From page 12, June 2000 issue of Media Bypass:
http://www.4bypass.com/story_jt_6-00_.html
Restore the Republic
By Krim and Jim

Allegiance is the missing link

Preface:

This may be the most important article that you have ever read! It deals with
your
legal status that determines whether you have unalienable rights or just
corporate
granted privileges. Most Americans think that they have unalienable rights
protected
by the Constitution. They also think that when they vote they are in fact
electing
officials to manage their government under Constitutional principles. Most
people
think that lawyers and judges practice law under a judicial system. Most people
think that the government has no boundary. Well most people have relied upon
government controlled schools and the media for their information and they have
been misinformed!

Background:

The Declaration of Independence of 1776 is the cornerstone of America. It
outlined
grievances against the King and proclaimed actions to set the inhabitants free.
This
was followed by a Constitution for the united States of America. The
Colonies/States refused to accept the Constitution without numerated Articles of
Rights to be included. This was accomplished in 1781 where Ten specific Articles
were included. Now we had a more perfect Union where specified powers were
delegated to the Federal Government and the States and the people retained all
powers not specifically delegated. The people enjoyed Liberty with unalienable
rights, prosperity, and the Common Law. The Constitution was a model for the
world
to follow. At last people had power over government and were no longer serfs to
a
King or Dictator. They enjoyed a pure Republic for America.

When we read the Declaration of Independence today, year 2000, we find
essentially the same grievances today as the People of the Colonies had in 1776.
The inhabitants or citizens have no unalienable Rights, they have no Common Law,
they have no law, only “color of law”, no judicial system, poor education,
always
entangled in some war, no sound money system, and they are taxed to the hilt.
They are serfs on their own property. In fact they do not have a Republic! They
now live under a Democracy! What happened that made full circle back to 1776? Is
the old saying true; “Everything that goes around, comes around.” Our problem
today is the same as the People of the Colonies had with England in 1776.

The Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to
dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to
assume among the powers of the earth , the separate and equal station to which
the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the
opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel
them
to the separation. ---We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ---That
to
secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just
powers from the consent of the governed, ---That whenever any form of
Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to
alter
or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such
principles and organizing its powers in such from, as to them shall seem most
likely
to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that
Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient
causes;
and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to
suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the
forms to
which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations,
pursuing invariably the same Objects evince a design to reduce them under
absolute
Despotism, it their right , it is their duty, to throw off such Government and
to
provide new Guards for their future security. ---Such has been the patient
sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains
them
to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of
Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in
direct
object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove
this,
let Facts be submitted to a candid world. ---He has refused his Assent to Laws,
the
most wholesome and necessary for the public good. ---He has forbidden his
Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in
their operation till his Assent shall be obtained; and when so suspended, he has
utterly neglected to attend to them. ---He has refused to pass other Laws for
the
accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish
the
right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and
formidable
to tyrants only. ---He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual,
uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the
sole
purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. ---He has dissolved
Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions
on
the rights of the people. ---He has refused for a long time, after such
dissolutions,
to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of
Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State
remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without,
and
convulsions within. ---He has endeavored to prevent the population of these
States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners;
refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the
conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. ---He has obstructed the
Administration
of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
---He
has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices,
and
the amount and payment of their salaries. ---He has erected a multitude of New
Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out
their
substance. ---He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies, without
the Consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military
independent
of and superior to the Civil power. ---He has combined with others to subject us
to
a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws;
giving his
Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: ---For quartering large bodies of
armed troops among us: ---For protecting them by a mock Trial, from punishment
for any Murders which they should commit on any Inhabitants of these States:
---For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: ---For imposing Taxes
on us
without our consent: ---For depriving us in many instances, of the benefits of
Trial
by Jury: ---For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
(sic): ---For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighboring
Province,
establishing therein an arbitrary Government, and enlarging its boundaries so as
to
render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same
absolute
rule into these Colonies: ---For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most
valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: ---For
suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to
legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. ---He has abdicated Government here,
by
declaring us out of his Protection and waging war against us ---He has plundered
our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our
people.---He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to
complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with
circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous
ages,
and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. ---He has constrained our
fellow
Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to
become the Executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by
their
Hands. ---He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored
to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages,
whose
known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and
conditions. In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress
in
the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by
repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may
define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Nor have We been
wanting
in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of
attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us.
We
have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here.
We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured
them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which,
would
inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf
to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in
the
necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of
mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends. ---We, Therefore, The Representatives
of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to
the
Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name,
and
by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and
declare,
That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent
States; that they are absolved of all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that
all
political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought
to be
totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power
to
levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all
other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.---And for the
support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine
Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our
sacred Honor.

The Problem:

The problem that caused full circle lies in the original Constitution. It is
Article I,
Section 8, Clause (17): Powers of Congress:

“To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district
(not
exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the
acceptance of congress, become the seat of government of the United States, and
to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the
legislature
of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines,
arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings; and (18) To make all laws
which
shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers,
and
all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United
States,
or in any department or officer thereof.”

The foregoing exclusive delegated power is the authority to do anything the
legislature desires to do within the District (Federal Zone) without
Constitutional
restraints. The legislature has taken advantage of those delegated powers for
their
personal and political benefits. In 1861, during the Civil War, Congress
adjourned
sine die. That term means forever, never to return. The Republic was under
Martial
Law and President Lincoln appointed representatives for the southern states and
forced the legislature to again sit. The 13th Article of Amendment pertaining to
Nobility was removed from the Constitution and replaced with a new Article of
Amendment that prohibited slavery. That Article was ratified on December 6,
1865.
In 1868 the rump legislature incorporated the District as a private municipal
corporation. The charter was revised slightly in 1871. Following the
incorporation of
that government, the legislature adopted the 14th Amendment and promulgated a
Civil Rights Act to give privileges to it’s new inferior class of “U.S.
citizens.” The
results of these Acts were the end of the Republic and the beginning of the
Democracy - and they were Constitutional for the Federal Zone They changed the
form of our government. The 14th Amendnt made “U.S. citizens” out of “American
Citizens” and also made them subject to the legislature. A government of “we,
for,
and of the people” came to an end. The corporate Democracy has it’s own
Constitution (Constitution of the United States}. The Articles of Amendments
from
12 upward are of the Democracy and not the Republic. The Organic Constitution
only had 12 Amendments and the Democracy has added many. Now we have two
United States with different Constitutions.

Which one do you hold allegiance to?


How you were enticed into the Democracy!

It was the carrot and stick method. The corporation had both and the people were
hungry. Mass mind control exercised through the media played its part. The
government would take care of it’s subjects regardless of cost. People never
pondered long enough to figure out that governments have nothing but what they
can con the people out of. Slogans such as: “Take from the rich and give to the
poor.” What happens when the rich gets poor? Can you really be an employer
without the resources to pay for labor and materials? Not very long! Anyway, the
people were going to be looked after in old age. All they had to do was to
become a
“U.S. citizen” and thus give up all their unalienable rights, and pay a very
small
premium for social insurance. Additionally they were agreeing to become a
“Taxpayer.” What a bargain! They became a “Taxpayer for any kind of tax.”, The
became a new “U.S. citizen” with all those Civil Rights extended by Congress,
and
they also got the privilege of abiding by any “color of law” statute, rule, or
regulation that might be promulgated throughout their life span. What a deal!! I
missed one, they have the privilege to support people in foreign nations as
well!

Citizenship- a legal or lawful status.

The government never had citizens or subjects before the 14th Amendment was
adopted. Thus a new class of inferior citizenship was created. In fact such is a
statutory U.S. citizen that is subject to all the rules, regulations and
statutes
drafted by the corporation under color of law. What was the motive for creating
this
new class of citizenship? Was it because the Legislature thought they could
extend
their Jurisdiction into the foreign states, or was it because the Freed men had
no
legal status after the 13th Amendment was enacted? The Blacks being slaves did
not have legal status under the law.

It is interesting to note that the legislature covered their butt with a public
law that
allowed American Citizens to Bypass the 14th Amendment requirements with an Act
concerning the Rights of American Citizens in foreign States. Keep in mind that
the
exclusive legislative authority granted was limited to the Federal Zone!
American
Citizens were in foreign states and not under the rule of the legislature.
However,
by deception they did accomplish their goal. What is wrong with being a
corporate
citizen? Nothing at all if you understand that you are no longer in the Republic
with
a Bill of Rights and are subject to all the corporate whims. Federal “U.S.
citizens”
have no unalienable rights, just statutory civil rights and government granted
privileges, which include, voting, paying taxes, using funny money, welfare,
Social
Security, licenses, and control of your life. The American Citizen remains
within the
Republic, has unalienable rights, has common law, he is an elector, and can do
anything without a license so long as he does not harm someone else. He
possesses
all his unalienable Rights. The difference being Liberty and Slavery!

Citizenship is a lawful status. No one can determine your status for you because
that is a personal thing. You are what your are, therefore, you must act the
part of
your status. Others, based on your actions, will determine your status. The term
“presumption” is applicable here. Ex: If you are seen fishing then it is
presumed that
you are a fisherman. Likewise, if you are seen operating an automobile then you
are
presumed to be a “driver” - and when you enter their inferior court rooms, you
are
presumed to be a U.S. citizen. What is your allegiance to? Did anyone inform you
that you had to give allegiance to the corporation? No, that was your decision.
You
are a U.S. citizen because you attested to that fact when you signed up for
Social
Security, voter registration, drivers license, filled out the 1040 tax forms,
applied for
a gun permit and etc. Thus you have exemplified your lawful status by those
actions. You may see that the corporation offers many benefits to its citizens
and
you cannot get those benefits if you are not one of their members. You cannot
straddle the fence and be both at the same time. There is not a court in this
Country that would give you standing while straddling the fence. All natural
persons
born in this Country were born free as American Citizens but their lawful status
changed with their first nexus with the corporation, like a birth certificate or
something else. U.S. citizens not only have benefits, they have responsibility
to pay
the national corporate debts that paid for the benefits. By law you have a
choice
and it is yours to make.

What is the Choice?

If you like being a corporate member of the Democracy, then do nothing and
retain
your present legal status. In this case you are the slave and the legislature is
the
master.

If you desire to be an American Citizen, under the Republic with all unalienable
rights
restored and master of your government officers, then you can expatriate from
the
corporate Democracy.

The law: FORTIETH CONGRESS, Sess, II, Ch. 248,249,1868, CHAP.CCXLIX. - An
Act concerning the Rights of American Citizens in foreign States.

Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people,
indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit
of
happiness, and whereas in the recognition of this principle this government has
freely Received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the right of
citizenship; and whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their
descendants are subject of foreign states, owing allegiance to the governments
thereof, and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that
this
claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed: Therefore,

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, that any declaration, instruction, opinion,
order, or
decision of any offices of this government which denies, restricts, impairs, or
questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the
fundamental principles of this government.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That all naturalized citizens of the United
States,
while in foreign states, shall be entitled to, and shall receive from this
government,
the same protection of persons and property that is accorded to native born
citizens in like situations and circumstances.

Sec.3. And be it further enacted, That whenever it shall be made known to the
President that any citizen of the United States has been unjustly deprived of
his
liberty by or under the authority of any foreign government, it shall be the
duty of
the President forthwith to demand of that government the reasons for such
imprisonment, and if it appears to be wrongful and in violation of the rights of
American citizenship, the President shall demand the release of such citizen,
and if
the release so demanded is unreasonably delayed or refused, it shall be the duty
of
the President to use such means, not amounting to act of war, as he may think
necessary and proper to obtain or effectuate such release, and all the acts and
proceedings relative thereto shall be as soon as practicable be communicated by
the President to Congress. Approved July 27th, 1968.

Please note that a foreign state is any union state outside of the Federal Zone:
i.e. Virginia,
Maryland, California and etc. The state of Puerto Rico or Guam are not foreign
because they belongs
to the government. Also, each of the union states is foreign to each other.

Expatriation:

This can be done with a true Notarized Declaration of Expatriation. Reasonably,
30
days should be given for anyone to refute what you say before it takes effect.
It
should be sent to any officers or departments where you have an nexus with the
governments, Federal, State, and County so that they will be properly informed
of
your new legal status. While such is not necessary, it may save you some legal
harassment. A sample is included on following page.

What is the downside of expatriating?

The downside of expatriating from the corporate “United States” and declaring
your
allegiance to the Republic would be the loss of many benefits afforded to U.S.
citizens that would not be available. To govern, vice be governed, could present
a
major problem to those people that cannot accept responsibility for themselves.
When you expatriate by changing your allegiance and lawful status, you would
become “Alien” to the present corporate Federal Government and would be treated
as such. Keep in mind that you are currently Alien to all union states except
the one
where you live. You would no longer be surety for the National Debt. You would
not
be classified as a “Taxpayer” but you could still volunteer if that would bother
you.
You may have difficulty in establishing a bank account under the Federal Reserve
System. Also you may have difficulty in seeking employment without a Social
Security Number although none is required.

What is the upside of expatriating?

The principal advantage of expatriating would be to exchange government granted
privileges for unalienable Rights. One would be leaving the socialist corporate
government and entering the Republic with its organic Constitution and Articles
of
Rights. Believe me, it is still there but has very few members. It may be
compared to
an empty corporate shell. It is lawfully present but essentially has no
business.
Common Law would be available to those with proper standing. Can one really
accept Liberty and Freedom after decades of brainwashing as slaves? That is a
great responsibility! It will surely be lonesome being a member of the Republic
all by
yourself. It will take a large number of Citizens to elect new officers and
restore Civil
Authority at all levels of Government. However, this method is a “one-at-a-time”
proposition. Re-educating the public is not an easy task.

Disclaimer: This article shall not be considered legal advice. The writers are
not licensed attorneys.
Any actions on the part of any reader are at his/her own peril.



SAMPLE

DECLARATION OF EXPATRIATION

FROM: ________________

GREETINGS TO ALL PUBLIC OFFICIALS:

I,__________________________________, being of sound mind, of legal age, a
natural born person,
and an inhabitant of ___________________County within the exterior boundaries of
the State of
______________, do solemnly make this Declaration of change in legal Status and
therefore forego all
the benefits, privileges, and immunities afforded U.S. citizens and Residents by
the corporate government
of the United States. I reserve all my Unalienable Rights afforded under the
Declaration of Independence,
the Bill of Rights, the Organic Constitution for the United States of America.
Also I reserve the inherent
right to contract with the corporate governments to the extent that my legal
Status in not altered in any
manner. The specific intent of this Declaration is that of Expatriation from the
Corporation known as; The
United States dba United States of America and U.S. My legal Status is that of a
Natural born American
Citizen and my allegiance is to the De Jure Organic United States of America, A
Republic, and being Alien
to the Corporate government with it’s Gold Fringed Flag.

I further Declare that I was born a free an American Citizen within the State of
______________, and my
status was changed due to torts by the corporate government. For example: I was
told that I had to get a
Social Security Number to work. That Socialist Scheme was a serious tort on the
American people. The
details of agreement was not made available to the people that entered the
program. Such practice vitiates
any agreements made.

This Declaration is made pursuant to 15 Statutes-at-Large 249, 1868, and shall
be considered accepted
within the doctrine of estoppel by acquiescence, thirty (30) days from the date
of presentation by U.S.
Mail.

Signed: ___________________________________________ Date:______________________

Notary:

Cc:
Speaker, the House of Representatives
President Pro Tem, the United States Senate
Secretary of the Treasury
Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service
Chief Justice Supreme Court
Social Security Administration
Secretary, Department of Commerce
Governor, State of _____________
Attorney General, State of _____________
Chief Justice Supreme Court, State of _____________
Sheriff _____________ County, State of _____________

Dear Leonard George and others:

I read with interest your Public Notices and Notice
of Status on your website at:
http://jesuscowboy1.tripod.com/Republic_of_Texas.html

I believe these documents hold much merit and are a
very important step for all of us to take.

I also note that in this issue of Media Bypass, June 2000,
page 12, there is also a Declaration of Expatriation and an
associated article that is worth reading. It is rather
lengthy, but I hope to eventually put it up on the
Anti-Federalist Society website.
http://www.no-debts.com/anti-federalist/index.html

Citizens of the Republic of Texas have been at this longer
than the rest of us, so if anyone else has any documents
that would help citizens of other Republics reclaim their
Independence, please forward them to me or this egroup so
that we can get on with spreading Independence throughout the
other colonies/states. These documents and others that help
establish a Provisional government for each of the
Republics are what we need to study in the other Republics
in addition to new constitutions.

Also if anyone is interested in checking out yet another
encryption emailer, point your browser to
http://www.1on1mail.com
It seems to be a good program but I'm just now trying it
out.

gene karl

http://Jesuscowboy1.tripod.com/page2.html
PUBLIC NOTICE

       Leonard Munk George, a man and a living soul, (hereinafter "Leonard") does
hereby notice the public and all
       public officials of the UNITED STATES and the STATE OF TEXAS, under the
authority of rights given by
       Almighty God, said rights being protected, enumerated and excepted from
government intrusion in the National
       Constitution of Texas, 1836, of the following:

       1. Leonard is not a citizen or subject of THE CITY, the HOLY SEE, GREAT
BRITAIN, the UNITED
       STATES, the STATE OF TEXAS or any other corporate, governmental or
religious entity.

       2. Leonard is not a party to the Constitution for the united States of
America, or any other constitution;
       therefore Leonard is not a citizen under the terms of the 14th amendment
to the Constitution for the united
       States of America.

       3. Leonard is not a party to or subject of, and denies the compelled
performance of, the private copyrighted
       laws, statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, codes, rules of court used
by THE CITY, the HOLY SEE,
       GREAT BRITAIN, the UNITED STATES, the STATE OF TEXAS or any other
corporate, governmental or
       religious entity.

       4. Leonard is a man and a living soul, a lawful man under God's Law, and
is NOT a fiction at law, legally
       created person, legally created entity, corporation, trust or artificial
entity of any kind, and is NOT a surety,
       trustee or representative for any fiction at law, including but not
limited to LEONARD MUNK GEORGE, or
       any derivation of an all-capitalized entity and is not a res of any
constructive public trust, or other trust, created
       by any corporate or governmental entity. Leonard objects to, does not
consent to, and is not subject to "in rem"
       proceedings or actions in administrative courts of corporate, governmental
or religious entities.

       5. Leonard, having the Power, hereby releases, refuses acceptance of,
extinguishes, and renounces any and all
       schemes and artifices for defrauding, including but not limited by, any
and all instruments creating any estate(s),
       use(s), trust(s), however created, constructive, implied, involuntary,
direct or other, and terminates all rights and
       interests under any and all estate(s), use(s), trust(s) affecting the
Substantive, Inherent, and Private Rights, and
       any and all Private Property Rights of Leonard. Release is retroactive to
March 17, 1836.

       6. Leonard, hereby releases, refuses acceptance of, extinguishes, and
renounces any and all schemes and
       artifices for defrauding, including but not limited by, any and all
instruments creating any implied or adhesion
       contract(s), and terminates all obligations of Leonard under any and all
implied or adhesion contract(s). Release
       is retroactive to March 17, 1836.

       7. Leonard hereby releases, refuses acceptance of, and extinguishes any
and all trusteeship(s) of any and all
       administrators, agents, objects, and fiduciaries claiming any interests in
the Private Property, Inherent, and
       Substantive Rights of Leonard. Release is retroactive to March 17, 1836.

       8. Leonard hereby denies consent by assent, refutes, objects to, and does
not agree to any and all assumptions
       and presumptions that the Inherent, Substantive and Private Rights of
Leonard and Private Property being
       acquired by Leonard are the res of any estate(s), use(s), trust(s), and
hereby denies, refuses and objects to the
       trespass or "in rem" proceedings or actions of any and all administrators,
agents, objects, and fiduciaries on the
       Private Property and Private Rights of Leonard.

       9. The use of any and all Bills of Credit in any form is done indebitatus
non-assumpsit, with all rights reserved,
       and without recourse, by the Law of Necessity by Leonard.


       /sig/


       Leonard Munk George, a man and a living soul
       Date: September 9, 1999

http://Jesuscowboy1.tripod.com/page3.html
NOTICE OF STATUS

       I, Leonard Munk George, (hereinafter "Leonard") a living soul and
inhabitant of the land in Texas, by the
       exercise of substantive and inherent rights, does hereby NOTICE the
General Public and All Governmental,
       Administrative and Corporate Entities operating upon the Soil of Texas
that Leonard is not a representative, in
       any manner, of a Legal Fiction.

       STATEMENT OF LAWFUL STATUS

       1. Leonard's proper Christian and surname are Leonard Munk George; Leonard
was born live to William and
       Jean, in the community of Salt Lake City, county of Salt Lake County,
Utah, USA. Leonard is a man and a
       living soul, a lawful man under God's Law, and an inhabitant of the land
in Travis County, Republic of Texas.

       2. Leonard is a free man, free to exercise the substantive and inherent
rights God gave to His creation. Leonard
       does not waive or give up any God-given, substantive, inherent rights at
any time under any circumstance.

       3. Leonard has taken an oath to God, to God's Law, and to Common Law and
Self-Responsibility; Leonard,
       by operation of religious conscience, cannot be subjected to man's law
where it does not coincide with God's
       Law.

       PRESUMPTION OF STATUS

       There is a deception that is being perpetrated upon the public in general
by certain entities. Said entities are
       operating in Texas as the UNITED STATES, STATE OF TEXAS, Administrative
Agencies thereof, Political
       Subdivisions thereof, and other Corporate Entities (hereinafter
"Entities") serving the goals thereof. The
       deception is being perpetrated through lack of full disclosure of the true
nature of the Entities and the lack of full
       disclosure regarding contracts or agreements with the Entities.

       The Entities are legal fictions and as such can only deal with other legal
fictions. The Entities are operating on the
       presumption that Leonard is a surety, representative or serves in some
fiduciary capacity for a legal fiction. This
       deception has been perpetrated to transfer or convert the natural people,
of which Leonard is one, from
       operating under private, substantive, inherent rights to representing a
Legal Fiction operating in commerce. The
       deception is a fraud upon Leonard and all of the People. Bouvier's Law
Dictionary, as a definition of fraud,
       states: "2. Fraud voids a contract [agreement], ab initio, both at law and
in equity, whether the object be to
       deceive the public, or third persons, or one party endeavor thereby to
cheat the other."

       DOCUMENTS CONSTITUTE FRAUD

       All agreements, contracts, or instruments of any kind (Documents) between
Leonard and Entities which may
       have led to the presumption that Leonard is a fiduciary, surety, or
representative of a legal fiction, constitute
       fraud to wit:

       · Documents constitute fraud as there can be no lawful agreement or
contract between a legal fiction and one of
       the natural, living people.

       · Documents constitute fraud as they do not contain the signatures of all
parties to the contract.

       · Documents constitute fraud as there was no full disclosure made
regarding the fact that by entering the
       agreements or contracts Leonard would be trading substantive, inherent
rights for governmental, administrative
       or corporate issued privileges.

       · Documents constitute fraud as there was no full disclosure that by
entering into said agreements or contracts
       Leonard would be signing as a representative or surety for a Legal
Fiction, by which Leonard would be bound
       to compelled performance under the private statutes, rules, regulations,
codes, procedures, by-laws,
       resolutions, ordinances and so forth of Entities.

       · Documents constitute fraud as there was no full disclosure that Entities
are operating as commercial entities
       engaged in commercial enterprise for the purpose of generating a profit
and regulating all phases of life of the
       private people, of which Leonard is one.

       · Documents constitute fraud as they were not entered into willfully or
intentionally by Leonard, with knowledge
       of the facts, due to the lack of full disclosure on the part of Entities.

       · Documents which constitute fraud due to the lack of full disclosure
include, but are not limited to, birth
       certificate, social security application, driver's license application,
voter registration card, bank account,
       mortgage, other types of "loans," or other documents which may contribute
to the presumption that a natural
       person is a fiduciary, surety or representative of a legal fiction.

       DOCUMENTS VOID AB INITIO

       Leonard hereby gives notice of rescission of Leonard's signature from any
and all Documents which have
       previously been used to create a presumption of Leonard being a surety or
representative in any way for any
       legal fiction. Rescission is retroactive ab initio. Aforementioned
Documents are hereby declared null and void ab
       initio for fraud and lack of bona fide signature. Said Documents have no
legal or lawful effect for Leonard nor
       do they create a legal encumbrance or obligation for Leonard in any
capacity.

       SUMMARY

       · Leonard is not a citizen, resident, person or subject as defined in the
laws of the UNITED STATES, the
       STATE OF TEXAS or any other corporate, governmental, or religious entity.

       · Leonard is not a party to the Constitution for the United States of
America or any other Constitution; therefore
       Leonard is not a citizen under the terms of the 14th amendment to the
Constitution for the United States of
       America.

       · Leonard IS NOT a fiction at law, legal fiction, legally created person,
legally created entity, corporation, trust
       or artificial entity of any kind, and is not a res of any constructive
public trust or other trust created by any
       governmental, corporate or religious entity.

       · Leonard DOES NOT serve in the capacity of trustee, administrator, fiscal
agent, surety, representative or in
       any other fiduciary capacity for any legal fiction.

       · Leonard, takes exception to, does not consent to, and is not subject to
"in rem" proceedings or actions in
       administrative courts of governmental, corporate, or religious entities.

       · The use of any and all Bills of Credit in any form is done indebitatus
non-assumpsit and without recourse, by
       the Law of Necessity, and does not validate the presumption that Leonard
is a representative of a legal fiction.

       · Operating in this artificial, counterfeit society by subscribing to the
services of utilities or any other action done
       to provide the basic necessities of life is done indebitatus non-assumpsit
and without recourse, by the Law of
       Necessity, and does not validate the presumption that Leonard is a
representative of a legal fiction.

       Notice to the Agent is Notice to the Principal, and
       Notice to the Principal is Notice to the Agent.

       Any response to this Notice, to repudiate or refute, is required before
the expiration of 30 days from the date of
       this notice. Silence, lack of response, or non-responsive answer will
establish the veracity of declarations made
       in this notice, and will be taken as affirmation without dispute
establishing the declarations made in this notice as
       fact and law. Lawful response may be made to the following mailing
location:

       Leonard Munk George
       4801-C Nuckols Crossing Rd
       Austin, Texas

       A federally assigned zip code, if used, is without Leonard's permission
and will in no way establish a
       presumption that Leonard is located in a federal zone, accepts a legal
fiction designation, or accepts being a
       representative of a legal fiction. The use of such a number is done
expressly at the decision of the sender and
       Leonard accepts no responsibility, obligation, or encumbrance for the use
of such a number.

