"The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property."these flags fly inverted in recognition of the un-Constitutional 'dire distress' imposed upon the People of these united States of America by the unconscientious persons purporting to be the United States Government.
Here is why the 'liberal' folks just won't 'get' it:
In doing this, I shall have occasion incidently to evince, how true it is, that states and governments were made for man; and at the same time how true it is, that his creatures and servants have first deceived, next vilified, and at last oppressed their master and maker.
Justice Wilson [seriatim opinion], Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), 2 Dall. (2 U.S.) 419, 1 L.Ed 440, 455.
This nation, as experience has proved, cannot always remain at peace, and has no right to expect that it always will have wise and humane rulers, sincerely attached to the principles of the Constitution. Wicked men, ambitious of power, with hatred of liberty and contempt of law, may fill the place once occupied by Washington and Lincoln; and if this right is conceded, and the calamities of war again befall us, the dangers to human liberty are frightful to contemplate. ... For this, and other equally weighty reasons, they secured the inheritance they had fought to maintain, by incorporating in a written Constitution the safeguards which time had proven were essential to its preservation. Not one of these safeguards can the President or Congress or the Judiciary disturb, except the one concerning the writ of habeas corpus.
Ex Parte Milligan (1866), 71 U.S. 2, 18 L.Ed 281, 297.
"All systems of government suppose they are to be administered by men of common sense and common honesty. In our country, as all ultimately depends on the voice of the people, they have it in their power, and it is to be presumed they generally will choose men of this description: but if they will not, the case, to be sure, is without remedy. If they choose fools, they will have foolish laws. If they choose knaves, they will have knavish ones. But this can never be the case until they are generally fools or knaves themselves, which, thank God, is not likely ever to become the character of the American people." [Justice Iredell] (Fries's Case (CC) F Cas No 5126, supra.)
Ludecke v. Watkins (1948), 335 U.S. 160; 92 L.Ed 1881, 1890; 68 S.Ct. 1429.
A longer quote concerning private Citizen's property rights from United States v. Lee (1882), 106 U.S. 196, 27 L.Ed. 171, 182, 1 S.Ct. 240.
American military forces were infiltrated into Russia to assist the 'friendly' Russian forces during a Russian civil war. While the American troops are inside Russia, open conflict erupts and they need to get out.The story suggested to me that when trained and organized people caught within a rotten situation actually used their experience and training to protect themselves, to restore order, to establish trade to support themselves and to improve their quality of life; they got to be vilified by 'the Authorities' as 'Enemies of the State'.
With the 'friendly' Russian troops, they commandeer a Russian train and unsuccessfully attempt to exit Russia.
Within a year, they have abandoned their efforts to escape, have killed the roving 'bad guys', and have established a viable trade among the villages along the railline they have adopted and protected.
One day the 'friendly' Russian officer comes and tells the ranking American officer that the Russian 'authorities' are really upset: "They have declared you an 'Enemy of the State'," he says.
The American officer ponders this and finally answers, "An 'Enemy of the State', eh? Well ... for that, at least, I am grateful."
The concept of an 'Enemy of the State' is a socialist/fascist conceit, based on two grossly false premises:
(1) 'The State', recognizing no other Diety, purports to be 'GOD' and demands mindless and unquestioning absolute loyalty and obedience from its subjects; and
(2) Anyone not automatically agreeing with 'The State' MUST be a 'criminal' and/or 'crazy,' and MUST also be committing 'blasphemy' against the self-evident 'GOD' State.
The reality is that no inherently-corrupt government, or religion, can long withstand objective observation or criticism:
With the above articles in mind, and considering the present general lack of moral and ethical character within 'The United States Government'; I too expect to be vilified as an 'Enemy of the State'. I can think of few higher honors bestowed by the self-righteous.
Red Skelton's interpretation of the Pledge of Allegiance:
In elementary and high school, I said (and meant) the pledge on the flag hundreds of times, but I, subsequently, have not read in any statute which states that I should pledge any allegiance whatsoever to the subversive usurpation of these united States of America represented by the gold-fringed military Color / Standard / Ensign currently displayed in courtrooms, government offices, and some churches. I don't know what it MEANS; I don't think THEY know.
My friends sometimes say:
" [Oooooo] You're really anti-government, aren't you?"
Or, " [Oooooo] You're some kind of an anarchist or something, aren't you?"
So I tell them the truth:
"No; I am not 'anti-government', an 'anarchist', an 'extremist', a 'radical', nor any other derogatory/defamatory/slanderous/stupid label.
"I am, and have always considered myself to be, a loyal American.
"I have absolutely no problem with the legitimate, lawful Constitutional government of these united States of America. I, together with all the other honest People of these united States of America, AM the lawful government.
"As the political posterity of the Founders of this Nation, I have, from God by birthright, an undivided interest-in-common in this Nation [my interest-in-common divided-by the combined interest-in-common of each-and-every other member of this Republic].
