In shock.

Not only would I not have gotten to argue my case, I'd not have even gotten a trial...

WHat has happened to our country?

No civil case could provide criminal punishment, and no criminal case could be tried in a civil court. No civil case could provide prison time, however... they're claiming the power to provide criminal felony sentences by a civil court hearing?


Read more!

Tried By Conscience.

I may be a fallen man, but this is a fallen world. And it is my duty, my honour, and my right to change myself, and my world I find myself in.

No more will I allow injustice, victimization, and harm where I might help. No more will I allow tyranny and fear to hold the hearts and minds of man.

No more inequality, no more injustice.



In this false and fallen world... the most difficult thing of all is to do the right thing, and to know that it is the right thing. To do it no matter the cost, no matter the pain, no matter the fear.

To try, and to end injustice, even at the cost of all you care for, and everyone you love.

That.. is the ultimate trial of conscience. That is the quest. That is the dream. Ending injustice, ending harm, ending victims, and ending... abuse of all sorts.


Oh the trumpets are calling, now call me to rise, yes the trumpets are calling to me.

And wherever I ride, ever staunch at my side, my squire and my lady will be.

Long ago.. I saw this, and changed my life.






Without redemption, can any man be anything more than a criminal? Can any man overcome his past, when it comes back so oft and destroys his dreams? Can any man love society when society rejects him? Can any man embrace redemption, when redemption is repudiated?

We are all human. We have always been.

And it's time for a change. Humanity, who has so long been full of hate, so long full of anger... it's time to embrace something new. True equality under the law. Punishments, just punishments for transgressions, but not torture, not undending punishment for a past we cannot change, when the conscience sears our souls every day, those of us who wish to change.
Read more!

What I'm doing, and why

Ladies and gentlemen of the nation, people of all races, colors, sects, religions, and ideals. This morning, I go forth to do the right thing, because it is the right thing. The right thing is never easy to do, nor is it ever simple to contemplate, particularly in matters where the government can take that liberty. But it is still the right thing to do, and conscience compels me to do it.

We talk in this nation glowingly of liberty and rights, but we have forgotten their foundation. We speak of things that we know little of, like parrots. There were four major rights in the beginning, from which all other rights flowed... the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to property, together with the ability to defend all of the above.

No person was free unless he had all of those things. We are born free, we were guaranteed to live free. In many constitution these rights are enshrined, for instance, in the Idaho Constitution, Article 1, Section 1.Inalienable rights of man. All men are by nature free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property; pursuing happiness and securing safety.

Inalienable means that we have no right to transfer it, control it, regulate it, register it. We have no power to allow the government to control it, nor does the government have the legitimate authority to do so.

I believe in the rights of all people, and my studies of the Constitution, and of the Bill of Rights, the Federalist and Antifederalist papers both, the continental congress, and the Declaration of Independence and the British Common Law upon which it was founded all point to the same thing.

We are not a democracy, and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying to you. All of the founding papers spoke of true democracy as the destroyer of freedom. We are a constitutional representative republic, with all that entails. As a republic, we have the voice of the people, the vote, to speak to our representative s. If those representative s fail to represent us, we have the right to remove them by the vote. If that system of voting is subverted, there is another right, the second amendment having been enshrined so all able-bodied persons capable of bearing arms could not only be the voice of their own discontent, but the arm to restrain the government from precipitate action.

Together with the great powers entrusted to the government, were specific guarantees. The greatest of these for liberty were the right to keep and bear, the right to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom from establishing a religion or religious obligation upon the people, and freedom from the people themselves removing or altering the rights of themselves, or others within the republic.

In any free nation the right to have, exercise, and express civil rights is the same as the right to have, exercise, and express religious rights. The government cannot license the exercise of a civil right, cannot contain it or constrain it, else they are exercising the powers of ownership that were reserved to the people themselves.

Those very powers of ownership, the powers to control those rights, belong in the hands of the people, as a rightful safeguard against tyranny.

Across the centuries, much has been lost, and the excuse that the political right lies in the majority has been advanced, and that the majority's rights exceed that of the minority, but think about it a moment. if the majority's view of 'right' is the only view of right and wrong, is it not within the power of the majority to enslave and to despoil the minority, if they believed that such would advantage them? Could they not then winnow their ranks until no person save the very few were parts of those in power? Is this not tyranny, the bellum omnia in omnia spoken of by the ancients, the war of all against all?

Is it not a more frightful means of destruction of all the constitution stood for, freedom, and liberty, for ourselves and our posterity?

Hence the great gift our nation gave to us, the republican principle. No law could levy itself unequally upon any. If there were any advantage conferred by law, that advantage must be enjoyed by all. If the law conferred any penalty, the penalty must be borne by all.

Otherwise, what happens? False and designing men will make mock of the constitution, and enable laws, to separate the society, one part against another, to enflame them in disputes, to steal property from one and give it to another, and to place under the people under the heel of the law, that very law which should rightfully serve the legitimate interests of the people, and restrain their baser impulses.

It is law that keeps us safe, and free. Without law there is no freedom, for in that state of anarchy, the stronger may easily oppress the weaker, until it fractures and becomes the slaves of those stronger yet. It is in this interest that the republican principle was created, the separation of powers, the checks and balances, and the powers of the people themselves being limited to laws that affect all equally.

It is in that interest that I challenge the Sex Offender Registry. For the law to stand, the rule of law must be maintained and preserved. If that rule of law has fallen, and there is no recourse to laws that are void under the constitution, if there is no right to safety, to preservation of liberty and property, to life itself, then the law has turned itself against the people for whom it was created.

I try the law to prove a far more important law.

Because these rights were preserved to ourselves and our posterity, and that government enshrined that liberty in its foundational documents, our nation was in error from the beginning. No slaves could be kept under that principle. No discrimination by means of law could be legal. No status could be made that separated one part of the people from the other, save through the criminal courts, for the duration of the just sentence, which could not thereafter be altered or redefined, save for a new crime.