       /sig/

       Leonard Munk George, a man and a living soul
       Date: September 9, 1999

                                             My Pages
                            Home
                                        Leonard's Republic of Texas home Page
                            Public Notice
                                        Leonard M. George

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: by information
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 02:26:04 -0500
From: Jim Davidson <JDavidson@...>
Reply-To: JDavidson@...
Organization: Texas Sovereignty


Dear Gene,

I like this particular feature of the Pennsylvania constitution,
and would like to add this same language into the constitutional
contract.  I'll be proposing an amendment on the same on 17 June.

Regards,

Jim

Gene Karl wrote:
>
> http://www.constitution.org/gje/gj_01.htm
>
> The Constitution of Pennsylvania affords a still greater {34} protection to
the
> liberty of the citizen. Section 10 of the Declaration
> of Rights provides: "No person shall for any indictable offence, be proceeded
> against criminally, by information, except in cases
> arising in the land or naval forces or in the militia when in actual service
in
> time of war or public danger, or by leave of the court
> for oppression or misdemeanor in office."
>
> As all offences are indictable offences in Pennsylvania, the filing of an
> information has been very rarely employed, by reason of
> the limited class of cases to which it can be applied. The nature of this
> proceeding received judicial construction in an early
> Pennsylvania case143 decided by Mr. Justice Shippen, who delivered the
following
> opinion: "The present is the first instance,
> that we recollect, of an application of this kind in Pennsylvania; and on
> opening the case, it struck us to be within the 10th
> section of the ninth article of the constitution, which declares that no
person
> shall for any indictable offense, be proceeded
> against criminally by information, except in cases that are not involved in
the
> present motion. But, on consideration, it is evident
> that the constitution refers to informations, as a form of prosecution, to
> punish an offender, without the intervention of a grand
> jury; whereas an information, in the nature of a writ of quo warranto, is
> applied to the mere purpose of trying a civil right and
> ousting the wrongful possessor of an office." ....



________________________________________________________
                            1stUp.com - Free the Web
    Get your free Internet access at http://www.1stUp.com

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Bricker Amendment
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 08:43:29 -0600
From: "M.O.M." <nox2128@...>
Reply-To: militia@...
Organization: Militia of Montana

  JUST A MATTER OF TIME!
  By Albert Burns

  Let us examine a very clear and present danger which we, as Americans,
  face. For more than 200 years, Americans have viewed the U.S.
  Constitution as being fixed and unchanging, except as it has been
  modified by properly ratified amendments. Some people are vaguely aware

  that the Constitution has been changed in varying degrees by numerous
  Supreme Court decisions. What extremely few realize is that the
  Constitution has been (and is being) changed continuously by treaties
  into which this country has entered. These treaties are now a clear and

  present danger to the continued freedom of us all.

  Article VI, paragraph 2 of the Constitution states: "This Constitution,

  and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance
  thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
  Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;
  and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the
  Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
  (Emphasis added.)

  The phrase: "...shall be the supreme Law of the Land", has been
  interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean that treaties supersede the
  Constitution itself — that our rights of freedom of speech, religion,
  assembly, press, right to keep and bear arms, etc. can be changed or
  even abolished by a treaty.

  The first such Supreme Court "interpretation" took place in 1796! In
  that case, (Ware vs. Hylton), the Court upheld the taking of private
  property without "due process" because of a treaty with Great Britain.
  In 1920, (Missouri vs. Holland), the Supreme Court decided that powers,

  reserved by Amendment 10 to the States or the people, could be
  transferred to the federal government by a treaty, in other words, a
  direct REVERSAL of the intent of the Tenth Amendment.

  The Constitution expressly provides that the President can make
  treaties, only with the advice and consent of two thirds of the
Senators
  present at the time a vote on a treaty is taken. Theoretically, this
  provides some protection against the rights of the American people
being
  bargained away. At least when the debate came before the Senate, the
  people would have an opportunity to make their wishes known to their
  Senators. Binding secret agreements would not be possible.

  Unfortunately, in 1942, (United States vs. Pink), the Supreme Court
  EXTENDED the concept that treaties over-ride the Constitution to
include
  "executive agreements" made unilaterally by the President, or even
  agreements made in the NAME of the President by someone else in the
  executive branch of the federal government. The Court held that an
  "agreement" between President Roosevelt and the Russian Foreign
Minister
  over-rode the provisions of New York State law and of the U.S.
  Constitution itself. The dire consequences of that decision cannot be
  over-exaggerated!

  The inspired men who wrote the Constitution planned that the
  Constitution could be amended solely with the by vote of two thirds of
  each house of the Congress and then with the consent of THREE FOURTHS
of
  the States. Effectively, the earlier decision of the Court meant that
  the necessary approval of changes to the Constitution has been changed
  from 3/4 of the STATES to only two thirds of the Senators present when
a
  treaty ratification vote was to be made.

  Under the 1942 decision, the requirement for oversight or approval of
  changes to the Constitution was REMOVED ENTIRELY! Now, one man, the
  President, or even someone representing him, can make an agreement with

  a foreign power or international body. According to the Supreme Court,
  such an agreement could modify or possibly even nullify our
  Constitution! This can be done without the approval or even the
  knowledge of the Senate or of the American people as a whole.

  In 1954, the U.S. Senate held hearings on the "Bricker Amendment", a
  proposed amendment to the Constitution to close this "backdoor" method
  of changing the Constitution. During those hearings, it was disclosed
  that up until that time, 46 YEARS AGO, over 10,000 executive agreements

  had been negotiated with regard to the North Atlantic Treaty
  Organization (NATO) alone! A large number of those agreement were, AND
  STILL ARE, secret from the American people, yet they all, potentially,
  have the power to negate the U.S. Constitution.

  How many other secret executive agreements have been made, with other
  international bodies, is information not available to American
  citizens. Obviously, the foreign powers and/or international bodies
  know about such agreements since they are party to them. They are only
  kept from the knowledge of the American people! Every rational and
  reasonable American should ask: "WHY are they afraid to tell US?"
  Our Founding Fathers did everything in their power to guarantee that
  those rights would never be infringed upon by government.
  Unfortunately, they could not have foreseen how venal politicians and
  Supreme Court judges (to put the most charitable interpretation upon
  their actions) would twist the clear meaning of the Constitution to
suit
  their own evil purposes.

  It is not that there is no historical record to establish exactly what
  the intent of the writers and signers of the Constitution intended. The

  Federalist Papers and other documents written by the Founding Fathers
  clearly indicate their intent and the meaning of provisions of the
  Constitution. Those indications of "original intent" are simply ignored

  by those in power in Washington today.

  I mentioned the "Bricker Amendment" which had been proposed in 1954 by
  Senator John Bricker as a means to positively stop the "backdoor"
  methods which were being used to corrupt and negate the U.S.
  Constitution. This amendment would have protected the Constitution and
  the rights of American citizens from assault by treaties or executive
  agreements.

  The FULL text of the Bricker Amendment reads:

  "Section 1. A provision of a treaty or other international agreement
  which conflicts with this Constitution, or which is not made in
  pursuance thereof, shall not be the supreme law of the land nor be of
  any force or effect."

  "Section 2. A provision of a treaty or other international agreement
  shall become effective as internal law in the United States only
through
  legislation valid in the absence of international agreement.
  "Section 3. On the question of advising and consenting to the
  ratification of a treaty, the vote shall be determined by yeas and
nays,
  and the names of the persons voting for and against shall be entered on

  the Journal of the Senate."

  This would have been an eminently sensible and simple approach to
  solving the problem. Yet President Eisenhower and Secretary of State
  John Foster Dulles opposed the Bricker Amendment with the full power of

  their offices. They twisted arms, called in favors owed to them, and
  generally moved Heaven and earth to oppose this amendment. The
  amendment failed to pass the Senate by ONE vote!

  Eisenhower and Dulles claimed that such an amendment would interfere
  with the President in conducting American foreign policy. One can
  reasonably ask how the Bricker Amendment could interfere with the
  conduct of legitimate U.S. foreign policy. Were those who opposed the
  amendment planning treaties and agreements which would conflict with
the
  U.S. Constitution or were they protecting such agreements already in
  existence but unknown to the American people?

  A case in point: On May 25, 1962, the United States and the Soviet
  Union "agreed" on a "Joint Declaration Against War Propaganda." Under
  its terms: "...an American who suggests blockade or invasion of Cuba,
or
  engages in other ‘war propaganda' activities may be risking
  ‘condemnations' or ‘punishments by appropriate practical measures'
  including measures in legislative form."

  Decoded, that legal double-talk means that offenders may be jailed or
  have other punitive actions taken against them. (What happened to First

  Amendment free speech?) In fact, the communists withdrew THEIR approval

  of the joint declaration only four days later so whether it is still
  binding on the U.S. is not clear. But with our present government
  currently enforcing international agreements which have never been
  debated or ratified by the Senate, I sure wouldn't want to bet upon
  THEIR interpretation of that question. It could be a "ticking time
  bomb" just waiting for some nation to ask the International Court of
  Justice (World Court) to order the U.S. to "gag" its citizens.
  If that ever happens, American citizens have only one protection IF the

  State Department saw fit to invoke it. Before ratifying the United
  Nations Charter in 1945, the Senate was wise enough to amend the
section
  dealing with the World Court by barring the Court from jurisdiction
over
  matters which were essentially domestic "AS DETERMINED BY THE UNITED
  STATES." Those six words, authored by Senator Tom Connally (D-Tex), are

  known as the "Connally Reservation" and are the only thing which COULD
  prevent the World Court from interfering in American internal affairs
on
  the pretext that our tariffs, immigration laws, school curriculums,
etc.
  affect American relations with other countries and are therefore
  "foreign" and not "domestic." Very powerful interests in Washington
  have been trying to get that "Connally Reservation" repealed ever
since.
  Advocates of internationalism claim that the Reservation is a
  "roadblock" to "world peace through world law." What they fail to tell
  the American people is that there is NO SUCH THING as a body of "world
  law" except in the field of maritime regulation. IN FACT, because of
  Article 59 of the Statute Of The International Court Of Justice, there
  WILL BE NO such body of international law! The Statute specifically
  prohibits the Court from building such a body of international law by
  FORBIDDING the use of prior decisions as precedents in future cases.
  Article 59 provides that:

  "The decision of the Court has no binding force except between the
  parties and in respect of that particular case."

  Therefore, the "Judges" of the International Court Of Justice could
  make a decision favoring an enemy of the United States using one set of

  standards and then decide that same set of standards did not apply when

  it might favor the U.S. although the circumstances might be exactly the

  same. These "Judges" are in the unique legal position of deciding what
  the "law" is to be for each individual case they hear. (Imagine a
  baseball game where the umpires can change the rules, as they see fit,
  to favor one team over the other, whenever and however they please!)
  Further, there is NO appeal from the decision of these "Judges" no
  matter how unjust or unreasonable a decision might be. Those decisions
  could, ultimately, be enforced by the rapidly expanding power of the
  U.N. "Peace" forces.

  It should be clear that the United States cannot endure, as a free
  and independent nation, unless this "loophole" in the Constitution can
  be closed. The American people must demand that Congress resurrect and
  PASS the Bricker Amendment so that it may be ratified by the States. I
  urge all patriotic Americans to "get involved" immediately in a massive

  movement to achieve that end. Failure to protect the Constitution from
  this insidious hidden attack will mean that ALL the sacrifices of
  America's fighting men and women will have been in vain

--
**COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107,
any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use
without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for nonprofit research and
educational
purposes only.[Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ]

Join the Militia of Montana Email Alert List by writing to:
militia@... with "SUBSCRIBE" in the Subject Line!

For the latest in great survival, preparedness and politically incorrect
materials visit our Online Catalog at:

  http://www.montana.com/militiaofmontana/catalog.htm Some great deals
are to be had! Or, send $2.00 to the address below for a copy of our 40+
page Preparedness Catalog.

Militia of Montana
P.O. Box 1486, Noxon, MT  59853
Tel: 406-847-2735    n Fax: 406-847-2246

Remove yourself from this list by writing to: militia@... and
type "UNSUBSCRIBE" in the subject line.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: challenge
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 09:12:49 -0700
From: "Wesley Burnett" <rtmag@...>

Royce Mitchell wrote:

Wesley, you are off base on two points in your post here. First, the enemy
here is not the Constitution. It is our own ignorance of the law. It was the
Founding Fathers knowledge of the law that scared the breeches off old King
George and his Star Chamber courts in England. The people who pass the laws
in this state are not scared of us because they know that we have been
educated in government run public schools, and are ignorant of the law. So,
the enemy is us. We need to quit being ignorant, and to quit looking for the
enemy in the Constitution.


Wes Burnett responds:

If the U.S. and State of Texas constitutions were effective in securing the
rights of individuals, your comments above would be moot. Since neither of
these constitutions fulfill the requirements to secure the rights of
individuals, it is the obligation of the people to take corrective action.

The U.S. constitution is fundamentally flawed in these ways:

1. The language is imprecise, making it unclear and easy to manipulate
against its intended purpose. The 2nd Amendment is a prime example.

2. It gives government the power to force wealth and property from
individuals, through taxation and regulation, a direct conflict with our
inherent right of liberty and ownership of property.

3. It provides for amendments which can and have been used to erode
individual rights (14th, 16th for example).

4. It has no enforcement provisions for holding elected and appointed
government agents accountable when they violate their oath of office or fail
to secure the rights of individuals.

5. It allows the electoral process to be perverted from republican form to
corporate form through the implementation of democratic rule, thereby
instituting full democracy, where majority rule ignores inherent rights of
individuals.

Here are some basic flaws with the State of Texas constitution:

1. So many amendments that the Secretary of State can not provide a verified
copy of the entire state constitution. In other words, there is no official
source to confirm what is the totality of the constitution. You might think
you have a complete copy, but then, there is no way to confirm that belief.

2. Amendments, like in the U.S. constitutions, consistently violate inherent
rights of individuals.

3. The power of taxation and enforcement disregard inherent right of liberty
and ownership of property.

4. There are no effective means to hold elected and appointed government
agents accountable for their violations of the rights of individuals.

I'm sure others can add to this list, but these are the fundamental flaws
that inspired us to call a constitutional convention, write and adopt a
constitution to reclaim our inherent rights and to proceed with a lawful and
peaceful ratification.

Snip --------------------------------
RM:

So, before you begin to TRY to take out the one thing that does place us in
a position of power, I suggest that you rethink your ideas, and restudy the
history of this state and country. I suggest that you begin to educate
yourself as to the nature of the laws in place, and why they don't apply to
you, except as you are involved in commerce. If you will do so, you will
soon find out who the REAL enemy is, and it is not the Constitution.

--------------------------------------
WB:

We recognize that ignorance of rights is widespread, but rather than
continue fighting a losing battle of education, we opt to take action so
that ignorance of the law will not be allowed to force slavery on those who
are not ignorant. With a clearly worded constitution, which includes a
judicial system with easy access for every individual, those who violate the
rights of another will be held accountable.

I suggest you study Texas Constitution 2000 (www.tcrf.com), taking a careful
look at the Declaration of Rights (Article 1), The Law (Article 3) and the
judicial system (Article 4).

Wesley Walker Burnett
----------------------------------------------------------
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless
minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."     --Samuel Adams
Texas Constitution 2000 - It's About Freedom
www.tcrf.com

Subject: Re: LPTexas response to Barnes challenge
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 18:07:06 -0700
From: "Wesley Burnett" <rtmag@...>

The Constitution was ratified by the people on September 5, 1836. Who was
allowed to vote on it? Certainly
not Mexicans. Texicans of Hispanic descent certainly would have been allowed-to
my thought, but as yet I don't
have proof of that, except to note that there were 3 Hispanic names of people
who signed the original document.

Royce

        ----------------------------------------------

        If you have evidence that the 1836 Texas constitution was formally
ratified, the Texas State Archives would be
        interested. In fact, there is no evidence that the 1836 constitution was
ever ratified, and only one copy of the
        document survived, and that from a newspaper.

        Yet, even without a process for ratification, it was accepted. Those of
you who accept the 1836 document as valid
        and the government it established as lawful, should be a bit less
critical of others attempting to change the form of
        government through lawful and peaceful process.

        At least we have developed a plan whereby every qualified Texan (see
Article 9, Texas Constitution 2000) may
        participate in their county ratification convention.

        Wesley Walker Burnett
        ----------------------------------------------------------
        "..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate,
tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's
        minds.."     --Samuel Adams
        Texas Constitution 2000 - It's About Freedom
        www.tcrf.com

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: response to Barnes challenge
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 21:56:39 -0700
From: "Wesley Burnett" <rtmag@...>
To: nodebt@...

Who Has Authority to Change the Form of Government in Texas?

By Wesley Walker Burnett
Chairman, Texas Constitution Ratification Committee

The following is in response to Ken Barnes (on the LP Texas Internet
discussion list), who issued a challenge to me to defend the authority of
the people of Texas to exercise their inherent right to determine their own
self-government through the following constitutional guarantee:

"All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are
founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of
the people of Texas stands pledged to preservation of a republican form of
government, and subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the
inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such
manner as they may think expedient." Article 1, Section 2, Constitution of
Texas, February, 1876.

This authority is a direct reflection of the American traditions established
by those who declared their independence from England, as articulated by
Thomas Jefferson in the American Declaration of Independence:

"When in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to
dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to
assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to
which the Laws of Nature and Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect of
the Opinions Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which
impel them to the Separation.

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure
these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just
Powers from the Consent of the Governed. That whenever any Form of
Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People
to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its
Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Forms, as
to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

In Texas, that right of political separation has been included in all but
one of the five constitutions since 1836:

"All Political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are
founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit; and they have
at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform, or abolish their form
of government, in such manner as they may think expedient; and, therefore,
no government or authority can exist or exercise power within the State of
Texas, without the consent of the people thereof previously given; nor after
that consent be withdrawn." Article I. -- Bill of Rights. Section 1, 1861
Texas Constitution.

"All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are
founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit; and they have
at all times the unalienable right to alter, reform, or abolish their form
of government, in such manner as they may think expedient." Article I, Bill
of Rights, Constitution for the State of Texas, August 27, 1845.

"All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are
founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit; and they have
at all times the inalienable right to alter their government in such manner
as they might think proper." Second article, Declaration of Rights, The
Constitution of the Republic of Texas, March 17, 1836.

Note that the lone Texas constitution omitting this unalienable right was
the one written and forced on Texans by "carpetbaggers" following the
imposition of martial law by the U.S. government.

Those of us supporting the ratification of a new constitution do so to
preserve the republican form of government, for we recognize that government
in Texas and the U.S. has taken on the corporate form. As Jefferson
emphasized, when government becomes destructive of its proper role, we have
the right to take corrective action.

It is somewhat ironic that a libertarian has to take such great pains to
explain a fundamental right of political self-determination to a libertarian
audience. But here it is.

At least some libertarians appear to be mesmerized by fear, assuming that
all sorts of violence will beset them if they dare to step forward and
demand their freedom through ratifying a new constitution for Texas.

The U.S. government has for years, and is now sending thousands of its young
men and women around the world to secure the right of self-determination for
widely diverse political independence causes. Yet, for some unexplained
reason, opponents to ratifying a new Texas constitution insist that a
calamity of enormous proportion will destroy Texans if they insist on making
a peaceful and lawful determination for their own political future.

As in Eastern Europe and the Balkans, Texans have the inherent right to
peacefully and lawfully alter, reform or abolish government as they see fit.
In this case, Texans are insisting on ratifying a new constitution to
accomplish that goal. They are the only ones who have the authority to take
such action.

There is no authority in the State of Texas Constitution for any branch of
the government to call a constitutional convention for the purposes outlined
in Article 1, Section 2. The legislative branch is authorized in Article 17
to propose and present amendments to the constitution. There are no
implementing statutes related to Article 1, Section 2.

The people of Texas have the same inherited rights that belonged to their
ancestors, including those who created and established the United States.
The powerful words of the American Declaration of Independence are as
pertinent today as they were when they were written in that summer of 1776.

As was the case with our ancestors, there is no established law spelling out
how the form of government is to be changed. Those of us who share the same
enthusiasm for freedom and liberty as did our American ancestors, have
chosen a path of lawful and peaceful political change under our inherent
right, as defined so eloquently by Jefferson.

Article 1, Section 1 of the State of Texas Constitution constrains the State
of Texas to behave according to the restrictions placed on it by the State
of Texas Constitution. It cannot and does not restrict the inherent rights
of individuals, those rights are inviolate, including the absolute right to
alter, reform or abolish government as we see fit.

Article 1, Section 2 also specifies that we are guaranteed a republican form
of government. Since we now suffer under a corporate form of government, we
have the authority, right and obligation to replace the incorporated form
with a republican form.

The State of Texas and the U.S. constitutions, because they have been
perverted and the governments established by them have instituted
incorporated government, are entirely ineffective in securing our individual
rights. Therefore, since both these constitutions no longer serve their
intended purposes, and neither retain the republic form of government, we
are taking peaceful and lawful action to correct this failure.

Texas Constitution 2000 dismantles the corporate form, and institutes a
republican form of government.

Those who wish to remain enslaved to a socialist/corporate form of
government may continue that enslavement, but they do not have the right to
enforce that enslavement on those of us who dare to demand our liberty and
freedom guaranteed by our inherited rights. And we feel the best way to
achieve that liberty and freedom is through the ratification of a new
constitution, which will ensure the security of those rights.

As was true in colonial times, loyalty to the king is not a violation of
law, unless that loyalty results in violation of the rights of other
individuals. Let us co-exist in peace, those who wish to remain loyal to the
U.S. king and those of us who pledge allegiance to our God and no other.

With the ratification of Texas Constitution 2000, there will be freedom for
all, including those who pledge their allegiance to a socialist/corporate
form of government. The difference is that anyone who dares violate the
rights of another will be held accountable for their actions.

As was the case with the American colonies in ratifying the Articles of
Confederation and the Constitution, a republican form has been adopted for
the ratification of Texas Constitution 2000. Each county will have equal
power in the decision, regardless of population totals.

Those who are offended by this process are rejecting the notion of a
republican form of government, especially as envisioned and established by
our American ancestors.

Wesley Walker Burnett
----------------------------------------------------------
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless
minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."     --Samuel Adams
Texas Constitution 2000 - It's About Freedom
www.tcrf.com

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: A Thought to Keep in the Forefront of Your Mind
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 18:13:53 EDT
From: CEVI2000@...

--------------------------------------------------
Good Reading. Sent FYI

Walter Burien
-------------------------------------------------
Looking back at the history of political philosophy, only a few geniuses
have bothered to think and write about the dynamics of state collapse.
Preeminently, in the 1550s, Etienne de la Boetie wrote Discourse on
Voluntary Servitude, a tract emphasizing that "in order to have liberty
nothing more is needed than to long for it."

This is because tyrants are "automatically defeated if the country refuses
consent to its own enslavement: it is not necessary to deprive him of
anything, but simply to give him nothing; there is no need that the country
make an effort to do anything for itself provided it does nothing against
itself.  It is therefore the inhabitants themselves who permit, or, rather,
bring about, their own subjection, since by ceasing to submit they would put
an end to their servitude."

What did Boetie suggest that a subjugated people do?  "I do not ask that you
place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support
him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal
has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break into pieces."

Behind Boetie¹s thinking was the assumption, later spelled out in great
detail by David Hume, that states cannot rule by force alone.  This is
because the agents of government power are always outnumbered by those they
rule.  To insure compliance with their dictates, it is essential to convince
the people that their servitude is somehow in their own interest.  They do
this by manufacturing ideological systems that seem to justify despotism,
such as socialism (among a thousand other excuses).  If a population comes to
believe in one or another form of statism, their compliance with
despotically coercive schemes is assured.

If, however, resistance develops and spreads among the subjugated people,
the state must relent or step up its use of coercion and make examples out
of the non-compliant.  The risk of escalation is two fold: the forces of
despotism may make martyrs of those singled out for malign treatment, and
this can demoralize those within their own ranks who are squeamish about
violating essential human rights.  Once this dynamic of state collapse
begins, it can be difficult to reverse, since further coercion only
entrenches internal and external opposition.

What about our own country?  How secure is the imperial rule of Washington,
DC?  The ideology that supports big government has been undermined at the
intellectual level and it is increasingly rejected at the public level.  What
the commentators decry as public indifference to public affairs is actually
a reflection of widespread revulsion at the character and actions of the
political class.  Lacking a coherent ideological structure for their
rule­most of the available ones are leftovers from the New Deal/Cold War
period of American history­the political class flounders around demonizing
civilian sectors that dare to resist its rule (e.g. Microsoft).

Polls consistently reveal that about one third of the American people
fundamentally object to the political system as it currently exists and
instead seek radical change.  Even government officials themselves sense the
deep lack of public support for their activities. They believe a fundamental
disconnect separates them from the public.  Washington, DC, has become an
armed camp, not to protect itself against foreign attack, but to guard
against citizen reprisal.  The young and talented no longer aspire to
political office or public service.  Voters no longer have faith in the
integrity of the system.

Most important for gauging our present historical moment, discontent is
spreading within the rank-and-file of the nation¹s military.  They are
outraged at the politicization of promotions, disgusted by the wild-goose
chases and murderous expeditions that the commander-in-chief has foisted on
them, and no longer believe the patriotic cliches that once put a moral
gloss on imperial globe-trotting.  Those who can flee for civilian sectors do
so, while potential recruits are loathe to sign their lives away to people
they no longer trust.


Indeed, the dynamic of state collapse is already set in motion right here in
the US.  There¹s no point in making predictions about precisely when and how
the process will end.  All we know, based on every other occupying power in
human history, is that the means and the shape of the restoration of liberty
will
surprise us all.  At some point, the people will tell Caesar precisely what
he is
entitled to and claim the rest for themselves, while those in captivity will
ask in
bemusement: "What has happened?  Where are the guards?"


>From an article by:
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.,
President of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
---------------------------------------------------------------

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: information
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000
From: Jim Davidson <JDavidson@...>
Reply-To: JDavidson@...
Organization: Texas Sovereignty


Dear Gene,

To subscribe to sovereignty@... go to:
  http://freetexas.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sovereignty
and follow the instructions.  Please keep your posts to
this list on topic: the constitutional contract for Texas.

> In my opinion, an accusation should be laid before a grand
> jury even for misdemeanors, not before a court or magistrate.
> Crimes are supposed to be against people, not the state.

I agree. Crimes are also supposed to involve harm to an
individual or their property, which eliminates crimes against
the state.

I believe the process in our constitutional contract only
allows for grand juries to review accusations:
   http://www.TexasSovereignty.org/cc/index.html#grand jury

> Perhaps we should do an internet search on the subject.

An Internet search on the subject would be most welcome.