"I just don't believe that our public servants [those supposedly elected or hired and PAID to work FOR me and us] feel, believe, understand, or have ANY concept that, by force of Law, they work for us; not for themselves, not for their families, not for their union(s), not for some foreign country, not for the U.N.O. I don't think they understand that without the Constitution and the Law in FULL force and effect, they have no lawful job.
"I have no patience with public servants who seem to claim a Right to annoy, harass, persecute, prosecute, and, perhaps, kill me or us, while fully expecting to be exempt from the very same Constitution(s), statute(s), and regulation(s) to which they demand that I and we unfailingly and unquestioningly conform.
"Nobody in his right mind takes insubordination/insolence/flack/abuse from his/her public servants. That is not lawful government, that is unlawful oppression and tyranny.
"I have no need or desire to live in Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, Communist Russia, or 'frantically-Terrorist-seeking' America!
"My duty to God and to my Nation is to prevent that from happening. 'Zero Tolerance' works both ways.
"Under lawful Constitutional government, if public servants misbehave, the lawful remedy is to discipline or fire them.
"Under lawful government, when public servants practice Subversion against us, the lawful remedy is to fire and jail them.
"Under lawful government, when public servants commit Treason against us, the lawful remedy is to hang them ... by the neck ... until dead ... with hemp rope.
"Maybe that is why we no longer have lawful Constitutional government (or hemp rope) in these united States of America."
George Orwell dramatized subversion in his novel Animal Farm
(a scathing satire of the fascist/socialist/Communist 'State') thus:
"All animals are created equal, BUT some animals are more equal than others."
The Communists have said for years that their 'friends' are: other True Communists, Fellow Travelers, and Useful Idiots. It may occasionally be appropriate to ask oneself:
It never hurts to know the enemy; so here, in the enemy's own words, is
The Communist Manifesto as manifested in these united States of America:
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution for these United States of America are still the ONLY lawful and legitimate foundation of our Republic. The only article of the Constitution which may ever be legitimately suspended is the writ of Habeas Corpus in times of invasion or insurrection.
The Constitution is NOT 'old,' 'time-worn,' 'outdated,' 'obsolete,' 'irrelevant,' 'nationalistic,' 'isolationist,' nor any other derogatory characterization.
Nor is it 'flexible', 'living', 'mutable', or 'interpretable' by any court.
Anyone who tells you differently is:
(1) Ignorant [does not know any better, but can learn if he/she will];
(2) Stupid [does not know any better and can't/won't/doesn't-want-to learn]; or
(3) Deceitful [knows better and is lying to you or trying to cheat you].
Lacking a firm understanding of the basic principles of this Constitutional Republic by each and every Citizen, we have become ignorant 'subjects', mis-educated and oppressively mis-governed by an un-principle-d 'United States Government'.
If you have not had a chance to read these documents, here is your opportunity:
Confirmio Cartarum : (1297)
The English Petition of Right: (1628)
The English Declaration of Rights: (1689)
Enacted as the English Bill of Rights [1 William & Mary, Sess. 2, Ch. 2 (December, 1689)].
The Constitution did not appear in or from a vacuum.
The principles of Natural Law as expounded by John Locke (c. 1690 A.D.) were a major influence upon the founders of the Constitution.
John Locke's 'Second Treatise on Government':
Blackstone's Commentaries on the Law of England was a significant resource on the Common Law of England and known by most of the Founders.
The History of the Common Law of England (1719):
Emmerich de Vattel's treatise on International Law The Law of Nations (1758):
The written Organic [fundamental] Law of these united States of America:
The Declaration of Independence:
The Articles of Confederation:
[Maybe] The Paris Peace Treaty (1783):
The Northwest Ordinance (1787):
The Constitution for the United States of America (1791):
Both The Federalist Papers: and The Anti-Federalist Papers: are collections of articles urging or opposing the adoption of the new Constitution. They were intended to be read by the average literate and educated man of the time. The reader was expected to be familiar with and to understand the arguments, the references, the social context, and to agree/disagree strongly. American courts sometimes rely upon the Federalist Papers to determine what the original intent of the Constitution was.
[I suspect the Confederate States of America may have taken the position at their creation that, "This Constitution thing is just not working properly for us; we're going back to The Articles of Confederation." (Hence: Confederate States).]
The Sedition Act of July 14, 1798:
The Reaction: The Virginia Resolution (1798):
The Kentucky Resolution (1799):
Southerners later relied on the Virginia and the Kentucky Resolutions to justify The Right to Secede from the Union:
The Legal Result: The Supreme Court decision concerning the Sedition Act:
The Differences between a Republic and a Democracy:
Common Law explained:
More about Common Law:
Martial law during Southern "Reconstruction": (1867).
Federal Usurpation [by a lawyer]: (1908).
Military Usurpation of the United States?:
'Conquest' and 'Usurpation'; excerpts from John Locke's
"The Second Treatise on Government":
Is 'The United States' Bankrupt?:
Are we "enemies" of the United States?
