being honest with ourselves appears to be difficult, at best, and as we go forward, reaching a level that approaches the impossible.

The Constitution is a uniform document, and if every clause is not given its due force or proper execution, the document means nothing. Most will blame corrupt representatives, judges, and agencies while ignoring the fact that it is our responsibility to uphold “the Laws of the Union.” “We the People” are both the author and enforcers of our own laws. We created a Nation, wherein we maintain sovereign authority over the state. Our words, our laws, and our powers are first and foremost in a document, in which we laid out the rule of law.

In 1901, Mr. Justice White, writing for the court, ruled that “The government of the United States was born of the Constitution, and all powers which it enjoys or may exercise must be either derived expressly or by implication from that instrument.” – Downes v Bidwell, 182 U. S. 244

I am a citizen of a Republic, wherein my rights are intended to be unalienable. I am not the subject of a democratic tyranny wherein the majority decides what rights I may or may not have. I am not the subject of men and women whose desires have no regard for what is good, but only for what they covet. To my mind their lust extends beyond the good fortune of others, for even that is the subject of their gain.

“An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” – Norton v Shelby County, 118 US 425

I have learned, over the years of frustration, that the simpler the terms, the more that will be twisted and corrupted from the author’s few succinct words. In the few words quoted from “Norton v Shelby,” it should be construed that acts that violated the principles of the Constitution are void before agents of government attempt to enforce whatever the legislature had in mind.

I, once again, quote the writings of Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper #78; “There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

Hamilton elaborates on the concepts that Jefferson laid out in our Declaration that prescribes the concept of a Nation, in which, the People retain sovereign powers over the state, and those we elect to protect and enforce that design. A Nation of People, for the first time in history, holds the ultimate authority over those who serve their interests. We have moved so far from that plan that it is almost impossible to convince the majority to act based on the principle “sovereignty, itself, remains with the people, by whom and for whom government exists and acts.”

Failure to comprehend our system is where we will fail to maintain our Republic and fall into a tyranny.

The people of New York have now given us every reason to believe that the Nation is in grave peril. They have given us Alvin Bragg, Letisha James, Kathy Hochul, and a judge of the most contemptible demeanor, judge Juan Merchan. The list goes on, but it should be clear to so many in this country that we have now crossed the Rubican into Civil War. It is cold right now, but it will either fizzle into an all out tyranny run by a mob of the most corrupt and vile people, or it will turn hot when the people see that ‘evil is no longer sufferable.’

We are pushed to the very brink by falsehoods that have become the truth, or at least the truth in the minds of people who are gullible fools. That those who have abandoned reason and logic have placed us in a state of confusion and turmoil. Confusion and turmoil are the definition of Civil War. We no longer know who is in charge, the rule of law, or the zealous mob of “useful idiots.”

A particularly important issue that has come to fruition in the trial and conviction of Donald Trump. In the NYC case brought by Alvin Bragg, Trump was denied the most elementary aspects of our rights, and it was done in collusion with twelve jurors who were selected for their apparent prejudice, in a borough that consistently votes for tyranny. In the end, to assure a conviction, judge Merchan gave instructions to the jury that should have had him impeached.

As a jurist, when giving instructions to the jury, you must be sure that they are given all the facts, including their right and duty to negate the law when it is unjust or unconstitutional. In his “Commentaries On The Constitution”, Justice Story, without expressing any opinion on whether or not the central government had any authority to  “punish[] the licentious of the press” notes a particular aspect of our legal system and jurist prudence; “And the same act authorized the truth to be given in evidence on any such prosecution; and the jury, upon the trial, to determine the law and the fact, as in other cases.”