> I would like to note that oaths are against scripture and
> therefore they are against True Law.

I believe the actual admonishment in Scripture is against
swearing oaths, which may be affirmed rather than sworn.
At least, that's been my understanding, which I am happy
to correct if it is in error.  All the mentions of oaths
and oath taking in the constitutional contract also mention
affirmation.

> The false accuser can still be held accountable for their
> actions.

Yes.  That's provided for in the constitutional contract,
with a jury to review the crime of perjury.  Where perjury
leads to the death of another individual, the death penalty
is available for the jury to use as punishment.

> It seems to me that one should not be subject to
> actual restraints on one's liberty imposed by arrest without
> either someone actually witnessing a crime being committed
> and making the arrest and accusation immediately, or filing a
> complaint or accusation backed up by confirmation which would
> need to be taken to a grand Jury prior to arrest.

I agree with these principles.  I think they are included in
the constitutional contract.

> Even a sheriff or law enforcement officer could possibly
> 'put 2 and 2 together' and 'solve a crime' and have enough
> 'information' to make an accusation backed up by his yeas,
> but false accusers even if they are the sheriff, should be
> held accountable by trial by Jury.

Yes.  Again, I think that is all provided for in the
constitutional contract, under district government and under
the process for grand juries and juries.

The sheriff is charged with maintaining order in his district.
So, if he or one of his deputies sees a crime in progress,
they have an affirmative obligation to intervene, stop the
crime, and limit the freedom of the perpetrator (alleged
criminal).

The sheriff may not execute an arrest warrant unless it comes
from a grand jury, however.  So, if he or his deputies don't
see the crime, they have no direct power to arrest until a
grand jury has reviewed the evidence and determined whether
a crime has probably been committed and have issued an
arrest warrant.

> But even with enough 'information', one must
> still make out an accusation which should be reviewed by
> a grand Jury before an accusation is permitted to proceed
> to a trial by Jury. Therefore, in my opinion, 'informations'
> are not necessary and are an instrument solely devised by
> the crown and its agents.

I disagree.  The use of the term "or information" is limited only
to holding a person to answer for a criminal charge.  Where a
crime has been interrupted in progress, by the sheriff or by
a guy in a diner, that person should have the option of holding
the criminal rather than summarily executing the criminal.
This business of holding someone to answer for a criminal charge
based on information in hand that they have committed a crime
doesn't deny the further obligation to have a grand jury make
an indictment.  It simply provides a means for restraining
the liberty of an accused criminal for a time.

> Now, do we permit the sheriff to make his own accusation,
> and make the arrest before bringing the accusation to the
> grand Jury?

In the case of a crime in progress, I think that's necessary.
Otherwise, we hamper the maintenance of order, we unduly
limit the ability of the sheriff and his deputies to prevent
crimes in progress, and we set up a system which allows many
criminals to escape.  We must presume that anyone who is
willing to commit a crime once may do so again, so we have
a substantial interest in arresting criminals when they are
seen committing crimes.

By the way, ordinary people who aren't government officials
aren't limited by the outline of powers in the constitution
portion of the contract.  They can stop crimes by using
deadly force or anything less that does the trick.

> If one believes that such an infringement upon
> one's Liberties are essential, then what maximum time period
> should be permissable? 24 hours? 48 hours? 72 hours?

How about one hour?
   http://www.TexasSovereignty.org/cc/index.html#crime

"Except in the case of a crime in progress, no individual
shall be detained, imprisoned, nor held against his will in
any manner, unless a lawfully executed warrant specifying
the charges has been issued in accordance with this
constitution. Any individual so detained will be given a
complete copy of the lawful warrant, given adequate time
to read the warrant, and otherwise be informed of the reason
for detention within one hour of being detained."

Notice the exception for a crime in progress.  The same rules
of habeas corpus apply, and there remains an affirmative
obligation for the person arrested to be told of the reason
for detention.  The habeas corpus provisions are detailed
at    http://www.TexasSovereignty.org/cc/index.html#habeas

> In my opinion, the matter must be brought before a grand Jury
> within 24 hours of such an arrest or else the 'double jeopardy'
> infringement would apply.

The provisions indicated in the constitutional contract allow for
complaints to be reviewed by the grand jury for a district within
30 days.  Obviously, if a criminal is arrested they can be brought
before the grand jury sooner, and that seems very likely.  However,
I don't think it essential that someone arrested "in flagrante
delicto" so to speak be given this 24 hours benefit you discuss.

Assuming they are unjustly arrested, the habeas corpus rules
provide relief.

> In other words, the accused must be
> let go if the accusation is not brought before the grand Jury
> within 24 hours and the accused could not be rearrested on the
> same charges for that would be being placed in double jeopardy
> of life or limb or liberty.

I think the tendency you show here, of giving the accused the
benefit of the doubt, is a good one.  I think there is great
danger in having a system which doesn't provide relief such
as that offerred by habeas corpus.  I do think 24 hours is a bit
overboard, though.

> Now the question of allowing for
> an arrest with the condition of bringing the charges before
> a grand Jury within 24 hours, I must reconsider myself for my
> own constitution. I am sure that if I do allow it, that I must
> require the grand Juries to operate even on Saturdays and
> Sundays. But that thought we must all fully consider.

I think it is a good thing to allow each district to decide
whether grand juries will operate on sabbath days.  That's
a benefit of the thirty days per complaint approach.

> And what punishment are we to give the sheriff for making an
> accusation if the grand Jury says to the sheriff, "Let my
> people go!"??

I think that punishment has to be assigned by a jury, and
should be in proportion to the harm caused.

> Wouldn't it then be a cause of action against
> the sheriff for making the arrest in the first place?

That could be viewed as a civil matter arising from the
harm caused the accused, or it could be viewed as a
criminal matter arising from the sheriff violating the
constitution.  Both approaches are provided for in the
constitutional contract.

> And if not, are you not then giving the sheriff some form of
> 'sovereign immunity'?

Not me.

> These immunities are a major failing
> devised into the constitutions that have been devised by
> the 'ALL CRIMES ARE AGAINST THE STATE' people who claim that
> their 'servants' must give up certain 'rights' to take office,
> and then on the other hand they give them all sorts of immunities
> to protect these 'servants'.

Right.  We have to avoid giving government officials any veil
of immunity, because they will find a way to make that veil
out of Kevlar.

> This leads me back to my earlier statement which seems to be
> the wisest path to follow and the more proper procedure:
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> It seems to me that one should not be subject to
> actual restraints on one's liberty imposed by arrest without
> either someone actually witnessing a crime being committed
> and making the arrest and accusation immediately, or filing a
> complaint or accusation backed up by confirmation which would
> need to be taken to a grand Jury prior to arrest.

Again, I agree, and I think we've provided for that in the
constitutional contract.

> Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Ed:
> Information. An accusation exhibited against a person for some
> criminal offense, without an indictment. An accusation in the
> nature of an indictment, from which it differs only in being
> presented by a competent public officer on his oath of office,
> instead of a grand jury on their oath. A written accusation made
> by a public prosecutor, without the intervention of a grand jury.
> Salvail v. Sharkey, 108 R.I. 63, 271 A. 2d 814, 817. In most states
> the information may be used in place of a grand jury indictment
> to bring a person to trial. As regards federal crimes, see Fed.R.
> Crim.P. 7. See also Arraignment; Indictment.
>
> Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Ed:
> Presentment. The written notice taken by a grand jury of any offense,
> from their own knowledge or observation, without any bill of
> indictment laid before them at the suit of the government.
> A presentment is an accusation, initiated by the grand jury itself,
> and in effect an instruction that an indictment be drawn.
> U.S. v. Briggs, C.A.Fla., 514 F.2d 794, 804. A written accusation of
> crime made and returned by the grand jury upon its own initiative
> in the exercise of its lawful inquisitorial powers, is in the form
> of a bill of indictment, and in practice is signed individually by
> all the grand jurors who return it. State v. Hudson, Tenn.Cr.App.,
> 487 S.W.2d 672, 674.
>
> I've sort of muddled through my thoughts on this matter of
> great concern and welcome any and all opinions on this subject
> so that I too may perfect my own constitution and my thoughts
> on what is True Law and what is not. I suppose I need to
> subscribe to freetexas.net.

Hope to see you on the list, soon.

Regards,

Jim



________________________________________________________
                            1stUp.com - Free the Web
    Get your free Internet access at http://www.1stUp.com

http://www.constitution.org/gje/gj_01.htm
THE GRAND JURY
PART I
ITS ORIGIN, HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT.

The grand jury is an institution of English-speaking countries, of historic
interest by reason of the obscurity surrounding its origin,
its gradual development, and the part it has played in some of the most stirring
events in the history of the Anglo-Saxon race; of
political interest by its effectual protection of the liberty of the subject
from the arbitrary power of the government; of legal
interest in that its power and action is utterly repugnant to "the experience
and theory of English law."1 It has been extravagantly
praised as the "security of Englishmen's lives,"2 the conserver of his
liberties,3 and the noblest check upon the malice and
oppression of individuals and states;4 it has been bitterly assailed as "purely
mischievous"5 and a "relic of barbarism."6

The origin of the grand jury has given rise to protracted discussion on the part
of learned writers and has been productive of
widely differing conclusions. Some have claimed to find traces of the
institution among the Athenians,7 but if such an institution
ever existed in Athens it had become extinct before {2} the existence of Britain
became known to the Mediterranean Countries.
And although Athenian history makes mention of customs similar to the Norman
appeal with the wager of battle and also of a
trial by a large number of jurors, it is silent concerning a body whose duty was
to accuse.

Other writers claim for the institution an Anglo-Saxon origin,8 and in
confirmation of their opinion point to the law of Ethelred
II9 (A. D. 978-1016), while still others urge that juries were unknown to the
Anglo-Saxons and were introduced into England
by the Normans after the conquest.10

Strictly speaking there is no obscurity surrounding the origin of the "grand
jury," for it was not until the 42nd year of the reign of
Edward III (A. D. 1368) that the modern practice of returning a panel of
twenty-four men to inquire for the county was
established and this body then received the name "le graunde inquest."11 Prior
to this time the accusing body was known only
as an inquest or jury, and was summoned in each hundred by the bailiffs to
present offences occurring in that hundred. When,
therefore, this method of proceeding was enlarged by the sheriff returning a
panel of twenty-four knights to inquire of and
present offences for the county at large, we see the inception of the grand jury
of the present day. But while it is true that our
grand jury was first known to England in the time of Edward the Third, it is
nevertheless not true that it was an institution of
Norman origin or transplanted into England by the Normans.

That the petit jury was a Norman institution and by them brought into England
cannot well be doubted. Mr. Reeves12 {3}
shows that the trial by twelve jurors was anciently in use among the
Scandinavians, and became disused, but "was revived, and
more firmly established by a law of Reignerus, surnamed Lodbrog, about the year
A. D. 820. It was about seventy years after
this law, that Rollo led his people into Normandy, and, among other customs,
carried with him this method of trial; it was used
there in all causes that were of small importance." At the time the Normans were
using the Scandinavian nambda, the
Anglo-Saxons were proceeding with sectatores, that is suitors of the court, to
whom were referred all questions of law and of
fact. The number of sectatores was indeterminate13 and we have no record that
unanimity was required in their verdict. While,
therefore, we see that in Normandy, the nambda, and in England, the sectatores,
were performing similar functions in
determining questions of fact, we further find their jurisdiction extending only
to civil causes.

The ancient modes of bringing offenders to justice in Normandy and in England
were as radically different as they are to-day.

The Norman method was by appeal, (from the French appeler, to call)14 the direct
individual accusation, the truth of which
was determined by the wager of battle. The nambda took no cognisance of criminal
pleas, and crimes, where no appellor
appeared, went unpunished. The English method was designed to prevent the escape
of any who had violated the law. This was
sought to be accomplished first, by prevention through the system of frank
pledge, by which in every tithing the inhabitants were
sureties to the king for the good behavior of each other;15 and, second, by
prosecution instituted by the presentment of the
twelve senior thanes in every hundred or wapentake, whose duty was, according to
the law of Ethelred, to accuse such persons
as they found had committed any {4} crime.16 There was also the hue and cry,
which was raised when any offence was
discovered and the offender was pursued until taken; if he escaped, then the
hundred in which he was in frank-pledge was liable
to be amerced.17 Inasmuch as in this period all offences were regarded as of
purely private concern, the offender could escape
trial and punishment upon payment to the person wronged, or, if he was dead, to
his next of kin, of a sum of money, varying in
accordance with the enormity of the offence, and the rank of the person injured.
This was known as the custom of weregild.18
If, however, the defendant either could not or would not pay weregild, then the
truth of the charges prosecuted by these
methods was determined by compurgation, by the corsned or morsel of execration,
or by the ordeal of fire or water.19 Where
the accused failed to clear himself by compurgation, which occurred when he
failed to obtain the necessary number of persons
who were willing to swear their belief in his innocence, he was obliged to purge
himself by the ordeal.20

It will therefore be seen that the grand jury was not a Norman institution
brought into England by the conquest, for an accusing
body was wholly unknown among the Normans; and while the Normans did introduce
the nambda into England, where its
similarity to the sectatores caused it to firmly impress itself into the English
customs,21 in the land which sent it forth to England
it gradually sank into disuse.22

The English system of frank-pledge, with the holding of the sheriff's tourn
semi-annually in the county, and the court-leet {5} or
view of frank-pledge, annually in the hundred, when offenders appear to have
been punished,23 were supplemented in their
purpose of preventing crime and bringing offenders to justice by the accusing
body of twelve thanes of each hundred as
ordained by the law of Ethelred.24 Whether this law created the accusing body or
was merely declaratory of a custom then in
use in parts of the kingdom with the intent to make it of universal application,
is a matter of much doubt. It is more probable,
however, that the statute of Ethelred was declaratory of the law then subsisting
and this view is strengthened by the statement of
Blackstone,25 that "the other general business of the leet and tourn was to
present by jury all crimes whatsoever that happened
within their jurisdiction," although he cites no authority in support of his
opinion.

That the accusing body was the result of a slow growth, eventually being
confirmed by statute, would seem to receive support
from the nature of the institution of frank-pledge. Twice each year the sheriff
would visit each hundred in the county and keep a
court leet where he would view the frank-pledges,26 and as wrongdoers were at
such times awarded punishment, it is manifest
that some method must have been employed to make the offenders known. The
principal thanes and freeholders of the hundred
being responsible for their subordinates, would most naturally be the ones upon
whom would devolve the duty of presenting the
offenders. We see these customs substantially appearing in the law of Ethelred,
which provides that a gemot27 that is, a meeting
be held in every wapentake (hundred) and the twelve senior thanes go out and the
reeve (sheriff) with them, to accuse those
who have committed any offence.28

The statute would merely seem to have made secure that which the very nature of
frank-pledge had of necessity {6} previously
brought forth. That it was but declaratory of the existing law would seem to be
further verified by the fact that the statute was
ordained as "frith-bot for the whole nation at Woodstock in the land of the
Mercians, according to the law of the English,"29
thereby indicating such to have been the existing law in some parts of the
kingdom at least. Whether the number composing this
accusing body had by usage been fixed at twelve or whether it was first
definitely fixed by the statute cannot be determined, but
the statute is the only evidence we have of the number necessary to present
offenders, until the time of Glanville, nearly two
hundred years later. It is probable, however, that, like the sectatores, the
number was indeterminate until the statute of Ethelred
reduced it to a certainty, although there is one instance even as late as the
reign of Henry III (A. D. 1221) where a presentment
was made to the itinerant justices by seven jurors.30 That the number should be
fixed at twelve is perhaps due to the
superstition of the period which tolerated the trial by the corsned and the
ordeal, believing God would miraculously intervene to
protect the innocent. Lord Coke31 thinks "that the law in this case delighteth
herself in the number of twelve .... and that number
of twelve is much respected in holy writ, as twelve apostles, twelve stones,
twelve tribes, &c."

The Norman conquest, while it brought into England the customs and laws of the
conquerors, did not materially alter the Saxon
laws and customs relating to the detection and punishment of crime. With them
came the barbarous trial by battle,32 but they
also brought what afterward became a blessing in the trial by jury.33

Under the Norman occupation the system of frank-pledge still continued, although
not perhaps of its former importance {7}
now that the accusing body in each hundred regularly made its presentments, and
its importance was still further lessened by the
Norman appeal with its wager of battle. The appeal materially promoted the
importance of the accusing body, for unless the
appellor himself suffered the injury, there was no incentive to him to risk his
life or liberty in the trial by battle, when the crime
could equally well be presented by the inquest.34

In the period of one hundred years following the conquest, the Normans were
actively engaged in introducing their laws and
customs in the stead of the Saxon laws and customs. It is therefore of interest
that at the close of this period, the accusing body
should receive its second statutory confirmation and at the hands of a
descendant of William the Conqueror. By the Assize of
Clarendon A. D. 1166, it was enacted "that inquiry be made in each county and in
each hundred, by twelve lawful men of the
hundred and four lawful men of every township — who are sworn to say truly
whether in their hundred or township there is any
man accused of being or notorious as a robber, or a murderer or a thief, or
anybody who is a harborer of robbers, or
murderers or thieves, since the king began to reign. And this let the justices
and the sheriffs inquire, each (officer) before
himself."35 All persons thus presented were to be tried by ordeal.

This statute marks an important change in the administration of the criminal
law. Prior to this all offences were tried in the county
or hundred courts, but now those offences named in the statute became offences
against the peace of the king and were
cognizable only in the itinerant courts which this same statute created. It is
thought by some writers that these courts were not
created by this statute,36 but were first provided for by the statute of
Northampton A. D. 1176, but it would rather seem that
they were created by the Assize of {8} Clarendon,37 that of Northampton merely
dividing the kingdom into six circuits as the
Assize of 1179 subsequently divided the kingdom into four circuits.38 The Assize
of Clarendon marks still another important
event in the history of the administration of the criminal law in England, for
by reason of what was called "the implied prohibition"
in this statute, (the statute provided for trial by the ordeal) compurgation in
criminal cases disappears in the king's courts
although it continued until a later period in the hundred courts where the
sheriff presided.39 The system of frank-pledge while
itself falling into disuse, really formed the root of a broader scheme for
administering justice.

The idea of itinerant justices was not in use among the Normans at the time of
the conquest, nor does it seem to have ever been
adopted in Normandy. Under the Saxon law the sheriff was the king's officer in
the county, and was appointed each year.
During his term, his authority in the county was supreme except when directed
otherwise by the king.40 It, therefore, was an
easy matter in order to increase the influence of the crown, and to insure the
administration of Norman laws and customs, to
appoint sheriffs chosen by the king from the justices of the curia regis.41 We
consequently have the king's judicial officer acting
in the capacity of sheriff and, in accordance with the Saxon custom, viewing the
frank-pledges in each hundred of his county and
blazing the way for the system of itinerant justices, who came into the county
to hold the eyre and, like the sheriff, administered
the pleas of the crown in each hundred. The inhabitants gathered before the
itinerant justices as the frank-pledges gathered
before the sheriff; and the twelve knights made their presentments to the
justices in the same manner in which the twelve thanes
had, under the Saxon law, presented offenders before the sheriff.

By the Assize of Northampton, A. D. 1176, the institution of {9} the accusing
body was again confirmed42 by the following
provision: that "anyone charged before the king's justices with the crime of
murder, theft, robbery or receipt of such offenders,
of forgery, or of malicious burning, by the oaths of twelve knights of the
hundred: if there were no knights, by the oaths of twelve
free and lawful men, and by the oaths of four out of every vill in the hundred"
should be tried by the ordeal.43 If he failed in the
ordeal, he lost a hand and foot and was banished. If he was acquitted by the
water ordeal he still suffered banishment if accused
of certain crimes.44

This statute divided the kingdom into six circuits and provided for holding an
eyre in each county of the circuit of the justices not
more than once in every seven years.

The treatise of Glanville on the laws of England was written in the period 1180
to 1190, and is of great interest by reason of the
light it throws upon this institution and the administration of justice relating
to the pleas of the crown. The old Saxon custom of
weregild lost its force with the coming of the Normal appeal and wager of
battle, and, in the time of Glanville, when an appeal
was once properly brought which concluded against the king's peace, the parties
could not settle the dispute between them or
be reconciled to each other except by the king's license.45 Like the custom of
weregild, the appeal was a personal action, and
in those appeals which were cognizable in the king's courts, the king had an
interest by virtue of the breach of the peace, but this
right was only exercised when the battle was not waged.45* When the appellee
emerged victorious from the battle, he was
wholly acquitted of the charge even against the king, for by his victory he
purged his innocence against them all.46

In the time when Glanville wrote, there were two methods of {10} instituting
prosecutions, viz., by appeal at the suit of the
person injured or his proper kinsman; and the accusation by the public voice,
that is, the presentment by the accusing body that
the defendant was suspected of certain offences.47 If the appeal was properly
brought, the trial by battle was usually awarded.
Whether the appellee had the privilege of electing to do battle or submit to the
ordeal, as in the latter part of the reign of King
John he might elect between the battle and the country, does not appear. It is
certain, however, that he was not entitled to
demand the battle in all cases. If the appellor was upward of sixty years of age
or was adjudged to have received a mayhem, he
seems to have had the privilege of declining battle, and the defendant was then
compelled to purge himself by the ordeal.48 If
the appellor was a woman and was entitled to make the appeal, the defendant was
obliged to either abide by her proof or
submit to the ordeal.49 If the appeal failed, or before battle was awarded the
appellor withdrew, the accusing body was asked
if it suspected the man of any offence, and if it did he was obliged to clear
himself by the ordeal, as though the presentment had
been made against him upon suspicion in the first instance.50

Up to this time (A. D. 1190) we have no evidence of the petit jury being used in
criminal cases,51 and the fact that Glanville fails
to make any reference to any mode of trial other than the ordeal upon
presentments of the accusing body, and the battle upon
appeals, may safely be taken as conclusive that the time had not yet arrived
when a defendant was permitted to have the
country pass upon questions affecting his life or his liberty. The accusing
inquest seems, however, to have a somewhat wider
scope than heretofore appears, for Glanville speaks of it as having authority to
make inquisitions concerning {11} nuisances and
certain other matters.52 In A. D. 1194, the fifth year of Richard I, the
jurisdiction of the itinerant justices was further increased
and certain capitula or articles of inquiry were delivered to them, which they
were to make known to the accusing body, and to
each article which concerned the hundred, this body was obliged to make
answer.53 The four men of each vill or township
mentioned in the Assize of Clarendon and the Assize of Northampton are not
referred to in these instructions to the justices,
which one writer thinks would seem to indicate that the four men formed no part
of the accusing body.54

With the year A. D. 1201, and the third of the reign of King John, we have the
court rolls of the eyres which the itinerant
justices held in the several hundreds of their respective districts, which the
efforts of the Selden Society55 are bringing to light,
and many doubtful points by means thereof, are being cleared up. From these
records we are enabled to obtain some idea of
the instances in which this accusing body would exercise its right of
presentment. They seem to have presented where they had
knowledge of, or suspected a person of an offence;56 where a person was
accused,57 probably by some one appearing before
them and there charging a person with an offence; where an appeal had been held
to be null;58 where an appeal had been made
by a woman;59 and apparently in all cases where appeals had been made concluding
against the king's peace.60 The inquest
was required to answer fully concerning each article of the capitula;61 and if
they failed in this, they were accused of concealing
the truth and were in the {12} king's mercy and liable to be fined and
imprisoned.62 In such case, therefore, it is very
reasonable to suppose they would present all persons whom they suspected or knew
had violated any of the articles with which
they were charged, irrespective of the fact that some of those whom they
presented may have been regularly appealed. The
inquest was not restrained in any manner from making such presentments, nor does
it appear that they were required to make
presentment of such cases except where the appeal had failed. When we also
consider that the eyre was held in the county only
once in every seven years, it would be manifestly impossible for the freeholders
of each hundred to remember who had been
appealed within their hundred during the period, so that they might not present
in such cases. Further than this, the manner of
proceeding before the justices upon the appeals would seem to make it necessary
in the interest of justice, that the inquest
should also present those offences where appeals had been made.

In order to properly make his appeal, the appellor was required to raise the hue
and cry, go to the king's sergeants, thence to
the coroners of the county where his complaint was enrolled word for word, and
lastly to the county court, where his complaint
was similarly enrolled.63 Then when the cause came before the justices, the
appellor was heard and the appellee answered,
after which the coroner's rolls were read, and if they or the majority of them
agreed with the appellor and there were no good
exceptions, then the appellee could choose how he would be tried.64 If the
coroners' rolls disagreed, but were {13} evenly
divided, then the sheriff's roll was read, and accordingly as this showed, the
trial was or was not awarded. If it happened that an
appellor did not prosecute his appeal, there seems to have been no provision in
the law for making known to the justices such
complaint as contained in the rolls, yet it might well happen that the appellee
was then confined in prison. It would consequently
appear that if the inquest did not present the appellee where an appeal had been
made, not only might a felony go unpunished,
but an injury be done to the king in the concealment by the inquest of the
breach of his peace.65 How, then, the accusing body
could discriminate between appeals that were prosecuted, and those where the
appellor defaulted, accusations and rumors, and
present in all cases except where the appeal was prosecuted, particularly when
they were organized, sworn, charged and went
about the performance of their duties before the court was ready to hear the
criminal pleas, cannot easily be perceived. It would
seem more probable that they presented in all cases where they had either actual
knowledge or public fame upon which to base
their presentment, irrespective of the fact that an appeal was then pending.

Two instances of this are disclosed by the Selden Society66 in their researches
into the record rolls of the courts held by the
itinerant justices in the reign of King John, in both of which the inquest made
presentments of offences in which appeals had
been made, and in both cases the inquest was adjudged in the king's mercy
because the appeals were found to have concluded
against the sheriff's peace and therefore were improperly presented in the
king's court. This view we see supported by the
proceedings in the modern case of Ashford vs. Thornton.67 In this case the
defendant was indicted for murder, tried and
acquitted. The brother of the murdered woman then brought an appeal and the
appellee elected to wage his battle, which the
appellor declined. The attorney general {14} thereupon caused the defendant to
be immediately arraigned upon an indictment
which had been found in the meantime for the felony at the king's suit, to which
at once the defendant pleaded his former
acquittal upon the indictment for murder, and the plea was adjudged sufficient.