No crimes could be levied against a free citizen, save for both the actus and the mens rea, the criminal act, and the criminal mind. No act can be criminal that is within the rights, and preserves the rights of others. No act can assume, nor create any 'greater rights' in any group of citizens than another.

It is the purpose of the courts to dispense justice, and justice can never be just if the nation can alter that judgement to increase the penalty, and the removal of rights is a removal of a property that has no assignable monetary value.

It is necessary in the rule of law for there to be separations from society, when society has been wronged. Indeed, the courts themselves were created to judge the wounds to society, not to the individual victim. Equally, the protection the police assign is to the society, not to the victim. We have no individual right to police protection, nor can we sue the police, even for knowing and deliberate failure to protect, and even.. if the police or law denies you the ability to protect yourself.

At that point, there is no protection, no ability to seek safety, to preserve life or liberty, and any such law must fall.

More heinous yet, however, is a law that simultaneously not only denies the rights of self-protection, but also holds up a citizen or class of citizens to public scrutiny as monsters, simultaneously denying them, and the states, the inherent right to justice.

Justice is balanced, justice is based in truth, and not in emotion. It must consider both the wound to the society, and the nature of the perpetrated act, balancing law with reasonableness and right.

The registry fails this test. Upon the registry, you can be sentenced to a single year, and then spend the rest of your life as a registrant. Even if you are removed from the registry, or even given a full pardon, which by the law eliminated the onus of the crime, moving to another state, for any reason, suddenly somehow reinstates it, and allows the new state to determine what rights you are denied. We are tried, not for the acts we do, but for the acts we may, or may not commit. We are tried, not for a criminal mind, and a criminal act, but tried for the fear which people view us due to the status that the government has imposed upon us, without our assent, calling it a civil matter.

Consider this however. No civil matter can be made, save with consent. If there is coercion involved, there is not consent. If there is fraud involved, in either party, there is not consent. If the person is not free to deny consent, then there is not consent. This is contrary, as well, to the rule of law.

Further, no civil matter could provide any criminal penalty, and simply separating and creating a criminal act for a failure to consent to a civil matter is not within the civil law either. It is a violation of both the original, fundamental contracts with which our states, and our nation was founded, but also of justice itself.

If a law denies the rights of life, liberty, property, and the ability to defend them, applies to only a small group, gives them disadvantages that can be altered at any time, at a whim, without that group's permission or review, then it can never be just. It is only a tool of punishment, and one used only by the greatest tyrants in history.

That is why I go before the court of law. That is why this law must be tried, and why this law must fall. If this law is not tried, and does not fall, there is no longer recourse, no longer a republic, and it is the duty of all of mankind, all patriots, all citizens, to respond to the danger and return the law to its proper place, as a servant of man, and not as a tyrant, by whatever means necessary, from the trial of the law upon a man's own body, or trial of the law by the right of restoring it the service of mankind, by the force of arms.

As is, was, and will remain your right.

Any single man must judge for himself whether circumstances warrant obedience or resistance to the commands of the civil magistrate; we are all qualified, entitled, and morally obliged to evaluate the conduct of our rulers. This political judgment, moreover, is not simply or primarily a right, but like self-preservation, a duty to God. As such it is a judgment that men cannot part with according to the God of Nature. It is the first and foremost of our inalienable rights without which we can preserve no other.
– John Locke
Read more!

Supreme court guts U.S. System of Justice

I'm going to begin with something I don't normally do... a link and a full quote of another web blog. I believe this constitutes fair use under the digital millenium copyright act as a commentary.


http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/07/supreme-court-decision-is-assault-on.html

The New York Times is providing important coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court's May 18, 2009 decision in the case known as Ashcroft v. Iqbal:

The lower courts have certainly understood the significance of the decision, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, which makes it much easier for judges to dismiss civil lawsuits right after they are filed. They have cited it more than 500 times in just the last two months.

“Iqbal is the most significant Supreme Court decision in a decade for day-to-day litigation in the federal courts,” said Thomas C. Goldstein, an appellate lawyer with Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in Washington.

Why is Iqbal such an important case?

As the Times notes:

For more than half a century, it has been clear that all a plaintiff had to do to start a lawsuit was to file what the rules call “a short and plain statement of the claim” in a document called a complaint. Having filed such a bare-bones complaint, plaintiffs were entitled to force defendants to open their files and submit to questioning under oath.

This approach, particularly when coupled with the American requirement that each side pay its own lawyers no matter who wins, gave plaintiffs settlement leverage. Just by filing a lawsuit, a plaintiff could subject a defendant to great cost and inconvenience in the pre-trial fact-finding process called discovery...

Information about wrongdoing is often secret. Plaintiffs claiming they were the victims of employment discrimination, a defective product, an antitrust conspiracy or a policy of harsh treatment in detention may not know exactly who harmed them and how before filing suit. But plaintiffs can learn valuable information during discovery.

The Iqbal decision now requires plaintiffs to come forward with concrete facts at the outset, and it instructs lower court judges to dismiss lawsuits that strike them as implausible.

“Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the five-justice majority, “requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.”

Note those words: Plausible. Common sense.

So what is the real world effect of the Supreme Court's decision?

The Times provides some hints:

“It obviously licenses highly subjective judgments,” said Stephen B. Burbank, an authority on civil procedure at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. “This is a blank check for federal judges to get rid of cases they disfavor.”

Courts applying Iqbal have been busy. A federal judge in Connecticut dismissed a disability discrimination suit this month, saying that Iqbal required her to treat the plaintiff’s assertions as implausible. A few days later, the federal appeals court in New York dismissed a breach of contract and securities fraud suit after concluding that its account of the defendants’ asserted wrongdoing was too speculative.

Indeed, the Plaintiff in Iqbal himself, was a Pakistani Muslim working and living in Long Island, who claims he was arrested 2 months after 9/11 and then beaten and tortured. But the court didn't want to hear about it:

Justice Kennedy said Mr. Iqbal’s suit against two officials had not cleared the plausibility bar. All Mr. Iqbal’s complaint plausibly suggested, Justice Kennedy wrote, “is that the nation’s top law enforcement officers, in the aftermath of a devastating terrorist attack, sought to keep suspected terrorists in the most secure conditions available.”