It should be noted that most who sit in a jury box are ignorant of their duty to protect the rights of the defendant by way of jury nullification if necessary. Jefferson wrote “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its Constitution.” This is such a powerful tool against tyranny that some states have made nullification illegal. A member of a jury could be held for criminal charges if he or she makes such an argument. Yet, in the case of the people who sat in the prosecution of Donald Trump, and in other cases where the foundation of our principles were on trial, ignorance, prejudice, and hate prevailed.                                                     

Once again, a segment of the population proved that they have no regard for what is right or wrong. Another example of how far we have removed ourselves from the principles of liberty adopted in our Founding documents. The core of this nation is being torn apart by men and women whose lust for power is aided by the foolish and the bigoted. This is how Civil Wars start. Who is in charge at this point in time? It is certainly not the rule of law, to which, as free people, we should all subscribe. It is in the hands of the mob, the democracy that was so hated by the Founders that they made the “guarantee [of a] Republican Form of Government” a part of our Constitution, to which the oath of office makes us all accountable. Yet we let the term democracy be bandied about as if we have no respect for the foundation of the United States.

In a time far distant from today, men and women stood up bravely for what they believed to be essential to life, liberty, and freedom from oppression. How can we survive when a nation is so divided? When our neighbors, our fellow citizens employ their prejudice rather than their ability to reconcile what, in a particular matter, might be right or wrong? The mindset of many seems to be that of recklessness and incoherence rather than piety and lucidity.

The courage exhibited by the men on Lexington Greene, to those who placed their neck in jeopardy by signing our Declaration are so far removed from today’s national character as to seem more  myth rather than reality. We must recognize that the attack on our history is a part of a plan to destroy this nation. How else are we to judge what may come if not to consult the past and examine the results.

Our ability to recall, analyze, and then reconcile the missteps of the past has been a keystone of our Republic. With words that shouted a unique idea going forward, our ancestors stepped into the future by correcting the mistakes that every other nation in the world had made, and still make today.

Yes, we  have made many errors, but none more egregious than others, and no man or woman today can lay claim to coming from a family without sin. History is replete with stories of mans inhumanity to man. No tyrant succeeds without the willingness of the population to either execute the horrors or stay silent as the atrocities prevail. As the saying goes, “Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.”

Our campuses, our streets, our legislatures, and even our courts are replete with arrogant, ignorant, and I must say idiots who, without realizing it, dig their own graves. Our original documents are salient proclamations of the theory of a Nation “conceived in Liberty,” with the balance of power placed in the hands of and laid at the feet of “We the People.”

However, the framework for this Nation has been corrupted and denigrated through years of judicial fraud, and the willingness of the people to be led astray. In a lengthy detail of the challenges, foibles, and triumphs of this nation, Murry Rothbard, in his aptly title book “Conceived in Liberty” documents many of the trials and tribulations that faced this Nation.

In what is sometimes excruciating detail, Rothbard explains the beginnings, the strife, failures, and victories that should be no surprise to anyone living today who observes the struggles laid before us.

Rothbard begins by quoting from John Locke’s “Treatise on Government”; “whenever the Legislators endeavor to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People, who are thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience, and are left to the common Refuge, which God hath provided for all Men, against Force and Violence.” This is critical to set the stage for struggles that are ages old.

Whatever the causes that lead to a revolution, or civil war, it is rooted in fundamental attacks on the rights of the people. Continuing from Locke’s “Treatise”, on this point, he writes, “Whensoever therefore the Legislative shall transgress this fundamental Rule of Society; and either by Ambition, Fear, Folly or Corruption, endeavor to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other an Absolute Power over the Lives, Liberties, and Estates of the People; By this breach of Trust they forfeit the Power, the People had put into their hands, for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the People, who have a Right to resume their original Liberty.”

“We the People” have placed trust in our government to act in accordance with the rules we set forth, and the value of our rights. The delegates to the Convention were not so naïve to believe that there would not be those who covet what their neighbor, or even their constituents may own; plot schemes, and to enact laws, beyond the reach of the legislature, which would take from the people. To that end, the legislature would attempt to take the means necessary to prevent the people from enforcing their laws and preventing such usurpations.

No government acts without the acceptance of the people, for the state is nothing more than a fiction that operates by the hands of the people. There can be no executive, legislative, or judicial function unless we give it some form and application. The Founders were not ignorant of this, nor were they dismissive of the fact that greed and avarice are failures of human nature.

The societal convulsions, bigotry, and hatred we see today have been promoted by a cabal of those who seek everything each of us owns. The lust for power is taught to the willing accomplice who now believes themselves to be of virtue, rather than someone compromised by the teachings of those who hate such things as freedom and property rights.