The rolls of the courts held by the itinerant justices68 reveal a practice which
adds further burdens to the already difficult task of
tracing the development of the accusing body. Where the inquest presented anyone
either upon suspicion or accusation who
had not been appealed, the presentment of the inquest does not appear to have
been regarded as sufficiently conclusive in all
cases to award the ordeal. In such cases, the justices asked the four
neighboring townships if they suspected the defendant, and
if they did, then he was obliged to purge himself by the ordeal.69 What the
office of the four townships actually was, how they
came to exercise this office, and in what instances they exercised it are purely
matters of conjecture. Where an appeal was
declared null or for some other cause failed and the inquest ignored the breach
of the king's peace, the verdict of the inquest
seems to have been conclusive,70 and the four townships were not called upon,
and this also seems to be true in many cases
where the inquest presented upon suspicion or accusation.71

Glanville makes no reference to the four townships, and his silence is singular
if the townships were called upon to officially act.
It is also to be noted that he makes no reference to, or comment upon, the four
freemen out of every vill in the hundred referred
to in the Assize of Clarendon. If the statute had reference to criminal
proceedings, this new appendage of the inquest was such a
departure from the ancient law as to be the subject of comment. That this
comment was not made, leaves but two conclusions
to be drawn, either that it is a mistaken idea in holding this provision of the
statute to relate to the {15} accusing inquest, or that
it remained a dead letter until after Glanville's period.

Whether or not the "four freemen out of every vill" and the "four townships"
were identical, can only be a subject for conjecture.
It remains, however, that the only jurist who wrote in the period A. D.
1166-1200, mentions neither, and the rolls of the courts
held by the itinerant justices beginning with A. D. 1201, make reference only to
the "four townships" being inquired of.
Whatever may have been the purpose of this provision of the Assize of Clarendon,
there seems to be no mention of the four
freemen until Bracton's treatise was written, and then but little light is shed
upon the capacity in which they were required to act.
Bracton, however, shows that they formed no part of the inquest which presented
the defendant.

The court rolls disclose that the four townships did not act until after the
inquest had presented on suspicion. In discussing a
presentment on suspicion Glanville states that the defendant was immediately
thereafter to be taken into custody. He then
continues: "The truth of the fact shall then be inquired into by means of many
and various inquisitions and interrogations made in
the presence of the justices, and that by taking into consideration the probable
circumstances of the facts, and weighing each
conjecture which tends in favor of the accused, or makes against him; because he
must purge himself by the ordeal, or entirely
absolve himself from the crime imputed to him."72

If this paragraph could be taken as referring to the four townships, then they
were only asked when the justice had a doubt
concerning the presentment of the inquest; but that it does not would seem more
likely in view of the fact that Glanville does not
mention them. That it does not have reference to the four freemen out of every
vill in the hundred may be regarded as equally
conclusive by his omission to mention them, and particularly so in view of the
fact that he was an itinerant justice from 1176 to
1180, a time when he must necessarily have been brought in close contact with
them if they were called upon to act, and
subsequently wrote his famous {16} treatise.73 That they were not brought into
existence by the instructions of 1194 is equally
well settled, for they are not referred to therein.74 That they were not called
upon in all cases has already been seen.75 So far as
the cases show, their power did not extend beyond confirming what the inquest
had already presented, and they apparently
could not nullify its presentment. It would therefore seem that no provision of
law made their use obligatory, otherwise they must
have acted in all cases; and when they were called upon to act, they were
limited to a concurrence with what the inquest had
presented, and if they did not concur, their verdict had no effect upon the
result. The townships appear never to have acted until
the inquest made its presentment.76

They did not act with the accusing jurors as a trial jury after the defendant
had been presented, otherwise he was obliged to
submit to two trials — the petit jury as thus composed, and the ordeal, and then
too, the trial by jury in criminal cases had not
yet come into use.77 It is therefore probable that it was optional with the
justices whether or not they would inquire of the four
townships, and they did this only to satisfy themselves whether the ill repute
of the defendant was believed by others than the
accusing body.

Mr. Forsyth78 makes this comment upon the relation which the accusing body bore
to the four townships: "We here see that the
neighboring townships were associated with the jury in the inquest; and this was
by no means an unusual practice. But they were
not considered part of the jury, but seem rather to have assisted in the
character of witnesses, and to have constituted part of
the fama publica."

We have still to consider the methods of trial in force at this {17} time in
order to fully comprehend the duty of the inquest in this
period.

The trial by battle was in force upon appeals properly brought, but the
exceptions which might be taken to the appeal were
becoming more numerous. The right of the appellee to decline battle and put
himself upon the country is not mentioned by
Glanville, nor does there seem to be a recorded instance of it until the early
years of King John's reign.

The first instances where the accused was allowed to put himself upon the
country, appear to have been the result of an
application to the favor of the king and the payment to him of a sum of money
for the issuance of a writ awarding an inquest.79
These cases were, however, rare, and what few cases appear in the books give but
little information concerning the instances in
which the king would grant such a writ.80 If wager of battle was declined and
the king petitioned for a writ awarding an inquest,
if granted, there was apparently no accusation made by the accusing body against
such defendant for the breach of the king's
peace; the verdict of the trying inquest being alone given and was conclusive.

It was provided by Article 36 of the Magna Charta of King John that writs
awarding an inquest should no longer be sold, but be
of right.81 It may, however, be doubted whether this provision was intended to
apply to writs thus sold awarding an inquest in
criminal cases.82 It is more probable that it was intended to apply to writs
awarding an assize, for the statutes of Clarendon and
Northampton had made provision for such an assize in determining property
rights. So far as the inquisition to determine title to
real property was concerned, this had {18} become a fixed method of procedure
which almost universally superseded the
determination of such issue by the wager of battle. In criminal proceedings,
however, the inquest was wholly foreign to their
institutions and something seemingly to be shunned rather than encouraged.

The ordeal which in Glanville's time was generally awarded when the battle could
not be waged, was in full vigor during this
period up to the year 1215, when by the action of the Fourth Lateran Council of
Innocent III, by which the clergy were
expressly forbidden to participate in the ceremonies of the ordeal, the practice
came to an end thereby opening the way for the
trial by the country.83

It is said by Professor Thayer84 that "the Assize of Clarendon, in 1166, with
its apparatus of an accusing jury and a trial by
ordeal is thought to have done away in the king's courts with compurgation as a
mode of trial for crime; and now the Lateran
Council, in forbidding ecclesiastics to take part in trial by ordeal, was deemed
to have forbidden that mode of trial, as well in
England as in all other countries where the authority of the Council was
recognized. The judges would naturally turn to the
inquest."

It is reasonable to suppose that the inquest would be adopted as the learned
writer above quoted says, for the inquest was the
only mode of trial remaining by which suspected persons might be tried.85 But
this the judges could not do unless authorized by
the king. The next eyre was held in the years

1218-19, and the judges had started on their journey when the order of the king
in council was sent to them in the following
words: "When you started on your eyre it was as yet undetermined what should be
done with persons accused of crime, the
Church having forbidden the ordeal. For the present we must rely very much on
your discretion to act wisely, according to the
special circumstances of each case." The judges were {19} then given certain
general instructions: Persons charged with the
graver crimes, who might do harm if allowed to abjure the realm, are to be
imprisoned, without endangering life or limb. Those
charged with less crimes, who would have been tried by the ordeal may abjure the
realm. In the case of small crimes there must
be pledges to keep the peace.86

This is one of the most important and interesting periods of English history,
for at this time the signing of the Great Charter
occurs, establishing the liberties of the people, and the system which was to be
most potent in assuring these liberties according
to the guaranties of the Charter, supplanted a custom that was brutal in the
extreme.

Bracton,87 who wrote clearly and at great length, in the reign of Henry III,
sets forth with precision the various methods of
prosecuting offenders against the law. He points out that where there was a
certain accuser he might make his appeal or might
sue, that is, make his accusation before the inquest; that when the appeal had
fallen, the king might sue on behalf of his peace;
and finally the presentment which the inquest might make of persons not accused
or appealed, but suspected by the inquest to
be guilty by reason of public fame.88 This is a lucid summing up of the methods
then pursued, as has been heretofore shown,
and may reasonably be assumed to have been the method in vogue at least since
the Assize of Clarendon, and from possibly an
earlier date. The workings of the system are described carefully and with much
attention to detail.89 When the justices
proposed holding an eyre in any county "a general summons issues to appear
before the justices itinerant and should issue at
least fifteen days prior to their coming."

When the justices come the writs authorizing them to hold an iter are read,
after which one of the older and more discreet of
them sets forth the cause of their coming and what is the utility of their
itineration, and what is the advantage if peace be
observed. After this they go to a secret place and call four {20} or six of the
greater men, the busones, of the county to them
and consult with them in turn and explain that the king has provided that all
knights and others of the age of fifteen and upwards
ought to swear that they will not harbor outlaws, etc., and will arrest, if
possible, those whom they regard as suspected, without
waiting for the mandate of the justices. Afterward the sergeants and bailiffs of
the hundred are convoked and the inhabitants of
the hundred are enrolled in order. The sergeants each shall pledge his faith
"that he will choose from each hundred four knights
who shall come forthwith before justices to perform the precept of the lord the
king, and who shall forthwith swear that they will
choose twelve knights or free and "legal men if knights cannot be found, who
have no suit against any one and are not sued
themselves, nor have any evil fame for breaking the peace, or for the death of a
man or other misdeed," and the names of the
twelve are placed in a schedule and delivered to the justices. Then the
principal one shall make this oath: "Hear this ye justices
that I will speak the truth concerning this which ye shall ask me on the part of
the lord the king, and I will do faithfully that which
you shall enjoin me on the part of the lord the king, and I will not for any one
omit to do so according to my ability, so may God
help me and these Holy Gospels of God.'90 And afterward they shall each of them
swear separately and by himself: 'The like
oath which A. the first juror has here sworn, I will keep on my part so may God
help me and these Holy,' etc."91

When this has been done the justices read to the accusing body the various
articles, to which the inquest shall make true
answers and have their verdict there by a certain day. It is said quietly to
them that if they know of anyone in the hundred of evil
repute, they shall seize him if possible, otherwise his name is to be secretly
conveyed to the justices, that the sheriff may seize
him and bring him before the justices.

"And the amercers (jurors) shall pledge their fealty to do this faithfully, that
they will aggrieve no one through enmity nor show
deference to any one through love, and that they will {21} conceal those things
which they have heard."92 This would appear to
be the first reference we have to the inquest observing a pledge of secrecy,
that feature of the grand jury which has aroused the
strongest criticism. The purpose of this provision would, however, seem to have
been to prevent the escape of offenders who
were presented by the inquest. The proceedings were not as they are at the
present time to be kept secret from every one, for
the justices had the power if they suspected the inquest, to inquire of each
member separately or of the inquest generally, the
causes which induced such action.93

We find that Bracton mentions but two kinds of trial in criminal cases, the
battle and the country. It remains to consider how
these trials were awarded in relation to the method of instituting the
proceedings against the offender. If an appeal was made,
after all exceptions to it had been disposed of, the appellee was entitled to
choose the wager of battle or put himself upon the
country, but if he chose the country he could not afterward retract and offer to
defend himself by his body.94 If the appellor was
a woman, the appellee was compelled to put himself upon the country or be
adjudged guilty; and if a man over the age of sixty
years, or who had a mayhem, the appellee was obliged to put himself upon the
country, unless the appellor was willing to wage
battle, but with these exceptions it was optional with the appellee to choose
the battle or the country, but he could only choose
the battle if the appeal was of a felony.

Where the initial step in the prosecution was the presentment by the accusing
body, or where the appeal failed and the
defendant was presented by the inquest, then he had no alternative but to place
himself upon the country.

Whether when a defendant placed himself upon the country, he placed himself upon
the same jurors who accused him, has been
a subject of wide discussion, and able authors express contrary opinions upon
this point. Mr. Forsyth95 says they "for {22} a
long time seem to have united the two functions of a grand jury to accuse, and a
petit jury to try the accused." Mr. Reeves96
considers that the defendant put himself upon the same jury which indicted him
and then the jury "under the direction of the
justices .... were to reconsider their verdict and upon such review of the
matter they were to give their verdict finally." Mr.
Crabb97 gives utterance to the same thought, but states that if the defendant
"had suspicion of any of the jurors he might have
them removed." Mr. Ingersoll98 considers it doubtful that in Bracton's time the
jury which tried offenders was composed of the
same persons who had indicted him. Bracton99 describes the method of proceeding
with the trial jury in the following language:

"In order that the proceeding to a judgment may be more safe and that danger and
suspicion may be removed, let the justice say
to the person indicted, that if he has reason to suspect any one of the twelve
jurors he may remove him for just grounds. And let
the same thing be said of the townspeople, that, if there have been any capital
enmities between any of them and the person
indicted, on account of covetousness to possess his land, as aforesaid, they are
all to be removed upon just suspicion, so that
the inquisition may be free from all suspicion. Twelve jurors therefore being
present and four townspeople, each of the
townspeople or all together, each holding up his hand shall swear in these
words:100

"Hear this, ye justices, that we will speak the truth concerning those things,
which ye shall require from us on the part of the lord
the king, and for nothing will we omit to speak the truth, so God us help," &c.

This statement of the action of the petit jury, made when the institution was in
its infancy, discloses several interesting facts. We
see without question that an inquest had indicted the defendant before this body
was required to determine the {23} issue. We
see now for the first time the four townspeople mentioned in the Assize of
Clarendon, who apparently form a part of the trial
jury. For while the accusing body consisted of but twelve jurors, the trying
jury was not so limited, and instances will be seen
where the trial jury consisted of twenty-four.101 If, when the oath was taken by
the four townspeople, the twelve jurors were
not then sworn, as may well be deduced from Bracton's statement,102 then it
would seem probable that the jurors were the
same persons who had indicted the defendant, for they must have been sworn at
some prior stage of this particular proceeding.
If, however, by this paragraph, Bracton means to convey the idea that the entire
sixteen were sworn at one time, then it might
well be that the members of the trying jury differed from the accusing body. In
either event the make up of the trying jury was
changed by adding the four townspeople, while if it was the original accusing
jury, charged with the trial of the defendant after
they had indicted him, it might be still further and materially changed by
challenges for cause.103

The theory that the entire sixteen were sworn at one time is strengthened by
noting the difference in the oath taken by those
acting as the accusing body and those who are to try the truth of the
accusation.104 The trial jurors merely swear that they will
speak the truth as to the things required of them. This was in strict accord
with their original character as witnesses of the facts
of which they spoke the truth. The oath of the accusing juror was much more
comprehensive, and required not only that the
juror should speak the truth, but that he should do the things enjoined upon him
on the part of the king and "not for any one omit
to do so."

There is still another and what is perhaps the strongest {24} argument that can
be made against the trial jury being the same jury
which accused. The accusing body was composed of twelve only, who presented all
offenders.105 In order that they might
present, it was not necessary that all the jurors should be cognizant of the
facts as will appear by the following statement by
Bracton. Speaking of indicting upon common fame he says,106 "some one will
probably say, or the greater part of the jurats,
that they have learnt those things which they set forth in their verdict from
one of the associate jurats." It is therefore very clear
that the accusing body could indict upon the knowledge of one of their number.
It is equally plain, and in this all writers
apparently agree, that the trial jury was a jury of witnesses who had personal
knowledge of the facts.107 If the twelve of the trial
jury did not agree, then the ancient doctrine of "afforciament," that is, the
adding of jurors who were cognizant of the facts until
twelve could be found who agreed upon a verdict was employed.108 This was not
done with the accusing body. It would
consequently seem that the jury which tried was, in most cases, a different body
from that which accused, for the accusing body
found all indictments with no change in its make up, while the trial jury had
not only four townspeople added to it, but the jurors
themselves were subject to the defendant's challenge for cause. The record
rolls109 of the itinerant justices show two instances
of a separate jury trying the offenders after they were indicted. The first was
an appeal by a woman for the murder of her
husband, and she having remarried and no appeal being made by her husband, it
was adjudged that the country should inquire
concerning the truth. "And the twelve jurors say that he is guilty of that
death, and twenty-four knights (other than the twelve)
chosen for this purpose say the same."110 In the second case {25} the defendant
was taken on an indictment for theft, and it
was adjudged the truth should be inquired of by the country. "And twenty-four
knights chosen for the purpose, say the same as
the said twelve jurors."111 We consequently see that at a period forty years
before Bracton's work was written, the use of two
juries had been instituted, and within a period of thirty years after Bracton,
the two juries were separate and distinct in cases
involving life at least.112

In the three decades following the writing of Bracton's treatise, the accusing
body suffered marked changes which are revealed
by the pages of Britton. The number still continued at twelve, the method of
summoning and organizing them was the same, but
they now took this oath: "that they will lawful presentment make of such
chapters as shall be delivered to them in writing and in
this they will not fail for any love, hatred, fear, reward, or promise, and that
they will conceal the secrets, so help them God and
the Saints."113 The presentments were made in writing and indented, the inquest
keeping one part, the other being delivered to
the justices.114 An indictor could not serve upon the petit jury in offences
punishable with death, if challenged by the
defendant.115 The inquest was required to present those whose duty it was to
keep in repair bridges, causeways, and
highways, for neglect of duty;116 to inquire into the defects of gaols and the
nature thereof, who ought to repair them, and who
was responsible for any escapes which had occurred;117 if any sheriff had kept
in gaol those whom he should have brought
before the justices;118 and of all cases where the sheriff placed on the panel
persons holding under "twenty shillings to be on
inquests and juries in the county."119

The inquest now corresponded, in general, with the modern {26} inquest except in
point of number. We find this change taking
place in the time of Edward the Third, when the sheriff of the county, in
addition to the twelve returned by the bailiffs for each
hundred, returned a panel of twenty-four knights to inquire at large for the
county, and this body was termed "le graunde
inquest," not for the purpose of distinguishing it as the accusing body, but to
distinguish it from the hundred inquests. This grand
inquest seems to have its foundation solely in the action of the sheriff in
returning such a panel,120 for it was authorized by no
statute, and apparently had no existence in prior custom. It, however, was
destined to be permanent by reason of its jurisdiction
over the entire county and the fact that its number of twenty-four was less
unwieldy than the twelves of the many hundreds in the
county.

Consequently while the influence of "le graunde inquest" grew, that of the
hundred inquests declined, until finally they ceased to
present offenders and filled the office of petit jurors only.121 While we
therefore see that the beginning of the "grand jury" as
known to us, occurs in time within the mind of man, it is plain that this was
but the new branch of a tree already firmly rooted
among English institutions. It was distinctly a growth produced by the
necessities of the times to which its origin relates, and
would no more have been a deliberate creation of a Parliament of the fourteenth
century than it would of the legislature to-day.
Nor did this change, which was apparently without warrant of law, materially
alter the ancient institution. The necessity that
twelve should concur remained, and to-day in England and all of the states which
have not by statute provided otherwise,
twelve jurors are all that need be present upon the grand jury, but all must
concur.122 The increase in the number of jurors
having occurred in a period when unanimity was requisite, if the increased
number was authorized by law, undoubtedly the same
principle, which required twelve jurors or twelve or even thirty-six {27}
compurgators (in such instances as compurgation had
been allowed) to concur, must necessarily have required the twenty-four on the
grand inquest to do likewise. That this was not
required makes it quite probable that all over twelve were unlawfully upon the
panel.123

With the coming of the grand inquest to inquire at large for the county, and the
disappearance of the accusing bodies of the
hundreds, we practically complete what may be termed the period of formation in
the development of the grand jury. So far as
we have considered it, we have found it to be an arm of the government, acting
as a public prosecutor for the purpose of
ferreting out all crime, the members of the inquest being at all times bound to
inform the court either singly or collectively their
reasons for arriving at their verdict and the evidence upon which it was
based.124 The seed, however, had been sown in
Bracton's time, which was destined to change the grand jury from a mere
instrument of the crown to a strong independent
power which stood steadfast between the crown and the people in the defence of
the liberty of the citizen.

In enjoining secrecy upon the inquest in Bracton's time, and in making it a part
of the grand juror's oath as shown by Britton,125
it was perhaps the idea of the crown that such a regulation would prevent
knowledge of the action of the inquest from being
conveyed to the defendant to allow his escape. That it was for no other purpose
will be seen by the fact that the justices might
still fully interrogate the jurors as to how they arrived at their verdict.126
The power of interrogation does not appear to have
been exercised by the justices in all cases, but only in such instances as the
jury presented upon suspicion and the defendant
must purge himself by the ordeal, although this practice continued after the
ordeal was abolished. When the separate trial jury
became finally established, there no longer existed any necessity for the
justices to inquire of the presenting jury, for the ordeal
no longer existed, while the {28} truth of the matter was fully inquired of by
the country. Further than this, it was more logical
that the justices should make inquiry of the trial jurors whose competency
rested upon their knowledge of the truth rather than
the presentors, whose accusation neither determined the truth nor falsity of the
charge and was not conclusive as in Glanville's
time. When the grand inquest came to present for the county, their personal
knowledge of the facts, in most cases, became
more limited, and the practice at this time of requiring the grand inquest to
divulge upon what ground their presentment was
based, had probably fallen into disuse.

It was in this period that the independence of the grand jury became
established. No longer required to make known to the
court the evidence upon which they acted, meeting in secret and sworn to keep
their proceedings secret by an oath which
contained no reservation in favor of the government, selected from the gentlemen
of the best figure in the county,127 and without
regard to their knowledge of any particular offence, the three centuries that
followed the return of a panel of twenty-four knights,
witnessed its freedom of action from all restraint by the court. The
independence which the institution had attained was soon to
be put to the severest tests, but protected by the cloak of secrecy and free
from the control of the court as to their findings, they
successfully thwarted the unjust designs of the government.

It was in the reign of Charles the Second that we find the two most celebrated
instances of the fearless action of the grand jury
in defending the liberty of the subject, although subjected to the strongest
possible pressure from the crown. In 1681 a bill of
indictment for high treason against Stephen College, the Protestant joiner, was
submitted to a grand jury of the City of London.
Lord Chief Justice North compelled the grand jury to hear the evidence in open
court and of the witnesses produced it was
said, "It is certainly true that never men swore more firmly in court than they
did." The grand jury demanded that the witnesses
be sent to them that they might examine them privately and apart, which the
court {29} permitted to be done. After considering
the matter for several hours the grand jury ignored the bill. Upon being asked
by the Lord Chief Justice whether they would give
a reason for this verdict, they replied that they had given their verdict
according to their consciences and would stand by it.128
The foreman of this grand jury, Mr. Wilmore, was afterwards apprehended upon a
false charge, examined before the Council,
sent to the tower, and afterward forced to flee beyond the seas.129

In the same year an attempt was made to indict the Earl of Shaftesbury for high
treason.130 As in College's case, the grand jury
desired to hear the evidence in private, but the king's counsel insisted that
the evidence be heard in open court and Lord Chief
Justice Pemberton assented. After hearing the evidence the grand jury desired
that they might examine the witnesses apart in
their chamber and the court granted the request. After again hearing the
witnesses and considering their verdict they returned the
bill "ignoramus," upon which "the people fell a hollowing and a shouting." This
case is perhaps pointed out more often than any
other as an instance of the independent action of the grand jury, and while it
is not sought to minimize the action of the grand
jurors, for their stand was a bold one in view of the strong pressure which was
brought to bear upon them by the crown, still the
side lights when thrown upon it disclose other facts which may have been potent
in shaping the return of this body.131 The Earl
of Shaftesbury was a very powerful nobleman, with influential friends and
adherents in the king's service, but his greatest
strength, perhaps, lay in the regard in which he was held by the people. The
sheriff who returned the grand jurors before whom
the case was laid, was an open adherent of Shaftesbury, {30} and it is
reasonable to assume that the panel was composed
wholly of those whose sympathies were inclined toward the Earl.132 It is not
strange, therefore, that the proceeding by the
crown should meet with an ignominious defeat.

It was by reason of the failure of the crown to coerce grand juries to its
oppressive purpose, that the king's officials sought a
method whereby justice might be dispensed with results more agreeable to their
royal master. The statute of 3 Henry VIII, C.
12, provided that the judges and justices should have power to reform the panel
by taking out the names of improper persons
and putting in others according to their discretion, and the sheriff was then
bound to return the panel as reformed. This statute
was enacted by reason of the abuse by the sheriffs of their power in the
selection and returning of grand jurors resulting in
packing the panels with those who would carry out the nefarious designs of the
sheriff and those with whom he might be
acting.133

This statute, Sir Robert Sawyer, the attorney general, sought to employ to carry
out the wishes of the crown. The Court of
Sessions endeavored to compel the sheriffs to return the panels as they
directed, but the sheriffs refused. The king thereupon
ordered that all the judges should attend on a certain day at the Old Bailey.
Here the same proceeding was desired to be had,
but the sheriffs demurred and desired to consult counsel. The court, however,
urged that as all the judges were agreed as to
such being the law, there could be no necessity for them to consult counsel, and
thereupon the sheriffs {31} returned the panel
as directed.134 Whatever change this may have produced in the success of state
prosecutions, was in any event destined to be
short lived, for the reign of Charles the Second ended four years later, his
successor, James the Second, fled to France in 1688,
and William of Orange ascended the throne and a more liberal policy of state has
since ensued.

One of the last known instances of the court attempting to coerce a grand jury
occurred in 1783, in Pennsylvania. Mr. Oswald,
the printer of the Independent Gazette, criticised the conduct of the Supreme
Court. The justices thereof, Chief Justice
McKean and Judge Bryan ordered him to be indicted for libel, but the grand jury
ignored the bill. The judges severely reproved
them in open court in an attempt to overawe the inquest and sent them back to
reconsider the bill, but the jury refused to return
an indictment.135

When the settlement of America was begun by Englishmen, they brought with them
all the civil rights which they enjoyed in their
native land, and with them came the grand jury.136

{32} The institutions which they brought, naturally nourished in a land so far
away from the mother country, and consequently
removed from the attacks which were subsequently made by the crown upon the
liberties of the people. For nearly one hundred
years the colonies were allowed to exercise to the fullest extent a greater
degree of civil rights than at any time had been
permitted to the subject in England. The only restraint placed upon them was by
the appointment of royal governors, but even
then there were no state prosecutions like those being carried on in the mother
country. Free from restraints which were there
placed upon them, it was most natural that the grand jury should exercise their
great power in a manner most calculated to
insure the liberty and freedom of thought of the people. In New York in 1735, an
attempt was made to indict John Peter
Zenger, the editor and proprietor of a newspaper called the Weekly Journal, for
libel because of the manner in which he held
up to scorn the deeds of the royal governor, but the grand jury ignored the
bill. He was then proceeded against by an
information filed by the attorney general for the province, and after a trial in
which he was defended by the Philadelphia lawyer,
Andrew Hamilton, was triumphantly acquitted.137

The Constitution of the United States, as adopted by the states, contained no
guaranty of presentment or indictment by a grand
jury, but this omission was remedied by the passing of the first ten amendments,
substantially a bill of rights, of which Article V
provides: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of
a grand jury, except in cases arising in the {33} land or naval forces,138 or in
the militia when in actual service in time of war or
public danger;"....