In other words, the Court found the allegation that an innocent person was tortured as "implausible". It has become apparent to everyone, however, that many innocent people were tortured.

The Iqbal decision is - literally - an assault by the Supreme Court on the American system of justice. For it prevents plaintiffs from having their day in court if either:

1. The judge doesn't want to hear the case; or

2. The defendant has hidden the evidence of wrongdoing, so that the plaintiff cannot provide the details of defendant's wrongdoing without the use of the formal discovery process which only starts once litigation has commenced

People may ask "the Supreme Court interprets and enforces the American justice system, so how can it gut that system?

Well, Congress members and the President are supposed to represent the interests of the American people. Have they always done so?

Judges - like people in the White House and Congress - are human beings with political and personal viewpoints. Some stick to the case precedent while others - no matter how high and mighty - abandon it for political or personal reasons. That is the dirty little secret that those who work inside the justice system know.

In rendering the Iqbal decision, the Supreme Court abandoned some of the fundamental principals of justice, leaving a system which only pays lip service to that word.

Several Supreme Court justices dissented with the majority's opinion in Iqbal. As Raw Story writes:

Departing Justice David H. Souter sided with the minority in this case, expressing dismay in his dissent and suggesting the decision could “upend,” said the Times, the federal civil litigation system. He argued that complaints should be accepted “no matter how skeptical the court may be,” so long as the accusations are not “sufficiently fantastic to defy reality as we know it.”

“[Claims] about little green men, or the plaintiff’s recent trip to Pluto, or experiences in time travel,” he said, should be the bar for disqualification.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed, suggesting the court had “messed up the federal rules” for civil suits.

Now, let us consider this for just a moment. I believe in all things, reason, rationality, and law should avail itself.

This is nothing less than yet another act of war and arbitrary government. War, you might ask? War indeed.

It is an old maxim of the common law, as spoken of by John Locke, that wild-haired, crazy man upon whom our entire system of government is founded.

By necessity, attempts to tear down our methods of recourse would be considered as acts of war. There's an old aspect of the Common Law, as written by John Locke that discussed this very thing.


[F]or nothing is to be accounted hostile force, but where it leaves not the remedy of such an appeal; and it is such force alone, that puts him that uses it into a state of war, and makes it lawful to resist him. A man with a sword in his hand demands my purse in the high-way, when perhaps I have not twelve pence in my pocket: this man I may lawfully kill. To another I deliver 100 pounds to hold only whilst I alight, which he refuses to restore me, when I am got up again, but draws his sword to defend the possession of it by force, if I endeavour to retake it. The mischief this man does me is a hundred, or possibly a thousand times more than the other perhaps intended me (whom I killed before he really did me any); and yet I might lawfully kill the one, and cannot so much as hurt the other lawfully. The reason whereof is plain; because the one using force, which threatened my life, I could not have time to appeal to the law to secure it: and when it was gone, it was too late to appeal. The law could not restore life to my dead carcass: the loss was irreparable; which to prevent, the law of nature gave me a right to destroy him, who had put himself into a state of war with me, and threatened my destruction. But in the other case, my life not being in danger, I may have the benefit of appealing to the law, and have reparation for my 100 pounds that way.

– John Locke


But how much more dangerous is it when there is still no right to appeal? When, by accident or malice, the courts, or others claim the right to your life, and you cannot appeal? When your property is taken from you, and all the ordinary means and avocations of life cease to be possible?

Outlawry and attainder become fairly simple at that point. It is a destruction of the rule of law.

This, too, had remedy under the old common law.


"To bereave a man of life, or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore A MORE DANGEROUS ENGINE of arbitrary government.


– William Blackstone


"It is not only permitted, but it is also equitable and just to slay tyrants. For he who receives the sword deserves to perish by the sword.But 'receives' is to be understood to pertain to he who has rashly usurped that which is not his, now he who receives what he uses from the power of God. He who receives power from God serves the laws and is the slave of justice and right. He who usurps power suppresses justice and places the laws beneath his will. Therefore, justice is deservedly armed against those who disarm the law, and the public power treats harshly those who endeavour to put aside the public hand. And, although there are many forms of high treason, none is of them is so serious as that which is executed against the body of justice itself. Tyranny is, therefore, not only a public crime, but if this can happen, it is more than public. For if all prosecutors may be allowed in the case of high treason, how much more are they allowed when there is oppression of laws which should themselves command emperors? Surely no one will avenge a public enemy, and whoever does not prosecute him transgresses against himself and against the whole body of the earthly republic."

-- John of Salisbury: Policratus

"If the king ceases to govern the kingdom, and begins to act as a tyrant, to destroy justice, to overthrow peace, and to break his faith, the man who has taken the oath is free from it, and the people are entitled to depose the king and to set up another, inasmuch as he has broken the principle upon which their mutual obligation depended."

-- Manegold


Without that means of appeal, with the simple venue of calling your suit 'silly', and the potential of doing so even in the most extreme, the most critical of suits, those involving personal rights, including personal rights infringed by that government, have they not placed themselves in a condition of war? How might we appeal their actions, after all? If we are placed within a suit of law by someone better connected and funded, and the appeal is denied, in spite of the value, veracity, and accuracy of the suit, how are we to maintain our property, in which we have invested value?

Indeed, the rights to property are the basis of all such suits, and there is equal property in rights as in real property. Can you appeal the loss of your rights to self-protection, to life, to liberty, should the court choose to deem your appeal 'silly' and dismiss it with prejudice?

Is this not the very definition of tyranny? Allowing the law to run roughshod over the individual, denying them appeal, denying them their day in court? In this society where 'Extraordinary Rendition' and things like this occur, where the defense cannot see the evidence, cannot prepare for the case, and in some cases even the charges are sealed, is that the rule of law for which our forefathers fought so bravely, bled, and died?