Who is in charge? Who was meant to be in charge, and by what means would we protect the rights of all?

At one end, we have the elites who now make no bones about what they wish to accomplish. A goal that their acolytes fail to recognize. Control of every aspect of our lives. The destruction of private property, except that which they claim as their own. A complete destruction of liberty, and chastisement for those of us who seek nothing more than to be free and live our lives as we see fit, if we do not infringe on the rights of others.

We must comprehend that the rule of law is not the charge, by which this Nation was created, and for which it must flourish. In that context, confusion of control must be cast from the media, the campuses, and the courts that have been compromised.

As we go forward, and confusion, distrust, and propaganda sway the political landscape, we must either come together, or be torn apart. I, for one, cannot see unity in our near future as there are forces that have no regard for truth and the recklessness of the lies they constantly spew.

I have spent years attempting to point my fellow Americans to a solution that presents itself in the foundation of our Nation; one of a sovereign people. To that end I learned that Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 & 16 of the Constitution were critical to saving this Nation. Revitalization of the Militia, the people’s ‘Law Enforcement’ institution was necessary to Saving and Restoring the Republic.

However, I have not been able to convince more than a few that the Institution as defined in history and Law are the solution bequeath to us, that we may thwart, what now appears to be sad ending to this experiment.

No Comments »

Common Law

January 18, 2024 | Constitution, Founders, History, Judicial, Jury, Militia, Sovereignty

I have been asked as to what is the nature of ‘common law’? It is not an easy question to answer, given that most are unfamiliar with law in general, and today, few understand our unique form of government “instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” This statement from our Declaration deserves some explanation before going further.

Prior to the Revolution, conducted by our Insurrectionist Founders, men were subjects of monarch’s who ruled by the Divine Right of Kings. They governed their people by the fallacious concept that an individual was placed on a throne by birth right. God had determined that the individual should be the person who ruled. And that person was given allegiance by his people, but if they failed to do so, they were brought into line by the power of the “Sword.” There has always been plenty who would wield the “Sword” against his fellow man for one reason or another.

Those Fifty-Six Insurrectionist’s, who signed their own death warrant, and had “Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms” saw the monarch as “A Prince whose character [was] thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, [was] unfit to be the ruler of a free people.” So, the fight for a government “of, by, and for the people” became a reality for those who sought to abide by law that “We the People” would compose, defend, and prosecute.

There is a history of common law, and it is best that I allow historic figures to explain. I will attempt to give some light to the subject using their words, and case law.

Common Law seems simple enough to me, but to the average person who has been inundated with reams of papers by those claiming some sort of expertise, promoting some foolishness, and judicial legislating, the prescription is anathema to common sense.

Blackstone gives a simple explanation by writing, “THE policy of our ancient constitution, as regulated and established by the great Alfred, was to bring justice home to every man’s door, by constituting as many courts of judicature as there are manors and townships in the kingdom; wherein injuries were redressed in an easy and expeditious manner, by the suffrage of neighbors and friends.”

Our system is that of common law. If you have been harmed in some way, you are entitled to relief. As Justice John Marshall explains in Marbury v Madison, 5 U.S. 137.                                             

“If he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy? The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. *** Blackstone states two cases in which a remedy is afforded by mere operation of law.

‘In all other cases,’ he says, ‘it is a general and indisputable rule, that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law whenever that right is invaded.’

“And afterwards, [still quoting Blackstone] ‘I am next to consider such injuries as are cognizable by the courts of common law. And herein I shall for the present only remark, that all possible injuries whatsoever, that did not fall within the exclusive cognizance of either the ecclesiastical, military, or maritime tribunals, are, for that very reason, within the cognizance of the common law courts of justice; for it is a settled and invariable principle in the laws of England, that every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress.’”

Over the years, there have been numerous hucksters, charlatans, and even those who are of goodwill, who paraded out schemes designed, somehow, to enforce the law, or that the law was some form of secret code designed for the elite to enslave us all. While we have been enslaved to a certain extent, the law does not allow for, and indeed it does provide an ultimate authority for the people to claim redress and enforce our sought remedy.