This provision applies solely to offences against the United States and triable
in the United States Courts,139 and has reference
not only to those offences which at common law were capital or infamous, but to
such as might thereafter be made capital or
infamous by legislation of Congress.140 It has been held not to affect
prosecutions brought by means of an information filed by
the United States District Attorney in cases where the offence does not
constitute a capital or otherwise infamous crime.141 In
this respect the Constitution of the United States assures to the citizen the
same protection to his liberty which the laws of
England afford to the subjects of the king.

The Fourteenth Amendment does not require the states to prosecute crimes by
means of indictment or prohibit them from
proceeding by information. The provision "due process of law" refers only to the
prosecution of offences by regular judicial
proceedings.142

It has, therefore, become usual both in England and the United States to proceed
by information where the law gives that right,
and has frequently been employed in cases where a bill has been submitted to,
and ignored by, a grand jury.

The Constitution of Pennsylvania affords a still greater {34} protection to the
liberty of the citizen. Section 10 of the Declaration
of Rights provides: "No person shall for any indictable offence, be proceeded
against criminally, by information, except in cases
arising in the land or naval forces or in the militia when in actual service in
time of war or public danger, or by leave of the court
for oppression or misdemeanor in office."

As all offences are indictable offences in Pennsylvania, the filing of an
information has been very rarely employed, by reason of
the limited class of cases to which it can be applied. The nature of this
proceeding received judicial construction in an early
Pennsylvania case143 decided by Mr. Justice Shippen, who delivered the following
opinion: "The present is the first instance,
that we recollect, of an application of this kind in Pennsylvania; and on
opening the case, it struck us to be within the 10th
section of the ninth article of the constitution, which declares that no person
shall for any indictable offense, be proceeded
against criminally by information, except in cases that are not involved in the
present motion. But, on consideration, it is evident
that the constitution refers to informations, as a form of prosecution, to
punish an offender, without the intervention of a grand
jury; whereas an information, in the nature of a writ of quo warranto, is
applied to the mere purpose of trying a civil right and
ousting the wrongful possessor of an office." ....

http://www.constitution.org/gje/gj_jdr.htm
Introduction to The Grand Jury
by Jon Roland

This introduction is under construction. Come again for a more complete version.

Background

That a treatise on the Grand Jury written in 1906 should still be considered
authoritative by the legal scholars who republished it
in 1973, and that is being republished online in 1999, deserves some comment. It
is not just that Edwards wrote such a great
treatise in 1906, but that no one has written a better one since. A lot has
happened with grand juries in the United States during
the intervening 93 years, and most of it has been bad.

Like most authors of legal treatises, Edwards tends to be more descriptive of
the state of jurisprudence at the time of writing,
rather than critical of it, although he sometimes offers criticism. But we can
already see the seeds of the decay of grand jury
jurisprudence in what he writes in 1906. At that time it might have been said by
prosecutors in some jurisdictions that they could
"indict a ham sandwich", but not yet in almost all jurisdictions. Nor had grand
juries been often used as tools of oppression, as
they were used in the 1950s, during the "red scare".

In this introduction, we will briefly examine some of the problems with the ways
the grand jury is being used, and misused,
today.

Compliance with constitutions.

In the United States the grand jury is a constitutional matter. The Fifth
Amendment states:

      No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or
      indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval
forces, or in the Militia, when in actual
      service in time of war or public danger; ...

Many of the states have similar provisions in their constitutions. Some do not,
and many of those have abandoned the grand
jury, as Edwards discusses.

There are two main problems. The first is whether the Fourteenth Amendment
incorporated all of the Bill of Rights, and any
other rights recognized by the Constitution, or only some of them, and if so,
did it incorporate the protection of the grand jury. If
it did, then many states are in serious noncompliance with the national
Constitution, putting all their criminal prosecutions at risk
of being overturned and retried. I have written elsewhere of the case for
complete incorporation.

The second is whether the current law and practice concerning the grand jury is
in compliance with the national Constitution and
with state constitutions where it has not been eliminated. The Constitution
allows a certain measure of regulation of legal
practices, but not to the extent that they deviate from the essential elements
or threaten the basic protections offered by the
grand jury in 1791 when the Fifth Amendment was adopted. This means we must
identify what the essential elements are, and
then decide whether all those elements are properly functioning in the grand
juries of a particular jurisdiction. And to do that we
need to examine how the grand jury functioned in 1791, when it was essentially
incorporated and frozen into constitutional
jurisprudence, as was the civil and procedural common law up to that point in
time.

Undue influence of public prosecutors.

Although it seems like a strange idea to most people today, it is useful to
understand that at the time of the adoption of the
Constitution there were no public prosecutors in the United States. Criminal
prosecutions were done using private prosecutors,
either paid for by the victims of the crime or their heirs, or by attorneys
selected from a pool on a rotating basis, the way many
indigent accused are defended today. Because the workload became too great to
impose the costs of it on private attorneys,
the institution of the public prosecutor was introduced in the latter decades of
the 19th Century, and the use of a private
prosecutor has declined to the point that many judges are not even aware of the
possibility of such a thing.

One of the results of this has been that in most jurisdictions the public
prosecutor is given a preferential role in submitting bills to
the grand jury, and to managing the proceedings of it, something that is
supposed to rest on the consent of the grand jury itself.
Moreover, he is sometimes given de facto control over access to the grand jury
by the public, although such access is supposed
to be under the control of the judge. The result is that, whereas during the
Founding Era members of the public could easily
submit petitions to the grand jury, often directly, for indictment or
presentment, such petitions are now channeled through the
public prosecutor and the grand jury is isolated from any matters the public
prosecutor disapproves.

Undue influence of judges.

Lack of adequate instruction for grand jurors.

From reading handbooks offered to grand jurors or the charges made to them one
can discern that such materials provide little
guidance beyond the most basic elements, leaving most grand jurors uninformed
about their proper duties and powers. In times
past this kind of instruction was unneeded, as grand jury elements were a matter
of general knowledge. However, that is no
longer the case today. Unless a grand jury happens to empanel an individual who
knows the law on the subject of grand juries,
and can persuade the others to follow his lead, it is likely to never venture
into those areas for which it is most needed. It should
also be noted that in many jurisdictions the selection of grand jurors is not
random, and that in such jurisdictions persons
knowledgeable about the law are generally excluded.

Excessive workloads used to manipulate grand juries.

Two of the traditional strictures of the state grand jury is that it be
organized on the basis of a county, and that only one grand
jury may be empaneled at a time, thus requiring it to handle the entire caseload
of the county, something that, for many urban
counties, where most people live today, the workload is so great that the grand
jurors don't have time to examine most of the
cases on their merits, and therefore tend to follow the recommendations of the
public prosecutor.

The grand jury was designed for a place and time where the workload was not so
great, and one of the measures needed to
reform the grand jury system in most urban jurisdictions is to either divide the
county into political subdivisions, such as
precincts, and empanel a grand jury for each such subdivision, or to empanel
more than one at a time, and devise a method of
assigning cases to each, probably on a random basis.

Failure of grand juries to investigate high-level wrongdoing.

The classic dilemma for a grand jury is what does it do when its investigations
uncover criminal wrongdoing, sufficient for an
indictment, by the prosecutor or the presiding judge. While grand juries are
supposed to be "independent", in fact they are
largely under the control of those two offices, and their independence would be
severely tested if they brought an indictment
against either of them, or for that matter, against their political allies. This
means that in any consideration of grand jury reform,
we have to enable the grand jury to go after anyone, even the prosecutor and
judge, without interference by either.

Public education about grand jury duties and procedures.

Proposals for reform.

We have already indicated some reform measures. Now we need to compile them into
a coherent program of reform,
recognizing that many of the proposals may not "reform" the grand jury in the
direction favored by some factions.



Part I | Text Version | Contents

Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Ed:

Accusation. A formal charge against a person, to the effect
that he is guilty of a punishable offense, laid before a
court or magistrate having jurisdiction to inquire into
the alleged crime. See Accuse; Indictment; Information.

Comment by gene karl:
In my opinion, an accusation should be laid before a grand
jury even for misdemeanors, not before a court or magistrate.
Crimes are supposed to be against people, not the state.

Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Ed:
Accusatory instrument. A document in which an accusation of
crime is set forth like an indictment, information or
complaint.

Comment by gene karl:
An indictments and complaints are Lawful, whereas these
informations seem to have originated from crown law.
A long time ago I read an excellent treatise that really
tore a hole into the whole concept of 'informations'.
I'm no expert on the subject, but it did make an impression
on me. Perhaps we should do an internet search on the subject.
I would like to note that oaths are against scripture and
therefore they are against True Law. All accusations should
be supported by confirmation, letting one's yeas be yeas.
The false accuser can still be held accountable for their
actions.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
It seems to me that one should not be subject to
actual restraints on one's liberty imposed by arrest without
either someone actually witnessing a crime being committed
and making the arrest and accusation immediately, or filing a
complaint or accusation backed up by confirmation which would
need to be taken to a grand Jury prior to arrest.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Even a sheriff or law
enforcement officer could possibly 'put 2 and 2 together'
and 'solve a crime' and have enough 'information' to
make an accusation backed up by his yeas, but false accusers
even if they are the sheriff, should be held accountable by
trial by Jury. But even with enough 'information', one must
still make out an accusation which should be reviewed by
a grand Jury before an accusation is permitted to proceed
to a trial by Jury. Therefore, in my opinion, 'informations'
are not necessary and are an instrument solely devised by
the crown and its agents.

Now, do we permit the sheriff to make his own accusation,
and make the arrest before bringing the accusation to the
grand Jury? If one believes that such an infringement upon
one's Liberties are essential, then what maximum time period
should be permissable? 24 hours? 48 hours? 72 hours?
In my opinion, the matter must be brought before a grand Jury
within 24 hours of such an arrest or else the 'double jeopardy'
infringement would apply. In other words, the accused must be
let go if the accusation is not brought before the grand Jury
within 24 hours and the accused could not be rearrested on the
same charges for that would be being placed in double jeopardy
of life or limb or liberty. Now the question of allowing for
an arrest with the condition of bringing the charges before
a grand Jury within 24 hours, I must reconsider myself for my
own constitution. I am sure that if I do allow it, that I must
require the grand Juries to operate even on Saturdays and
Sundays. But that thought we must all fully consider.
And what punishment are we to give the sheriff for making an
accusation if the grand Jury says to the sheriff, "Let my
people go!"?? Wouldn't it then be a cause of action against
the sheriff for making the arrest in the first place? And if
not, are you not then giving the sheriff some form of
'sovereign immunity'? These immunities are a major failing
devised into the constitutions that have been devised by
the 'ALL CRIMES ARE AGAINST THE STATE' people who claim that
their 'servants' must give up certain 'rights' to take office,
and then on the other hand they give them all sorts of immunities
to protect these 'servants'.

This leads me back to my earlier statement which seems to be
the wisest path to follow and the more proper procedure:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
It seems to me that one should not be subject to
actual restraints on one's liberty imposed by arrest without
either someone actually witnessing a crime being committed
and making the arrest and accusation immediately, or filing a
complaint or accusation backed up by confirmation which would
need to be taken to a grand Jury prior to arrest.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Ed:
Information. An accusation exhibited against a person for some
criminal offense, without an indictment. An accusation in the
nature of an indictment, from which it differs only in being
presented by a competent public officer on his oath of office,
instead of a grand jury on their oath. A written accusation made
by a public prosecutor, without the intervention of a grand jury.
Salvail v. Sharkey, 108 R.I. 63, 271 A. 2d 814, 817. In most states
the information may be used in place of a grand jury indictment
to bring a person to trial. As regards federal crimes, see Fed.R.
Crim.P. 7. See also Arraignment; Indictment.

Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Ed:
Presentment. The written notice taken by a grand jury of any offense,
from their own knowledge or observation, without any bill of
indictment laid before them at the suit of the government.
A presentment is an accusation, initiated by the grand jury itself,
and in effect an instruction that an indictment be drawn.
U.S. v. Briggs, C.A.Fla., 514 F.2d 794, 804. A written accusation of
crime made and returned by the grand jury upon its own initiative
in the exercise of its lawful inquisitorial powers, is in the form
of a bill of indictment, and in practice is signed individually by
all the grand jurors who return it. State v. Hudson, Tenn.Cr.App.,
487 S.W.2d 672, 674.

I've sort of muddled through my thoughts on this matter of
great concern and welcome any and all opinions on this subject
so that I too may perfect my own constitution and my thoughts
on what is True Law and what is not. I suppose I need to
subscribe to freetexas.net.

gene karl




===========================================================
Subject: Re: information
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 17:35:21 -0500
From: Jim Davidson <JDavidson@...>
Organization: Texas Sovereignty
To: Gene Karl <anti-fed@...>, sovereignty@...


Dear Gene,

Thanks for writing in.  I am not sure what you mean by
"prosecution on information" so I've reviewed the
constitutional contract for language similar to your
phrase.

There is a reasonably similar phrase in the thirteenth
item under heading III Liberty.

"No individual shall be held to answer for any criminal
charge, but on indictment or information...."

However, there is no actual process outlined for any
agent of government to proceed on information alone
without taking it before a grand jury for indictment.

I think holding a person on information alone is going
to be necessary, on account of the fact that the sheriff
will get information from various sources and feel obligated
to arrest people who are suspected, based on that
information, of a crime.  However, in order to proceed to
prosecution, the process outlined requires a grand jury to
indict before a jury trial can commence.

If there are dangers in the use of "or information" in
item the thirteenth identified above, please let me know.
I certainly value your input, and would be pleased to
entertain an amendment to the constitutional contract if
you think it appropriate.

Regards,

Jim

Gene Karl wrote:
>
> Jim,
>
> I noticed that you had prosecution on information
> in your Constitution. I took alot of what you had
> but I took informations out of ours.
>
> I don't see any need for it.
>
> gene karl

Some Goals for the Republic of Georgia

1. Establish a telephone tree to be used to help anti-feds when they are
in trouble with the illegitimate government presently in power.

2. Establish the Provisional Government for the Republic of Georgia.
http://www.no-debts.com/anti-federalist/georgia.html

3. Promote Constitution 2000 for the Republic of Georgia or any constitution
that can prove to be better.
http://www.no-debts.com/anti-federalist/gaconsti.html

4. Recruit more anti-federalists.
http://www.no-debts.com/anti-federalist/index.html

5. Have some Republic of Georgia flags made.

gene karl
anti-federalist

HEY GENE- - - I am not attacking your efforts.I once was misled into similar efforts at enforcing morality by legalese (stupid Truth in Taxes amendment) .You can't effectively do it - no more than alcohol could be effectively prohibited. BUT you can defend property rights.If you stop and pare away all the bureaucracy and biblical flowerisms, you'll  find that it's easier to simply state that no deliberate attack on person or property is tolerated, and innocent injury shall be compensated for. Is that simple enough? Does that violate any spiritual, religious or philosophical canon? And governments instituted to help you secure your rights from attack, no matter how organized and operated, are reasonable. P.S. I recently saw a show that stated that KKK leaders were given US gov plates that made their cars immune from all traffic charges. Perhaps there IS a remedy for State traffic laws - from our servants in foggy bottom... Jeff Ganaposki
jetgraphics@...
http://www.geocities.com/jetgraphics

Well, what you are proposing is basically the way Texas Constitution 2000 was written.
It's relatively a simple matter to rewrite it for Georgia. You might like that better.
I just wanted to get one written putting God's Law into effect as the Supreme Law of the Land
because I feel the existance of such an alternative is very much desired by many people.
It would also probably be desirable to see one or more such constitutions as you suggest.
Why so many constitutions? Are too many a bad idea? Well, not really if they are serious
attempts at drafting the best constitution for Georgia. The one with the most support wins
the day and the hearts and minds of the Georgian people.

A couple of problems with a constitution as you suggest from my point of view is that
abortions are often harder to prevent unless their prohibition is clearly spelled out.
The other problem, (again from my point of view) is in the area of family law, even under
such constitutions, the mother is often permitted to deny fathers rights to their children.
The Bible is the strongest Law Book on the planet I know of to protect in these areas, and
those are the main reasons why I prefer to have a constitution that declared
God's Law is the Supreme Law of the Land.

Best wishes,
gene karl

JG- "Law of the Land" refers to common law - not biblical law. Common law derives many of its concepts from Anglo-Saxon principles such as the Man-Bote & Kine-Bote - paying a price for the murder of a man or animal. Biblical law is "eye for an eye" and it is not the "common law".

GK - NO. "Law of the Land" refers to God's Common Law. "law of the land" refers to common law of the crown of England.

JG2- Okay - if you're going to REDEFINE terminology then my arguments are without merit. But if you examine old dictionaries, you'll find that the common law is the prerogatives of sovereigns. The Biblical connection is not "common law" but RELIGIOUS LAW. And you open a can of worms. Some of my best friends are "old testament" Christians observing Saturday as the Sabbath, and keeping Kosher. Another group argue that Paul dispensed with the Hebrew limitations for the Gentiles. Another group argues that Catholicism is the only true faith, etc.etc.etc.

GK2- Remember what you said about naming things? The one who names and defines the issues is the one who controls. The lawyers (wordsmiths) have been playing that game for a long time.Sure, common law may well be the perogatives of sovereigns. Alot of what you say is true. We differ mainly on where we stand on the issues and frankly it is shocking that a reverend would have your worldview, especially a reverend within the 'patriot' movement that has been at times at the cutting edge, or at least having the opportunity to commune with others in Atlanta in some very excellent brainstorming sessions. You have alot to offer, but your worldview doesn't present any real solutions on how to really become free of federal tyranny and wordsmithing. Therefore we have to take it one step further beyond the barriers and definitions the tyrants have set up for us. New constitutions are a necessary ingredient. They are the best battle plan available.

Religious law? Everything you say comes directly out of the world view, dictionaries, and case law laid out for us by earthly kings and tyrants. True Law is not a can of worms. Any crimes that do not have an earthly victim are beyond the scope of prosecution by earthly inhabitants so all the 'religious' differences have no bearing in such cases. I don't believe that you have thoroughly read the present draft of Georgia Constitution 2000 because of the arguments you keep making. Like you said, most of them are without merit.

re: God-given Rights.

 
JG- Rights aren't what you think. A human's "right to life" isn't protection against a lion's "right to life" - especially when the lion is hungry and you're about to be eaten. Your right to life is useless unless defended against attack. Both have God given rights!

GK- Only if not defended.

JG2- See? It is not the issue of rights, but securing and defending those rights!

 
JG- How is God an injured party?

GK- When you sin against God, He grieves, I assure you.

JG2-So you've set up the God police to punish transgressors of what you define is law? Pretty good trick...

 
We hold that victims should be compensated

JG- The Biblical suggested compensation is 100% for civil, 120% for criminal injury.

GK- The penalities spelled out in the Bible are a little more complicated, but you have
the general idea.

, in court where possible, or under court order, in accordance with the scriptures and judgment of a Common Law Jury.

JG- Common law jury is a prerogative of sovereigns. Since the State is a servant, it has no sovereign prerogatives to convene a common law jury, unlike the English sovereigns who do convene common law courts. The 7th amendment already guarantees "rules of the common law".
GK- Only God has absolute sovereignty. 'common law' again is crown law the same form of law as English crown law.

JG2- NO NO NO. Point #1 - If God was absolute sovereign, there would be no free will. For He would have the authority to stop that which offended Him. Point #2. You are extending your interpretation onto all possibilities. The Common law of any sovereignty is LOCAL. The Queen of Denmark has the power to define and enforce Danish common law, not English "crown". The Americans adopted the English RULES of the common law - not the common law itself. You have the right, upon your freehold, to enforce YOUR Common law - high or low justice. This is evidenced by the "No Trespassing" due notice that can absolve you of the "crime" of murder if you kill a trespasser (under common law jurisdiction.)

GK2- Well God does have the authority to stop that which offends Him. Hold it. There is Common Law and there is common law. What is Common law? Local? Georgia Constitution 2000 does about a good a job of making sure the county Common Law Juries are able to function with proper authority and responsibility. That is a basic principle in this constitution. To bring governmental power back home where it belongs. No, many Americans have not adopted the English RULES of the common law. It has been shoved down our throats. If you kill a trespasser (under today's common law jurisdiction) you stand a chance to be charged with murder so what you say is another one of those blending of arguments that land many patriots in the slammer.

JG- At the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, all common law courts were abolished. You can't have a constitutional government AND the common law.

GK- Your argument is in conflict with your earlier admission that 'The 7th amendment already guarantees "rules of the common law".' Again you mistake Common Law for common law (crown law).

JG2- Common law is the prerogative of sovereigns. Rules of the common law are contractual. If you can't see the difference, try playing by Monopoly rules at the Grocery store. They are applicable IF the grocer agrees to the "rules of Monopoly".

JG-Whoa. You are mixing apples and oranges. People are sovereign. Citizens are subjects. Those who create the government submit themselves to it. Only those who remain free inhabitants are sovereign.

GK- People are only 'sovereign' to a degree under God when they obey God's Laws. People are also subjects under King Jesus. And although Citizens and citizens may be 'subjects' they can still have God-given Rights.

JG2 - I am sorry that you hold to such a belief. Because you are in violation of "God's Laws" by your prejudice. If you can presume your "customs" are the laws of Nature and God, then I can presume my "customs" are equally so.

 
The Christian Holy Bible;

JG-Which version? With or without tampering?

GK- The standard reference for the Common Law of God for this Constitution shall be found in the King James Version with reference to 'The New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible', Copyright 1984 by Thomas Nelson Publishers, ISBN 0-8407-5360-8, for indepth meaning and intent. The interpretation of the meaning and intent of the Common Law of God found in the Scriptures and the degree of application of the Law to the facts of each case is left up to local people at the county level through their powers on the people's Common Law Jury.

JG2 - I contend that those scriptures show evidence of tampering. If you grant authority to enforce FRAUD, then there is no LAW but FRAUD.

  The Declaration of Independence in 1776;

JG-It's already Statute #1 in the Statutes at Large.

GK- Sure, in the U.S. Statutes you have come to know and love so well.

JG2- Love? Naw. Understand? Trying to. Reason? There ARE reasons for them - sometimes hidden - deliberately - by those who are pirates at law.

The Rules and Regulations of the Colony of Georgia 1776 where it says: "the people, with
whom all power originates, and for whose benefit all
government is intended..."

JG- Colony of Georgia is a creation of the English Crown. Wrong authority.

GK- A review of Georgia's history show that some clauses in Georgia's constitutions were put there at the insistance of those who so nobly fought for God's Laws. Agents of the crown of England however inserted other clauses that negated God's Laws. State governments are not loyal to the same form of law the colonies were, English crown ommon law.

  The Constitution of Georgia; February 5, 1777 where it says: "... the people, from whom
all power originates, and for whose benefit all government is intended..."

JG-But there are exclusions.

GK- Name them.

JG2 - Art IV: "paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice are excepted"

The Georgia Constitution of 1789 where it says: "Article VIII. All powers not delegated by
the constitution, as amended, are retained by the people."

JG-But there are exclusions.

GK- Name them

JG2 - see previous.

The Georgia Constitution of 1861 where it says:
"ARTICLE I - DECLARATION OF FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES 1. The fundamental principles of Free Government cannot be too well understood, nor
too often recurred to.

2. God has ordained that men shall live under government;

JG- Where? Didn't the Israelites BEG for a King? There was no Divine ordination for monarchy. I think this CONstitution is a fraud.

GK- God's Laws, God's government. Some did. Some didn't. No King but Jesus.

JG2- Where in the Scripture does Jesus say He wants, is, or shall be King. I am not refering to other people's visions, but in the 4 gospels... Jesus said he was interested in His Father's Kingdom which was not of this world. Therefore, God is not the "sovereign" in this world - else He couldn't have allowed Satan free rein. That's evidence of a house divided, wouldn't you say?
 

Deuteronomy 13:4
          Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye
          shall serve him, and cleave unto him.

          Deuteronomy 27:10
          Thou shalt therefore obey the voice of the LORD thy God, and do his commandments and his statutes, which I
          command thee this day.

          Deuteronomy 30:8
          And thou shalt return and obey the voice of the LORD, and do all his commandments which I command thee
          this day.

Matthew 4:10
          Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him
          only shalt thou serve.

          Matthew 9:28
          And when he was come into the house, the blind men came to him: and Jesus saith unto them, Believe ye that I
          am able to do this? They said unto him, Yea, Lord.
============================================
          Matthew 11:25
          At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid
          these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
============================================
          Matthew 13:51
          Jesus saith unto them, Have ye understood all these things? They say unto him, Yea, Lord.

            Matthew 22:37
          Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy
          mind.

          Mark 5:19
          Howbeit Jesus suffered him not, but saith unto him, Go home to thy friends, and tell them how great things the
          Lord hath done for thee, and hath had compassion on thee.

          Mark 12:29
          And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

          Luke 4:8
          And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord
          thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

          Luke 4:12
          And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
============================================
             Luke 10:21
          In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid
          these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good
          in thy sight.
============================================
 
          John 21:12
          Jesus saith unto them, Come and dine. And none of the disciples durst ask him, Who art thou? knowing that it
          was the Lord.

            Acts 2:36
          Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified,
          both Lord and Christ.

          Acts 10:36
          The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:)

          Acts 11:17
          Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what
          was I, that I could withstand God?

          Acts 28:31
          Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all
          confidence, no man forbidding him.

          Romans 1:7
          To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the
          Lord Jesus Christ.

          Romans 15:6
          That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

          Romans 15:30
          Now I beseech you, brethren, for the Lord Jesus Christ's sake, and for the love of the Spirit, that ye strive
          together with me in your prayers to God for me;

          Romans 16:18
          For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches
          deceive the hearts of the simple.

          Romans 16:20
          And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.
          Amen.

          Romans 16:24
          The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

          1 Corinthians 1:8
          Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

          1 Corinthians 1:9
          God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.

          1 Corinthians 1:10
          Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that
          there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same
          judgment.

          1 Corinthians 5:4
          In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord
          Jesus Christ,

          1 Corinthians 5:5
          To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the
          Lord Jesus.

          1 Corinthians 6:11
          And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord
          Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

          1 Corinthians 8:6
          But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by
          whom are all things, and we by him.

          1 Corinthians 9:1
          Am I am not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?

          1 Corinthians 11:23
          For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which
          he was betrayed took bread:

          1 Corinthians 12:3
          Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that
          no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

          1 Corinthians 15:57
          But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

          1 Corinthians 16:22
          If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.

          1 Corinthians 16:23
          The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

          2 Corinthians 1:2
          Grace be to you and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

          Galatians 6:14
          But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified
          unto me, and I unto the world.