Consider this: Can you appeal the law when you have no right to recourse, no right to a court, no right to the evidence or even the charges, and then on top of it, your appeal at law can be... dismissed as 'silly'?

Was it not the purpose of our government to have the rule of law be paramount, that justice and liberty be secured for all, even from that government itself?

Have we any means of calling our mis-managers to account?

Do we still have control over the vote?

Is it still a 'secret vote'?

If there is a personal identifier, and they mail out the ballots then have them mailed back... that seems like a very personal identifier to me. Who is to say they do not use the (very easily) collected data to determine who votes, and how... and thereby determine consequences for those that vote 'wrongly'?

That was the purpose of the secret ballot, after all, to help prevent tyranny, and prevent others from using your vote against you.

Are we still so free? Are you free to appeal your way out of another country where you're being tortured for a confession? Free to leave a prison where the judges can ignore your every appeal? Are you free to challenge the law itself, when the law is wrong?

Yet I still go to do it. I cannot turn my back on the harm being done to this nation.

Even knowing that it is unlikely that I can win.








Read more!

Oaths of Office

Our government has many oaths, most of them of the same nature, and the same purpose. Assumption of office is contingent upon these oaths, and these oaths are quite direct and strict in both the actions that may be taken. Who, however, holds the officers to their oath? What do oaths mean? What duties are incumbent upon the statement of an oath?


As the oaths are prerequisite for the office, a part and parcel of the establishment of powers, could it not be argued, and rightfully so, that such oaths, upon violation, abandon all powers of that office, all immunities, all privilege, all works, all writs?

Oaths are proscriptive things, designed, and wrought to establish both the authority of an office, and the duties thereof; they are aspects from another time and place where a man's oath was before God himself, and the oath was considered to be a word of law.

Is there any temporal punishment for an oath? Violation of an oath was considered to be a violation of the sanctity of the office, and cause for removal. It is also a prerequisite of all powers in such an office that such an oath be taken, and held sacred, that no acts or powers thus exercised are in violation of that oath. If the person's oath was to protect a specific thing, to defend a thing, or to preserve a thing, and the person fails, materially and substantially in that oath, then that power of office is also failed. It matters not if the omission is deliberate, or if it is commission of an act that violates the powers of the office, or the oath of office. The effect is the same.

This places a prerequisite upon that oath, that the person supporting the oath know both the aspects of the oath, and the nature thereof.

Let us take the governmental oaths for example.

Title 10, subtitle A, part II, chapter 31, section 502 lays out the oath of enlistment for the military:

§ 502. Enlistment oath: who may administer
(a) Enlistment Oath.— Each person enlisting in an armed force shall take the following oath:
“I, XXXXXXXXXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
(b) Who May Administer.— The oath may be taken before the President, the Vice-President, the Secretary of Defense, any commissioned officer, or any other person designated under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.

Of importance in any oath is precedence, that is, according to custom the first thing sworn to, unless other precedent phrases override, is the more important. In this case there is actually a hidden double precedent, the oath to the constitution is to the document that establishes the second, therefore, no actions or orders by the president may override that constitution, for it is within that document that his powers are based. All commands by the president must be legal under that constitution, else the powers of his office be forfeit for fraud.

Senator's oath

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
Representative's Oath
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

Federal Judicial Oath

"I, _______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;  and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
In addition, each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office. Section 8 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, as amended in 1990:  "I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as (name of position) under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

Where is justice? Where is the level, the equality of the laws today?


Read more!

Alea Iacta Est.

We each of us, have our own journeys, our own trials, our own inner barriers which must be overcome. Tonight, perhaps, the true depth of those trials of conscience hit home.

When a man crosses his Rubicon, and the battles are inevitable, when a man looks into his heart and realizes the dangers that lie in believing, but still chooses to believe, that time, that moment, changes something in him.

The battle will be long, but win or lose, worth it.

I salute you all, of whom I have grown so proud.

Would that I had years to spend with the future, with learning and speaking with each of you, but that is not to be. Each moment of our lives, we sit, and wait, but for what do we wait? Do we wait for a savior to come, to rescue each of us? Is it not said that God helps those who help themselves?

I may not be able to communicate for quite some time. The die, after all, is cast, the game begun, for better, or for worse, for truth or ill. The challenge must be thrown down to achieve a better tomorrow. It is not done in haste, and never could be, but to be true to myself, I could never turn my back on this challenge, not when it has been presented me in such trappings.
I love my nation, my fellow citizens, too much to turn my back on the suffering there.
And so the die is cast... and for better or worse, the game will be played, the Rubicon crossed, and I cannot look back.

People may ask what I mean by saying things such as this, but the law must be tried. There are laws, and there are foundations to law. When the law expands outwards from its foundations, beyond the scope for which it was proposed, the law itself is doomed to fall. It is the duty of men, especially men of conviction and men of conscience, to try the law in the venues available to them, afore more precipitous action is taken. It is my intent, my duty, and my obligation to break the law, in order to uphold the more foundational law.

The doctrine of stare decisis is a curious thing, once a belief that the doctrine must not always be relied upon, but only where based from the foundational principles, to become 'settled law' which must not be examined today. However, today I intend to unsettle the law, to rip up the flagstones and determine if the foundation is still sound.

I intend to break a law, a federal law, and a state law that cannot exist under the constitution. In the Idaho State Constitution, as in many constitutions within the States, there are certain inalienable rights. These rights are supported by others, and by specific limitations placed not only upon the governments, but upon the people. The Constitution states that the federal government must guarantee a republican form of government to the states. This republican form of government was guaranteed to attempt to preserve the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, and to guard that great and arduous task, we preserved the preexisting right to keep and bear arms, under the Magna Carta, and the rights under the writs of William and Mary of Orange.

These rights were enshrined long before the constitution to all, regardless of race, of class, and intended to end tyranny. Slavery itself was in debate, as the end goal of tyranny itself.
If you have rights, inalienable rights, and you are denied the exercise of those rights, do you still have them?

There is a phrase written in many state constitutions, in varying forms, and with varying measures, it reads as: . All men and women are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights--among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.
It occurs in varying forms, in one case stating the fruits of their labors, in another happiness, or in another going so far as to state the right to keep and bear arms as being directly reserved to the people as an inalienable right.

Such it was considered, after all, in the beginning, and that right to self-defense even got the soldiers in Rowe's Wharf's massacre an innocent verdict, for reasons of self-defense.
The trials of Zenger, Throckmorton, and Bushell are nearly forgotten now, but they also bear a strong and striking purpose in the foundation of the nation. They were talked about as to the nature of the jury, and the very nature of sedition. The greatest defense against sedition is the truth, as it was with Zenger, and Throckmorton.

And the truth is that the American People, and their congressmen and senators, their executives and judges, have for decades, nearly a century, been lied to.

The Federalist Papers are not merely one view of the constitution, they were the view of the constitution by the founders of the constitution, those very federalists, and in response to strong attacks by the antifederalists. The antifederalists brought up opposition to the constitutional plan, problems that may lie within aspects of the plan, and flaws that were perceived, the federalists explained how the plan itself was intended to work to prevent such problems.
They are an explanation of the purpose, the intent, and the meaning of the Constitution itself.
Until a man is willing to stand up for his rights, they are not rights. Until he is willing to insist upon them, they cannot be so called. Until he is willing to exercise them in his own defense, no matter what the law may say, they do not exist.

Men fear the government, but so too the government fears its citizens. Why else would there be so active, so prominent, an attempt to remove the rights of the citizens that were enshrined for their own defense?

And not just defense against the 'Indians' or against each other, but against tyranny from all sources?

If tyranny is allowed to exist, men will ever be only tyrants or slaves. When the law can levy its burden upon one man more heavily than another, or act upon the rights of a group, it can be used to the advantage of others, and the detriment of any group.

So I break the law to sustain the law. I have accepted in full that burden, and do so actively, knowingly, and with the only remorse being for the necessity.

When a nation has fallen so far that the only recourses are trying the law upon your own person, or rebellion, where do we stand?

Give me six lines written by the most honourable of men, and I will find an excuse in them to hang him.

— Cardinal Richelieu (1585-1642)

In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man; brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.

— Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain)

The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.

– Samuel Adams

Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life; secondly, to liberty; thirdly to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can.

– Samuel Adams.

If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of Almighty God, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.

– Samuel Adams

All might be free if they valued freedom, and defended it as they should.

– Samuel Adams

Driven from every other corner of the earth, freedom of thought and the right of private judgment in matters of conscience, direct their course to this happy country as their last asylum.

– Samuel Adams

Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety

to us, as in our own hands?

– Patrick Henry
The laws of man may bind him in chains or may put him to death, but they never can make him wise, virtuous, or happy.

– John Quincy Adams

The power of the legislative being derived from the people by a positive voluntary grant and institution, can be no other than what that positive grant conveyed, which being only to make laws, and not to make legislators, the legislative can have no power to transfer their authority of making laws, and place it in other hands.

– John Locke

[F]or nothing is to be accounted hostile force, but where it leaves not the remedy of such an appeal; and it is such force alone, that puts him that uses it into a state of war, and makes it lawful to resist him. A man with a sword in his hand demands my purse in the high-way, when perhaps I have not twelve pence in my pocket: this man I may lawfully kill. To another I deliver 100 pounds to hold only whilst I alight, which he refuses to restore me, when I am got up again, but draws his sword to defend the possession of it by force, if I endeavour to retake it. The mischief this man does me is a hundred, or possibly a thousand times more than the other perhaps intended me (whom I killed before he really did me any); and yet I might lawfully kill the one, and cannot so much as hurt the other lawfully. The reason whereof is plain; because the one using force, which threatened my life, I could not have time to appeal to the law to secure it: and when it was gone, it was too late to appeal. The law could not restore life to my dead carcass: the loss was irreparable; which to prevent, the law of nature gave me a right to destroy him, who had put himself into a state of war with me, and threatened my destruction. But in the other case, my life not being in danger, I may have the benefit of appealing to the law, and have reparation for my 100 pounds that way.

– John Locke

There is no further recourse through the voting booth. False and designing men have arranged to make those electronic polls far more easy to rig than even paper ballots, or votes counted 'in secret' behind a screen by the touch of a hand upon another. There is no oversight, and no recourse there. Indeed, the courts themselves may no longer be a recourse. As of this moment men can be dragged from the streets, arrested, and made to disappear, for supposed crimes, dragged beyond the walls of the nation, tortured into compliance and tried for the crimes they 'admit to' to end the torture.

And if they happen to die, it was for the good of the nation.

From your past you'll see the patterns that are coming to your future, in the present. Courage, patriotism, it's all well and good when it's just ideals, but so few are willing to stand up to the law, to stand up for things simply because.. it is the right thing to do. They worry about family, selves, jail time. But injustice is injustice, and I cannot remain free so long as an injust act remains. No man can be free that does not equally strive for the freedom of others. I'd considered running away, leaving this nation and its laws behind, but I cannot be so cowardly, after all, it is rank and arrant cowardice to flee when others make war against you.

Usurpation of the rule of law, destruction of its level and equity, decimation of the court and judicial systems, all are symptoms of the real problem. We do not, many of us, know our rights, or our limitations in a republic. The truth is the greatest power is in us ourselves. We are the masters of our future, so long as we do not deny that right to self-mastery to any other. The rulers forget that the greatest duty is to the people, not to their own power base or the lobbyists or anything else. The duty of the Representatives are to their constituents, and the duty of the senate is to the states, and if they fail at that duty, then they must be removed, and tried. Every ruler is bound in mastery to his people he rules. He is made a servant in chains of propriety, and shackles of service... as Cincinnatus once said, the more I lead, the more I serve.

When you look out the window, you dont' see the real tyranny, it lies hidden. They come in the night, the nacht und nebel, the night and fog. They take away people and they are never heard from again, nor seen, nor spoken of. It is as though they no longer exist.

