RECORDING INTO THE PUBLIC IN HUMBOLDT

 Tuesday morning i traveled up to Eureka early in the morning to record a Notice to the Board here where i live.  First stop was Sketchers to see a Notary and make copies.  Over to the Administration Bldg., labeled ‘courthouse,’ up to the fifth floor where Margaret Morris was behind the counter.  I handed her my Notice, and I hear the usual “non-conforming” words.  First of all, the size of the paper throws them for a loop.  It’s not in their job description box.  Iff it isn’t there, they are totally clueless what to do.  Most people refer to it as ‘Legal’ size paper.  This queen is sovereign, i use common law, hence the size of the paper i use is lawful, NOT legal crap.  I read to her Supreme Court rulings regarding the peoples right to record.

“An instrument is deemed in law filed at the time it is delivered to the clerk, regardless of whether the instrument is file marked.”  James v Kentucky, SCt  (1984).

Margaret stood there reading my Notice and decided to tell me her beLIEfs.  I asked her iff she was giving me legal advice and is she an attorney?  She asked if she could make copies. I said no, and that I didn’t appreciate her reading my Notice.  I JUST WANT TO RECORD!

Down to Risk Management where I asked for a criminal complaint form and told the lady there about my experience up in the recorder’s room.  She informed me that they don’t have any complaint forms.  That Risk Management is only for the employees of the county.  I told her, well, Margaret Morris is a county employee and that she is jeopardizing the county by her ill-informed actions against one of the people, -that I’m being blocked from justice.  She directed me to the pretend Grand Jury.  I told her that we haven’t had a Grand Jury since 1956.  So then she suggested Clerk, Carolyn Crnich.  I informed her that to my knowledge Carolyn is not an elected official as I have asked her for a certified copy of her oath and she doesn’t produce it.

How sad and disgusting is it that this queen has to mail her Notice to my daughter in Arizona to record into the Public for me?  Arizona, where they do elect their county recorders and will record anything that is properly notarized, no questions asked – as it should be.

Advertisements

HOW OUR GOVERNMENT WAS SET UP IS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD

Alexander Hamilton once said, “Men give me credit for some genius. All the genius I have is this. When I have a subject in mind. I study it profoundly.  Day and night it is before me. My mind becomes pervaded with it… the effort which I have made is what people are pleased to call the fruit of genius. It is the fruit of labor and thought.”  The same goes for when i want to learn something.  I will devote untold hours studying the subject matter until i believe i have a firm grasp of it.

So the ONLY reason i may know more about our government and the men who created it is because i cared enough to devote the time, and effort, it took to learn it.  What gets me is that our  government is not that hard to understand.  Sure some of the writings of our Founders may be difficult to read, as are the writings of the men who inspired them.  But – – – how our government was set up is pretty straightforward.

We the people, at least those that lived in the late 18th century in the original 13 states, existed before our government was created. It was by their will, regardless of whether each individual had a hand in drafting the Constitution or not, that our government came into existence.

People say that the Constitution is a compact between the government and the people, or possibly the state legislatures which ratified it.  That is not so, as Thomas Paine explains in his book The Rights of Man, “A constitution is not a thing in name only, but in fact. It has not an ideal, but a real existence; and wherever it cannot be produced in a visible form, there is none. A constitution is a thing antecedent to a government, and a government is only the creature of a constitution. The constitution of a country is not the act of its government, but of the people constituting its government.”

Thomas Jefferson once said that “The constitution of most of the states (and united States) assert that all power is inherent in the people…” This is a fact which has been upheld numerous times by the Supreme Court.

In the 1794 case of Glass v. Sloop Betsy the Court ruled, “The sovereignty of a state does not reside in the persons who fill the different departments of its government, but in the People, from whom the government emanated; and they may change it at their discretion.  Sovereignty, then in this country, abides with the constituency, and not with the agent; and this remark is true, both in reference to the federal and state government.”

Almost 150 years later, in the Supreme Court case of Perry v. United States, the Court ruled, “In the United States, sovereignty resides in the people who act through the organs established by the Constitution. … The Congress as the instrumentality of sovereignty is endowed with certain powers to be exerted on behalf of the people in the manner and with the effect the Constitution ordains. The Congress cannot invoke the sovereign power of the people to override their will as thus declared.”

If you’ll notice in their ruling, the Court stated that Congress is endowed with certain powers. It does not say unlimited, it says certain.  When James Madison stood before the Virginia delegation, trying to convince them to vote in favor of this new Constitution, he declared the following, “[T]he powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction.”