          Galatians 6:17
          From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.

          Ephesians 1:15
          Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints,

          Ephesians 1:17
          That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation
          in the knowledge of him:

          Ephesians 3:11
          According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:

          Ephesians 3:14
          For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,

          Ephesians 5:20
          Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;

          Ephesians 6:23
          Peace be to the brethren, and love with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

          Ephesians 6:24
          Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. Amen.

          Philippians 1:2
          Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

          Philippians 2:11
          And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

          Philippians 3:8
          Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for
          whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,

          Philippians 3:20
          For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:

          Philippians 4:23
          The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

           1 Thessalonians 4:1
          Furthermore then we beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us
          how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would abound more and more.

          1 Thessalonians 4:2
          For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus.

          1 Thessalonians 5:9
          For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,

          1 Thessalonians 5:23
          And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved
          blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

          1 Thessalonians 5:28
          The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.

          2 Thessalonians 1:7
          And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty
          angels,

          2 Thessalonians 1:8
          In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus
          Christ:

           2 Thessalonians 2:14
          Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

          2 Thessalonians 2:16
          Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting
          consolation and good hope through grace,

          2 Thessalonians 3:6
          Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every
          brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

          2 Thessalonians 3:12
          Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and
          eat their own bread.

          2 Thessalonians 3:18
          The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

          1 Timothy 1:12
          And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the
          ministry;

          1 Timothy 1:14
          And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

          1 Timothy 5:21
          I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without
          preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.

          1 Timothy 6:14
          That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:

          2 Timothy 4:1
          I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his
          appearing and his kingdom;

          2 Timothy 4:22
          The Lord Jesus Christ be with thy spirit. Grace be with you. Amen.

          1 Peter 1:3
          Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten
          us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

          2 Peter 1:2
          Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,

          2 Peter 1:8
          For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the
          knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

          2 Peter 1:11
          For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour
          Jesus Christ.

          2 Peter 1:14
          Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me.

          2 Peter 1:16
          For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our
          Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

          2 Peter 2:20
          For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus
          Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.

          2 Peter 3:18
          But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and
          for ever. Amen.

           Jude 1:4
          For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men,
          turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

          Jude 1:17
          But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;

          Jude 1:21
          Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

          Revelation 22:20
          He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

          Revelation 22:21
          The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
 

 
GK - I'm sure it has some bugs in it. No fraudulent intent here, however I am sure there is much fraudulent intent in the U.S.CONstitution. JG2 - I meant the U.S. CONstitution is a CON, but the con is not what you may think. For example, the prohibition on emission of bills of credit was not for moral reasons. The requirement of species coin made the U.S. dependent upon the Bank of England for the bullion to coin money. Only when gold and silver were discovered in Georgia and elsewhere, did the Banksters change their strategy from banning bills of credit to banning the coinage of silver. There are layers within layers you have to uncover before you make or break policy law.

JG-This is heifer dung. The author doesn't understand law - only policy. All law is the protection of property rights, all else is policy, and policy requires consent. "Forms and administration" are policy. That's internal to government and not a subject of a compact. GK- Man's 'law' is policy.

JG2 - NO. All Law is the protection of property Rights, all else is law and policy, law and policy requires consent.

3. Protection to person and property is the duty of Government; and a Government which knowingly and persistently denies, or withholds from the governed such protection, when within its power, releases from the obligation of obedience.

JG- Duh - see Declaration of Independence. BUT THERE ARE EXCLUDED CLASSES. See Articles of Confederation (Art IV). GK- Duh right back at cha. Yeah, it says: paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted. The Articles of Confederation was an overstep of the responsibilities given to the free Republics inhabited by a free people. The Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation both also usurped the Republics in favor of subjugating them to English-American crown common law. JG2 - I must disagree. Show what responsibility was an overstep?

Again, the term, Republic, isn't a republican form of government. The key factors are the powers of sovereignty.

A true Republic is not the same as a republican form
of government, but it is a "Republican Form of
Government" that does qualify to be a government
that the Constitution for the united States of
America must protect under the "Republican Form of
Government" clause of Article 4, Section 4.

Since you already DENY that people are sovereigns, then you can't have a republican form of government.

JG2 - Therefore, you are acting against the Free Inhabitants that were promised no interference.

17. Legislative Acts in violation of the fundamental law are void; and the Judiciary shall
so declare them.

JG- Waste of time. All laws already have the catch all term "shall". Read the definition of the terms: shall, may, mandatory and directory. Courts can negate a law at a whim.

GK- Not a waste of time. In Georgia Constitution 2000 a Common Law Jury can negate a law or even a Law at a whim, but if they subvert true Law, they must remember they are making the bed that they will be sleeping in.

JG2- Would you trust your rights to a "Common Law" jury composed of prostitutes, usurers, and gamblers?

  27. The enumeration of rights herein contained shall not be construed to deny to the
people any inherent rights which they have hitherto enjoyed."

JG- But all people aren't citizens, citizens have privileges and immunities that may require the surrender of rights.

GK- If there are any clauses in Georgia Constitution 2000 that require a citizen to give up Rights, it would be those that are minimally necessary to put their Rights into effect in a real world. JG2 - Unfortunately, you are making a huge mistake in status. The "right to vote" isn't a right but a privilege granted by the government to CITIZENS. To enroll as a citizen DOES surrender liberties and rights. For example, registered elector/citizens can be COMPELLED to sit for jury duty. Others can volunteer.

 
IV. We hold that the foundation of this nation is that an
individual's body, life, labor, ideas,
thoughts, and material possessions that the individual has created or acquired without
coercion are that individual's property and that no individual, majority, society, or
government may legitimately take or control an individual's property without that individual's
consent.

JG- Restatement of the obvious - at first. BUT the foundation isn't what you think. Do you agree that bankruptcy is against God's law?

Bankruptcy, I think so. But God's plan is for the Jubilee. Or do you think that screwing a creditor is moral? God requires that creditor's forgive debts during the Year of Jubilee. JG- Who is "we"? According to the GA supreme court, the US CON is a compact, but no private person is party to it. Is this another fraud to entrap people in to another contract?
V. We hold that the foundation of our economy shall be the free market system unfettered by
intrusions of government and based upon the free and voluntary exchange of goods and
services. GK- No fraud intended nor known of. No entrapment either. JG- Who makes the money? GK- Private enterprize. Who controls the creation of the medium of exchange? GK- Private enterprize and Common Law Juries protecting the people against fraud. A "free market" is a fraud without money powers. GK- Under Georgia Constitution 2000, the free market has money powers and the Common Law Juries rule on cases of fraud.

JG2 - WHO makes the money, and HOW?

Recall that government can only "coin" money - not create it. Who is making the money?????? GK- Anyone can create honest mediums of exchange. The government however is prohibited from tinkering with the money under Georgia Constitution 2000.

JG2 - But what is "it"? {Promissory notes, species coin, trade goods, bills of credit, certificates of deposit?)

  VI. We hold that peaceful relations with other nations is based upon the concept of mutual
respect and that war and other interference in the affairs of other nations serves only to
destroy such peaceful relations. It is therefore declared that Georgia shall remain neutral in
the affairs of, and between, other nations.

JG- War is piracy or the defense against piracy. And Georgia is forbidden by its agreement under the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION to get involved in international affairs. P.S. the Articles created a perpetual UNION.

GK- As stated earlier, the Articles of Confederation tramples on the Rights of the people in the Republics.

JG2 - Do you think that you should be held responsible if your neighbor wages war against Portugal?

JG2 - And that Georgia should not come to the aid of Alabama, when invaded?

JG2 - In essence, you are abrogating the reason for law and government - the mutual protection of rights from attack without and within.

GK - The only way the Articles could create a perpetual UNION would be if they upheld perpetual Law. They do not. They violate true Law. Therefore the Articles of Confederation cannot possibly be perpetual. JG2- What law is being violated? There is no delegation of authority to injure the person or property of anyone EXCEPT those who a) volunteer into the government (citizens), b) ask for charity (paupers), c) have no property to protect nor gainful activity (vagabonds), and d) fugitives from justice.

Preamble

We, the people of Georgia, in order to form a lasting government, establish justice, insure
domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty

JG- Which liberty? There are 4 types: natural, personal, civil, political.

GK- Would it be an error to claim all types?

JG2 - YES!!!!!

1) natural liberty is upon private property. You already deny sovereignty upon private property, so there is NO natural liberty in your constitution.

 
2) personal liberty is the right of way upon the public roads and waterways. No "right" to convene a business or use the public ways for private gain - without permission (license).

3) civil liberty is the permission to engage in that which is a trespass, a tort or otherwise a crime (commercial use of public property, physician's immunity from criminal prosecution for manslaughter and assault).

4) political liberty is the permission to JOIN the government as a citizen, elector and office holder.

The "general term" of liberty is also in reference to asking the King's permission (king's liberty) to engage in an occupation. So in the words of P.Henry, he's denouncing the interference of the Crown upon his private property - i.e., natural liberty. He is not referring to the other three.

to ourselves and our posterity,
acknowledging and invoking the guidance of Almighty God, the Author of all good government,

JG- Presumptious and preposterace.

GK- It seems you laugh in the face of God.

JG2 - You presume God has a face to laugh in. Perhaps He is a comic genius, and we're too scared to enjoy His jokes... I love God, and we have great times together. I see God in everyone He created. To hate little pieces of God would make me hate Him.

God hasn't authored a thing. GK- Oh. I see where you are coming from now.And He is incapable of authoring anything, right?

JG2- If you refer to the material plane, in book form, perhaps. But in the sense that He is the "creator" - He is the author of the spirit of life.

If He has, show me His copyright and Agent's office. "Inspired" men claimed to be guided in their writings- and that includes just about every religion on the planet (except Scientology ;-) GK- Can you create Life without Him?

JG2 - Interesting point. That is where many people find fault with scientists that look at amino acids, gene splicing and viruses. Not saying it is conclusively life, but viruses DO reproduce, and exhibit many of the attributes of "life

"...and one CAN make viruses in the lab. Are these scientists making life like God did?

do ordain and establish this constitution for the Republic of Georgia:

. . . Life, Liberty, Property and a true Republic

JG- Republic IS NOT A Republican form of government.

GK- I agree. may be recognised and established
we declare that this declaration of Rights is a part of this Constitution and of our Contract,

JG- BINGO - who are the parties obligated to perform?

GK- Those who ratify this constitution and those in office under this constitution and those who continue to violate our Rights.

JG2- But you don't see that you impose obligations upon those who didn't give consent.

Under the Constitution, it's only those who take an oath. What is this scam peddling? GK-God forbids oaths, remember?

JG2- Affirmation is okay, isn't it? The definition of a proscribed oath is to use God as a surety on your performance. Since most people of ill intent do escape immediate punishment by Divinity, it is a common mechanism for perpetrating a fraud. An oath, as a promise to perform, is not proscribed.

   
and
shall never be violated under any pretense whatsoever. In order to guard against the
transgression of the powers we have delegated to government, we declare that every Right
defined in this Declaration of Rights is reserved to the people. Rights not enumerated,
including God-given Rights not yet expressed or conceived, exist to the extent that no Right
as such may impose an obligation on any individual except to respect that Right in others.

JG- Wrongo. One who exercises the "political right" to join the military can be compelled to surrender his life, on orders, to secure the rights of another.

GK- Only under the form of law you seem to defend.

JG2- So how will you order your military to act without that power?

All
such non-enumerated Rights are reserved to the people. All powers not specifically delegated
to Government are reserved to the people. The specification of these Rights in a certain order
is not intended to prioritize the Rights or to indicate a hierarchy of Rights, but is provided for
convenience.

JG- Do you know that the term: convenience isn't what you think ? Legalese is legal for a specific reason - intelligibility.

GK- Well then, what word would be more fitting?

JG2- Thanks to Dr.Kasik who found that "convenience" was to "convene or form a consensual body", you would rather simply state that:

All law is the protection of property rights, all else is policy, and policy requires consent.

That sums it up.

 
Section 2. Each individual has the inherent God-given Right to life and of life from physical
conception to natural death.

JG-So? What's stopping the hungry lion's right to life?

GK- Intelligence maybe?

JG2- Not in that law... ;-)

  Section 3. Each individual has the inherent Right of liberty, which is the unrestrained exercise
of free will,

JG- NO, liberty is not that - Natural liberty is close. But that's only exercised upon private property.
Liberty, in general, 1700s term, refered to in "Give me liberty or give me death" is the "freedom to act without prior PERMISSION" - like Ship's Liberty and Shore Leave.

GK- Good point. I've included both definitions to cover all bases now. Sound good? which shall never be infringed provided the exercise thereof does not violate the
Rights of any other individual.

JG- WHOA. Do you have the right to fart? In an enclosed space? Isn't that a violation of my rights? Can't you see that this is absurdity?

GK- Is there a need to be obnoxious? No it's not absurd.

JG2- But you can't extend the "natural liberty" of your private property into another's. That "public fart" IS a potential for a tort, if another is nauseated, vomits, and damages their clothing. Would the guilty party escape compensation for exercising the "right to fart" as part of the "right to life?" Only if the farter is ON his own property, could that defense make sense. But if the farter is not on his own private property, he is liable for damages.

 
Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures
no one else;

JG- Wrong. Liberty is freedom to act without permission, in general. Natural liberty is the freedom from restrictions save that of Natural Law (gravity, thermodynamics) - and limited to private property. Personal liberty is the freedom of travel upon the public highways and waterways. And those "liberties" may be constrained by custom (Rules of the Road!).
hence the exercise of the natural Rights of each man has no limits except those
which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same Rights.

GK- You are letting the camel poke his nose into the tent now. Jeff you are trying to urn custom into Law. Sorry. Not gonna accept that.

JG2- If you travel down the "wrong side" of the road, though not hitting anyone, but cause another to injure themselves as they avoid you - YOU HAVE DONE AN INJURY - and yet didn't do an injury DIRECTLY.

JG2- Whose right was superior? The one traveling in the accustomed manner, or the one who travelled in an unaccustomed manner? Under your blanket extension, the injured party's tort would constitute a violation of the rights of the wrong way traveller.

Again, don't mix private property related natural liberties with public property related personal liberties.

JG- BAD BAD BAD. Never give a blanket exemption or obligation. BE SPECIFIC.
For example, if I have a right to life, but am poor, can I DEMAND that government help "secure" my rights with charity from the public treasury? By this constitution, I CAN. That's SOCIALISM.
EGADS! Socialism = Piracy upon the productive for the benefit of the non-productive. GK- Wrong Jeff. This is Right with a capital 'R'. There is no God-given Right to rob the public treasury.
Who is absurd?

JG2- Who said anything about robbery? If a government accepts the "duty" to secure everyone's life, then it DOES open the door to the paupers. (Which, as excluded classes, are penalized while they accept the benefits).

Section 4. Each individual's body, life, labor, ideas, thoughts, and possessions that the
individual has Lawfully created or acquired are that individual's property.

JG-Did you create yourself? Or did your parents?

GK- No, but I acquired myself, didn't you?

JG2 - My biological body is the result of my parents, my soul is the result of God's power ( to the best of my understanding). Since I wasn't a slave, there was nothing to acquire. My person (body) is the property of the soul inhabiting it.

Each individual has
the inherent Right of the ownership,

JG- Wrong. Tell it to the slaveowners. Tell it to the chattels and wards. And who shall enforce that right of ownership? Is it private property or "personal" property?

GK- Is it wrong to have the inherent Right of ownership of both?

JG2- That's why slavery was such a thorny issue. Could a slave own? No. Then could a slave "inherit" property of a freeborn? No. That's why marriage licenses were required for those who married slaves. The State stepped in to manage the transfer of property and custody in situations where the common law was incapable of resolving.

  non-coercive acquisition, and use of property. Since
property is an inviolable and sacred Right,

JG- Who says so? Aren't convicts denied rights? Are convicts less protected by sacred law? Where?

GK- Aren't convicts denied rights? Under the crown law, yes. Convicts could be less protected by sacred Law if they murdered someone for example, yes, they could be condemned to death..

JG2 - So you DO exclude some people. That is a Great and Terrible power.

JG2- Re: murder. Didn't the requirement for 2 or more accusers for a murder conviction make circumstantial evidence unGodly?

Numbers 35:30
          Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not
          testify against any person to cause him to die.

Deuteronomy 17:6
          At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the
          mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.

Deuteronomy 19:15
          One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth
          of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.

 
  no one shall be deprived thereof except where
public necessity shall clearly demand it,

JG- Mob rule. "We" declare that the rights of <fill in the blank> no longer exist. BAH.

GK-Continue below. and then only on
condition that the owner shall have
consented and been compensated under contract entered freely,

JG-Oh really? Imagine a war. Imagine troops need to hide in your barn. You aren't there to give consent. Do they wait - and die? Or go ahead and hide?

GK- Your choice.

JG2 - not according to "your law" of absolutes.

knowingly, and competently.

Section 5. Each individual has the inherent Right of defending the life, liberty, or property of
any individual using whatever force is necessary, through whatever means available,
including the use of deadly force.

JG- Does that include "individuals" who promised to protect my hide? And now can take a pot-shot at me? JG- Even when misled? Such as in the case of a woman thief yelling "rape! murder!" Do you want people to just shoot any poor sod she accuses? And does that include public as well as private property?
If you extend that to private property, then a trespasser has the right to shoot the owner who is defending HIS OWN PROPERTY!

GK-The Jury will decide. JG2- insufficient authority to intrude upon private property.

 
Section 6. Each individual has the inherent Right of owning, using, and carrying arms of any
description.

JG-Oh really? How about a "dead-man" bomb that ignites on your death. So that an accident like a heart attack can take out a whole group of people?

GK-Have you perfected it?

JG2- immaterial. The fact that you presume it is moral / lawful to have that which can be deadly is the core issue. A dead man can't be held responsible nor act after his death, thus allowing him to concoct ANY scheme that injures the innocent isn't moral. I am not saying that one should not have the bomb, but that the "constitutionally protected" right to have the bomb may contradict other sections that ascribe to the protection of rights.

This is the point upon which lawyers get rich filing suits to adjudicate the touchy subject.

Section 7. Law must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes.

JG- WRONG. Contract law is only binding upon those who are parties to the contract.

GK- Correct, not wrong.

JG2 - Law that protects property rights can be the same, but law that is based upon policy does not. You can't combine the two.

                   Who are the parties to THIS CONTRACT?

GK- Whoever ratifies.

JG2 - What about the people who aren't registered to vote, nor want to be members of the democracy? Are they bound to perform?

Which law? No constitutional law can impair the obligations of contracts? What about impossible contracts, like usury? What about gambling, via insurance? GK-Lawful contracts.

JG2 - You are ducking the question. Is it lawful to commit incorporation? Is it lawful to commit insurance? Is it lawful to deny a creditor his due?

All individuals, when they form a social compact such as a constitution,

JG- FRAUD. The constitution is not a "social compact"...Specific performance is required of the parties to the compact. Who signed the constitution? My copy says it was only "witnessed". There are no identified parties in the U.S. Constitution.

GK- You've gone way out in left field now. You are complaining about the U.S.CONstitution, not Georgia Constitution 2000.

JG2- No. Both documents are compacts. You err in trying to make it into a "social compact" that all peoples must adhere to. By your earlier statement, only those who ratify it are bound. Thus your statement that "all individuals" is contradicting your assurance that only those who ratify are bound.

  have equal Rights, and are equally eligible
to all dignities and to contract for any public positions

JG- Dangerous mishmash of natural liberty, and political liberty.

GK- That exactly what I say of the U.S. CONstitution. JG2- The U.S. constitution is for the States united and the United States. There is no delegation of authority for the States or the U.S. to impair personal or natural liberty of INDIVIDUALS. Only those who are citizens or otherwise in contract with the parties.

 
According to court cites, the exercise of political liberty impairs "other" rights. Ben Franklin stated that public service must be a drop in status (loss of rights) otherwise the servant shall become the master. This CONstitution is slavery. GK-Everyone's God-given Rights should be respected. JG2- Sigh... Lord, they have eyes but will not SEE! Do you have the "right" to be free on next Wednesday? <Say yes, for the sake of argument> But if you enter into an agreement to paint a porch next Wednesday, are you still "free"? Or are you now subject to a breach of contract if you FAIL to paint a porch next Wednesday? The point is: YOU CAN SURRENDER RIGHTS when you enter into agreements. And public service IS a drop in rights - or else, the servant can fail to perform without consequence.

or occupations, according to their
abilities, and without distinction except that of their virtues and talents. The social compact of
marriage or any act which produces a human fetus, through sexual intercourse or otherwise,
is recognized to be the Lawful union of a man and a woman into a family unit which becomes
one Lawful entity.

JG-Marriage is for the protection of property rights to the next generation. Under the common law, "rights" of curtesy and dower do not exist if there are no children issued from the marriage. Modern licensed marriages are for people who don't have property rights (such as foreigners, slaves and bondsmen). Fetus protection is already a fact - see feticide. Forget "Lawful union", the real issue is who has a claim upon a parent's property. Without a marriage contract, a bastard child can't claim his father's inheritance under the common law.

GK- There you go living in the English-American crown law again. JG2- It's in the Bible, too. Check out the conflicting laws on adultery. One states that it is an abomination for a woman to marry her husband's brother - then in another, it is a requirement for a brother to marry his brother's widow, sire a child, in the name of the dead man, to insure the continuity of property inheritance. Adultery is actually a property right law, and ultimately, it is redefined so that property is passed to the next generation.

 
As such there can only be one recognized head of this Lawful entity,
therefore, unless the woman is declared to be the head of the family unit on the marriage
agreement confirmation paper, the man is recognized as the head of the family under the
authority of the Common Law.

JG- Oh really? Are you refering to the sole duty of support a man has until he is deprived of the custody and possession of chattels and wards? And who IS the authority of the common law? Is it a sovereign or a subject? Are you aware of the common law naming convention? He who names a thing, controls that thing. That's why a woman took her husband's name, to signify his control & duty of support. When a woman does not take her husband's name, he is absolved of the duty of support. Why bother with enacting constitutions to "enforce" the custom?

GK- Not enforcing custom. Enforcing Law. In the case of separation or divorce of various members of a natural family,

JG-Common law divorce? Or statutory? What is an unnatural family?

GK- Under Georgia Constitution 2000, 'crown common law' and 'statutory law' are abolished.
A family members that are not related by blood. the children are to
remain or be reunited with the father as Lawful custodian and guardian unless there is a
marriage agreement confirmation paper that declares the mother to be the head of the family,

JG- BAD LAW. Mixes up property right law with possessory law. A woman "makes" a baby in her body and if she takes off with "her child" a man cannot compel her to surrender to him that which she made. The best he can demand is that he is absolved of any duties to the woman and child(ren).

GK- Under English-American crown law, true. You like much of the crown law, don't you?
Under God's Law, it is not that way. in which case the children are to remain or be reunited with the mother as Lawful custodian
and guardian.

JG- Custody is not ownership. These are mixed concepts. Children are the property of freemen. Children of slaves are in the custody of slaves. Which type does this law infer? Recall in "Tom Sawyer" that Huck Finn's drunken father had ABSOLUTE power and only on his death did the townsfolk "take in" the orphaned Huck.

GK- I agree.  
Children born out of wedlock are naturally recognized to have their natural
fathers to be their Lawful custodian and guardian.

JG-EGAD! You have just violated EVERY property right principle in the Bible and common law.
Without a compact (marriage) a child IS NOT THE Property of the father - unless he gave birth to it.

GK- The natural father is head of the natural family Jeff. Fathers 'give birth' to a child when the woman conceives. JG2 - No way, Jose. You are mashing the language to support your religious beliefs as law.

Lawful custodians and guardians of children shall honor the natural bonds, ties and
relationships that a child should have with both parents and make all attempts to be
reasonable and allow the other parent to have access and physical custody of the child for
one-half of the time of the child's life as a minor under the age of 18 years of age unless a
Common Law Jury has ruled that the Law requires restrictions to access and physical custody
of the child upon a guilty verdict declared by the same Common Law Jury which shall declare
what those restrictions to access and physical custody of the child actually are.

JG- More heifer dung that denies the LAWFUL powers of the owners of children. Under such laws, a religious recluse would be obligated to "share" his children with those he feels is unrighteous, etc.. etc.

GK- Sometimes when there is a controversy, someone has to decide the issues and facts of the case Jeff.

JG2 - A controversy wouldn't exist under the "common law" - only under "your common law" - and that's the point. Instead of making law simpler, you make it more complex....Are you trying to become a lawyer?

Section 8. Any individual whatsoever, of any background, religious faith, creed, ethnic or national origin, gender, or age may enter into any Lawful contract provided they do so
willingly, knowingly, and competently.

JG- What do you define as "lawful"? Contract murder? Voluntary servitude?

GK- You didn't notice the capital letter 'L'? I'm sure you did. Just being silly are you? JG2- immaterial. You won't answer. The Bible (alleged to be God's word) says it is a sin to kill. Then Yahweh orders the Israelites to slaughter men, women, and (innocent) children. Thus the "law" or "Law" is whatever God (allegedly) says it is. Then WHY OBEY any Law (Ten Commandments or other) as an absolute? Just find it in your heart that "God told me it was okay to go kill <fill in the blanks>."

 

When the competency of any party to a contract is
questioned by any other party to the contract, or by the guardians, heirs, or assigns of the
party in question, a Jury of twelve will decide competency based solely on whether, in the
judgement of a simple majority of jurors, the party in question is competent to understand
and faithfully execute the terms of the contract as written.

JG- Where does a jury get the power to decide competency? For what purpose? Who's benefit?

GK- That was Jury with a capital 'J'. Let's put it this way. A Common Law Jury has more power to decide competency than any judge or assise jury. JG2 - Why trust 12 fools over one wise man?

Section 9. All political power is inherent in God,

JG- If "God's Kingdom" is here, on Earth, perhaps. But according to Scripture THIS IS NOT GOD'S KINGDOM.

GK- Reread the Lord's Prayer. The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.

JG2- Read it in Aramaic. It's not "Greek" to me... In Aramaic, the translation is : "Our Father who is everywhere, may His name be honored forever. May his good wishes for His children come to be. May we not suffer hunger nor trespass. And may we forgive trespass, in His namesake.

Sure sounds a whole lot different, eh?

Instead of "God's Will" it's God's good wishes - you know - LOVE people.

the Father, Creator of the Universe,

JG- Who told you? God? When? Where? Or was it "inspired men?"

GK- Me thinks this 'inspired men' business were the writers of the U.S.CONstitution, remember? That's a different 'religion'. and all true Republics

JG-The term:republic refers only to a nation, not the form of government. Rome was a "true Republic" but not a republican form of government for the people weren't sovereign. Same is true for the "People's Republic of China".