I sincerely hope that those who read this understand that this nation was formed in turmoil. A bloody revolution fought over years, wherein the end result was a Nation “constructed on the principle that the Supreme Power resides in the body of the people.” – Chisholm v Georgia 2 U.S. 419, 457

How do we attain, and even maintain such a lofty goal? Those who debated the Constitution were not ignorant of the fact that tyranny would always be a threat. The Bill of Rights arose out of that historical record. Patrick Henry, a student of human nature, understood the dangers of leaving questions, or even clearly defined words at risk to the will of the oppressor.

Henry insisted that a Bill of Rights be added over the objections of James Madison who thought it to be superfluous. This is important to demonstrate that both Henry and Madison were correct in their arguments. Madison noted that government is given certain powers to which they must comply, but Henry argued that there would be those, in the future, who would usurp the powers, and prohibitions clearly stated. Today, we argue and ignore the words of both men.

The Bill of Rights bolsters the principles of common law by citing numerous components of the  means to enforce common law; freedom of religion, speech, the press, the right to peaceably assemble, and to redress the government. Security against unreasonable search and seizure. Warrants to be issued upon probable cause. A grand jury and a petit jury. Thomas Jefferson noted,  “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”

Blackstone wrote, “as all wrong may be considered as merely a privation of right, the one natural remedy for every species of wrong is the being put in possession of that right, whereof the party injured is deprived. This may either be effected by a specific delivery or restoration of the subject-matter in dispute to the legal owner *** The instruments whereby this remedy is obtained *** are a diversity of suits and actions, which are defined by *** the right of prosecuting to judgment which everyone is due.”

Today, common law appears to be a novel idea, but the concept of “prosecuting to judgment” is far older than this nation. Blackstone, notes, “THE Romans introduced, pretty early, set forms for actions and suits in their law *** (quoting Cicero) “There are rights, there are forms appointed, for all things, lest any one should mistake either the kind of injury or the mode of redress. For public forms are composed by the praetor (Roman magistrate) from every species of loss, trouble, inconvenience, calamity, and injury, for the accommodation of private suits.”

The means by which remedy and relief may be obtained, are as old as the stories and fables of Aphrodite and Zeus. However, the forms upon which we may seek, or even bring a suit have been corrupted. The average person runs around blaming the unethical rather than engaging the law as it was promulgated in our unique form.

Common law, as was discussed earlier in this article, is the ability of the individual to be made whole against some transgression, be it a matter of private property, or as addressed in “Marbury,” a deprivation of a vested right.

We held that as a truth in law; “….The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a Citizen. *** He owes no duty to the State since he receives nothing therefrom beyond the protection of his life and   *** His rights are such as existed by the Law of the Land, long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of the law and in accordance with the Constitution. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.” – Hale vs. Henkle 201 U.S. 43 at 74

Underlying the common law is common sense. For all actions, there must be a means by which they are enforced. An aggrieved party may bring a suit but is dependent on some enforcement by an institution with recognized authority to carry out the verdict of the court.

When it is the government, those we elect to represent our interests in law, that cause the injury, today we are dependent on agents given unconstitutional powers to procure relief. How is this to be considered as a legitimate forum when our judiciary has promoted the idea of “compelling interest”? The government always has some interest enforced by agents whose goal is the prosecution of the people they were meant to serve.

“John Locke is one of the founders of “liberal” political philosophy, the philosophy of individual rights and limited govern­ment.” I believe, that in his “Treatise On Government,” too long to elaborate here, we find an underpinning for common law. Locke wrote in his Second Treatise, “And that all men may be restrained from invading others rights, and from doing hurt to one another, and the law of nature be observed, which willeth the peace and preservation of all mankind, the execution of the law of nature is, in that state, put into every man’s hands, whereby every one has a right to punish the transgressors of that law to such a degree as may hinder its violation: for the law of nature would, as all other laws that concern men in this world, be in vain, if there were nobody that in the state of nature had a power to execute that law, and thereby preserve the innocent and restrain offenders. And if any one in the state of nature may punish another for any evil he has done, every one may do so: for in that state of perfect equality, where naturally there is no superiority or jurisdiction of one over another, what any may do in prosecution of that law, every one must needs have a right to do.”

