Application to United States legislature (Representative and Senate) for performance of subordinate United States Constitution contractual duty
The below following letter was sent as a valid contract request by one of the making owners of the USC contract. This information is being openly posted so others will know how to evaluate the honor and duty of our hired hands when measured against the contract they created hired hands have asked to be our faithful servants in our household. I have not figured out (if it is even possible) to copy and use .pdf files to do posting. The below letter is filed as a public record in the El Pasco County, CO clerk’s office at number 208074828. You can get a record copy straight from that office, or contract me via email at sjcaruthers@yahoo.com and I will provide you a .pdf file of the recorded letter and receipt confirmation number.
RE: Application to United States legislature (Representative and Senate) for performance of subordinate United States Constitution contractual duty for their help in abolishing this nation of domestic Violence from created persons against me, Siegfried J Caruthers and others of the body politic.
To:
US House of Representative
% Clerk Lorraine C Miller or current clerk person
US Capital, Room H154
Washington, DC 20515-6601
and
US Senate
% of Office of Secretary of the Senate: Nancy Erickson or current person
232 Senate Hart Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510
and
See last page for those persons sent a copy without any attachments for notice of this letter information.
Date: June 15, 2008
House of Representative and Senate or congress:
I am known as Siegfried J Caruthers, one of many of the body politic, who is a making owner by birthright and knowing adoption of the Supreme Law of this land. That Law is known as the Declaration of Independence (DoI) of July 4, 1776. An earlier signed and openly filed copy of that DoI is attached to this letter.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train 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 new Guards for their future security. –
I am one of the making owners of the United States Constitution of America (USC), by birthright, adoption, public utterances, use, and open filing of signed subordinate law to the DoI. An earlier signed and openly filed copy is attached to this letter.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The intent of Union (face to face with no 3rd party between) with Our created congress is My purpose with and for this letter. I have dealt with before --1: your created head inferior administrative United States Supreme Court; 2: then made application to the President for assistance in protection against domestic Violence. Both persons ignored my application as no correction/help was forth coming. I then impeached the person of the President, and provided the Senate with notice and provided Myself as the self-appointed Chief Justice of the contractual supreme Court. The Senate has refused to do their contractual duty per the USC contract and clear the impeachment or let it stand that the person of Bush as President is not morally nor contractually qualified to hold the office. Congress is attempting to run this nation as a king type democracy via pretense of following and adhering to the DoI and the subordinate USC.
Three times or more congress has denied to me and taken from me by force my unalienable Rights from the Creator, failed to support my efforts to get the DoI and subordinate USC contract terms enforced. The same failure of congress applies to getting contract chartered entities and or persons removed from my nation for failure to follow or honor the DoI and subordinate USC contracts in freewill subordinate contracts dealings with me. These items must be in accordance with the DoI and subordinate USC contract congress pretends to follow. I am invoking my duty and issue this letter call for adherence to strict contract intent and terms.
Unless you meet the following contract intent and terms, congress has forfeited the contract right to exist. There are too many failures of congress to correctly and properly follow the contact terms for one owner to cover with this one letter. If congress makes this a start of returning to the intent of the DoI and subordinate USC, the making Owners and honorable persons will have more to change later.
Absolute corrections required as of this letter:
1. The signing making Owners of the DoI and the subordinate USC are the only People who can take any unalienable Rights from the Creator from any People or persons, and that by action by Jury of making Owners of a supreme Court using USC due process. Liberty is defined as no one above and that includes all created persons as NOT being over or above the making Owner or another off work duty person.
2. All persons will be directed to honor any persons’ request for a habeas corpus at the time the habeas corpus is given. Plus the due process of the USC contract requires any proper valid warrant for a non-consensual search of private property, person, things, or making owners shall only be issued by an active supreme Court grand jury. All inferior administrative courts who wish to issue warrants must clearly indentify on the paper of the warrant that the warrants are only valid for consensual and non-coerced use.
3. The charters of all entities who do not follow the intent of the contract rules, will die a civil death and the remaining USC charter entities will do no business with the former entities.
4. The serial numbered federal reserved note will be redeemable at any member bank with the various states within 90 days of the date of this letter. This is mandatory, otherwise the state inferior administrative court are prevented from any ruling concerning non-obtainable standard lawful money of account. ….. make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts,…… All consensual parties to such a hearing would have to agree that the USC contract was not being adhered to or used and these facts put on the hearing record and what the rules of the hearing were. In addition, it is the intent of the DoI and subordinate USC, that the state sets the salary for their congressman, collects and sends that money to the federal treasury. The federal treasury then pays the state set salary, with state sent and provided funds. This condition is expected to be in affect for any congress taking office in 2009. What making owner would let the created hired persons set their own salary? PS: Attached for notice is a letter minus attachments to Treasury Sec Paulson dated June 21, 2008 concerning redeemable or non-redeemable Federal Reserve treasury notes.
5. All congress persons starting with 2009, when they accept the job, will not be inhabitants of the state they serve…..( ….Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.) This means they are non-voters for their contract period of service to me.
6. For the person the electors choose for starting the office term of President in 2009, the vice-president will be the electors second place vote getter. Other wise, the person of the President is starting off by not following the USC contact. That would be doing or accepting a violation of the USC contract on the first day in office, an impeachable act. For 2009 starting term, I expected to be hired as the Chief Justice so all making owners and persons understand the valid contractual impeachment power is in place and has been acknowledged by congress and the new presidential person. .
7. Only the accepted version of the USC has been changed by the making owners. The created hired persons can not change the Body Politics’ governmental contacts. Only the first class making Owners can make changes to their creation.
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same. In keeping with the intent of the USC contract that it required making Owners acceptance when changes were made, and contract interpretation maxim that only parties to a contract had standing to be a party to contract actions, the following actions have been performed. 1. The Ratification of the following making owners was done by convention of remote wireless communication for nine states, and is valid to ratify this accepted USC for this congress and nation. The making Owners and the states are as follow: 1. Justin Irvin—Wyoming; 2. Robert Intlekofer--- Iowa; 3. Mary Severance---Colorado; 4. Siegfried J Caruthers--- Tennessee; 5. Patrica Korsval & Lars Stephan---California; 6. John Paul Fagot---Missouri; 7. James Mozingo---Maryland; 8. Rita Critel---Nebraska; 9. Robert Cook---Alabama. We nine have accepted and signed on as making Owners of the DoI and the subordinate USC. We each have also provided a letter of this action to the US Secretary of State, to notify each of the states, the appropriate federal agencies, and affected treaty nations.
If any one burdens the unalienable Rights of any individual in those states that are not yet a signing partaker of the accepted contracts, any action not in accordance with the intent of the in force contract much be explained in clear simple English of what rules the moving party is using and their assumed jurisdiction. I do not consent to have my law besmirched with unlawfulness from others who wrongly blame my just DoI and subordinate USC contract law.
I expect the congress to convene within 10 days of receipt of this letter, and ensure the necessary action items are taken care of. If said convening and corrections are not complete with 10 to 15 days, then I will have to consider my next steps to get the contracts honored by another group of hired created persons. I would suggest a joint convening of the two houses of congress.
Siegfried J Caruthers: ________________________________________
Making owner, and a judicial power per the USC
Attachments:
signed Declaration of Independence – 5 pages
signed accepted subordinate United States Constitution – 15 pages
notice via signed letter to Sec Paulson of US Treasury – 2 pages date 6/21/08
Notice is given by this letter without any attachments to the following persons/US Departments:
Person of Sec. Paulson or current; US Treasury Department; 1500 Pennsylvania Ave, NW; Washington, DC 20220
Person of AG, Michael Mukasey or current; Department of Justice; 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW; Washington, DC 20530-0001
Person of Sec. Rice or current; Department of State; 2201 C Street NW; Washington, DC 20520
Sunday, July 20, 2008
unalienable rights & USC required contract money
State of standard lawful money from Paulson (head of US Treasury)
I do not know how most of you folks read and understand the law of this nation. Just as I do not try to convince flat earth believer that the earth is really another shape I will not try to spoon feed anyone my view of contract law. Does it matter whether the flat earth believers are correct or I am? This is the first of two done actions that I consider valid orders from my status with respect to the contract laws of this nation. If this works for posting, it will be followed by a second posting. I do hope the readers of this posting, enjoy becoming making owners, hence drivers of the contract law.
Please note: there is a blank space before the .pdf file of the publicly recorded letter concerning money kicks in. As far as I know, this allows my actions to be used by others as supporting their position concerning funny money and the contract requirements for this land.
I could not get the .pdf file to post, the following below letter and USPS confirmation of receipt is filed in El Pasco County, CO. at number 2080744829. If you wish to use, you can get from the CO county court clerk, or request via email from me and I will email the .pdf recorded file.
I can be contacted at for work files and my view point at <sjcaruthers@yahoo.com>
Serial Numbered US Federal Reserve Notes per Treasury
Date: June 21, 2008
To:
Person of Henry M. Paulson, Jr. or current Sec.
Treasury Department
1500 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20220
From:
Siegfried J Caruthers
Currently at: 1500 Hillcrest Rd, Apt 613
Mobile, AL 36695
RE: MY Request the enclosed 3 Serial Numbered 20’s I own and hold be exchanged for US minted gold coins.
Sir:
Long ago, I took some of the same type serial numbered notes to a local state member bank of the Federal Reserve banking system, but they could not or would not give me minted coin for the serial numbered legal tender notes. The action was repeated with the same result at one of the 12 Federal Reserve banks.
My status is as follows: I claim to be a making owner and accepter of the Supreme Law of this land known as the Declaration of Independence (hereafter DoI) and the subordinate accepted (my me and others) United States Constitution (hereafter USC). As a making owner and by the DoI and USC contracts a judicial power of this lands supreme Court, I send this judicial request letter to you. You are further informed that I have impeached the Person of President Bush, and you have no valid president above you to block, order, or cover for any contractual duty or non-contractual actions you take with regard to my request. For your peace of mind, I tell you I have provided notice to the appropriate houses of my Congress, with notice of my impeachment and offer to be the trial Chief Justice of the supreme Court mandated by the USC. Congress has chosen to not clear his name and thus, again qualify Bush to be the person of President. Those being the conditions, you working directly as appointed by congress, owe me the contract duty I am requesting.
Find enclosed 3 Federal Reserve serial numbers notes: CG 11078472 A;
GF 64694046 B; and IC 76924108 A. I want these three notes redeemed for indicated face value of minted US coin (standard lawful dollars). Since I have not been able to do so, at a local member system bank, I require shipping to my temporary address of this letter.
If the ordered redeemable does not take place and delivery made within 10 days after receipt, then this request serves as open notice to the world that any Monopoly money notes are as good as these more fancy non-redeemable Federal Reserve notes. By USC contract the federal court system can not order the use of a person or persons worthless piece of paper standing above worthless paper selected, made, or used another person or persons.
My ordered request for an owed contract duty per the USC,
Siegfried J Caruthers: ______________________________________________
A Judicial power of the supreme Court per the USC contract terms
PS: This letter without enclosed Federal Reserve bank notes will be attached to an application to congress I am making per the USC terms.
a: Enclosed are the three above listed serial numbered Federal Reserve Bank notes
I do not know how most of you folks read and understand the law of this nation. Just as I do not try to convince flat earth believer that the earth is really another shape I will not try to spoon feed anyone my view of contract law. Does it matter whether the flat earth believers are correct or I am? This is the first of two done actions that I consider valid orders from my status with respect to the contract laws of this nation. If this works for posting, it will be followed by a second posting. I do hope the readers of this posting, enjoy becoming making owners, hence drivers of the contract law.
Please note: there is a blank space before the .pdf file of the publicly recorded letter concerning money kicks in. As far as I know, this allows my actions to be used by others as supporting their position concerning funny money and the contract requirements for this land.
I could not get the .pdf file to post, the following below letter and USPS confirmation of receipt is filed in El Pasco County, CO. at number 2080744829. If you wish to use, you can get from the CO county court clerk, or request via email from me and I will email the .pdf recorded file.
I can be contacted at for work files and my view point at <sjcaruthers@yahoo.com>
Serial Numbered US Federal Reserve Notes per Treasury
Date: June 21, 2008
To:
Person of Henry M. Paulson, Jr. or current Sec.
Treasury Department
1500 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20220
From:
Siegfried J Caruthers
Currently at: 1500 Hillcrest Rd, Apt 613
Mobile, AL 36695
RE: MY Request the enclosed 3 Serial Numbered 20’s I own and hold be exchanged for US minted gold coins.
Sir:
Long ago, I took some of the same type serial numbered notes to a local state member bank of the Federal Reserve banking system, but they could not or would not give me minted coin for the serial numbered legal tender notes. The action was repeated with the same result at one of the 12 Federal Reserve banks.
My status is as follows: I claim to be a making owner and accepter of the Supreme Law of this land known as the Declaration of Independence (hereafter DoI) and the subordinate accepted (my me and others) United States Constitution (hereafter USC). As a making owner and by the DoI and USC contracts a judicial power of this lands supreme Court, I send this judicial request letter to you. You are further informed that I have impeached the Person of President Bush, and you have no valid president above you to block, order, or cover for any contractual duty or non-contractual actions you take with regard to my request. For your peace of mind, I tell you I have provided notice to the appropriate houses of my Congress, with notice of my impeachment and offer to be the trial Chief Justice of the supreme Court mandated by the USC. Congress has chosen to not clear his name and thus, again qualify Bush to be the person of President. Those being the conditions, you working directly as appointed by congress, owe me the contract duty I am requesting.
Find enclosed 3 Federal Reserve serial numbers notes: CG 11078472 A;
GF 64694046 B; and IC 76924108 A. I want these three notes redeemed for indicated face value of minted US coin (standard lawful dollars). Since I have not been able to do so, at a local member system bank, I require shipping to my temporary address of this letter.
If the ordered redeemable does not take place and delivery made within 10 days after receipt, then this request serves as open notice to the world that any Monopoly money notes are as good as these more fancy non-redeemable Federal Reserve notes. By USC contract the federal court system can not order the use of a person or persons worthless piece of paper standing above worthless paper selected, made, or used another person or persons.
My ordered request for an owed contract duty per the USC,
Siegfried J Caruthers: ______________________________________________
A Judicial power of the supreme Court per the USC contract terms
PS: This letter without enclosed Federal Reserve bank notes will be attached to an application to congress I am making per the USC terms.
a: Enclosed are the three above listed serial numbered Federal Reserve Bank notes
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
unalienable rights vs donkey & elephant circus
Reply to Hope and the world at large:
Your question indicate you and I think differently about the law of this land and how it is suppose to be set up. To say I consider your questions way off point, and indicating a lack of understanding, at least from my view point, is a very mild way of saying --- one of us needs to do a lot more thinking on the law of this land.
I claim ownership of the Declaration of Independence (DoI) and also the subordinate accepted United States Constitution (USC) (as I accept-not as the world talks about). I have signed the contacts and filed as a matter of record and told various and assorted persons of my position/status. My status is -- a making owner of both the DoI and subordinate USC. I am a Citizen of the United States. Both the DoI and USC are contracts. By signing on as a making owner, I hold by contract status, the position of a created judicial power of the USC’s supreme Court. I am one among many and by claiming I have a part in/of the contracts, I have standing. What gives you standing?
That said: I now go the words of the USC:
“”[[Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
(The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two-thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice-President.) The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.]]””
Read it and understand:: The contract is set up for us to choose electors who should then find a good man and vote for him. The contract implies strongly that once we choose electors, on a local scale, they then have the job of finding and voting for a presidential candidate. That means all this crap the from various parties and talk for popular vote or election of the president, is simply a Roman bread and circus show and is not according to the contract law of this land. Hope, you seem to have bought into this dog and pony show.
Please note the contract words are person and Native born. This part of the contract has nothing to with the birth of an individual via the birth canal or even by cesarean. I suspect it may take you a while to mull over the real intended time limit requirements, and qualifiers for this part of the contract language.
The governor of California Arnold S. can be president, and is contract suitable. For your info, remember Barry Goldwater. By using this Barack is not qualified because of where his mother’s legs were spread or womb was cut junk, then Barry Goldwater would not have been either. He was not birthed in the USA. It doesn’t matter that Arizona, later became a state. Go back and read the rules. There is no exception for being born in a soon to be state. Last for this posting -- natural born and native born are two very different words, especially when part of contract language.
Let’s elect the best electors we can vote for and let them do their job. I am tired of this donkey and elephant circus. I am out of it. It was much more enjoyable to watch Siegfried and Roy perform their show.
Your question indicate you and I think differently about the law of this land and how it is suppose to be set up. To say I consider your questions way off point, and indicating a lack of understanding, at least from my view point, is a very mild way of saying --- one of us needs to do a lot more thinking on the law of this land.
I claim ownership of the Declaration of Independence (DoI) and also the subordinate accepted United States Constitution (USC) (as I accept-not as the world talks about). I have signed the contacts and filed as a matter of record and told various and assorted persons of my position/status. My status is -- a making owner of both the DoI and subordinate USC. I am a Citizen of the United States. Both the DoI and USC are contracts. By signing on as a making owner, I hold by contract status, the position of a created judicial power of the USC’s supreme Court. I am one among many and by claiming I have a part in/of the contracts, I have standing. What gives you standing?
That said: I now go the words of the USC:
“”[[Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
(The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two-thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice-President.) The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.]]””
Read it and understand:: The contract is set up for us to choose electors who should then find a good man and vote for him. The contract implies strongly that once we choose electors, on a local scale, they then have the job of finding and voting for a presidential candidate. That means all this crap the from various parties and talk for popular vote or election of the president, is simply a Roman bread and circus show and is not according to the contract law of this land. Hope, you seem to have bought into this dog and pony show.
Please note the contract words are person and Native born. This part of the contract has nothing to with the birth of an individual via the birth canal or even by cesarean. I suspect it may take you a while to mull over the real intended time limit requirements, and qualifiers for this part of the contract language.
The governor of California Arnold S. can be president, and is contract suitable. For your info, remember Barry Goldwater. By using this Barack is not qualified because of where his mother’s legs were spread or womb was cut junk, then Barry Goldwater would not have been either. He was not birthed in the USA. It doesn’t matter that Arizona, later became a state. Go back and read the rules. There is no exception for being born in a soon to be state. Last for this posting -- natural born and native born are two very different words, especially when part of contract language.
Let’s elect the best electors we can vote for and let them do their job. I am tired of this donkey and elephant circus. I am out of it. It was much more enjoyable to watch Siegfried and Roy perform their show.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Unalienable Rights -- congress a type Rev Wright?
Unalienable Rights –congress a type of Rev Wright
The Supreme Law of this land is the contract law known as the Declaration of Independence and it states in writing, in part from a long held basic human concept, that each and every individual is endowed by their Creator with certain Unalienable Rights, and among these (not limited to only my listing) Life, Liberty (no one over), and pursuit of Happiness (absolute property ownership). I do not know why folks have such a problem with this simple law? Why it was only a few short years ago that even if I wanted to I could not go to school with or marry a sub-human who GOD made to be inferior. Since some Folks say God has now made these folks equal to white, browns and yellow, he has now reserved per some “so-called book” that Christians can be killed for not believing in Allah and his designated writer/s, and per “another so-called book” killed or beaten for wanting to marry a like individual. I believe that the words that the California Supreme Court used was the state has no business trying to say that civil unions were equal to state supported marriage union. The used words of logic were the same one they used when ruling that separate but equal was a farce under the USC contract when it concerned black schools and taxes. The problem being that the inferior courts and congress are still trying to avoid saying that for years they have been crapping on the law made by the People of this land. Congress wants to be a king and king mob slaver over the People. Congress wishes to be a type Democratic King and be over you, not serve you via the contract you hired them to work by. Why I do believe I have heard many say (and I think Hillary Clinton also) that to listen to anyone such as Rev. Wright and not walk out is a sure sign of evil. Why? When Rev. Wright might read and think that any just God would think blacks were just as equal as whites, and had all the same unalienable Rights as endowed (given) freely and forever a gift from the Creator. The error I see in Rev. Wright expressed views, is that the Rev did not mention that all the whites of the body politics were also facing the same problem. The congress is playing as a king and using force to try to run whatever game rules congress is going by. I cut some slack for Obama (because he is a first term federal congress person). Hillary, McCain, and Paul all want me to vote for them to lead me. I have not heard a one of them say they wish to serve me per the USC contract. Nor have I hears a one of them say they will respect and honor my unalienable rights and keep their stealing hands out of my pockets.
Some of us (9 by state count) have moved to define the accepted and in-place USC contract. The contract does not call for a king (congress or president or bank) over We the People. The USC service contract also called for minted metal coins to be the money (not non-redeemable serial numbered paper) used within the states. It further has requirements for where the various congresspersons must or must not come from. It does not have a valid requirement to pick a President and vice-president from the same majority vote of the “electors”. Is the change that people want of which Obama is speaking of but not saying that he, Obama, is going to serve We the People per the contracts? The contracts are designed and written to best secure our (yours and mine) unalienable Rights from Creator. I for one would like and support that change. Why I bet even Rev Wright would support such a change.
Promoting a contractual peaceful resolution to the long unflawed but not properly followed contracts, much study and thinking on has been done, as well as the principles of law and justice. To that end, nine states (TN, CO, WY, IO, AL, MD, MO, CA, and NE) have been signed on and we the signers consider the contracts as given by us nine to be in full force and effect. If folks from other states wish a valid law, then consider signing on for your state. It is your choice. If you wish to learn more about the law as we are reading the contracts, please contact Mary Severance ---- severanceme@yahoo.com . There is nothing to buy, only read and think on. If you reach the conclusion we have a lawful point, or at least call the contract used question up for your use, then sign papers of your choice and mail to US Sec. of State for filing to affected persons. We suggest using priority mail with a confirmation of delivery, which makes your cost to post office under 6 bucks.
1. We the nine have made a claim of being, by our adoption, making owners of both the Declaration of Independence (DoI) and the subordinate accepted United States Constitution (USC).
2. We hold both the DoI and the USC are contracts. Some folks use long dead folks and claim the dead actually were meaning to claim by writing or actions of long ago what the dead actually meant. The folks then use dead hear say to back their view. We use our sense of right and wrong in any contract that We take part in, especially as We claim to be one of the makers.
3. We hold the view (belief) that all contracts are civil in nature because to take part of the contract is to agree of ones own freewill to be bound by the contract terms. We have done so, as We read and understand the terms. Force is not a part of the contract equation for either of us or the hired help.
4. By the same token, since (if I understood your logic correctly) "inalienable --- means not subject to a being part of a contract" then for use the word has to be unalienable. If not; then, the hired help are equal to us the hiring masters. How could We contract for a house builder, if the builder could not accept that our wishes concerning the house were greater than his? That is why unalienable means the individual has to pick up the burden and place the burden (duty) on his own shoulders. To serve me, the hired hand has to; of the hired hand’s own free will accept that contractual duty. That duty is by the contract.
5. Since only the makers can change the contract and the 9 makers who accepted for their states long ago are dead, 9 of us present day makers have stepped forward and signed on as makers of the original and hence current USC contract and the so called first 10 amendments.
6. The signatory states makers are from CO, NE, TN, WY, IO, MD, AL, MO, and CA. If other individuals want their state to be covered by this contact, then they have to sign on of their own freewill, as we 9 did. What changes it will make, I have not a clue. We are trying to follow the contract terms as we read and understand. All 9 owners' letters have been sent to the Sec of State for her to notify the appropriate persons. I think there would be quakes to follow one law in 9 states and another law in the other 41. We shall see.
7. If you have no part of a contract, then any action against you via said contract has no jurisdiction to involve you. If by faulty presumption, others are going to claim contract covers you, then sign on and claim the contract makers' roles and the makers' superior status.
8. That way, one's claim of unalienable rights and the primary intent of the subordinate USC contract is to best secure those rights, gives you the logical lawful high road.
Yours for Unalienable Rights from the Creator
The Supreme Law of this land is the contract law known as the Declaration of Independence and it states in writing, in part from a long held basic human concept, that each and every individual is endowed by their Creator with certain Unalienable Rights, and among these (not limited to only my listing) Life, Liberty (no one over), and pursuit of Happiness (absolute property ownership). I do not know why folks have such a problem with this simple law? Why it was only a few short years ago that even if I wanted to I could not go to school with or marry a sub-human who GOD made to be inferior. Since some Folks say God has now made these folks equal to white, browns and yellow, he has now reserved per some “so-called book” that Christians can be killed for not believing in Allah and his designated writer/s, and per “another so-called book” killed or beaten for wanting to marry a like individual. I believe that the words that the California Supreme Court used was the state has no business trying to say that civil unions were equal to state supported marriage union. The used words of logic were the same one they used when ruling that separate but equal was a farce under the USC contract when it concerned black schools and taxes. The problem being that the inferior courts and congress are still trying to avoid saying that for years they have been crapping on the law made by the People of this land. Congress wants to be a king and king mob slaver over the People. Congress wishes to be a type Democratic King and be over you, not serve you via the contract you hired them to work by. Why I do believe I have heard many say (and I think Hillary Clinton also) that to listen to anyone such as Rev. Wright and not walk out is a sure sign of evil. Why? When Rev. Wright might read and think that any just God would think blacks were just as equal as whites, and had all the same unalienable Rights as endowed (given) freely and forever a gift from the Creator. The error I see in Rev. Wright expressed views, is that the Rev did not mention that all the whites of the body politics were also facing the same problem. The congress is playing as a king and using force to try to run whatever game rules congress is going by. I cut some slack for Obama (because he is a first term federal congress person). Hillary, McCain, and Paul all want me to vote for them to lead me. I have not heard a one of them say they wish to serve me per the USC contract. Nor have I hears a one of them say they will respect and honor my unalienable rights and keep their stealing hands out of my pockets.
Some of us (9 by state count) have moved to define the accepted and in-place USC contract. The contract does not call for a king (congress or president or bank) over We the People. The USC service contract also called for minted metal coins to be the money (not non-redeemable serial numbered paper) used within the states. It further has requirements for where the various congresspersons must or must not come from. It does not have a valid requirement to pick a President and vice-president from the same majority vote of the “electors”. Is the change that people want of which Obama is speaking of but not saying that he, Obama, is going to serve We the People per the contracts? The contracts are designed and written to best secure our (yours and mine) unalienable Rights from Creator. I for one would like and support that change. Why I bet even Rev Wright would support such a change.
Promoting a contractual peaceful resolution to the long unflawed but not properly followed contracts, much study and thinking on has been done, as well as the principles of law and justice. To that end, nine states (TN, CO, WY, IO, AL, MD, MO, CA, and NE) have been signed on and we the signers consider the contracts as given by us nine to be in full force and effect. If folks from other states wish a valid law, then consider signing on for your state. It is your choice. If you wish to learn more about the law as we are reading the contracts, please contact Mary Severance ---- severanceme@yahoo.com . There is nothing to buy, only read and think on. If you reach the conclusion we have a lawful point, or at least call the contract used question up for your use, then sign papers of your choice and mail to US Sec. of State for filing to affected persons. We suggest using priority mail with a confirmation of delivery, which makes your cost to post office under 6 bucks.
1. We the nine have made a claim of being, by our adoption, making owners of both the Declaration of Independence (DoI) and the subordinate accepted United States Constitution (USC).
2. We hold both the DoI and the USC are contracts. Some folks use long dead folks and claim the dead actually were meaning to claim by writing or actions of long ago what the dead actually meant. The folks then use dead hear say to back their view. We use our sense of right and wrong in any contract that We take part in, especially as We claim to be one of the makers.
3. We hold the view (belief) that all contracts are civil in nature because to take part of the contract is to agree of ones own freewill to be bound by the contract terms. We have done so, as We read and understand the terms. Force is not a part of the contract equation for either of us or the hired help.
4. By the same token, since (if I understood your logic correctly) "inalienable --- means not subject to a being part of a contract" then for use the word has to be unalienable. If not; then, the hired help are equal to us the hiring masters. How could We contract for a house builder, if the builder could not accept that our wishes concerning the house were greater than his? That is why unalienable means the individual has to pick up the burden and place the burden (duty) on his own shoulders. To serve me, the hired hand has to; of the hired hand’s own free will accept that contractual duty. That duty is by the contract.
5. Since only the makers can change the contract and the 9 makers who accepted for their states long ago are dead, 9 of us present day makers have stepped forward and signed on as makers of the original and hence current USC contract and the so called first 10 amendments.
6. The signatory states makers are from CO, NE, TN, WY, IO, MD, AL, MO, and CA. If other individuals want their state to be covered by this contact, then they have to sign on of their own freewill, as we 9 did. What changes it will make, I have not a clue. We are trying to follow the contract terms as we read and understand. All 9 owners' letters have been sent to the Sec of State for her to notify the appropriate persons. I think there would be quakes to follow one law in 9 states and another law in the other 41. We shall see.