So, if our government only has certain powers, then they must be found somewhere in the Constitution. They are found in Article 1, Section 8, and there are only 17 of them.  An overwhelming majority of the Rules, labeled laws, enacted by Congress today exceeds the powers WE granted to our government.

I constantly hear arguments, and references made regarding the general welfare. Speaking before the House of Representatives in 1792 James Madison stated, “If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, everything, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress… Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America.”

It is important that you understand that the Government we now have has expanded its scope of powers waaay beyond those the people originally granted them, and it has transmuted, [changed it into something completely different], than the one established over 200 years ago.  I can say without a doubt that could our Founders see us now they would be asking themselves why we have not revolted against this oppressive Government that regulates every aspect of our lives and infringes upon our unalienable rights.

In his Memorial and Remonstrance, Madison clearly said, “The preservation of a free government requires, not merely that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained, but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great barrier which defends the rights of the people.” Although the phrase metes and bounds may sound unfamiliar to us in these modern times, it merely means boundaries. Therefore what Madison was saying was that for our government to remain free it MUST NOT cross over and violate our rights, particularly those specified in the Bill of Rights.

It was NEVER intended that Governments be interpreters of the law, merely that they apply it fairly and judiciously.  In an 1820 letter Thomas Jefferson voiced his concerns over the power held by the Supreme Court, “You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.  Our judges … and their power [are] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and are not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.  It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves … . When the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough. I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves. …. “

It was a simple construction, our government, but for it to function as it was intended the people absolutely MUST be involved, AND hold on to the principles which limited its power and authority. The moment they began allowing it to assume un-delegated powers it had the potential to become as oppressive, or even worse, than the one our Founders fought a Revolution to free themselves from.

I constantly hear people argue that times have changed and that our Constitution must change with them. Two things. First, something the Supreme Court said back in 1905, “The Constitution is a written instrument.  As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.”

Secondly, something George Washington said, “If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates.  But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”

But if that isn’t enough to convince you, in 1934 the Supreme Court ruled, “Emergency does not create power. Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish the restrictions imposed upon power granted or reserved. The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency.  Its grants of power to the federal government and its limitations of the power of the states were determined in the light of emergency, and they are not altered by emergency.”

In Burma, from 1990 to 2010 there was a leader who was imprisoned for her outspoken views against the existing Government. Her name was Aung San Suu Kyi.  In something entitled Freedom from Fear she writes, “Within a system which denies the existence of basic human rights, fear tends to be the order of the day. Fear of imprisonment, fear of torture, fear of death, fear of losing friends, family, property or means of livelihood, fear of poverty, fear of isolation, fear of failure. A most insidious form of fear is that which masquerades as common sense or even wisdom, condemning as foolish, reckless, insignificant or futile the small, daily acts of courage, which help to preserve man’s self-respect and inherent human dignity.  It is not easy for a people conditioned by fear under the iron rule of the principle that ‘might is right’ to free themselves from the enervating miasma of fear. Yet even under the most crushing state machinery courage rises up again and again, for fear is not the natural state of civilized man.”

We, and by we, I mean those of us who constantly speak out against the actions of Government and the encroachments upon our rights, are all bunched together in the category of radicals or tin foil hat conspiracy theorists.  Yet we have the law on our side.

In Title 18 of the U.S.C., sections 241, it states the following:

§241 If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same…They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both… “

Now i would say that the Corporate Government we find ourselves enslaved in, be it at the County, State or Federal level, constitutes a body of two or more persons.  Therefore if they enact a Code, Rule, Regulation or an Ordinance which violates, or infringes upon, our rights, they are guilty of a crime. But where is the means of punishing them when the courts are just as corrupt as the Rule makers?

Well, we don’t have to punish them, we can simply refuse to obey their ‘legal’ crap.

We have a Government that is arming itself to the teeth. Some of you may have heard about the Dept. of Homeland Security buying up billions of rounds of hollow point ammo. Hollow point ammo is not normally used for target practice, it is used against people to provide the most damage to the intended victim.  Just recently the Dept. of Agriculture made a purchase of fully automatic rifles with 30 round magazines and all the other bells and whistles that accompany a fully militarized unit. Why are they arming themselves, and against whom do they intend to use these weapons? This ought to frighten you, but that would presuppose you even knowing about it.