Such placement of the rule of law under the thumb of the civil magistrate, the legislator, or the executive is naught but treason. Does it matter what they call it, if your right to a fair and speedy trial is gone, your right to a public hearing, gone, your right to hear the accusations against you... gone? If they refuse under national security to reveal the charges and evidence against you, can you defend yourself?

If the law does not apply equally, to kings and emperors as well as serfs and prisoners, if it levies its load more firmly upon the back of any one man than any other, society suffers, bleeds, and dies.

I've applied for help from the ACLU, from the Rutherford Institute, from the Cato institute. I have no money for attorneys, nor means by which to fight this through a civil suit. I have little enough of anything, and if the only asset I have is my life, then that is the asset I shall spend. I've grown to love life again, but what they are offering is not life... it is a never-ending slavery, torture, and subjugation.

Think about this... what happens when a man cannot leave his state without the rules changing, and when he arrives to a new state... they can change the punishment as they see fit, without ever seeing the evidence, the case, the punishment, the crime, or even the judge and jury's notes? Is that just? Can it not be extended however to regulate any other crime, and are you innocent of all crimes? I'm quite certain in that volume of federal codes there is some felony of which you are guilty... and therefore your rights are as empty as my own.

But the law must be tried, before it is set aside to repair and restore the constitution. Failure in this measure is not an option. The law must be tried to the best knowledge of man, and wholly and solely on constitutional issues. No defense attorney in the world is willing to do such.

As of this moment, this is my last recourse.

And if this recourse fails, the final recourse, the one to be avoided at all costs, save when there is no other occurs. Restoration of that constitution by rebellion.
How much more precious than a pence is your life, and rights? How much more valuable can it be than the very things that allow you to be free, that maintain that freedom? Indeed, at this date I cannot guarantee, as I have said, that I shall not simply disappear, a victim of extraordinary rendition. However, if such happens, the recourse is ended.

Under the law, in Idaho, I no longer have a recourse for the restoration of rights, and therefore, the only recourse I have is to challenge the law upon my own body.
May God have mercy upon my soul, and upon those who still yet refuse to help me.

"To bereave a man of life, or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore A MORE DANGEROUS ENGINE of arbitrary government.

– William Blackstone

"It is not only permitted, but it is also equitable and just to slay tyrants. For he who receives the sword deserves to perish by the sword.But 'receives' is to be understood to pertain to he who has rashly usurped that which is not his, now he who receives what he uses from the power of God. He who receives power from God serves the laws and is the slave of justice and right. He who usurps power suppresses justice and places the laws beneath his will. Therefore, justice is deservedly armed against those who disarm the law, and the public power treats harshly those who endeavour to put aside the public hand. And, although there are many forms of high treason, none is of them is so serious as that which is executed against the body of justice itself. Tyranny is, therefore, not only a public crime, but if this can happen, it is more than public. For if all prosecutors may be allowed in the case of high treason, how much more are they allowed when there is oppression of laws which should themselves command emperors? Surely no one will avenge a public enemy, and whoever does not prosecute him transgresses against himself and against the whole body of the earthly republic."

-- John of Salisbury: Policratus

"If the king ceases to govern the kingdom, and begins to act as a tyrant, to destroy justice, to overthrow peace, and to break his faith, the man who has taken the oath is free from it, and the people are entitled to depose the king and to set up another, inasmuch as he has broken the principle upon which their mutual obligation depended."

-- Manegold

Every collectivist revolution rides in on a Trojan horse of "emergency". It was the tactic of Lenin, Hitler, and Mussolini. In the collectivist sweep over a dozen minor countries of Europe, it was the cry of men striving to get on horseback. And "emergency" became the justification of the subsequent steps. This technique of creating emergency is the greatest achievement that demagoguery attains

. — Herbert Hoover.

Any single man must judge for himself whether circumstances warrant obedience or resistance to the commands of the civil magistrate; we are all qualified, entitled, and morally obliged to evaluate the conduct of our rulers. This political judgment, moreover, is not simply or primarily a right, but like self-preservation, a duty to God. As such it is a judgment that men cannot part with according to the God of Nature. It is the first and foremost of our inalienable rights without which we can preserve no other.

– John Locke

If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.

– Samuel Adams

Ye darkeners of counsel, who would make the property, lives, and religion of millions depend on the evasive interpretations of musty parchments; who would send us to antiquated charters of uncertain and contradictory meaning, to prove that the present generation are not bound to be victims to cruel and unforgiving despotism,--tell us whether our pious and generous ancestors bequeathed to us the miserable privilege of having the rewards of our honesty, industry, the fruits of those fields which they purchased and bled for, wrested from us at the will of men over whom we have no check. Did they contract for us that, with folded arms, we should expect that justice and mercy from brutal and inflamed invaders which have been denied to our supplications at the foot of the throne? Were we to hear our character as a people ridiculed with indifference? Did they promise for us that our meekness and patience should be insulted, our coasts harassed, our towns demolished and plundered, and our wives and offspring exposed to nakedness, hunger, and death, without our feeling the resentment of men, and exerting those powers of self-preservation which God has given us?

-- Samuel Adams, August 1, 1776

Who among you, my countrymen, that is a father, would take the authority to make your child a slave simply because you had nourished him in his infancy?

It is a strange species of generosity which requires a return infinitely more valuable than anything it could have bestowed; that demands as a reward for the defense of our property a surrender of those inestimable privileges to the arbitrary will of vindictive tyrants, which alone gives value to that very property.

-- Samuel Adams, August 1, 1776

When the spirit of liberty which now animates our hearts and gives success to our arms is extinct, our numbers will accelerate our ruin, and render us easier victims to tyranny. Ye abandoned minions of an infatuated ministry, if peradventure any should yet remain among us! —remember that a Warren and Montgomery are numbered among the dead. Contemplate the mangled bodies of our countrymen, and then say, What should be the reward of such sacrifices? Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship, and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood, and hunt us from the face of the earth? If we 1ove wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude, than the animating contest of freedom—go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.

-- Samuel Adams, August 1, 1776

Men of passive tempers look somewhat lightly over the offences of Britain, and, still hoping for the best, are apt to call out, "Come, come, we shall be friends again, for all this." But examine the passions and feelings of mankind, Bring the doctrine of reconciliation to the touchstone of nature, and then tell me, whether you can hereafter love, honour, and faithfully serve the power that hath carried fire and sword into your land? If you cannot do all these, then are you only deceiving yourselves, and by your delay bringing ruin upon posterity. Your future connection with Britain, whom you can neither love nor honour, will be forced and unnatural, and being formed only on the plan of present convenience, will in a little time fall into a relapse more wretched than the first. But if you say, you can still pass the violations over, then I ask, Hath your house been burnt? Hath your property been destroyed before your face? Are your wife and children destitute of a bed to lie on, or bread to live on? Have you lost a parent or a child by their hands, and yourself the ruined and wretched survivor? If you have not, then are you not a judge of those who have. But if you have, and still can shake hands with the murderers, then you are unworthy of the name of husband, father, friend, or lover, and whatever may be your rank or title in life, you have the heart of a coward, and the spirit of a sycophant.
This is not inflaming or exaggerating matters, but trying them by those feelings and affections which nature justifies, and without which, we should be incapable of discharging the social duties of life, or enjoying the felicities of it. I mean not to exhibit horror for the purpose of provoking revenge, but to awaken us from fatal and unmanly slumbers, that we may pursue determinately some fixed object. It is not in the power of Britain or of Europe to conquer America, if she do not conquer herself by delay and timidity. The present winter is worth an age if rightly employed, but if lost or neglected, the whole continent will partake of the misfortune; and there is no punishment which that man will not deserve, be he who, or what, or where he will, that may be the means of sacrificing a season so precious and useful.

-- Thomas Paine, Common Sense.
Read more!

The simplest explanation.

Let us explain our reasons then.
I paid the price that the law had laid, I took the time that the justice said,
I paid in years that can't be repaid, but you are not sated,
I swallowed the bitter pill, ignored the blood that you had spilt,
all those that your law had kil't, but still you hold us hated.
So we now rise up as people, destined, promised, to be equal,
Citizens yet, though you try to repeal, the constitution's limits.
Those limits were the limits to power, though you cross them every hour,
and for that your justice sours, we cannot let you forget.
You claim the power to change the past, but you hold not justice fast,
you touch the storm and the oceans rumble, but law unfounded crumbles,
Saying safety you reached for things, forbidden to preserve as liberty sings,
forgot the bell as it rings, and law thus founded fumbles,
For the foundations the law had laid, laid the law, equal made,
caught and wrought in what we had saved, for the people only.
You claim that we can't be forgiven, for what other purpose, shriven,
for what purpose yet are we living, lost and hurt and lonely?
The powers were written and were chartered, for the purpose for which were martyred,
thousands of patriots departed, the rights were ours, only.
Attainder writ against a class, for the purpose they have passed,
still is attainder yet at last, still a tool of tyrants.
All such roads lead to slavery, if not fought and caught thus bravely,
and by the living God that made me, must be brought to justice,
There is no power to steal from people, that which makes the law so equal,
that which guards the life itself, so endless.
For the earth that still yet living, in the justice the law was giving,
was a guarantee of forgiving, and paying thus their price.
But you say that you raise the price, and for justice no device,
allows you the powers that suffice, to mete out 'justice' twice.




Read more!

Acts of war

After great deliberation and study, I have chosen my path, for better or worse. The reason? Acts of war have been committed upon the people of these United States, against the citizens of the Several States, and against the constitution.

What is an act of war? An act of war is any act for which war may be declared. Under the Constitutional mandate, these are any acts against the people that seize property without due process or recompense, from real property to intellectual property, to the property of rights themselves, and the property interest in the preservation of those rights.

Acts of war have a long and rich history, however, we will be focusing upon the Common Law interpretation of acts of war, under the history of the United States constitution. Taxes alone were not yet acts of war. The seizure of properties were acts of war, however, the people felt that these were not yet sufficient reasons for the declaration of that war. What did ignite the American Revolution? It was a series of things, leading to other things, but that final straw, the match that struck the whole powder keg into flame, was the use of occupying armies by their legitimate sovereign to seize the armories that were the key to their self-protection.


Any exercise of power and force outside of the law is an act of war. Any such act separates the legitimate government from its legitimacy, and severs the powers that were ceded for use by such a government for the violation of its charter. No powers may be seized and used that were not granted. Properties were guaranteed to be inviolate without specific recompense, and certain properties were guaranteed to be outside of that governments power forever, for there was no appropriate, just, and due compensation that could provide recompense for their loss.

But here we are today, with a greater and greater proportion of the population having their rights seized by the government. If those rights were considered inalienable, is it not true that even the government has not the power to alienate them, and to transfer their control over to another? Alienation is that transfer of property and control... and the governments were established with a guarantee of a set of specific inalienable rights, recognized as outside of their power forever.

Is it not an act of war to have a standing army levied against the population? Is it not an act of war to attempt to seize by force of law, outside of the powers granted, those very rights which were assessed to prevent the government from tyranny? Though couched in terms of protection of the people and the police, such seizures of arms offer no protection, and dubious service. Criminals gain arms with greater ease than a person who chooses to utilize the legal route, and being already in violation of such mandates, are quite more likely to utilize that power against those who lack it.

It is easy to make weapons, including weapons that are silent, and kill without any notification at all. But still and even so, we focus upon the right as a privilege, and ignore the duties that were part and parcel of that right.

It is our duty to preserve and protect the constitution, to preserve the rule of law, and to preserve our lives, our properties, and our rights and liberties against all takers. The constitution requires that we oppose all of those who would enact tyranny.

But think closely upon things of the past. We have a government that attempts to tax all aspects of our lives, from the exercise of rights to the exercise of the very aspects of preservation of life. They deny us the ability to self protect as best we are able, claiming that we are more likely to harm others than the intruder, then claim that we have no right to police protection. Think upon this logically a moment... if a man has no right to protect himself and his home, and no right to be protected, then what is he? He is a victim, and a slave. He is property of a government that has run amok, not a person, not a human being.

The intent of the Bill of Rights was to prevent tyranny from all sources, and what source is more likely than the concentration of powers within government itself? After all, was not the militia every able-bodied man, capable of bearing arms in service of his country, or state? The 1792 militia act required all persons in the nation to have and to keep the best military arms, of specified caliber, and to have ammunition. It enjoined them against pawning such weapons off, or having them used as collateral for any loan, and further restricted the weapons from any seizure for any debt.

After the civil war, the Carpetbaggers attempted to restrict the rights in several states in the south to keep and bear arms. The North stepped in, and in Wilson v. Arkansas, stated:

... to prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm ... is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege.

WILSON V. STATE, 33 Ark. 557 (1878)

What were acts of war against the colonists? What were the casus bellum of the Revolutionary War in the Colonies? These can be found in none other than the Declaration of Independence. But what segments of this declaration are we violative of?


He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

As of this moment, we have the largest Federal government in history, and indeed, the largest national debt, which is continually increasing at an expanding rate.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
Our Federal Government has established military groups in violation of that constitution, engaged against the people themselves, in order to prevent insurrection and unrest, and thereby has added to that very unrest.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
By legislation passed by writ (violative of the spirit, as well as the letter of the Constitution) the president has established emergency powers among unelected bodies, allowing full takeover of the current state and local governments, thereby nullifying 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:
By illegitimate legislative powers, delegated outside of the constitution to the body of the executive, the president has established powers that go far beyond the original constitution, and moreover, are directly in opposition to both the intent and the purpose of that contract. By doing such, he has violated both his oath, and the purpose of his office. (speaking in the sense of the continuing executive since 1933.)

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
The President and Congress have ignored the eminent will of the people, and increased taxes via the stimulus program, in spite of the 96% of those calling in to protest the legislation during the deliberations, then passed the costs onto the people and their posterity, in spite of the popular demand to prohibit the legislation.

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
Not only has the legislative branch made many laws for their own benefit, but they have also made the operation of numerous of those laws automatic, the most egregious of these acts being the nullification of the writ of habeas corpus under the Patriot act, and following legislation. At this point, we, any citizen of the United States, may be taken from our homes in the dead of night, arrested, and spirited away to places far away from any defense or evidence, to interrogation by torture.

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offenses:
See above.
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
No longer does our government operate under the only legal law under the Constitution, but under a version of statutory law that arose with the assumption of the Louisiana Purchase in 1808. The introduction of the civil law of the French Colony of Louisiana allowed far more room for the tyrannical acts of that federal government.

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
Under the Emergency Powers established without authority that the president alone has the power to legislate in all cases whatsoever, with powers that not only exceed the constitution, but that have no legal review.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
Our executive, and congress have chosen to believe the people who question them to be the enemy of the state, and thereby, have declared us out of their protection, and no longer subject to the constitutional protections. Under the Patriot Act, and the Military Commissions acts, and other acts created by executive order, we no longer have the right to habeas corpus, nor do we have the right to a fair, speedy, and public trial. This is the very definition of martial law, no matter how it may be disguised by rhetoric or the media.\
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
Our government and the Federal Reserve has plundered our economy, ravaged our bank accounts and retirements, burnt our industries, and ultimately will destroy the lives of tens of thousands. Those unable to find work, those relying upon retirement benefits paid for, and dependent upon their substance will no longer be able to meet the needs of their existence. Further acts by the government has created a situation where our children will pay for our excesses today. We cannot continue along the path we are traveling.

In myriad ways our government makes war upon its own people. In taxation, and lack of representation in that taxation, in deployment of armed troops, in subverting our own children against us. This has happened before, however, look at your histories. When your children, your neighbors, are encouraged to spy upon you for their own profit, when your government trusts you so little that all your movements and your actions are tracked, and all correspondence, public and private, privileged between attorney and client or between pastor and parishioner are no longer sacrosanct... what have we left?

The body of law has grown so large and unwieldy that any man may be tried for any thing, and never know in truth if such a law even existed, or applied to him until long after the fact. We have abolished the role of the jury in most jurisdictions, and placed them as a figurehead mouthpiece for the prosecution, judging only the facts of the case, and not the law of the case, or the precedent, or even the correctness of the punishment meted out for 'society's sake'.
And they still disarm us. In myriad and cunning ways, they take the role of our jail keeper, even after the crime is paid in full, the punishment judged by society. They enact laws upon this new class of citizens, depriving them of the right to self-protection, and simultaneously deny them the right to police protection, leaving them helpless victims to the government, and to those who would still break the law.
And they insist, after myriad evidences, and multiple experiments, that the problem is the firearm, and not the wielder, that the people should entrust to the police for their protection, whilst denying them that very protection that the legislature insists we must rely upon.
These, ladies and gentlemen, are acts of war and subjugation. No longer are we tried for the crimes we do, but legislated against for the crimes that may or may not be committed in the future. We're numbered, tracked, and spat upon, not for our own actions, but for the actions of others that the legislature has determined represent our group, without regard for how aberrant those actions may be.
There is no legitimacy in these acts, and they are contrary to the rule of law, but given the power thereof by our inaction. These acts of war, these casus bellum, are indeed full and legitimate causes for war.
But I counsel not war... but a restoration of the duties, an assumption of the powers, and rights of the people, and the dissolution of all powers usurped and utilized against the body of the people themselves. In a constitutional republic, as defined by the founders for the United States, no man may have the law levied more heavily upon him, than upon any other, nor may any be set in such a position that the law gives them advantages not given to every other citizen.
We must restore the constitution and legitimate governance. To fail to do so would be an act of treason against the constitution, and against the very rights, privileges, liberties, and immunities granted to every citizen of the Several States, and these United States. It is an act of treason against law itself.



Read more!