7. If you have no part of a contract, then any action against you via said contract has no jurisdiction to involve you. If by faulty presumption, others are going to claim contract covers you, then sign on and claim the contract makers' roles and the makers' superior status.
8. That way, one's claim of unalienable rights and the primary intent of the subordinate USC contract is to best secure those rights, gives you the logical lawful high road.
Yours for Unalienable Rights from the Creator
Monday, April 28, 2008
Unalienable Rights & sandbox explanation 4-1-08
Unalienable Rights & Sandbox Explanation 4-1-08
Thanks to Larken Rose for the below link, which I am posting again. It is a simple sandbox explanation that makes the rules given in the Declaration of Independence (DoI) self evident to even a 3rd grader. If you watch and don’t understand, get a kid in a sand box to tell you what it means to him.
http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf
The link is on the order of an old movie theater Saturday double feature “short subject”. Enjoy.
May your unalienable Rights from the Creator be here for all: now and forever!
Thanks to Larken Rose for the below link, which I am posting again. It is a simple sandbox explanation that makes the rules given in the Declaration of Independence (DoI) self evident to even a 3rd grader. If you watch and don’t understand, get a kid in a sand box to tell you what it means to him.
http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf
The link is on the order of an old movie theater Saturday double feature “short subject”. Enjoy.
May your unalienable Rights from the Creator be here for all: now and forever!
Sunday, April 27, 2008
unalienable Rights & project 9
Unalienable Rights – Project 9 kick-off - 4-27-08
If Sherry Peel Jackson has no unalienable rights ((see Declaration of Independence (DoI)) or the subordinate United States Constitution (USC) is not honored, then the hired help of the DOJ and the Congress appointed and controlled inferior courts (federal and state) are using legal water boarding to attacked us; and not one can say they are free or have unalienable rights from Creator. I provided the best Habeas Corpus for Sherry to consider signing along with copies of filed DoI and the accepted subordinate USC to send the package up to the head inferior 9 persons of justice, for the USSC, appointed and controlled by congress. The 9 are only the single point contact and mouth pieces for the congressional member. If the nine persons will not correct or support unalienable rights, then such lays with the wishes of doing “what congress wants”. I can not say with 100% certainty what Sherry sent up or if she even sent it to the USSC, but I suspect she did. It should have been honored and Sherry out now; so, if Sherry does not have unalienable rights from the Creator and as a making owner of the subordinate USC can not have the law honored for her, then things suck. Each of you will have to decide which of the king congressperson to lick the boots and be a good serf or slave to. If you can not see the position of drawing a 20 inch vacuum on a king congressperson is different than being a thinking responsible making owner of the subordinate USC, may your kids and grandkids not curse you, even while they struggle for their birthright bowl of porridge you sold from your table.
This forum is being used to inform any reader that as of tomorrow 4-27-08 I have been informed a signing individual will sign for the ninth state and send both the signed public filed documents to the Sec. of State. We hold it is Sec of State’s duty to notify the states and the federal departments and any agencies of our contract actions. We 9 folks from various nine state having taking ownership of the accepted USC contract, have signed our name, hold we are true first class voters, Citizens of the US, and as such claim and hold that the USC is subordinate to the DoI and its primary purpose is to best secure our and your unalienable right. If you do not have part in a contract, you have no standing to have it apply to you. There is a fixed condition per my read of the USC contract that after any change; People in at least nine states must sign on, for it to become a valid active contract. The ninth is due (I am told) to be signed tomorrow and sent to Sec of State. It should arrive there by at least Thursday.
Since I am not sure how or what this current bunch of elected congress persons is using to do as they are doing, I can not tell you or even guess what this will accomplish. It will at least call the question of what they are attacking under to the fore front. It gives us a known law in which to hang our defense of self’s and others on. It will be interesting to see if it makes any changes, and if so how they explain it to the states who have not signed on – hence would maybe have a different law. The educated Chinese I am told have a strange curse for their enemies. It is: “Ah, may you live in interesting time”. Just remember, us 9 are here with you, even if we 9 are trying our best to have change. That change is to have the law as written and we have accepted followed. Since we are not trying to hide our actions or purpose from you but give you an opportunity to consider and maybe join us and add your state to the law, I will give you my email address. If you wish to write and request, I will send you the compete set of papers. Email sjcaruthers@yahoo.com and request the Project 9 paper work set. I will email when my schedule permits.
Yours for unalienable Rights from Creator – may they be here soon.
If Sherry Peel Jackson has no unalienable rights ((see Declaration of Independence (DoI)) or the subordinate United States Constitution (USC) is not honored, then the hired help of the DOJ and the Congress appointed and controlled inferior courts (federal and state) are using legal water boarding to attacked us; and not one can say they are free or have unalienable rights from Creator. I provided the best Habeas Corpus for Sherry to consider signing along with copies of filed DoI and the accepted subordinate USC to send the package up to the head inferior 9 persons of justice, for the USSC, appointed and controlled by congress. The 9 are only the single point contact and mouth pieces for the congressional member. If the nine persons will not correct or support unalienable rights, then such lays with the wishes of doing “what congress wants”. I can not say with 100% certainty what Sherry sent up or if she even sent it to the USSC, but I suspect she did. It should have been honored and Sherry out now; so, if Sherry does not have unalienable rights from the Creator and as a making owner of the subordinate USC can not have the law honored for her, then things suck. Each of you will have to decide which of the king congressperson to lick the boots and be a good serf or slave to. If you can not see the position of drawing a 20 inch vacuum on a king congressperson is different than being a thinking responsible making owner of the subordinate USC, may your kids and grandkids not curse you, even while they struggle for their birthright bowl of porridge you sold from your table.
This forum is being used to inform any reader that as of tomorrow 4-27-08 I have been informed a signing individual will sign for the ninth state and send both the signed public filed documents to the Sec. of State. We hold it is Sec of State’s duty to notify the states and the federal departments and any agencies of our contract actions. We 9 folks from various nine state having taking ownership of the accepted USC contract, have signed our name, hold we are true first class voters, Citizens of the US, and as such claim and hold that the USC is subordinate to the DoI and its primary purpose is to best secure our and your unalienable right. If you do not have part in a contract, you have no standing to have it apply to you. There is a fixed condition per my read of the USC contract that after any change; People in at least nine states must sign on, for it to become a valid active contract. The ninth is due (I am told) to be signed tomorrow and sent to Sec of State. It should arrive there by at least Thursday.
Since I am not sure how or what this current bunch of elected congress persons is using to do as they are doing, I can not tell you or even guess what this will accomplish. It will at least call the question of what they are attacking under to the fore front. It gives us a known law in which to hang our defense of self’s and others on. It will be interesting to see if it makes any changes, and if so how they explain it to the states who have not signed on – hence would maybe have a different law. The educated Chinese I am told have a strange curse for their enemies. It is: “Ah, may you live in interesting time”. Just remember, us 9 are here with you, even if we 9 are trying our best to have change. That change is to have the law as written and we have accepted followed. Since we are not trying to hide our actions or purpose from you but give you an opportunity to consider and maybe join us and add your state to the law, I will give you my email address. If you wish to write and request, I will send you the compete set of papers. Email sjcaruthers@yahoo.com and request the Project 9 paper work set. I will email when my schedule permits.
Yours for unalienable Rights from Creator – may they be here soon.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
unalienable Rights, born, & judicial power
I am going to postpone for now the listing of the criminal wrongs which have been done in not giving/honoring several of the previously listed individuals their unalienable Rights from Creator. I hold to attack them because they were only standing on their unalienable rights is no different than a hate crime against a gay. Are the attackers (congress, DOJ, President, congress created black robed inferior court system) using the very false reasoning on the 14th Amendment that until they are born, they have no civil rights. If so then it would mean that the individual was being considered, unborn because they had not said they claimed as making owners, the unalienable Rights of the Declaration of Independence (DoI) and making owner of the subordinate United States Constitution (USC). A group of attackers, who do not give the true reason and exact law for the attack, ranks no higher in my mine than a pedophile.
Thanks to an Alfred Adask DVD on the Declaration of Independence for the following. He got the impression that the different in a Republic where each individual had been given unalienable rights. And this current democracy system operation was the People were still supposed to be Sovereign, but only on a collective base, not on an individual base as in a Republic. I have a few problems with part of what he doesn’t say about contracts and an individual’s status with respect to those contracts. We each have to start some where, and this might be a good start for most. One can purchase the DVD, only my guess, from cptexas.org. My copy was sent to me by a friend.
Let talk about being born in the US to be president as the dummy newspapers and most educators say is required by the USC. That is a flat out lie, by simply dummies or liars. If you bother to check the USC the written words say (one must be Native Born) not natural born. The USC being a contract, the words Native Born have a contract meaning, not a baby’s actual birth of passing out his mother’s womb through the standard birth canal or even a C-section.
Goldwater ran but was not chosen, and he was birthed in the territory of Arizona not the USA, Cain was birthed in Panama Canal Zone, This means Arnold S. who is currently governor of California, could be president this coming term or in the future.
Wonder if the electors want to make Arnold’s day.
______________________________
Author in black.
I am sorry but I cannot make heads or tails out of what your comments are or what they are supposed to mean. It is evident you do not differentiate between the public/political side and the private non-political side of the government. Until we get that "little" item, we can only reason in circles. I think posting my words and your comments will not help the situation, only confuse even more anybody who reads the same.
If you are reading this on an open forum, please know I had requested permission of the author as I have an advantage in commenting on what was a feed-back to about an hour conference call last week between several of us. I think he says some things that my neighbors need to think about. His words above in black were his suggestion that it would just be confusing to you as he and I saw things in a different logic fashion. I have removed his name, but the subject is one I think important. I hope he is mostly wrong and you get some understanding out of this exchange of thoughts.