I used to fear that these united States of America would be destroyed from outside by military force; but these days I believe our Nation have already been subverted from within by the greedy, ambitious, and self-serving attorneys, attorneys-elected-as-politicians, and attorneys-acting-as-judges within our very midst.
These two articles were intended as satire, but are they really?
How do you SHAME the shame-less?
[Black-robed Lawyers Versus Everybody Else:] [Attorney Privilege is More Important than Anything Else:]
Do you know an attorney who holds, or thinks he/she holds a 'Letter of Marque' [Commission as a Privateer]?
These articles are NOT satire:
The Anti-Government Movement Guidebook:
[Some "governemnt" lunatic(s) had the gall to actually publish this abomination and to pitch it as a training tool for judges. I beleive that any "judge" who has read this Guidebook is automatically and irremediably biased against any Pro Per who appears in his/her "court".
State Justice Institute funds National Judicial College training of judges:
A Symposium on Judicial Tyranny:
The Judicial Industry:
Can I trust a Federal judge in this position?:
Courts and the self-represented:
Finding real district courts of the United States:
I believe it is long past time to run ALL the Attorneys out of our Constitutional Republic, a la George Orwell's Animal Farm.
The only redeeming part of the coming civil chaos is that it will NOT be an 'Insurrection,' an 'Uprising,' a 'Revolt,' a 'Rebellion,' a 'Revolution,' nor even 'Terrorism'.
It is not an 'Terrorism,' when you fire your miscreant public servants.
It is not a 'Revolution,' when you swat a mosquito, yank up a weed, or kill a threatening rattlesnake.
It is not a 'Rebellion,' when you find your home infested with fleas, termites, ants, or ########### and hire an exterminator.
There is not a 'Uprising,' when you find you have cancer and undergo chemotherapy or surgery.
These are all various forms of self-defense and/or 'Pest Control'.
The parasite which kills its host dies too!
How our laws keep being 'revised' by un-elected, un-accountable, non-legislators: The National Commission on Uniform Laws:
Report of the Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency: (November 19, 1973).
Congressional Research Service Report on National Emergency Powers: (1991).
Congressional Research Service Report on the Constitution of the United States of America : (1998)
Senate Committee Report on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms: (1982)
An occupation government in these United States?:
The Civil Flag of these United States?:
Does a Birth Certificate create a Trust?:
History of the IRS:
IRS is not a United States Government agency:
A brief on the IRS:
Important questions to ask IRS:
Is current "income" taxation built on The Tariff Act of 1894?:
Larkin Rose's approach to taxes:
Uses of money:
Jim Shaver's information about the illegal IRS "Notice of Lien":
Treasury Decision 2313:
"Three Strikes" and other legal research:
Gun Owners of America:
The Fully Informed Jury Association:
Outlaws Legal Service:
Michael C. New:
The Idaho Observer:
Joseph Story's "Commentaries on the Constitution": (1833).
Read this book! "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat.
This helped me give up the 'Magic' or 'Silver' Bullet idea:
Bouvier's Law Dictionary: (1856).
Oran's Law Dictionary
'Lectric Law Library:
Dan Meador's Legal Research: or IRS levy info:
Sample 42 USC 1983 Complaint:
The Supreme Law Firm:
Legal research links:
Library of Congress (THOMAS):
United States Statutes at Large:
California Code of Regulations:
California Rules of Court:
California Rules of Evidence:
California Judicial Council Forms:
Invalid taxation arguments (by a lawyer):
IRS Tax Regulations in plain English:
Internal Revenue Manual:
IRS 6209 Manual: (IMF deciphering info)
Department of Justice, Tax Division, Criminal Tax Manual: (1994).
IRS Compliance Report to the Commissioner: (1999).
Federal District Judges' Benchbook: (2000).
U.S. Supreme Court holds that there must be "probable cause" hearing within 48 hours of arrest without warrant:
County of Riverside v. McLaughlin (89-1817), 500 U.S. 44 (1991).
United States agrees that firearms ownership IS an individual right.
United States v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001).
Solicitor General's brief in U.S. v. Emerson.
Legal remedy for a county's "willful disregard for the constitutional rights of its citizens":
Henry v. County of Shasta (9th Cir. 1997), 132 F.3d 512, mod. & reh. den. 137 F.3d 1372, cert. den. 525 U.S. 819, 142 L.Ed.2d 46.
In California, and states organized similarly within the 9th Ciricuit, the sheriff is a county, not a state, actor [no "sovereign immunity"; the sheriff and the county are fair game under 42 U.S.C.A. 1983]:
Brewster v. County of Shasta (9th Cir. 2001), 275 F.3d 803.
2nd Circuit Court of Appeals holds in a Habeas Corpus that President has no inherent power in his role as Commander-in Chief to detain American citizens seized on American soil during peacetime without authorization from Congress. The decision has been appealed to the Supreme Court.
Padilla v. Rumsfeld (2nd Cir. 2003).
Questions or comments?:
Visit my legal research: