BIG BAD GOVERNMENT
“It is more important to out think your enemy, than to out fight him.” – Sun Tzu, ‘The Art of War’
THE NATURAL FLOW OF POWER
Is some government agency telling you what you can or can not do ?
Has some dim witted bureaucrat made your life miserable ?
Have you been charged with violating a statute, ordinance, rule or some silly code ?
Who says that you have to obey your hired public servants ?
Do not let them push you around — Stand up and DEMAND your Rights.
— MAJOR PREMISE —
Let me start by laying some basic ground work.
Remember that the natural flow of authority and power is from the highest office downwards. The Sovereign Human is the lawful authority and power holder. That means that the lowly government jokers can never command you the King or Queen.
Therefore, the natural flow of power and authority is :
1. Nature’s GOD created mankind, then
2. Mankind, “WE THE PEOPLE”, created constitutions, then
3. Constitutions created the governments, then
4. Governments created statutes, codes, rules, and regulations hereafter called enactments.
5. Government creations, corporations and employees, are subject to those enactments, however, mankind (THE SOVEREIGN “WE THE PEOPLE”) is not subject to obey the hired representative jokers.
The presumption that “WE THE PEOPLE” are subject to government jurisdiction by way of any government enactments, presumes that “WE THE PEOPLE” are subject to those jurisdictions created by the constitutions that the sovereign people wrote, which in-turn created and control the governments.
This anomaly would be a reverse or upwards flow of power — when the public servants command the masters, which is an absurdity and a legal fiction.
Any jurisdiction emanating from a presumption of a fiction is presumptive or fictitious, and such a jurisdiction is a fictitious tool used for the unlawful control of “WE THE PEOPLE”.
To blindly believe government authority over “WE THE PEOPLE” is such a presumption and a fiction.
If an individual cannot be proven to be subject to the jurisdiction of any constitution or other social contract or compact, He also cannot be proven to be subject to the jurisdiction of any branch of government created thereunder.
Likewise, if it cannot be proven that the individual is DIRECTLY subject to the jurisdiction of any legislature, it also cannot be proven that he is INDIRECTLY subject to such jurisdiction by way of any legislative enactments or statutes.
In the absence of proof that the individual is subject to the jurisdiction of any constitution or other social contract or compact, jurisdiction over him DOES NOT EXIST.
Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, defines exactly who is subject to the jurisdiction and exactly who shall be contractually bound by oath or affirmation to support the constitution in offices of public trust and to have the benefits of public service and public employment.
Article VI mandates that “… The senators and representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executives and judicial officers, both of the United states and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this constitution …”
Since the intent of Article VI is to define exactly to whom the constitutional jurisdiction applies; and since the fact exists that “WE THE PEOPLE” are excluded from the requirements of Article VI,
NO CONSTITUTION OR GOVERNMENT HAS ANY POWER OVER “WE THE PEOPLE”
INCLUSIO UNIS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS, which is a Latin phrase that means the express mention of one thing excludes all others. See Black’s Law Dictionary.
Since there can be NO legitimate presumption that WE THE PEOPLE are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Constitution and since all State Constitutions must be in agreement with all other state constitutions, and all state constitutions are subject to the controlling provisions of Article VI, then NO constitution operates on WE THE PEOPLE by virtue of the fact that WE THE PEOPLE are excluded from the requirements of Article VI.
When pursuing occupations of common-right, and not government employment, the people have made no oath or affirmation supporting any constitution, and thus are not subject to any constitutional jurisdictions.
Since WE THE PEOPLE are not subject to any such constitutional jurisdictions, we are also not subject to any enactments or statutes made by our servants in any constitutionally created legislature.
Since we are not subject to any constitutional jurisdictions, we are also not subject to any jurisdiction presumed by any constitutionally created executive branch of government.
Since we are not subject to any constitutional jurisdictions, we are also not subject to any jurisdiction presumed by any constitutionally created judiciary.
In the complete absence of any lawful and verified oath or affirmation made by an individual, to support any constitution; or in the complete absence of proving a higher title to that property known and described as the individual, In Personam Jurisdiction does not exist.
In the complete absence in court of proving a lawful and voluntary –CONTRACT– made by such a non-participant, pledging themself and/or their property-rights to certain statutory specified performance, Subject Matter Jurisdiction over them does not exist.
In the complete absence of any lawful and verified complaint made against such non-participant, wherein a human injured party claims a damage, no criminal jurisdictions exist.
In the complete absence of proving the existence of either In Personam or Subject Matter Jurisdiction, governmental jurisdiction over the human flesh and blood individual does not exist.
For many people, this concept that the American governments both federal and state have no capacity to promulgate laws and rules to be enforced upon the “We the People” (whether as a whole or as an individual) and can not be binding upon the people is contrary to their general understanding of how our system works. They will say; “If government has no authority over an individual, how then will all individuals be held to account for their wrongs?” and/or “Quite honestly, it would be absurd to have laws that no one is subject to.”
These arguments are seemingly very strong and sensible, and are therefore accepted by a large group of Americans. But I suggest to you that this large group of Americans are an uneducated group, not willing to see a thing for what it is but rather are content to accept a thing for what it seems to be. Your agents in governments, both federal and state, know this about you and use this ignorance to manipulate you.
How do I know? I know because I am slightly more careful than most. This extra carefulness brings me understanding that most Americans will not seek out and that government agents will not teach. Tell me, pilgrims, why should we put up with such nonsense? Why should we pay our employees in these agencies for the privilege of having them abuse us? We are free men and women. Let us send these government swine to their just deserts in a world where they have to work extremely hard for whatever little money they can earn, just like the rest of us.
The following is an excerpt from a Supreme Court case that clearly demonstrates what we have thus far asserted on this subject. The excerpt is from a 1793 case styled Chisholm v. Georgia 2 U.S. 419 and demands your close attention.
“It will be sufficient to observe briefly, that the sovereignties in Europe, and particularly in England, exist on feudal principles. That system considers the prince as the sovereign, and the people as his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance, and excludes the idea of his being on an equal footing with a subject, either in a court of justice or elsewhere. That system contemplates him as being the fountain of honor and authority; and from his grace and grant derives all franchise, immunities and privileges; it is easy to perceive that such a sovereign could not be amenable to a court of justice, or subjected to judicial control and actual constraint. It was of necessity, therefore, that suability, became incompatible with such sovereignty. Besides, the prince having all the executive powers, the judgment of the courts would, in fact, be only monitory, not mandatory to him, and a capacity to be advised, is a distinct thing from a capacity to be sued. The same feudal ideas run through all their jurisprudence, and constantly remind us of the distinction between the prince and the subject.
No such ideas obtain here (speaking of America): at the revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.
From the differences existing between feudal sovereignties and governments founded on compacts, it necessarily follows that their respective prerogatives must differ. Sovereignty is the right to govern; a nation or state-sovereign is the person or persons in whom that resides. In Europe the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the prince; here it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance; our governors are the agents of the people, and at most stand in the same relation to their sovereigns, in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns. Their princes have personal powers, dignities, and pre-eminences, our rulers have none but official; nor do they partake in the sovereignty otherwise, or in any other capacity, than as private citizens.”
1. Does “subject to the law” ring a bell here? Who is subject that the law in America? The sovereign? As you can see from the above excerpt, that is not possible.
2. Does anyone recognize these words? Can you say 14th amendment (added just after the civil war, during restoration).
3. How then could any government make and enforce laws upon a free sovereign?
Here is a key concept in American self governance; Sovereigns (individuals of “We the People”) can sue anyone, using our instrumentalities (the courts) that we feel has harmed us. That suit can be a civil one or it can be a criminal suit where it is apparent that another sovereign or agent intended to harm us.
That is where the concept of an injured party comes from. Government has no authority to promulgate or enforce any law upon an individual of “We the People” without that action being brought into court by another human member of “We the People” standing as the injured party.
The information above, is also supported by the same case decided early in American Jurisprudence, Chisholm v. Georgia 2 U.S. 419 (1793).
The Supreme Court declared, “Whereas the State is Sovereign, that Sovereignty does not extend to and over the Sovereignty of “We the People” nor one unit thereof except as to the harm an individual causes to others.”
The point of this truth is that the codes, statutes, ordinances etc. promulgated by any branch or department of government affects only three classes of Individuals:
1. An employee of said branch or department of government.
2. A natural human being (member of “We the People”) liable for a harm done to another human being.
3. You volunteer into and join the corporation by signing some hidden contract, such as getting a business license, library card, voter registration or enrolling your children in school and many other traps …………..
IF YOU DON’T FALL WITHIN THESE 3 CATEGORIES NO JUDICIAL ENTITY MAY LAWFULLY OBTAIN JURISDICTION OVER YOU AND BRING YOU INTO COURT.
The government corporation is a fictitious person, just like the Easter bunny or Santa Claus. A judicial fictitious person can only sue another fictitious person, and can never sue a living flesh and blood man or woman. That would be a reversal of the legal flow of power.
Think about it — Could Santa really sue you if he fell off your roof? Nooo … of course not — So why do you believe that some fictitious government corporation can drag you into court and sue you????
The answer of course, is because we are all living in a fantasy world, created by the legal words and then manipulated by dishonest lawyers, exactly like Alice in Wonderland.
‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean–neither more nor less.’
‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether YOU can make words mean so many different things.’
‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master— that’s all.’