Lady: I am a private individual endowed by my Creator (not government) with certain unalienable rights. We agree that our rights are unalienable. I hold that the use of the word Creator in the Declaration of Independence (DoI) is a singular usage of the many that hold that view of each one’s rights. Those unalienable rights reside in each and every individual. They do not reside in only a king.
Until the individual wakes up and smell the coffee and get the scales off of his/her eyes as to whom he/she is, the individual will consent to be governed by governments instituted among men deriving their just Power from the consent of the governed.
I agree that until one wakes up and learns they have to be a judicial power for them selves, they will not realize what their power to consent is. I teach/hold that both the DoI and the United States Constitution (USC) are contracts. The primary purpose of the USC is to best secure our unalienable Rights from Creator. At least if you claim to be by adoption, a making owner. As one of the contract makers, your position is above that of the created persona of the persons who chose to service us. Lady likes the term Cui Bono (for our benefit). We owners wrote the USC for our benefit as its primary function.
You can't be sovereign and consent to be governed by government instituted among men, because such government gets its just Power from your consent.
As an owning maker, that contract does not have my consent to have the created hired help be over me or judge me. What fool would do that. If you or they get that read of the contract, then all you are left with is by what right does the created use the barrel of the gun to enforce what they try to claim is the hired man’s right to rule. That logic does not fly with me. I may get beaten, robbed, or killed, but it will not be by law. As to the sovereign part, I agree and teach that I as a making owner of the USC can only deal with that law, via my owner’s status or persona. Since my status as a class one voter, allows me to be my own judicial power for my USC contract matters, I generally choose to be a judicial power of the “one supreme Court”.
The Declaration of Independence contains no law of man; it does however contain principals of law from God. Your statement that the Declaration of Independence is Supreme Law of the Nation might have merit or be correct if you have not consented to be governed by governments instituted among men deriving their just Power from your consent to be governed.
Why would one consent to force being used against one? We chose to read and understand the contract differently.
The 13 former British colonies did send delegates to Pennsylvania to hammer out a new constitution for the federal government that was created in 1777 by certain Articles of Confederation, now styled the United States of America. However, these delegates did not represent State governments; they represented the People in their own conventions and not as State government’s delegates. The State governments had no part in creating the Constitution but it bound the State governments without their consent, by ratification and then on March 4, 1789, by adoption by the federal government.
Ratification means to make you a party to something,
Adoption means to bring under your control.
That is why by adoption as a making owner, I have control of the contract.
The ten amendments were proposed by Congress properly done under Article V which required only the Congress and State votes. The authority to change by amendment has never required all the People of the United States authority. Congress and the States get their authority from the People of the Several States which does not include all the People of the United States.
We differ on our read of Article V. The hired help can only suggest We the People consider a change to our rules. The hired hands can’t do it. Such logic would mean the farm animal ran the farmer and the farm. The Created can suggest the owners in the states consider the change, but that is all. Those making owners, who are first class voters, are called by their handle of Legislatures in Article V. Legislatures are law givers. In that light, since we hold whining hired help are much like kids, just because they keep asking per Article 5, after the first census, if the Legislatures don’t vote, then the required approval percentage is not reached. I vote no by going fishing. Not voting does not does imply or mean contract consent per Article 5.
One thing you are right on, "The People are the judicial Power." "They hold Court where they are and are the one supreme Court, justice, clerk, jury, and etc. If this be the case and it is, then sitting of the People's Chief Justice above the present created chief justice John Roberts would also create sovereign and subject, with the people being the subject. Not so the Lady.
I would agree except the contract created person of the Chief Justice is not above the judicial power of the owners. It is mostly a quality assurance clerk’s position and only in and as the single point of contact for filing certain impeachment papers and then the trial of the president is the Chief Justice truly a judge. Even then the Senate does the voting, but it makes it an open court trial with control of the process by the Chief Justice and the Senator speaking and voting in an open court trial where they can be held accountable.
The Federalist Paper #33 by Hamilton also expressed "just bound of its authority." The Declaration of Independence stated, "That to secure these [unalienable] rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed." Government gets it just Power from the People's consent.
The Constitution is not a distribution of Powers between the United States and the States but the Constitution is a reservation to the People [as individuals] of all powers not granted. The Constitution however is an Organic Law in which all three sovereign Powers co-exist within the United States must mutually agree upon.
We are guaranteed a Republican Form of Government, in which the Powers of Sovereignty are vested in the People and may be exercised by the People , either directly, or indirectly through delegates (representatives) chosen by the People to whom the People specially delegate their sovereign power to such representative. This special delegation is your consent either by silence or your expressed authority to be governed further than the confines of the Constitution and its Amendments. Government derives its just Power from the consent of the governed, expressed or implied.
We differ on what it takes to say no to the use of force by the hired help. So far I have not found any reason to think any sane individual would agree to be robbed, raped, pillaged, or held by force of arms in a three hots and a cot cage. I simply do not think the USC was ever given that contract law. I know I have never or would have never adopted USC if there was any way in hell that a sane individual could even get close to that logic.
Have a great day.
Thanks to an Alfred Adask DVD on the Declaration of Independence for the following. He got the impression that the different in a Republic where each individual had been given unalienable rights. And this current democracy system operation was the People were still supposed to be Sovereign, but only on a collective base, not on an individual base as in a Republic. I have a few problems with part of what he doesn’t say about contracts and an individual’s status with respect to those contracts. We each have to start some where, and this might be a good start for most. One can purchase the DVD, only my guess, from cptexas.org. My copy was sent to me by a friend.
Let talk about being born in the US to be president as the dummy newspapers and most educators say is required by the USC. That is a flat out lie, by simply dummies or liars. If you bother to check the USC the written words say (one must be Native Born) not natural born. The USC being a contract, the words Native Born have a contract meaning, not a baby’s actual birth of passing out his mother’s womb through the standard birth canal or even a C-section.
Goldwater ran but was not chosen, and he was birthed in the territory of Arizona not the USA, Cain was birthed in Panama Canal Zone, This means Arnold S. who is currently governor of California, could be president this coming term or in the future.
Wonder if the electors want to make Arnold’s day.
______________________________
Author in black.
I am sorry but I cannot make heads or tails out of what your comments are or what they are supposed to mean. It is evident you do not differentiate between the public/political side and the private non-political side of the government. Until we get that "little" item, we can only reason in circles. I think posting my words and your comments will not help the situation, only confuse even more anybody who reads the same.
If you are reading this on an open forum, please know I had requested permission of the author as I have an advantage in commenting on what was a feed-back to about an hour conference call last week between several of us. I think he says some things that my neighbors need to think about. His words above in black were his suggestion that it would just be confusing to you as he and I saw things in a different logic fashion. I have removed his name, but the subject is one I think important. I hope he is mostly wrong and you get some understanding out of this exchange of thoughts.
Lady: I am a private individual endowed by my Creator (not government) with certain unalienable rights. We agree that our rights are unalienable. I hold that the use of the word Creator in the Declaration of Independence (DoI) is a singular usage of the many that hold that view of each one’s rights. Those unalienable rights reside in each and every individual. They do not reside in only a king.
Until the individual wakes up and smell the coffee and get the scales off of his/her eyes as to whom he/she is, the individual will consent to be governed by governments instituted among men deriving their just Power from the consent of the governed.
I agree that until one wakes up and learns they have to be a judicial power for them selves, they will not realize what their power to consent is. I teach/hold that both the DoI and the United States Constitution (USC) are contracts. The primary purpose of the USC is to best secure our unalienable Rights from Creator. At least if you claim to be by adoption, a making owner. As one of the contract makers, your position is above that of the created persona of the persons who chose to service us. Lady likes the term Cui Bono (for our benefit). We owners wrote the USC for our benefit as its primary function.
You can't be sovereign and consent to be governed by government instituted among men, because such government gets its just Power from your consent.
As an owning maker, that contract does not have my consent to have the created hired help be over me or judge me. What fool would do that. If you or they get that read of the contract, then all you are left with is by what right does the created use the barrel of the gun to enforce what they try to claim is the hired man’s right to rule. That logic does not fly with me. I may get beaten, robbed, or killed, but it will not be by law. As to the sovereign part, I agree and teach that I as a making owner of the USC can only deal with that law, via my owner’s status or persona. Since my status as a class one voter, allows me to be my own judicial power for my USC contract matters, I generally choose to be a judicial power of the “one supreme Court”.
The Declaration of Independence contains no law of man; it does however contain principals of law from God. Your statement that the Declaration of Independence is Supreme Law of the Nation might have merit or be correct if you have not consented to be governed by governments instituted among men deriving their just Power from your consent to be governed.
Why would one consent to force being used against one? We chose to read and understand the contract differently.
The 13 former British colonies did send delegates to Pennsylvania to hammer out a new constitution for the federal government that was created in 1777 by certain Articles of Confederation, now styled the United States of America. However, these delegates did not represent State governments; they represented the People in their own conventions and not as State government’s delegates. The State governments had no part in creating the Constitution but it bound the State governments without their consent, by ratification and then on March 4, 1789, by adoption by the federal government.
Ratification means to make you a party to something,
Adoption means to bring under your control.
That is why by adoption as a making owner, I have control of the contract.
The ten amendments were proposed by Congress properly done under Article V which required only the Congress and State votes. The authority to change by amendment has never required all the People of the United States authority. Congress and the States get their authority from the People of the Several States which does not include all the People of the United States.