So what can we do?  Well, we can start by stop obeying their Codes, Rules, Regulations and Ordinances.  We have the authority to do so. Remember–ALL POWER IS INHERENT IN THE PEOPLE.

In the American Jurisprudence–an Encyclopedia of law, in the 16th edition, Section 177, it states, “The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed.  Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it …

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.  An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.  Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.“

But that takes courage, the courage to stand for your convictions and not fear the consequences. If you do so you may face arrest, or worse. But if the people of this country were educated and had the courage to stand up for their rights, no jury on earth would convict a man or woman for standing up for their rights.

John Jay, our nation’s very first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court wrote, “The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.”   Harlan Stone, our country’s 12th Chief Justice said basically the same thing, “The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided.”

Therefore, if the people of this country would educate themselves, AND grow a spine, we might be able to put a halt to these encroachments upon our liberty.  But I don’t see that happening, not in sufficient numbers to make a difference anyway.  No, this queen is not mad, i’m disgusted.  George Washington once said that the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty was staked upon the experiment entrusted to the American people.   Well, in our search for self-gratification and an endless stream of entertainment we have forgotten what it means to be free women and men. And as Samuel Adams said, “May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”

“IN PERSON”—OR “IN THE FLESH?”

“In Person,” typically implicates a Fiction, or “in the character of,” since “person” derives from “persona” which is the Latin word for theatrical mask.   We generally assume that making a “personal appearance” or appearing “in person” in the so-called court, means that we are appearing in our flesh-and-blood capacity as a womb/man.  But what if that assumption were false?  What if appearing “in person” or by making a “personal appearance” we were presumed by the ‘court’ to have consented to appear in the Fictional “person” of the ALL CAPS NAME.

When you say, I am appearing “in the flesh,” you are expressly denying that you are appearing in a fiduciary capacity, and you defeat the presumption that you appear “in the Person” of the ALL CAPS NAME.

Courts are good at conjuring up appearances.  Conjuring (black robes and being seated 4 feet above the floor) is part of the dark arts.

Magical sense is 1300 c for “constraining by spell” a demon to do one’s bidding.  And how do we put together our names?  We spell it.

Maybe if forced into an appearance in court you should specify that you are not a demon.  Bring some holy water and a bible and exorcise the court then and there!

LEGAL OR LAWFUL?

It is crucial to define the difference between “legal” and “lawful.” The generic Constitution references genuine law. The present civil authorities and their courts use the word “legal.” The following is from A Dictionary of Law (1893):

Lawful. In accordance with the law of the land; according to the law; permitted, sanctioned, or justified by law. “Lawful” properly implies a thing conformable to or enjoined by law.

Legal. Latin legalis. Pertaining to the understanding, the exposition, the administration, the science and the “practice” of law: as the legal profession, legal advice; legal blanks, newspaper. “Legal” looks more to the ‘letter of the law’ [form]. And “lawful” to the spirit of the law. “Legal” is that the proceeding is correct in method, that rules prescribed have been obeyed. A writ or warrant issuing from any court, under color of law, is a “Legal” process however defective.

Legal matters administrate, conform to, and follow rules. They are equitable in nature and are implied (presumed) rather than actual (express). A legal process can be defective in law. To be legal a matter does not have to follow the law.

Lawful matters are ethically enjoined in the law of the land – the law of the people – and are actual in nature, not implied. This is why whatever true law was upheld by the organic Constitution has no bearing or authority in the present day “Legal” courts. It is impossible for anyone in “authority” today to access, or take cognizance of, true law since “authority” is the “law of necessity.” 12 U.S.C. 95.

Therefore, it would appear that the meaning of the word “Legal” is the “color of law.”

DEATH DUMPS IN THE SKY

May 17, 2014
Eureka
Republic state California

It’s not enough anymore to expose distractivism. It has to be used as a foundation for real activism. Distractivists (politicians) have to be admonished for not addressing serious issues . . . not dismissed.

Climate Chaos is real and it’s INTENTIONAL.

The reality is this is our war (the 99%) against the most evil persons on the planet (the 1%). It’s time to derail the elites divide and conquer scheme and unite to take them down.

THEY cause the problems, blame we the people, and try to vilify us for their sins.

The issue is how to change the thinking and arrogance of millions of American people who are simply too spoiled and selfish.

Thank you for your support in our uphill battle to make things right again.

Letting go of the pyramid
Reaching for the circle