GK- Denied. JG2 - According to the dictionary, I'm correct. Historically speaking, the Roman republic only offered delegated representation to the upper classes, not the "mob". Therefore your "true republic" is a redefinition of whatever you define it is - not what the term really means. You are guilty of "Newspeak" (See:1984) - Double bad, Gene.

 
are founded on God's Authority,

JG- religious presumption. Unprovable.

GK- Not really. Simply a matter of definition.

JG2- Did God "fight" on the side of the Israelites? The Normans? The Americans? Or did the winners subscribe to the belief that God MUST be on the side of the winners...

  the Author of all true Law,

JG- You can start a religious war with that one. Consider Kosher dietary laws. Are those God's laws? Is it really not Kosher to mix milk and meat on the same plate? Or is the prohibition on boiling the kid in the milk of its dam?Consider the Catholic liturgy with its ritual cannibalism.
Wake up and smell the coffee!

GK- Can't serve two masters, Jeff.

JG2- Aphorisms can't save you. Which Master do you infer? Mastery over yourself, or slavery to another, who mixed up scripture to make you act against REAL LAW and support religious customs.

Oh come on, you can't be so hidebound to admit that the modern Kosher "laws" aren't anything but archaic practices ascribed to the Divine by pundits and philosophers of the Hebrews.

There is no prohibition in the Bible for mixing dairy and meat on the same plate.

and instituted for the
people's benefit and exist by the will of God

JG- The "will of God" according to Jesus is "Love God / Love neighbor". If God gave free will then His Will is:"You are FREE." Anything else is not "free will". Can you say: oxymoron?

GK- Nothing contradictory about it.

JG2- Okay. Gene, I'm your sovereign, and you're my subject. I declare that you are no longer my subject, but are free. Are you still subject? If so then I haven't freed you. If not a subject, then you are a sovereign free man.

A sovereign cannot be a subject.

GK2- No. I say there is a flaw in your reasoning. Just because you have free will doesn't mean that you are authorized to break the Law without penalty. You are free to break the Law, but if you do, there are penalties.

and the people to support the will of God;

JG-Ethnocentric and religious self-righteousness.

GK-Well Jeff, if you don't have a better constitution, then you haven't shown me anything. A few corrections perhaps, I appreciate the ones that make sense. The rest are worthless.

JG2- I don't need an agreement to act morally. Those who do, already have a GREAT constitution, according to the written record. The big problems have been due to "masses" of self-righteous who banned liberties and freedoms in the name of their God. Then they were tricked in to surrendering more rights, and liberties, in order to gain more goodies from the pockets of others. In essence, these moralists turned pirate.

and
although each individual has at all times the unalienable Right to alter, reform, or abolish his
form of government in any manner they believe proper, at any time, the individual has no
authority to attempt to change the true Laws of God, the Creator, hereby referred to as the
Common Law of God found in the Christian Holy Scriptures.

JG- COMPLETE FALSEHOOD. Common law is not entirely biblical.

GK- English-American crown common law is perverted Common Law to suit the crown, I agree. And Christianity, as currently practiced, doesn't even comply with the Bible. [See references to the abomination of usury in Ezekiel 18:13]. GK- Agreed. What goofy laws this constitution presents are merely customs and practices that are sectarian. GK- Denied. The standard reference for the
Common Law of God for this Constitution shall be found in the King James Version with
reference to 'The New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible', Copyright 1984 by
Thomas Nelson Publishers, ISBN 0-8407-5360-8, for indepth meaning and intent.

JG- Not in "my kingdom"! God's laws are written in my heart.

GK- Funny. You defend English crown law so.

JG2 - You continue to presume that English common law is common law. The dictionary says otherwise. For example, in "English" common law, since the lands belong to the King, people are allowed to pass upon ANY farmers fields with the stipulation that all gates must be secured, and no crops or animals be molested.

Yet, in "American" common law, you can get an arse filled with buckshot for trespassing on a private farm.

You are way off base in your presumptions about the common law. Read the "Theory of the Common Law" from the 1800s. Also, read "The Law of Nations" - (Which is not International Law, either).

  The
interpretation of the meaning and intent of the Common Law of God found in the Scriptures
and the degree of application of the Law to the facts of each case is left up to local people at
the county level through their powers on the people's Common Law Jury.

JG- AH HAH. Now the "supreme law" is now merely at the people's pleasure. BAH. If you can re-interpret law to allow for the injury to person and property, there is no law.

GK- Make your bed, you sleep in it. That's why it would be wise to study and show thyself approved, not simply just study. JG2 - You have the audacity to ascribe Law from God, and then authorize 12 men to decide? I would rather you let God punish his lawbreakers, and men punish "their" lawbreakers. At least, then, you'd be consistent.

 
Hey, in fact, your "Biblical common law" is enforced by God, according to the description of the Last Judgment. Why bother with it HERE?

Individual common law is enforced upon private property. That's why you can't shoot a trespasser when he's not on your property - you have to engage the services of the Sheriff to seek justice OUTSIDE of your SOVEREIGNTY.

This constitution FAILS to make the distinction between the private property (thus committing breach of the close) and the public property: buildings and rights of way. The government DOES have the power over the "public sector". If it doesn't then there personal liberty is at risk.

          a. Establish appropriate regulations for the control of government agents or
          agencies in the maintenance of those existing publicly owned rights of way which
          extend beyond the boundaries of any one county. This authority for maintenance is
          strictly limited to those publicly owned rights of way existing at the time of
          ratification of this constitution. There shall be no authority to regulate the use of
          publicly owned rights of way.

          b. Approve or reject treaties as proposed by the president.

          c. Establish uniform standards for maintaining public records.

          d. Issue foreign travel documents on request of any Georgia citizen and maintain
          records of same.

          e. Confirm or deny appointments by National Executive Council officers.

          f. Establish uniform standards for all elections.

          g. Establish rules of and publish all records of National Assembly proceedings.

          h. Operate and maintain facilities for National Assembly use.

          i. Terminate or extend presidential declarations of war within twenty days and
          every six months thereafter.

 
Section 10. All individuals have a natural and indefeasible Right to worship God according to
the dictates of their own consciences; no individual shall be compelled to attend, erect, or
support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent;

JG-So? Is there proof of the contrary now?

GK- There is balance and the respect for Life, Liberty and Property. no human
authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the Rights of conscience in
matters of religion; no preference shall ever be given by Law to any religious or philosophical
societies or mode of worship;

JG- Bull! If a religious cannibal wants to eat me, for religious purposes, I will not honor his "rights of conscience".

GK- That why the Liberty was defined the way it was in this constitution Jeff. You keep applying what doesn't apply.

JG2- You redefined it to mean something contradictory. Michael Jackson can sing: "Bad" and imply "good". But does it really make bad into good? Or does it result in cognitive idiocy? That's why profanity is so prevalent. People are incapable of expressing themselves succinctly in commonly understood terminology. The fouled language of the youth is not unlike barking dogs, howling their pains and frustrations. When you practice semantic games to "prove" your point is correct, you are no better than the communist arguing "Dialectical Materialism" to cover up piracy of private property as morality.

it shall be the duty of the
Government to protect every religious
denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of their own mode of public worship,

JG- Special treatment. I would prefer that government act to protect ALL MEN. To make qualifications, allows the government to disallow a sect, and therefore cease to protect them when the government redefines "unpeaceable" to mean "anti-government".

GK- Don't forget the women and children Jeff.

JG2- Are women and children not within the definition of men when used in general?

if any; nothing
in this Right and its associated obligations is intended to limit the Right to proselytize, teach
one's own faith, or express intolerance of evil.

JG-BAD BAD BAD. No one has a "right to proselytize" on my private property except me. And to waste time about such a law is absurdity. If this "right" is for entering other private property, it is EVIL... If it refers to the public property, I suspect that it will inevitably erode the rights of others who wish to travel upon that public property. Isn't this authorizing a preacher to harrangue in a public courthouse? ICK ICK ICK

GK- Don't forget the definition of Liberty Jeff. Section 11. The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the
Rights of man.

JG- Confusion of rights. A blind man has no "right to see". A cripple has no "right to walk". Why should idiots have a "right to communicate?" I have a right to be left alone!!!!

GK- Jeff is being disingenuous the real you? Every individual may, accordingly, speak, write, print and communicate by
other media with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall
actually cause harm, as determined by a Jury, and only to the extent of the harm actually
caused. The government shall never curtail or license or limit or regulate or in any manner
infringe the liberty of speech or of the press, nor of any form of communication by any medium
whatsoever.

JG- Read up on libel law, first.

GK- Yawn.  
Section 12. In all suits whatsoever, where the value in controversy shall exceed one troy
ounce of silver, the Right of trial by Jury shall be preserved.

JG- OOPS. You forgot the words "rules of the common law". An assize is a jury of 12 men BUT THEY DON'T act like a common law jury.

GK- Jeff, reread the Declaration of Intent where it says:

All references to a Jury in this constitution refer to a Common Law Jury of twelve jurors selected randomly from the men and women citizens of the respective county in Georgia.

Section 13. No fact tried by a Jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court except to appeal
a conviction.

JG-Sigh. More crap. Where're the rules of the common law?

GK- Jeff. The 'common law' is hereby abolished. Section 14. No individual shall be accused, arrested, or imprisoned except in the cases and
according to the forms prescribed by this constitution.

JG- Statutory law (civil law) is contradictory to the common law!!! Why is this constitution determined to mix up the two?

GK- All forms of statutory law is hereby abolished when it comes to being
applied to citizens of the Republic of Georgia unless they enter into such law
by contract. As all individuals are held innocent until
they shall have been declared guilty by a Common Law Jury of twelve,

JG- Is that "held innocent" in JAIL?

GK- Good point. Changed to: 'As all individuals are held to be innocent of all accusations' if arrest shall be
deemed indispensable, all harshness not essential to the securing of the prisoner's person
shall be severely repressed. No individual shall be held for indictment by a people's grand Jury
to answer for any criminal charge without a confirmation of an accusation by an accuser. No
individual shall be held for trial without first being held for and receiving an indictment by a
people's grand Jury. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for
crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the Republic of
Georgia, or any place subject to its jurisdiction.

JG-sigh. What about an injured party's sworn oath or affirmation, under penalty of perjury?

GK- Oaths and affirmations are prohibited by God's Common Law.  
Section 15. In all cases where an accused shall be tried by Jury, the Jury shall have the Right
to determine the Law, the facts and the penalty in every particular whatsoever as they pertain
to the accused by applying the following applications of Law in the following order:

First: There must be a victim who has been caused hardship or damage. Crimes that are
solely against God, are left for God to deal with.

Second: The Supreme Law of the Land known as the Common Law of God is to be found in
the Christian Holy Scriptures and applied to the facts of the case, tempered by the
wisdom and observations of the Jury, and

Third: This Constitution, being the supreme Law in Georgia under the Supreme Law of the
Land known as the Common Law of God, must be adhered to, and

Fourth: The terms, conditions and responsibilities of any Lawful contract, properly
agreed to by the parties, must be applied.

Fifth: All other forms of law that are foreign to the Common Law of God, such as
maritime, admiralty, statutory, commercial, or equity and others not named herein, are
hereby abolished.

JG- HAW HAW HAW. You just abolished the constitution. It's authority is COMMERCIAL. If it isn't then you can compel your public officials to work FOR NOTHING. Can you? NOPE.

GK- Not so. You give too much credit to the crown law again. Contracts can be entered into under
Common Law without them being 'commercial'. The common law is composed of justice, reason and common sense, and NOT STRICT RULES AND REGULATIONS (as is Statutory / civil law). If you make strict rules, and call it Common Law, it isn't.
It's like a vegetarian cannibal - mutually exclusive terms. GK- But where God makes rules, Common Law dwells. Section 16. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused must be afforded a speedy public trial, by
an impartial Jury of twelve of his peers

JG-Citizens? Sovereigns? Residents?

GK- One of the few good questions you have asked yet.
I suppose what I read in Black's law would be safe on this one:
'Equals; those whoare a man's equals in rank and station; thus "trial by a jury of his peers" means trial by jury
of citizens.' Any complaints? in the county wherein the crime shall have been
committed, unless the accused consent to another county; the accused shall have the Right to
demand the nature and cause of the accusation; the accused shall not be compelled to give
evidence against himself; the accused shall have the Right of being heard by himself or
counsel, or both; shall be confronted with the witnesses against him who may not testify
anonymously, and shall have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; shall
have access to evidence relating to the accusation and adequate time to prepare a defense;
any individual may serve as counsel for any accused individual according to the choice of the
accused and the consent of the individual chosen as counsel. Government may not impose
qualifications or license requirements on counsel nor otherwise limit the Right to counsel.
Section 17. All prisoners shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, unless for accusation of
criminal acts resulting in the death of any individual, when the proof is evident or the
presumption great; this provision shall not be so construed as to prohibit bail after the
indictment is found to be returnable on a writ of habeas corpus, as provided in the Constitution
below; excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel or unusual
punishment unknown to the Common Law of God inflicted; all
Government courts shall be
open, and every person, for an injury done him in his lands, goods, person, or reputation, shall
have remedy by due process of Law; no person, for the same offense, shall be twice put in
jeopardy of life, limb, liberty, or property, nor shall a person be again put upon trial for the
same offense after a verdict of not guilty; and the Right of trial by Jury shall remain inviolate.
No individual shall be deprived of life, liberty, property, or privileges, outlawed, exiled, or in
any manner disfranchised, except by due course of Law.

Section 18. The sure and certain defense of a free people is a well regulated militia; and it shall
be the duty of the government to organize the people that volunteer their services into the
organized militia. Treason against this Republic shall consist only in levying war against it, or
adhering to enemy belligerents, giving them aid and support. No soldier shall be quartered in
any house, without the consent of the owner, expressed in written contract for which
consideration is paid by the government. The security of the Rights of Georgians requires
public military forces.

JG- I thought a standing army was the bane of liberty?

GK- Unpaid volunteers, every one. These forces are, therefore, established for the good of all and not for
the personal advantage of those to whom they shall be intrusted.

Section 19. No title of nobility, hereditary privileges or honors, shall ever be granted or
conferred by government.

JG-Wrong. The prohibition is on FOREIGN titles of nobility. Isn't "Your honor" or "Your excellency" a title bestowed by government?

GK- Under Georgia Constitution there is no such title. Section 20. Each individual has a Right to decide, personally, as to the necessity of the
consideration paid; to pay this freely upon entering into the contract or upon agreeing to its
annual renewal. Citizens of the Republic of Georgia have a Right to know to what uses all
monies paid to government are put.

Section 21. Each individual has the Right of privacy, to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and possessions from all unreasonable seizures or searches; and no warrant to search
any place, or to seize any person or thing, shall issue, without describing them in particular as
near as may be, nor without probable cause supported by
confirmation in writing;

JG-ACK - no sworn oath or affirmation under penalty of perjury?

GK- What for? A confirmation will suffice. Section 22. The writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended;

No bill of attainder, ex post facto Law, retroactive Law, or any Law impairing the obligation of
Lawful contracts shall be made.

JG-BINGO- you just blew away most of this constitution.

GK- Where? Did I miss something back in Patriot law school 101?  
Section 23. No person shall ever be imprisoned for debt.

JG-Why? Aren't non-custodial parents incarcerated for debt caused by their "contract" under Social Security?

GK- Under the U.S. CON, yes. Section 24. The military shall at all times be subordinate to the civil authority.

Section 25. Inheritance taxes, perpetuities and monopolies are contrary to the genius of a
true Republic, and shall never be established by Government.

JG- Are you abolishing corporations?

GK- YES. Tell me if this manner will suffice in your opinion:
Subsection 4. Corporations, Banks, and Other Business Organizations

a. All State of Georgia corporation charters shall become null and void on the
date that the Coalition Transition Government is terminated. Prior to that date,
State of Georgia corporations which wish to continue to do business in Georgia must
convert to either a sole proprietorship or an organization defined entirely by
contract.

b. The charters of any State of Georgia chartered banks shall become null and
void on the date that the Coalition Transition Government is terminated. Prior
to that date, State of Georgia chartered banks which wish to continue to do
business in Georgia must convert to either a sole proprietorship or an
organization defined entirely by contract.

c. Business organizations operating on the soil of Georgia after the date that
the Coalition Transition Government is terminated will no longer be able to
depend upon State of Georgia or United States statutory law to partially define
their business organization. Therefore, all business organizations except sole
proprietorships shall reorganize to a sole proprietorship or an organization
based entirely on contract.

d. Corporations chartered by foreign governments may continue to operate on
the soil of Georgia but they will no longer have any special privileges. Such
corporations shall be treated the same as a corporation based entirely on
contract.

When an individual dies without
a will or trust giving instructions for the inheritance of his property, a Common Law Jury of
twelve will decide the outcome with the Common Law of primogeniture found in the Christian
Holy Scriptures as their guide.

JG- Hokey Smokes! What about curtesy and dower? Aren't they the common law rights of inheritance in absence of a will?

GK- Jeff. You are intentionally trying to sabotage this constitution. Curtesy and dower are English crown law table scraps whereby the crown gets to confiscate the remainder of the property. Curtesy and dower is not necessary in a marriage where the marriage is considered to be one Lawful entity.

JG2- Not according to American Common law - the State GETS nothing of a common law estate where there is a survivor eligible under curtesy and dower. Half goes to the children, half to the surviving spouse. If no children, the surviving BLOOD RELATIVES of the deceased have a better claim than the surviving spouse. That's common sense property right law.

  The Jury shall rule according to the Common Law of
primogeniture but may deviate for good cause or reason. The Jury must disclose their good
causes and reasons in open court for distributing the property the way they have decided. This
provision shall not in any way limit the establishment of
perpetuities, monopolies,
primogeniture, or entailments by private contract among
individuals.

JG- I don't trust juries. Especially those who have an axe to grind.

GK- Me too, but a Common Law Jury is the best Jury one can have. Section 26. All individuals have the Right, in a peaceable manner, to assemble together for
their common good, and to apply to those invested with the power of government for redress
of grievances, or other purposes, by petition, address, or
remonstrance.

Section 27. No power of suspending the Constitution by action of the Government exists.

JG- Oh? Then you're saying that the belligerent Confederate States were illegal?

GK- Of course they were.

JG2 - Hooey - Don't say that out loud in Georgia...

                  And no new belligerency is legal?

GK- No. Only one assumed by the government officials and employees. What about the Declaration of independence? GK- It was a hoax written by agents of the English crown.

JG2- Prove that whopper...

Why would most of the signers of the Declaration suffer and die so much if they were in league with their oppressor ?

Gene, whover told you these things cannot prove them unless you suspend reason. If you have lost your reason, nuff said...
GK2- State governments are inferior forms of government compared to a true Republic. They are one step up from a colony. Point to other state governments around the globe besides in the uSofA. None. That should tell you something.

 
  Section 28. All Rights are retained by each individual and shall never be denied, infringed, or
violated in any way except, in the circumstances of conviction of a crime, a tort, or a breach of
contract, by due process of Law as defined in this constitution, and then only as directed in the
particular case.

JG-OH MY ACHING FINGERS! This is horrible. To combine common law, equity, and admiralty / maritime into one mish mash... Ouch ouch ouch. If a person is convicted of a parking ticket, under his admiralty maritime contract for commercial use of the public roads, then can his rights be summarily violated? That's what this clause implies. You can't mix differing laws into one.

GK- Those forms of law are hereby abolished unless the individual is an official or employee of the government.
There will be no parking ticket, under admiralty maritime contract for commercial use of the public roads.  
Section 29. This constitution can only prohibit such actions as directly cause harm.

JG-WRONG. If a government has the authority over itself, it can prohibit ANYTHING internal to it. Otherwise, it is without power to compel its people to do anything.

GK- Good point. Changed wording as follows, thank you:
Section 29. This constitution can only prohibit such actions that are strictly internal to it. Nothing
may be prevented which is not forbidden by this constitution, and no one may be forced to do
anything other than stand trial when accused of a crime or tort by a grand Jury unless
provided for by contract, freely, knowingly, and competently entered, for which consideration
has been paid.

Article 2. Powers Denied to Government

Section 1. Government has no inherent rights or powers, neither implicit nor explicit. This
constitution assigns certain functions to the artificial entities called governments created by
this constitution and authorizes those artificial entities to take certain actions necessary to
accomplish the assigned functions. No national or county government entity or official shall
assume any function or authorization not specifically assigned or authorized by this
constitution.

Section 2. Government shall never infringe the rights of
individuals nor modify any
governmental processes, duties, responsibilities, or form of government as specified in this
constitution.

Section 3. Government shall never operate outside the limits of a budget which shall never
exceed ninety percent of the revenue

GK- Monies. JG- In what form is this revenue? Monies? Service? collected the previous year.
 
 

Example:

Yr.\Georgia
Budget
Revenue
1999

0
2000
0
86,000
2001
77,400
120,000
2002
108,000
94,000
2003
84,600
5,700,000
2004
5,130,000

TOTAL
5,400,000
6,000,000

The example given shows that the total accumulated budgets will always equal 90% of total
accumulated revenue. This means that the government will always have an average of a 10%
surplus, will always be in the black and never in the red. Any monies not spent as budgeted
must be counted as revenue for the following year.

JG- Not bad. But impractical. There is no consideration for the exigencies of war.

GK- What do you suggest? A standing army?

JG2- I refer to borrowing the means to pay for that which is used in the defense of rights. You forbid it - in grave error.

Section 4. Government shall never grant monopolies or perpetuities nor in any way restrict or
control the free flow of trade within or across the geographical boundaries of Georgia.

JG- Why not? Would you like the free flow of trade in nuclear waste upon your neighborhood streets? And what if they leaked? OOPS...

GK- If any damages occur, I'm sure that a Common Law Jury would decide a proper and fitting punishment. Section 5. Government shall never restrict individuals from assembling to train with arms for
the individual or collective defense of life, liberty, or property.

JG-Check the laws. They already do that.

GK- Yawn.

JG2 -SERIOUSLY - there are no prohibitions on PRIVATE PROPERTY. Only on "real estate" / personal property, etc.

  Section 6. Government shall never restrict nor control the
manufacture, sale, purchase,
ownership, use, storage, transportation, or carrying of any arms, parts, accessories, or
ammunition.

JG-Ditto. The laws are only upon "their" people.

Section 7. Government shall never issue charters, licenses, certificates of competency, nor
any form of recognition or registration for any organization or individual.

JG- Then this abolishes civil liberty. Not good. A medical license allows a man to commit manslaughter in the cause of healing. If you abolish his license, the first death of a patient will end his career.

GK- This is where contract law takes over. A proper contract can adequately protect the doctor.

JG2- Too many opportunities for people who are desperately in need to surrender their rights via contract. Can you say : duress?

  Section 8. Government shall never promote, control, nor interfere with any religious or
philosophical organization or activity.

JG- I don't think this is quite right. I don't want the Fraternal Order of Cannibals to use the public roads and buildings for their "roasts".

GK- Finally another good point. Reworded as follows:

Section 8. Government shall never of its own accord, without a Jury verdict
pertaining to the instant case, promote, control, nor interfere with any
religious or philosophical organization or activity, except in the interiors
of government buildings not designated for such use.

 
Section 9. Government shall never restrict nor control the free flow of ideas using any present
or future form or medium of expression.

JG- Hey, let's start using cadavers as our medium of expression. That would be protected, wouldn't it?

GK- Another good point. Reworded as follows:
Section 9. Government shall never of its own accord, without a Jury verdict
pertaining to the instant case, restrict nor control the free flow of
ideas using any present or future form or medium of expression. Section 10. Government shall never invade the privacy of any individual without due process
of Law.

JG- Why give it any power to invade privacy? If privacy isn't private, then what is it? Publicity? It's like being a little bit pregnant...

GK- Any suggestions? How about this:
Section 10. Government shall never invade the privacy of any individual
without probable cause, a proper and duly authorized warrant, and other
protections of due process of Law unless the officer is in hot pursuit
or the officer is a witness to an actual Common Law crime committed in his
presence. Section 11. Government shall never operate, own, control, nor fund any means of education
not specifically related to performing the functions of government authorized by this
constitution.

Section 12. Government shall never infringe the right of the free movement of individuals
within or across the geographical boundaries of Georgia.

JG- What about fugitives?

GK- Is this better?
Section 12. Government shall never infringe the right of the free movement
of individuals within or across the geographical boundaries of Georgia
without probable cause, a proper and duly authorized warrant, and other
protections of due process of Law unless the officer is in hot pursuit
or the officer is a witness to an actual Common Law crime committed in his
presence. Section 13. Government shall never borrow money nor pledge the assets of individuals or
non-governmental organizations.

JG- Why? Should they just steal what they need?

GK- What about:
Section 13. Government shall never pledge the assets of
individuals or non-governmental organizations nor borrow money unless
loaned voluntarily by a willing creditor to the government at zero interest. Section 14. Government shall never offer nor provide gifts, subsidies, or assistance of any kind
to any individual, group of individuals, organization, or nation other than that provided for in
this constitution.

JG- Dangerous. Never give qualified power. That's what a back seat driver is. Give responsibility AND power.

GK- See no problem here. Section 15. Government shall never accept gifts, subsidies, or assistance of any kind from any
foreign government, organization, or nation other than that provided for in this constitution.

Section 16. Government shall never issue currency nor cause currency to be issued.

JG- Why not? According to definition of real money and money, a certificate of deposit of real money is still money. Are you forcing people to use species coin?

GK- How's this:
Section 16. Government shall never issue currency nor cause currency to be
issued. This does not prevent government from paying in currency. Section 17. No organization established, controlled, employed, or enabled by government
shall violate any part of this constitution.

Section 18. Government shall never own title to any real property which is not specifically
authorized by this constitution.

JG- Why not restrict title to custody.

GK- Because then they may get the idea of gaining custody of everything. Section 19. Government shall never restrict individuals from freely associating or assembling.

JG- Why not? Assembly of pig farmers in front of a synagogue isn't nice...

GK- How's this:
Section 19. Government shall never of its own accord, without a Jury verdict
pertaining to the instant case, restrict individuals from freely
associating or assembling, except in the interiors of government buildings not
designated for such use.
 
 

JG2- Prior restraint isn't constitutional. You can't effectively deal with it in your definition.

Section 20. Government shall never extend payment, credit, gifts, subsidies, endowments,
retirement benefits, nor anything else of value or worth to any individual beyond the time of
actual service to the government in whatever capacity.

JG- NO pensions?

GK- Not for government workers. Section 21. Government shall never impose taxation of any kind.

JG- How does it get revenue?