We differ on our read of Article V. The hired help can only suggest We the People consider a change to our rules. The hired hands can’t do it. Such logic would mean the farm animal ran the farmer and the farm. The Created can suggest the owners in the states consider the change, but that is all. Those making owners, who are first class voters, are called by their handle of Legislatures in Article V. Legislatures are law givers. In that light, since we hold whining hired help are much like kids, just because they keep asking per Article 5, after the first census, if the Legislatures don’t vote, then the required approval percentage is not reached. I vote no by going fishing. Not voting does not does imply or mean contract consent per Article 5.
One thing you are right on, "The People are the judicial Power." "They hold Court where they are and are the one supreme Court, justice, clerk, jury, and etc. If this be the case and it is, then sitting of the People's Chief Justice above the present created chief justice John Roberts would also create sovereign and subject, with the people being the subject. Not so the Lady.
I would agree except the contract created person of the Chief Justice is not above the judicial power of the owners. It is mostly a quality assurance clerk’s position and only in and as the single point of contact for filing certain impeachment papers and then the trial of the president is the Chief Justice truly a judge. Even then the Senate does the voting, but it makes it an open court trial with control of the process by the Chief Justice and the Senator speaking and voting in an open court trial where they can be held accountable.
The Federalist Paper #33 by Hamilton also expressed "just bound of its authority." The Declaration of Independence stated, "That to secure these [unalienable] rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed." Government gets it just Power from the People's consent.
The Constitution is not a distribution of Powers between the United States and the States but the Constitution is a reservation to the People [as individuals] of all powers not granted. The Constitution however is an Organic Law in which all three sovereign Powers co-exist within the United States must mutually agree upon.
We are guaranteed a Republican Form of Government, in which the Powers of Sovereignty are vested in the People and may be exercised by the People , either directly, or indirectly through delegates (representatives) chosen by the People to whom the People specially delegate their sovereign power to such representative. This special delegation is your consent either by silence or your expressed authority to be governed further than the confines of the Constitution and its Amendments. Government derives its just Power from the consent of the governed, expressed or implied.
We differ on what it takes to say no to the use of force by the hired help. So far I have not found any reason to think any sane individual would agree to be robbed, raped, pillaged, or held by force of arms in a three hots and a cot cage. I simply do not think the USC was ever given that contract law. I know I have never or would have never adopted USC if there was any way in hell that a sane individual could even get close to that logic.
Have a great day.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Unalienable Rights from Creator versus USC ostrich slavers
Unalienable Rights from Creator versus USC ostrich slavers
Do any of you out there have a well mannered kid you wish to sell me for my use of my work needs, my pleasures, and possibly to resale for profit or pay bills (debt)? Shucks if you will let your hired congresspersons run up a bill. If you and most everyone wants to believe your kids have to take responsibility for the debt you and your hired servants bought your daily drugs with, then I will try to buy one or two of the chattel kid. Unless I get in real debt trouble and have to sell them or pledge the purchased chattel as collateral, someday I might decide to give them unalienable rights. And make them equal to me. See what a good deal you would be doing for yourself and you kids. You get money today for drugs, and they get hope for some future day.
This is the actual view the hired servant (congresspersons, presidents) has of you and your kids. Where else do they come up with the concept they are our king. By hiding there actual deeds under the inferior court system rulings. Congress created and selects the inferior administrative black robes and calls them judges. If the judges don’t do as congress wishes, then congress writes or rewrites a law and tell created judges this is the (our) rule.
Please remember, I will tell you what I believe and hold and where I come up with it. Not so the inferior court system and the money hungry congresspersons.
Martha Steward was attached and had her unalienable rights taken by the hired servants. It was wrong in that the attack and taking was not in the owners’ one supreme Court. I will guess and agree Martha walked in to the inferior administrative court forum on the advice of the lawyer. Why would a boss, go into an inferior court. Since the lawyer makes his living off the bogus inferior court system why would he explain: I and my fellow lawyers are just shearing you for our benefit and to keep others in line with fear? After the so-called trial, they do what is called an allocution or where jurisdiction is then finally decided. Guess what, as far as I know, that is the only place other that the front end challenge of Jurisdiction where the judge is required to answer your question and that probably includes jurisdiction. Maybe not even the jurisdiction question on the front end, as I have never seen them stop their process of attack for jurisdiction reason on the record or answer it. Of course the system procedure rules; allow, permit, encourage, your hired or appointed lawyer to ask or not ask for you and to accept or not accept, not tell you the first thing about selling you down the river. The lawyer may ask you to sign the “pre-sentence report”, but by then you have been in and out of the tattoo parlor. You and your tattoo are down the river in a very old and leaky inner-tube. For justice to live and ensure domestic tranquility; jurisdiction has to be the very first item determined and be part of the record before an action begins.
This allocution is where they do the “pre-sentence report” and it is written in such style if signed, then you are admitting to guilt and your prescribed written in the code books punishment is as the presentence report gives. All that is generally left for appeal is procedural error or an incompetent lawyer. System really don’t like their rottenness brought up. Now Martha is down to doing time, then to get out on house arrest, the “parole papers” one has to sign to get a longer tow cable. On those papers, one has to admit they did the “crime” and agree that they do not claim any rights that the DOJ doesn’t want them to. In order to get the longer tow rope, skip the 3 hots and a cot in a 4 by 8 cell the paroles have to agree in writing on parole paper. If you want to call this type procedural behavior of the DOJ freewill consent of the paroles, good for you, I do not call it freewill consent. I have scant hope for Martha’s appeal because of all the above reasons. Yet there are quite a few who prevail after spending time even complete sentence (years or months) in jail, and after having paid the system lawyers a bundle to defend your rights. Means, after years of attacking and taking from you, they ruled in a higher court that the attack was wrong.
I realize all you ostriches have your head buried in the rabbit hole with Alice, but I also know that many of you have your exposed gut feeling something is not correct in this land of the unalienable Rights from the Creator and the subordinate USC.
Wesley Snipes is at this time going down almost the same road as Martha. Sherry Peel Jackson, Ed and Elaine Brown of NH are on very similar paths as concerns USC contract conditions. I wish them all luck and that their dream of law and justice and unalienable Rights are very shortly accorded to them in full measure as the law of this land intends.
Eddie Ray Kahn was tried with Snipes, but did not volunteer to walk into an inferior, clandestine inferior court. They have had Eddie in jail for over a year, and will not answer the jurisdiction issue he raised. Instead on the record, they put that he plead not guilty. Not only are they attacking Eddie and thereby his wife in direct violation of the DoI and subordinate USC contract terms and conditions, but they are also only creating a false record for the higher inferior court to see on review. The KKK did better than DOJ; they never lied about why they hung the victim. I guess uppity freedom lovers are fair game, as were uppity blacks.
Drop back for coming articles, articles will cover in more details several of the names above. My land’s wall of shamefully treated individual has more names than I like to see. One is one to many. If you disagree with that number please let me know how many it take to be shameful. 10, 20, 1000, 5000, 1,000,000 I hope when it reaches your number, you will do something, even if it is only to take your head out of the rabbit hole.
Yours for unalienable Rights from Creator ---- today and all tomorrows
Do any of you out there have a well mannered kid you wish to sell me for my use of my work needs, my pleasures, and possibly to resale for profit or pay bills (debt)? Shucks if you will let your hired congresspersons run up a bill. If you and most everyone wants to believe your kids have to take responsibility for the debt you and your hired servants bought your daily drugs with, then I will try to buy one or two of the chattel kid. Unless I get in real debt trouble and have to sell them or pledge the purchased chattel as collateral, someday I might decide to give them unalienable rights. And make them equal to me. See what a good deal you would be doing for yourself and you kids. You get money today for drugs, and they get hope for some future day.
This is the actual view the hired servant (congresspersons, presidents) has of you and your kids. Where else do they come up with the concept they are our king. By hiding there actual deeds under the inferior court system rulings. Congress created and selects the inferior administrative black robes and calls them judges. If the judges don’t do as congress wishes, then congress writes or rewrites a law and tell created judges this is the (our) rule.
Please remember, I will tell you what I believe and hold and where I come up with it. Not so the inferior court system and the money hungry congresspersons.
Martha Steward was attached and had her unalienable rights taken by the hired servants. It was wrong in that the attack and taking was not in the owners’ one supreme Court. I will guess and agree Martha walked in to the inferior administrative court forum on the advice of the lawyer. Why would a boss, go into an inferior court. Since the lawyer makes his living off the bogus inferior court system why would he explain: I and my fellow lawyers are just shearing you for our benefit and to keep others in line with fear? After the so-called trial, they do what is called an allocution or where jurisdiction is then finally decided. Guess what, as far as I know, that is the only place other that the front end challenge of Jurisdiction where the judge is required to answer your question and that probably includes jurisdiction. Maybe not even the jurisdiction question on the front end, as I have never seen them stop their process of attack for jurisdiction reason on the record or answer it. Of course the system procedure rules; allow, permit, encourage, your hired or appointed lawyer to ask or not ask for you and to accept or not accept, not tell you the first thing about selling you down the river. The lawyer may ask you to sign the “pre-sentence report”, but by then you have been in and out of the tattoo parlor. You and your tattoo are down the river in a very old and leaky inner-tube. For justice to live and ensure domestic tranquility; jurisdiction has to be the very first item determined and be part of the record before an action begins.
This allocution is where they do the “pre-sentence report” and it is written in such style if signed, then you are admitting to guilt and your prescribed written in the code books punishment is as the presentence report gives. All that is generally left for appeal is procedural error or an incompetent lawyer. System really don’t like their rottenness brought up. Now Martha is down to doing time, then to get out on house arrest, the “parole papers” one has to sign to get a longer tow cable. On those papers, one has to admit they did the “crime” and agree that they do not claim any rights that the DOJ doesn’t want them to. In order to get the longer tow rope, skip the 3 hots and a cot in a 4 by 8 cell the paroles have to agree in writing on parole paper. If you want to call this type procedural behavior of the DOJ freewill consent of the paroles, good for you, I do not call it freewill consent. I have scant hope for Martha’s appeal because of all the above reasons. Yet there are quite a few who prevail after spending time even complete sentence (years or months) in jail, and after having paid the system lawyers a bundle to defend your rights. Means, after years of attacking and taking from you, they ruled in a higher court that the attack was wrong.