How do we equate what Blackstone and Locke wrote to the application of common law? Both men address rights, and a forum in which an individual may bring a prosecution against a transgressor. Natural rights, which our Forefathers deemed unalienable, must have a forum to provide for the remedy and relief owed to one who has been harmed.

This is where the understanding of common law fails amongst those who use and abuse the term by a lack of willingness to enforce. Those delegates who debated the Constitution were aware of the dangers of any system, especially any system that had no means by which all men could seek a menu of remedy as noted by Cicero.

This is the nature of our laws, and of common law. An injury must have a method for relief, and a means to enforce. Without a prescription with the force of law, we have abdicated our duty, and our responsibility to our fellow citizens. You cannot ask a leopard to change its spots when the leopard has a vested interest in its own well-being.

We have allowed to be erected standing armies all about us in the form of agencies that act with no constitutional authority, and indeed in violation of the powers and disabilities constructed within our rule of law.

James Madison stated, “Always remember that an armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics—that without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe.”

Do we subscribe to a system of common law as some of the great legal minds of history, and our Forefathers provided?

What is common law? As discussed here, it is a system comprised of a forum in which a person may seek remedy in accordance with an assertion of their natural rights, to go about their business unfettered, and obtain relief when their person has been violated. The Founders of this nation were astute enough to know that the application of any right, or those laws welcomed by the people must have an arm of enforcement. This is where we have fallen and discredited our system of equity in law. “Common Law” must have a venue by which to bring prosecution, it must also have an Institution that “We the People” maintain as our enforcement tool.

No Comments »

Redress A Grievance

January 8, 2024 | General

The Continental Congress approved the wording of the abuses and usurpations that were listed by Jefferson as reasons for the dissolution of “the political bands which have connected them with another.”

“A Declaration” goes on, “In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.”

Long before our Declaration, the good people of England induced the monarch, King John, to accept and sign the Magna Carta. The monarchy acquiesced to the demands of the people through the Twenty Five Barons.

At Article 61 the document prescribes the doctrine of Redress and its solution if the monarchy failed to comply.

“If we, our chief justice, our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security, and the offence is made known to four of the said twenty-five barons, they shall come to us – or in our absence from the kingdom to the chief justice – to declare it and claim immediate redress. If we, or in our absence abroad the chief justice, make no redress within forty days, reckoning from the day on which the offence was declared to us or to him, the four barons shall refer the matter to the rest of the twenty-five barons, who may distrain upon and assail us in every way possible, with the support of the whole community of the land, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, or anything else saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children, until they have secured such redress as they have determined upon.”

Before delving into this subject, let me propose a correlation between Article I, and Article II of our Bill of Rights, that of the United States, and Article 61 of the Magna Carta.

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

Amendment II: “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

It is necessary, indeed it is an imperative of our unique Laws that we understand the progression from one amendment to the other wherein the First addresses a Right, and the Second imposes a duty and resolution constructed long before the Framers of our Constitution designated the means, by which “We the People” were afforded the authority to enforce our Rights.

We must realize that common sense dictates that we have no rights, for which we are unable, at some measure, to Redress. If, at every level of our system of government, “servants” of the people obstruct, restrict, regulate, and usurp the foundations of those rights, we have none. The Twenty-Five Barons, and king John agreed that failure to redress gave the people the provisional authority to rectify the transgression beyond the means set forth as a peaceful conclusion. Today, we are drawing close to an end, or a beginning. Neither will be pleasant for us, but horrific for our children.

I often point to our children because I have come to realize that they will endure either the horrors of a totalitarian state, or the ravages of war. I have also learned over the years of speaking to others that most truly do not have a concern for the future generations.

“We the People” are currently under duress by factions hell-bent on the destruction of freedom. It should be obvious to the most uncertain, foolish, and frivolous amongst us that there is a turn, an agenda, with its eye towards a prize. That price being the enslavement of the common people by way of decimating any liberty still possessed.