I realize all you ostriches have your head buried in the rabbit hole with Alice, but I also know that many of you have your exposed gut feeling something is not correct in this land of the unalienable Rights from the Creator and the subordinate USC.
Wesley Snipes is at this time going down almost the same road as Martha. Sherry Peel Jackson, Ed and Elaine Brown of NH are on very similar paths as concerns USC contract conditions. I wish them all luck and that their dream of law and justice and unalienable Rights are very shortly accorded to them in full measure as the law of this land intends.
Eddie Ray Kahn was tried with Snipes, but did not volunteer to walk into an inferior, clandestine inferior court. They have had Eddie in jail for over a year, and will not answer the jurisdiction issue he raised. Instead on the record, they put that he plead not guilty. Not only are they attacking Eddie and thereby his wife in direct violation of the DoI and subordinate USC contract terms and conditions, but they are also only creating a false record for the higher inferior court to see on review. The KKK did better than DOJ; they never lied about why they hung the victim. I guess uppity freedom lovers are fair game, as were uppity blacks.
Drop back for coming articles, articles will cover in more details several of the names above. My land’s wall of shamefully treated individual has more names than I like to see. One is one to many. If you disagree with that number please let me know how many it take to be shameful. 10, 20, 1000, 5000, 1,000,000 I hope when it reaches your number, you will do something, even if it is only to take your head out of the rabbit hole.
Yours for unalienable Rights from Creator ---- today and all tomorrows
Sunday, February 3, 2008
unalienable rights, accepted USC, salt pillars&other fairy tale lies
Unalienable rights, accepted USC, salt pillars, & other fairy tale lies
I am trying to keep these articles short enough so those interested will check back for the next serial. The articles will not be 30 second sound bites, but will be done as a connected series style. Future articles are considered which will cover the very unlawful attacks on Ed Brown and his wife Elaine of NH, Martha Steward, Eddie Kahn and Wesley Snipes and the third member of that attacked group.
Back to this article. First let me paraphrase two stories from an old well known book in the present day language use. A man and his family were told to leave a wicked system, and not turn back (look back). Which the woman (staff) did and was turned to a pillar of salt. Salt represents a preservative. This story is reinforced a number of time with instructions not to consult with the dead. The second story tells the created to not eat (take) of the fruit of a tree of the land (garden). In the book, this was the instructions given by the Creators/Makers. The Creator’s reason for the rules was not necessary to be given. The Creator sets the rules as the Creator sees fit. If you have a Divinity who does not give you free will, then my adopted contact rules should give you all the freedom you wish.
Since I view the DoI and subordinate USC as contracts, let look at those documents as contracts for understanding interpretation and construction. All contracts are civil in nature and require a free will meeting of the minds by both the writing party and the created or accepting party. How you would do it I can only guess, but I would never take part of/in or write a contract to hire someone to be over me. Since I used the contract form to best protect my unalienable rights, I would never set the hired servants as the only police power “one supreme Court”. Only the bosses can set on that court and judge the hired servants per the contract terms. I realize that many of the hired servants, inferior administrative court black robes, politicians, newspapers, claim we are based on England’s law. That lie comes from scum who does not like unalienable rights or some dummies who know no better. The law of England was based on one king over all. That system is in no way close to or a fore-runner of our contract system. The two are not in any way comparable. By trying to preserve the king system, many wrongs have been done under my government’s name.
I have never hired a president or congress to run a king system and to do so pretending that is what the/my contract says.
There are many dummies out here who say to not have anything to do with my USC contract. There are also dummies saying they are Sovereigns. One, if following the USC contact as I understand the contract, I see no problem for me or any other believing-in-justice individual following those contact rules. Let me make it clear to any readers, I only accept what I consider a valid USC contract, not the servant add on. Only the makers can change their created contract. Once created, the makers can only change the contract as agreed to in the making. I know many of the People have their heart in the right place, but their logic and law language is not what I consider correct. One can only use or deal via the USC as a person, not a Sovereign. As a contract person, the makers can in any issue matter against the created, have and maintain a higher status. Last input this article, whether an owner or a created person, all who deal/use per the USC have to know the USC can only be used as an Adhesion Contract. Until the next article, may your mind be active on this land’s law.
I am trying to keep these articles short enough so those interested will check back for the next serial. The articles will not be 30 second sound bites, but will be done as a connected series style. Future articles are considered which will cover the very unlawful attacks on Ed Brown and his wife Elaine of NH, Martha Steward, Eddie Kahn and Wesley Snipes and the third member of that attacked group.
Back to this article. First let me paraphrase two stories from an old well known book in the present day language use. A man and his family were told to leave a wicked system, and not turn back (look back). Which the woman (staff) did and was turned to a pillar of salt. Salt represents a preservative. This story is reinforced a number of time with instructions not to consult with the dead. The second story tells the created to not eat (take) of the fruit of a tree of the land (garden). In the book, this was the instructions given by the Creators/Makers. The Creator’s reason for the rules was not necessary to be given. The Creator sets the rules as the Creator sees fit. If you have a Divinity who does not give you free will, then my adopted contact rules should give you all the freedom you wish.
Since I view the DoI and subordinate USC as contracts, let look at those documents as contracts for understanding interpretation and construction. All contracts are civil in nature and require a free will meeting of the minds by both the writing party and the created or accepting party. How you would do it I can only guess, but I would never take part of/in or write a contract to hire someone to be over me. Since I used the contract form to best protect my unalienable rights, I would never set the hired servants as the only police power “one supreme Court”. Only the bosses can set on that court and judge the hired servants per the contract terms. I realize that many of the hired servants, inferior administrative court black robes, politicians, newspapers, claim we are based on England’s law. That lie comes from scum who does not like unalienable rights or some dummies who know no better. The law of England was based on one king over all. That system is in no way close to or a fore-runner of our contract system. The two are not in any way comparable. By trying to preserve the king system, many wrongs have been done under my government’s name.
I have never hired a president or congress to run a king system and to do so pretending that is what the/my contract says.
There are many dummies out here who say to not have anything to do with my USC contract. There are also dummies saying they are Sovereigns. One, if following the USC contact as I understand the contract, I see no problem for me or any other believing-in-justice individual following those contact rules. Let me make it clear to any readers, I only accept what I consider a valid USC contract, not the servant add on. Only the makers can change their created contract. Once created, the makers can only change the contract as agreed to in the making. I know many of the People have their heart in the right place, but their logic and law language is not what I consider correct. One can only use or deal via the USC as a person, not a Sovereign. As a contract person, the makers can in any issue matter against the created, have and maintain a higher status. Last input this article, whether an owner or a created person, all who deal/use per the USC have to know the USC can only be used as an Adhesion Contract. Until the next article, may your mind be active on this land’s law.
Monday, January 28, 2008
DoI --the supeme law of the this land
Since this blog is concerning the law of this land, I think it is appropriate to very near the blogs operational start to make a few comments and then, post the supreme law in it's entirety.
The DoI is a covenant to us that claim the law, by being either very old or knowning adoption. I did by birthright and knowing adoption. As a square is to a general parallelogram, a covenant is to a contract. A contract with very defined contract conditions. You can be a Sovereign, accept and follow the DoI as your law and still deal with others as a Sovereign. Not so for the subordinate USC contract. Please note: many and most of the legal system use the word "inalienable" instead of the actual word "unalienable". The two word are not really the same. Since the DoI is a contract, the word "unalienable" means no burden can be laid on you if you don't want to pick up the burden of your own freewill. Many of the religious say their God gave them freewill, so does the supreme law of this land. Prevew of coming blog post. In the next blog posting, we will get to the subordinate USC contract and your status to use or deal with.
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train 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 new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.He has refuted his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these ColoniesFor taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.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. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred. to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. --And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
--John HancockNew Hampshire:Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew ThorntonMassachusetts:John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge GerryRhode Island:Stephen Hopkins, William ElleryConnecticut:Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver WolcottNew York:William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis MorrisNew Jersey:Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham ClarkPennsylvania:Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George RossDelaware:Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKeanMaryland:Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of CarrolltonVirginia:George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter BraxtonNorth Carolina:William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John PennSouth Carolina:Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur MiddletonGeorgia:Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
I/We the undersigned claim and declare this written law as the supreme law of this land. I/We uphold and adhere to the intent of the law.
The DoI is a covenant to us that claim the law, by being either very old or knowning adoption. I did by birthright and knowing adoption. As a square is to a general parallelogram, a covenant is to a contract. A contract with very defined contract conditions. You can be a Sovereign, accept and follow the DoI as your law and still deal with others as a Sovereign. Not so for the subordinate USC contract. Please note: many and most of the legal system use the word "inalienable" instead of the actual word "unalienable". The two word are not really the same. Since the DoI is a contract, the word "unalienable" means no burden can be laid on you if you don't want to pick up the burden of your own freewill. Many of the religious say their God gave them freewill, so does the supreme law of this land. Prevew of coming blog post. In the next blog posting, we will get to the subordinate USC contract and your status to use or deal with.
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train 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 new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.He has refuted his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these ColoniesFor taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.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. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred. to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. --And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
--John HancockNew Hampshire:Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew ThorntonMassachusetts:John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge GerryRhode Island:Stephen Hopkins, William ElleryConnecticut:Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver WolcottNew York:William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis MorrisNew Jersey:Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham ClarkPennsylvania:Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George RossDelaware:Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKeanMaryland:Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of CarrolltonVirginia:George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter BraxtonNorth Carolina:William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John PennSouth Carolina:Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur MiddletonGeorgia:Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
I/We the undersigned claim and declare this written law as the supreme law of this land. I/We uphold and adhere to the intent of the law.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
answer to a high school student in 2002
First Chief Justice gave this response on 1/21/2002:
I will answer your question after a fashion. You asked the question, and should be told the truth as I know (or believe it). I am not sure your teacher will like this reply and I would suggest if you use any part of the answer you discuss it with one or both of your parents. I have had three daughters go through school, and I was able to tell them what I consider the truth and guide them into what answers the teachers were expecting. In your case, I am not sure of your level of training by parents, your personal understanding or exposure to the concepts this country is based on, nor how your teacher accepts things outside her line of thought. Most don't, my kids only had one teacher that did and he had thought on the way things should have been. Put simply, I am going to tell you what most people have never even thought of. The United States Constitution (USC) does not affect us in this country. It is not followed, and most folks do not have the first ideal of how to read or understand it-- the USC. People may pull bits and pieces out of the sentences and because the sentences make sense to them, use the concepts concerning personal freedoms. But their use of the USC is like folks telling storks bring babies--it just isn't true. I am now going to give you some information I used for several other questions. Parts of it will not apply, but maybe you can understand the basis from which to approach an understanding of this land's laws. --------------------------------------------I can’t answer your questions in a real fashion as you request, because the question is based on things that I know are wrong. Even the wording of this question, in a strict lawful sense could be misleading. A citizen (person) is a created position. Do you mean citizen or Sovereign and/or State (Sovereign with respect to his creation, the USC)? And with grievance against the hired help, do you mean civil or the government (hired help) has used force against one (an individual). As to the "Supreme Court", do you mean the inferior equity court created by the hired help and for reason of the lie, called the "united states supreme court"? It is not the supreme Court created by the Sovereigns via the USC.It was never meant to be a democracy. I will agree the law is not being followed. But the problem is not only the hired help, but also the People's understanding of the concept put forth. I have some questions for you. Would you hire me or someone else to work for you and be over you? Would you give me the right by that hiring contract to take money by force out of your pocket? Would you hire me to use hired guns against you? Or any force for that matter? Would you hire me to judge you? Would you hire me to change the contract you hired me to work for you by, without coming back to you to change the contract? Would you make a deal with others to do the above? Would you make a deal (compact) with others and then change it without getting them to agree by the procedure agreed to originally? I sure wouldn't, but then I don't know about you. The supreme law of this land is the Declaration of Independence, a compact between the Sovereigns and the USC is the subordinate compact to the Sovereigns (made by them) and contract to the hired help who agreed to follow the rules and especially the intent of the supreme law.It is your document and mine. You want me to tell you what it says? I will give you mostly what it means to me. I have read the united states code annotated, but do not think the us codes annotated (usca) say a whole lot about. But the hired help are not suppose to tell you, the master, what to do and what the rules for your own house say and mean.The Declaration of Independence (I hope you have read and though on it) is the supreme law of this land. It is listed in the usca as the organic law of land. Means it cannot be changed by hired help. The short form of the essence of the law is --We hold these truths to be self-evident (don't need explaining) that all men (individuals, and that includes women, children, blacks, gays, hispanics, etc) are created equal (with respect to this law), that they are endowed (given) by their Creator (allah, god, vishnu, the post on the corner) with certain unalienable (means a lien or burden cannot be laid on your shoulders, ie you can not be made to owe or be responsible for) Rights, that among these (not limited to just those listed)are Life, Liberty(no one over) and the pursuit of Happiness. Capital letters denote a proper subject and these items carry capitals in the body of the sentence. The very next sentence states that the only reason for forming a government is to secure these Rights. Means the whole purpose of USC was to make sure all the People were insured their unalienable Rights given them by Creator. You must also, read the complete document, but it goes on to list a very large number of things that were worth fighting about that the king of england was doing. Most are being done by hired help to the People they are suppose to serve today.Until we changed the practice of the world bodies, every nation was ruled by a king (sometime called something else) who ruled as a direct appointment of god. Since god could do no wrong, the king could or would not do wrong. So a disobedience of the king's law was a direct disobedience and affront to god.The first paragraph is to world, telling them why this thing is being done. The write up goes on to say, we had in the past accepted this rule of appointment by god nonesense, but it's just not so now. So since we had once accepted it, we are now telling the world many of the reasons why we are rejecting it and the doctrine. WE are Going With Creator and his Rule of equality. We are going to accept our full, equal, and rightful place as an equal with Creator. Some words you need to know, Congress--means a gathering--the People gathered at Bunker (Breeds actually) Hill, Valley Forge, York Town, Concord, and ratified (passed) this the only begotten Law of the People. Hope this helps.PS-- I have by self-appointment made myself Chief Justice of the USC's supreme Court. That is the only open supreme Court I am aware of. If you are aware of another besides the inferior equity court created by the hired congress and called for reasons of guile (the lie)"united states supreme court", I would love to know of it.
Yours for unalienable Rights from Creator.
I will answer your question after a fashion. You asked the question, and should be told the truth as I know (or believe it). I am not sure your teacher will like this reply and I would suggest if you use any part of the answer you discuss it with one or both of your parents. I have had three daughters go through school, and I was able to tell them what I consider the truth and guide them into what answers the teachers were expecting. In your case, I am not sure of your level of training by parents, your personal understanding or exposure to the concepts this country is based on, nor how your teacher accepts things outside her line of thought. Most don't, my kids only had one teacher that did and he had thought on the way things should have been. Put simply, I am going to tell you what most people have never even thought of. The United States Constitution (USC) does not affect us in this country. It is not followed, and most folks do not have the first ideal of how to read or understand it-- the USC. People may pull bits and pieces out of the sentences and because the sentences make sense to them, use the concepts concerning personal freedoms. But their use of the USC is like folks telling storks bring babies--it just isn't true. I am now going to give you some information I used for several other questions. Parts of it will not apply, but maybe you can understand the basis from which to approach an understanding of this land's laws. --------------------------------------------I can’t answer your questions in a real fashion as you request, because the question is based on things that I know are wrong. Even the wording of this question, in a strict lawful sense could be misleading. A citizen (person) is a created position. Do you mean citizen or Sovereign and/or State (Sovereign with respect to his creation, the USC)? And with grievance against the hired help, do you mean civil or the government (hired help) has used force against one (an individual). As to the "Supreme Court", do you mean the inferior equity court created by the hired help and for reason of the lie, called the "united states supreme court"? It is not the supreme Court created by the Sovereigns via the USC.It was never meant to be a democracy. I will agree the law is not being followed. But the problem is not only the hired help, but also the People's understanding of the concept put forth. I have some questions for you. Would you hire me or someone else to work for you and be over you? Would you give me the right by that hiring contract to take money by force out of your pocket? Would you hire me to use hired guns against you? Or any force for that matter? Would you hire me to judge you? Would you hire me to change the contract you hired me to work for you by, without coming back to you to change the contract? Would you make a deal with others to do the above? Would you make a deal (compact) with others and then change it without getting them to agree by the procedure agreed to originally? I sure wouldn't, but then I don't know about you. The supreme law of this land is the Declaration of Independence, a compact between the Sovereigns and the USC is the subordinate compact to the Sovereigns (made by them) and contract to the hired help who agreed to follow the rules and especially the intent of the supreme law.It is your document and mine. You want me to tell you what it says? I will give you mostly what it means to me. I have read the united states code annotated, but do not think the us codes annotated (usca) say a whole lot about. But the hired help are not suppose to tell you, the master, what to do and what the rules for your own house say and mean.The Declaration of Independence (I hope you have read and though on it) is the supreme law of this land. It is listed in the usca as the organic law of land. Means it cannot be changed by hired help. The short form of the essence of the law is --We hold these truths to be self-evident (don't need explaining) that all men (individuals, and that includes women, children, blacks, gays, hispanics, etc) are created equal (with respect to this law), that they are endowed (given) by their Creator (allah, god, vishnu, the post on the corner) with certain unalienable (means a lien or burden cannot be laid on your shoulders, ie you can not be made to owe or be responsible for) Rights, that among these (not limited to just those listed)are Life, Liberty(no one over) and the pursuit of Happiness. Capital letters denote a proper subject and these items carry capitals in the body of the sentence. The very next sentence states that the only reason for forming a government is to secure these Rights. Means the whole purpose of USC was to make sure all the People were insured their unalienable Rights given them by Creator. You must also, read the complete document, but it goes on to list a very large number of things that were worth fighting about that the king of england was doing. Most are being done by hired help to the People they are suppose to serve today.Until we changed the practice of the world bodies, every nation was ruled by a king (sometime called something else) who ruled as a direct appointment of god. Since god could do no wrong, the king could or would not do wrong. So a disobedience of the king's law was a direct disobedience and affront to god.The first paragraph is to world, telling them why this thing is being done. The write up goes on to say, we had in the past accepted this rule of appointment by god nonesense, but it's just not so now. So since we had once accepted it, we are now telling the world many of the reasons why we are rejecting it and the doctrine. WE are Going With Creator and his Rule of equality. We are going to accept our full, equal, and rightful place as an equal with Creator. Some words you need to know, Congress--means a gathering--the People gathered at Bunker (Breeds actually) Hill, Valley Forge, York Town, Concord, and ratified (passed) this the only begotten Law of the People. Hope this helps.PS-- I have by self-appointment made myself Chief Justice of the USC's supreme Court. That is the only open supreme Court I am aware of. If you are aware of another besides the inferior equity court created by the hired congress and called for reasons of guile (the lie)"united states supreme court", I would love to know of it.
Yours for unalienable Rights from Creator.
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