The United States has a Bill of Rights noting that it is the people who are the arbiters of their own lives. It is not a Totalitarian state, Monarchy, Caliphate, nor Democracy that we bow to for our day to day existence, although there are many who subscribe to such a life. It is easier to succumb than to resist. The king, the dictator, the president, nor the mob are the final word in our Republic, but rather an armed citizenry that Petitions and seeks remedy and relief from the transgressions of the state and the “useful idiot.”

Several years ago, G. Edward Griffin interviewed Norman Dodd who had been appointed by Congress to investigate Foundations that might be engaged in un-American activities. I suggest that one might listen to the interview linked in this article. Mr. Dodd reveals, the gist of which is a disturbing picture of what has taken place in this nation, and how the education system has aided in our downfall. I have included it to make the point of a populace that, while aspiring to higher education, has been duped into believing that they are of some intellectually superior moral character. Instead, they are the tools that are now being used to dismantle our distinctive form of a nation based on popular sovereignty.

On January 6, 2020, an impressively large group of people gathered in Washington, DC on the date scheduled for the counting of Electoral votes. Briefly stated, a Redress by those who saw an election that had been manipulated in favor of the cabal most bent on the destruction of our liberty. It is unfortunate that some violence ensued, more than likely instigated by federal agents, and an opportunity was given to those who are working to destroy our rights. In the words of many of those who seek our downfall we must never let an opportunity go to waste. As part of that plot, none of our rights are absolute, although the word unalienable defines them as such, is part of the mantra.

In 1689 the English Bill of Rights was enacted. That Bill states: “That it is the right of the subjects to petition the King, and all committments [sic] and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal.”

Instead of what was an attempt at a Redress has been turned against the People, for whom it is the state that must submit if “any Form of Government becomes destructive of” its constitutional limitations. All abridgement of Rights and Powers retained by “We the People” must be rectified to our desired conclusion, not that of elected or appointed representatives, nor the “useful idiot” hell bent on forming the chains of enslavement.

What has, instead, taken place is a re-education, as Mr. Dodd points out, designed to create a monopoly of power and wealth for the few who subscribe to the One World Government agenda. An agenda that prescribes unimaginable power for the elite, and nothing but abject servitude and woe for those of us who are considered the “deplorables.”

The Redress, as I see it, was based on what has been shown to be fact as uncovered over the last several months. At least five states not only violated election laws, but they were aware that what they were doing constituted a grievous affront to the security of our nation.

In the most recent attack on our freedom, the supreme court of Colorado has determined that Donald Trump must be removed from the ballot as one who participated in an “insurrection.” Against whom, I am unsure, but in their high-and-mighty expression of their disdain for “Redress,” those black robed administrators twisted the third section of the Fourteenth Amendment as another indication of the elite’s disdain for “rights secured by our Constitution.”

This latest attack shows contempt for congress’ authority at Section 5; “The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article”, and long historical record, to which even king John agreed that the entire community “may distrain upon and assail us in every way possible”.

As to whether our Civil War was an insurrection is debatable. Had the war gone the other way, history would see it in its proper perspective as a fight to maintain the integral structure of our rule of law.

In the debate leading to the ratification of the Bill of Rights, it was questioned; “what *** shall we secure the freedom of speech, and think it necessary, at the same time, to allow the right of assembling? If people freely converse together, they must assemble for that purpose; it is a self-evident, unalienable right which the people possess; it is certainly a thing that never would be called in question; it is derogatory to the dignity of the House to descend to such minutiae.”

We have the solemn duty, and  “the Right of the People to alter or to abolish” government when it acts in such a manner as to be destructive of our sovereign positions.

At what point do we remove the veil that clouds are minds from the truth of who we are, and the recognition of the forces aligned against freedom? We must realize that ambivalence and inaction are not how we maintain this nation’s foundation. “We the People” are not the subjects of laws that abridge our sovereign powers, nor can we be held accountable when those who serve us make a mockery of our institutions.

The ability to have free and open elections that are not clouded by suspicious activities or improbable outcomes must be questioned. There is no excuse for anyone, of any ilk, to sustain dubious conclusions, and then rebuke those who seek Redress. And if that redress is also marred by suspicious activity from planted agents, then there is more the reason that we must constantly assail the plots and plans of the corrupt.

Redress must be held sacred until all questions have been answered with irrefutable facts.

No Comments »