GK- Read the whole constitution at:
<http://www.no-debts.com/anti-federalist/georgia.html> Section 22. Government shall never own methods of extracting any mineral, including water,
from it's source.
 
 

JG-Stupid. You can ban a teakettle from the government because it might extract alcohol by distillation.

GK- Agreed. Took it out. Section 23. Government shall never regulate the use of publicly owned rights of way.

JG-Stupid. If they aren't in charge, WHO IS?

GK- God.

JG2- Then let Him pave the roads and pcik up the trash ;-)

  Section 24. Government shall never impose emergency powers nor suspend any part of this
constitution, neither in time of war nor for any other reason.

JG- This is a ghastly document that is so ignorant of law that it makes one shudder at the widespread dissemination of it.
This is disinformation of the worst kind, damning generations into a "Holy War" to defend customs as laws, and deny the real protections of LAW. Jeff Ganaposki

GK- No Jeff. You've been disinformed since birth. As smart as you are you have no solutions other than to allow the present tyranny to plunder the people. That's not an acceptable solution.

JG2- My solution is first: education, then second: free choice. The option to be a sovereign is still the "law of the land".
You've been promoting a 'national sales tax', promoting the present form of government in Washington, D.C. that has strangled the Republics, and have criticized the Republic of Texas.

JG2- I have amended my "National Retail Sales Tax" to apply ONLY to transactions in privileged current monies. There can be no legal tax on transactions in lawful money. Therefore, there is a blanket exemption for using gold or silver coin.
Yet you have written some other very good books. But you have no solutions.

JG2 - You can't legislate morality. You can only punish deliberate injury. You can only encourage compensation for innocent injury. Everything else is not a topic of law, but of policy.
This constitutions greatly curtails corporations and usury. Show me a better constitution

JG2- Teach people the truth and let them decide for themselves. Anything else is tyranny that is a worse cure.
for Georgia and I'll consider it.
Thanks, also, for the constructive criticism in the remaining areas. That much I can appreciate.
gene karl

 
jetgraphics@... <mailto:jetgraphics@...>
<http://www.geocities.com/jetgraphics> Disclaimer: Nothing in this rebuttal is presumed to be the "last word" nyah nyah. ;-)

Even if that were the case, they are still harrassing you by your
own admission that you despise usury and corporate limited liability
and dividends, which is another form of usury.

Their system is corrupt. It is the same form of law that the early
Americans fought against. ALL CRIMES ARE AGAINST THE STATE.
That right there ought to tell you something and make all kinds
of alarms go off in your head.

The government loves 'crime' because they profit from crime,
pure and simple.

gene karl

J Ganaposki wrote:

hI gENE: Yipes - I forgot to turn off the flame thrower... sheesh. mea culpa. In any event. . . Opposing tyranny is a tough racket. The oddest thing I have uncovered, is that the "law" is 100% on target.The problem is that we put ourselves in front of that target - OUCH...So before you act to CHANGE the law, you had better ascertain if the law you are replacing is no worse than the law you enact. After thoroughly examining the old court cites on "excluded" classes, all the "nasty" laws now make sense. For example, gun control.The law actually only controls FEDERAL SUBJECTS.I applaud disarming FEDERALES.The mistake is made when all peoples presume they are SUBJECTS and obey these laws by MISTAKE! 
Another excluded class: paupers. Since these folks are parasites on the body politic, it is truly WISE to make their lives unpleasant in exchange for access to charity from the public treasury. Sad to note, any participant in the Social Security system is deemed a pauper - and thus IS SUBJECT TO ANNOYING ACTIONS OF GOVERNMENT... If you didn't give them consent, they wouldn't harass you. Anecdote:In dec 1998, I was stopped by Traffic Gestapo. I tendered a passport. I declared I didn't have a license. The officer stated that he would have to let me go!Unfortunately, their traffic records erroneously stated that I had a suspended license - then he arrested me.If I never had a license - their jurisdiction wouldn't have been legal.See?We make ourselves into targets. The best solution is to GET THE RECORD STRAIGHT. Ciao,

Dear Gene: The authors of this Constitution make several errors that negate the effect of it.
I shall mark my comments with JG-
http://www.no-debts.com/anti-federalist/gaconsti.html
Constitution 2000 for The Republic of Georgia

                                Declaration of Intent

    I. We hold that God's Law is the Supreme Law of the Land, JG- "Law of the Land" refers to common law - not biblical law. Common law derives many of its concepts from Anglo-Saxon principles such as the Man-Bote & Kine-Bote - paying a price for the murder of a man or animal. Biblical law is "eye for an eye" and it is not the "common law".

GK - NO. "Law of the Land" refers to God's Common Law. "law of the land" refers to common law of the crown of England.
 

 above and  beyond any mere constitution or act of man, and that from these Supreme Laws come     our God-given Rights. JG- Rights aren't what you think. A human's "right to life" isn't protection against a lion's "right to life" - especially when the lion is hungry and you're about to be eaten. Your right to life is useless unless defended against attack.  Both have God given rights!

GK- Only if not defended.
 

    II. We hold that crimes are against God and the victim, not against     any form of government. JG- How is God an injured party?

GK- When you sin against God, He grieves, I assure you.
      We hold that victims should be compensated JG- The Biblical suggested compensation is 100% for civil, 120% for criminal injury.

GK- The penalities spelled out in the Bible are a little more complicated, but you have
the general idea.

  , in court where possible, or under court order, in accordance with the scriptures and judgment of a Common Law Jury. JG- Common law jury is a prerogative of sovereigns. Since the State is a servant, it has no sovereign prerogatives to convene a common law jury, unlike the English sovereigns who do convene common law courts. The 7th amendment already guarantees "rules of the common law".
GK- Only God has absolute sovereignty. 'common law' again is crown law the same form of law as English crown law.

     We hold that this compensation shall come from the party or parties found guilty as     punishment for their crime.
    We hold that government shall not profit from acts of crime. All     references to a Jury in this
    constitution refer to a Common Law Jury of twelve jurors selected     randomly from the men and
    women citizens of the respective county in Georgia. JG- At the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, all common law courts were abolished. You can't have a constitutional government AND the common law.

GK- Your argument is in conflict with your earlier admission that 'The 7th amendment already guarantees "rules of the common law".' Again you mistake Common Law for common law (crown law).
    III. We hold that the people of Georgia are free to create a new     government in accordance
    with the precedents set by the following authorities: JG-Whoa. You are mixing apples and oranges. People are sovereign. Citizens are subjects. Those who create the government submit themselves to it. Only those who remain free inhabitants are sovereign.

GK- People are only 'sovereign' to a degree under God when they obey God's Laws. People are also subjects under
King Jesus. And although Citizens and citizens may be 'subjects' they can still have God-given Rights.
 
 

          The Christian Holy Bible;

JG-Which version? With or without tampering?

GK-
The standard reference for the Common Law of God for this Constitution shall be found in the King James Version with reference to 'The New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible', Copyright 1984 by Thomas Nelson Publishers, ISBN 0-8407-5360-8, for indepth meaning and intent. The interpretation of the meaning and intent of the Common Law of God found in the Scriptures and the degree of application of the Law to the facts of each case is left up to local people at the county level through their powers on the people's Common Law Jury.

 

          The Declaration of Independence in 1776;

JG-It's already Statute #1 in the Statutes at Large.

 

          The Rules and Regulations of the Colony of Georgia 1776 where       it says: "the people, with
          whom all power originates, and for whose benefit all
      government is intended..."

JG- Colony of Georgia is a creation of the English Crown. Wrong authority.

 
 

          The Constitution of Georgia; February 5, 1777 where it says:       "... the people, from whom
          all power originates, and for whose benefit all government is       intended..."

JG-But there are exclusions.

 

          The Georgia Constitution of 1789 where it says: "Article VIII.       All powers not delegated by
          the constitution, as amended, are retained by the people."

JG-But there are exclusions.

 

          The Georgia Constitution of 1861 where it says:
          "ARTICLE I - DECLARATION OF FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES           1. The fundamental principles of Free Government cannot be too       well understood, nor
          too often recurred to.

          2. God has ordained that men shall live under government;

JG- Where? Didn't the Israelites BEG for a King? There was no Divine ordination for monarchy. I think this CONstitution is a fraud.

 
 but       as the forms and
          administration of civil government are in human, and
      therefore, fallible hands, they may
          be altered, or modified whenever the safety or happiness of       the governed requires it. No
          government should be changed for light or transient causes;       nor unless upon reasonable
          assurance that a better will be established.

JG-This is heifer dung. The author doesn't understand law - only policy. All law is the protection of property rights, all else is policy, and policy requires consent. "Forms and administration" are policy. That's internal to government and not a subject of a compact.

 
          3. Protection to person and property is the duty of
      Government; and a Government which
          knowingly and persistently denies, or withholds from the       governed such protection,
          when within its power, releases from the obligation of       obedience.

JG- Duh - see Declaration of Independence. BUT THERE ARE EXCLUDED CLASSES. See Articles of Confederation (Art  IV).

 
          17. Legislative Acts in violation of the fundamental law are       void; and the Judiciary shall
          so declare them.

JG- Waste of time. All laws already have the catch all term "shall". Read the definition of the terms: shall, may, mandatory and directory. Courts can negate a law at a whim.

 

          27. The enumeration of rights herein contained shall not be       construed to deny to the
          people any inherent rights which they have hitherto enjoyed."

JG- But all people aren't citizens, citizens have privileges and immunities that may require the surrender of rights.
 

 
    IV. We hold that the foundation of this nation is that an
    individual's body, life, labor, ideas,
    thoughts, and material possessions that the individual has created     or acquired without
    coercion are that individual's property and that no individual,     majority, society, or
    government may legitimately take or control an individual's     property without that individual's
    consent.

JG- Restatement of the obvious - at first. BUT the foundation isn't what you think. Do you agree that bankruptcy is against God's law?

Or do you think that screwing a creditor is moral?

JG- Who is "we"? According to the GA supreme court, the US CON is a compact, but no private person is party to it. Is this another fraud to entrap people in to another contract?
    V. We hold that the foundation of our economy shall be the free     market system unfettered by
    intrusions of government and based upon the free and voluntary     exchange of goods and
    services.

JG- Who makes the money?

Who controls the creation of the medium of exchange?

A "free market" is a fraud without money powers.

Recall that government can only "coin" money - not create it. Who is making the money??????

 

    VI. We hold that peaceful relations with other nations is based     upon the concept of mutual
    respect and that war and other interference in the affairs of other     nations serves only to
    destroy such peaceful relations. It is therefore declared that     Georgia shall remain neutral in
    the affairs of, and between, other nations.

JG- War is piracy or the defense against piracy. And Georgia is forbidden by its agreement under the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION to get involved in international affairs. P.S. the Articles created a perpetual UNION.

 
                                        Preamble

    We, the people of Georgia, in order to form a lasting government,     establish justice, insure
    domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty

JG- Which liberty? There are 4 types: natural, personal, civil, political.

to     ourselves and our posterity,
    acknowledging and invoking the guidance of Almighty God, the Author     of all good government,

JG- Presumptious and preposterace.

GK- It seems you laugh in the face of God.

God hasn't authored a thing.

If He has, show me His copyright and Agent's office. "Inspired" men claimed to be guided in their writings-  and that includes just about every religion on the planet (except Scientology ;-) 

do ordain and establish this constitution for the Republic of     Georgia:

                        Article 1. Declaration of Rights

    Section 1. In order that the general, great, and essential
    principles of God-given Rights
    associated with Life, Liberty, Property and a true Republic

JG- Republic IS NOT A Republican form of government. 

may be     recognised and established
    we declare that this declaration of Rights is a part of this     Constitution and of our Contract,

JG- BINGO - who are the parties obligated to perform?

Under the Constitution, it's only those who take an oath. What is this scam peddling?

 
 and
    shall never be violated under any pretense whatsoever. In order to     guard against the
    transgression of the powers we have delegated to government, we     declare that every Right
    defined in this Declaration of Rights is reserved to the people.     Rights not enumerated,
    including God-given Rights not yet expressed or conceived, exist to     the extent that no Right
    as such may impose an obligation on any individual except to     respect that Right in others.

JG- Wrongo. One who exercises the "political right" to join the military can be compelled to surrender his life, on orders, to secure the rights of another. 

All
    such non-enumerated Rights are reserved to the people. All powers     not specifically delegated
    to Government are reserved to the people. The specification of     these Rights in a certain order
    is not intended to prioritize the Rights or to indicate a hierarchy     of Rights, but is provided for
    convenience.

JG- Do you know that the term: convenience isn't what you think ? Legalese is legal for a specific reason - intelligibility.

 
    Section 2. Each individual has the inherent God-given Right to life     and of life from physical
    conception to natural death.

JG-So? What's stopping the hungry lion's right to life?

 

    Section 3. Each individual has the inherent Right of liberty, which     is the unrestrained exercise
    of free will,

JG- NO, liberty is not that - Natural liberty is close. But that's only exercised upon private property.
Liberty, in general, 1700s term, refered to in  "Give me liberty or give me death" is the "freedom to act without prior PERMISSION" - like Ship's Liberty and Shore Leave. 

which shall never be infringed provided the exercise     thereof does not violate the
    Rights of any other individual.

JG- WHOA. Do you have the right to fart? In an enclosed space? Isn't that a violation of my rights? Can't you see that this is absurdity?

 
 Liberty consists in the freedom to     do everything which injures
    no one else;

JG- Wrong. Liberty is freedom to act without permission, in general. Natural liberty is the freedom from restrictions save that of Natural Law (gravity, thermodynamics) - and limited to private property. Personal liberty is the freedom of travel upon the public highways and waterways. And those "liberties" may be constrained by custom (Rules of the Road!).
 hence the exercise of the natural Rights of each man     has no limits except those
    which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of     the same Rights.

JG- BAD BAD BAD. Never give a blanket exemption or obligation. BE SPECIFIC.
For example, if I have a right to life, but am poor, can I DEMAND that government help "secure" my rights with charity from the public treasury? By this constitution, I CAN. That's SOCIALISM.
EGADS! Socialism = Piracy upon the productive for the benefit of the non-productive.

 
    Section 4. Each individual's body, life, labor, ideas, thoughts,     and possessions that the
    individual has Lawfully created or acquired are that individual's     property.

JG-Did you create yourself? Or did your parents?

 
 Each individual has
    the inherent Right of the ownership,

JG- Wrong. Tell it to the slaveowners. Tell it to the chattels and wards. And who shall enforce that right of ownership? Is it private property or "personal" property? 

non-coercive acquisition, and     use of property. Since
    property is an inviolable and sacred Right,

JG- Who says so? Aren't convicts denied rights? Are convicts less protected by sacred law? Where? 

no one shall be     deprived thereof except where
    public necessity shall clearly demand it,

JG- Mob rule. "We" declare that the rights of <fill in the blank> no longer exist. BAH.

and then only on
    condition that the owner shall have
    consented and been compensated under contract entered freely,

JG-Oh really? Imagine a war. Imagine troops need to hide in your barn. You aren't there to give consent. Do they wait - and die? Or go ahead and hide? 

knowingly, and competently.

    Section 5. Each individual has the inherent Right of defending the     life, liberty, or property of
    any individual using whatever force is necessary, through whatever     means available,
    including the use of deadly force.

JG- Does that include "individuals" who promised to protect my hide? And now can take a pot-shot at me? JG- Even when misled? Such as in the case of a woman thief yelling "rape! murder!" Do you want people to just shoot any poor sod she accuses? And does that include public as well as private property?
If you extend that to private property, then a trespasser has the right to shoot the owner who is defending HIS OWN PROPERTY!

 
    Section 6. Each individual has the inherent Right of owning, using,     and carrying arms of any
    description.

JG-Oh really? How about a "dead-man" bomb that ignites on your death. So that an accident like a heart attack can take out a whole group of people?

 

    Section 7. Law must be the same for all, whether it protects or     punishes.

JG- WRONG. Contract law is only binding upon those who are parties to the contract.

Who are the parties to THIS CONTRACT?

GK- Whoever ratifies.
 

Which law? No constitutional law can impair the obligations of contracts? What about impossible contracts, like usury? What about gambling, via insurance?

 
 All individuals, when
    they form a social compact such as a constitution,

JG- FRAUD. The constitution is not a "social compact"...Specific performance is required of the parties to the compact. Who signed the constitution? My copy says it was only "witnessed". There are no identified parties in the U.S. Constitution. 

have equal     Rights, and are equally eligible
    to all dignities and to contract for any public positions

JG- Dangerous mishmash of natural liberty, and political liberty.

 
According to court cites, the exercise of political liberty impairs "other" rights. Ben Franklin stated that public service must be a drop in status (loss of rights) otherwise the servant shall become the master. This CONstitution is slavery.

 
 or     occupations, according to their
    abilities, and without distinction except that of their virtues and     talents. The social compact of
    marriage or any act which produces a human fetus, through sexual     intercourse or otherwise,
    is recognized to be the Lawful union of a man and a woman into a     family unit which becomes
    one Lawful entity.

JG-Marriage is for the protection of property rights to the next generation. Under the common law, "rights" of curtesy and dower do not exist if there are no children issued from the marriage. Modern licensed marriages are for people who don't have property rights (such as foreigners, slaves and bondsmen). Fetus protection is already a fact - see feticide. Forget "Lawful union", the real issue is who has a claim upon a parent's property. Without a marriage contract, a bastard child can't claim his father's inheritance under the common law.

 
 As such there can only be one recognized head of     this Lawful entity,
    therefore, unless the woman is declared to be the head of the     family unit on the marriage
    agreement confirmation paper, the man is recognized as the head of     the family under the
    authority of the Common Law.

JG- Oh really? Are you refering to the sole duty of support a man has until he is deprived of the custody and possession of chattels and wards? And who IS the authority of the common law? Is it a sovereign or a subject? Are you aware of the common law naming convention? He who names a thing, controls that thing. That's why a woman took her husband's name, to signify his control & duty of support. When a woman does not take her husband's name, he is absolved of the duty of support. Why bother with enacting constitutions to "enforce" the custom? 

In the case of separation or divorce of various members of a     natural family,

JG-Common law divorce? Or statutory? What is an unnatural family?

the children are to
    remain or be reunited with the father as Lawful custodian and     guardian unless there is a
    marriage agreement confirmation paper that declares the mother to     be the head of the family,

JG- BAD LAW. Mixes up property right law with possessory law. A woman "makes" a baby in her body and if she takes off with "her child" a man cannot compel her to surrender to him that which she made. The best he can demand is that he is absolved of any duties to the woman and child(ren).   

in which case the children are to remain or be reunited with the     mother as Lawful custodian
    and guardian.

JG- Custody is not ownership. These are mixed concepts. Children are the property of freemen. Children of slaves are in the custody of slaves. Which type does this law infer? Recall in "Tom Sawyer" that Huck Finn's drunken father had ABSOLUTE power and only on his death did the townsfolk "take in" the orphaned Huck.

 
 Children born out of wedlock are naturally recognized     to have their natural
    fathers to be their Lawful custodian and guardian.

JG-EGAD! You have just violated EVERY property right principle in the Bible and common law.
Without a compact (marriage) a child IS NOT THE Property of the father - unless he gave birth to it.

 
    Lawful custodians and guardians of children shall honor the natural     bonds, ties and
    relationships that a child should have with both parents and make     all attempts to be
    reasonable and allow the other parent to have access and physical     custody of the child for
    one-half of the time of the child's life as a minor under the age     of 18 years of age unless a
    Common Law Jury has ruled that the Law requires restrictions to     access and physical custody
    of the child upon a guilty verdict declared by the same Common Law     Jury which shall declare
    what those restrictions to access and physical custody of the child     actually are.

JG- More heifer dung that denies the LAWFUL powers of the owners of children. Under such laws, a religious recluse would be obligated to "share" his children with those he feels is unrighteous, etc.. etc. 

Section 8. Any individual whatsoever, of any background, religious     faith, creed, ethnic or

    national origin, gender, or age may enter into any Lawful contract     provided they do so
    willingly, knowingly, and competently.

JG- What do you define as "lawful"? Contract murder? Voluntary servitude?

 
 When the competency of any     party to a contract is
    questioned by any other party to the contract, or by the guardians,     heirs, or assigns of the
    party in question, a Jury of twelve will decide competency based     solely on whether, in the
    judgement of a simple majority of jurors, the party in question is     competent to understand
    and faithfully execute the terms of the contract as written.

JG- Where does a jury get the power to decide competency? For what purpose? Who's benefit?

 
    Section 9. All political power is inherent in God,

JG- If "God's Kingdom" is here, on Earth, perhaps. But according to Scripture THIS IS NOT GOD'S KINGDOM.

 the Father,     Creator of the Universe,

JG- Who told you? God? When? Where? Or was it "inspired men?" 

and all  true Republics

JG-The term:republic refers only to a nation, not the form of government. Rome was a "true Republic" but not a republican form of government for the people weren't sovereign. Same is true for the "People's Republic of China".

 
 are founded on God's Authority,

JG- religious presumption. Unprovable. 

the Author of all     true Law,

JG- You can start a religious war with that one. Consider Kosher dietary laws. Are those God's laws? Is it really not Kosher to mix milk and meat on the same plate? Or is the prohibition on boiling the kid in the milk of its dam?Consider the Catholic liturgy with its ritual cannibalism.
Wake up and smell the coffee! 

and instituted for the
    people's benefit and exist by the will of God

JG- The "will of God" according to Jesus is "Love God / Love neighbor". If God gave free will then His Will is:"You are FREE." Anything else is not "free will". Can you say: oxymoron?

GK- Nothing contradictory about it.

 and the people to     support the will of God;

JG-Ethnocentric and religious self-righteousness. 

and
    although each individual has at all times the unalienable Right to     alter, reform, or abolish his
    form of government in any manner they believe proper, at any time,     the individual has no
    authority to attempt to change the true Laws of God, the Creator,     hereby referred to as the
    Common Law of God found in the Christian Holy Scriptures.

JG- COMPLETE FALSEHOOD. Common law is not entirely biblical.

And Christianity, as currently practiced, doesn't even comply with the Bible. [See references to the abomination of usury in Ezekiel 18:13].

What goofy laws this constitution presents are merely customs and practices that are sectarian.

The     standard reference for the
    Common Law of God for this Constitution shall be found in the King     James Version with
    reference to 'The New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the     Bible', Copyright 1984 by
    Thomas Nelson Publishers, ISBN 0-8407-5360-8, for indepth meaning     and intent.

JG- Not in "my kingdom"! God's laws are written in my heart.

The
    interpretation of the meaning and intent of the Common Law of God     found in the Scriptures
    and the degree of application of the Law to the facts of each case     is left up to local people at
    the county level through their powers on the people's Common Law     Jury.

JG- AH HAH. Now the "supreme law" is now merely at the people's pleasure. BAH. If you can re-interpret law to allow for the injury to person and property, there is no law.

 
    Section 10. All individuals have a natural and indefeasible Right     to worship God according to
    the dictates of their own consciences; no individual shall be     compelled to attend, erect, or
    support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against     his consent;

JG-So? Is there proof of the contrary now? 

no human
    authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with     the Rights of conscience in
    matters of religion; no preference shall ever be given by Law to     any religious or philosophical
    societies or mode of worship;

JG- Bull! If a religious cannibal wants to eat me, for religious purposes, I will not honor his "rights of conscience".

 it shall be the duty of the
    Government to protect every religious
    denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of their own mode of public     worship,

JG- Special treatment. I would prefer that government act to protect ALL MEN. To make qualifications, allows the government to disallow a sect, and therefore cease to protect them when the government redefines "unpeaceable" to mean "anti-government". 

if any; nothing
    in this Right and its associated obligations is intended to limit     the Right to proselytize, teach
    one's own faith, or express intolerance of evil.

JG-BAD BAD BAD. No one has a "right to proselytize" on my private property except me. And to waste time about such a law is absurdity. If this "right" is for entering other private property, it is EVIL... If it refers to the public property, I suspect that it will inevitably erode the rights of others who wish to travel upon that public property. Isn't this authorizing a preacher to harrangue in a public courthouse? ICK ICK ICK

    Section 11. The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of     the most precious of the
    Rights of man.

JG- Confusion of rights. A blind man has no "right to see". A cripple has no "right to walk". Why should idiots have a "right to communicate?" I have a right to be left alone!!!!

 Every individual may, accordingly, speak, write,     print and communicate by
    other media with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses     of this freedom as shall
    actually cause harm, as determined by a Jury, and only to the     extent of the harm actually
    caused. The government shall never curtail or license or limit or     regulate or in any manner
    infringe the liberty of speech or of the press, nor of any form of     communication by any medium
    whatsoever.

JG- Read up on libel law, first.

 
    Section 12. In all suits whatsoever, where the value in controversy     shall exceed one troy
    ounce of silver, the Right of trial by Jury shall be preserved.

JG- OOPS. You forgot the words "rules of the common law". An assize is a jury of 12 men BUT THEY DON'T act like a common law jury.

All references to a Jury in this constitution refer to a Common Law Jury of twelve jurors selected randomly from the men and women citizens of the respective county in Georgia.

    Section 13. No fact tried by a Jury shall be otherwise reexamined     in any court except to appeal
    a conviction.

JG-Sigh. More crap. Where're the rules of the common law?

    Section 14. No individual shall be accused, arrested, or imprisoned     except in the cases and
    according to the forms prescribed by this constitution.

JG- Statutory law (civil law) is contradictory to the common law!!! Why is this constitution determined to mix up the two? 

As all     individuals are held innocent until
    they shall have been declared guilty by a Common Law Jury of     twelve,

JG- Is that "held innocent" in JAIL?

if arrest shall be
    deemed indispensable, all harshness not essential to the securing     of the prisoner's person
    shall be severely repressed. No individual shall be held for     indictment by a people's grand Jury
    to answer for any criminal charge without a confirmation of an     accusation by an accuser. No
    individual shall be held for trial without first being held for and     receiving an indictment by a
    people's grand Jury. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude,     except as a punishment for
    crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist     within the Republic of
    Georgia, or any place subject to its jurisdiction.

JG-sigh. What about an injured party's sworn oath or affirmation, under penalty of perjury?

 
    Section 15. In all cases where an accused shall be tried by Jury,     the Jury shall have the Right
    to determine the Law, the facts and the penalty in every particular     whatsoever as they pertain
    to the accused by applying the following applications of Law in the     following order:

          First: There must be a victim who has been caused hardship or       damage. Crimes that are
          solely against God, are left for God to deal with.

          Second: The Supreme Law of the Land known as the Common Law of       God is to be found in
          the Christian Holy Scriptures and applied to the facts of the       case, tempered by the
          wisdom and observations of the Jury, and

          Third: This Constitution, being the supreme Law in Georgia       under the Supreme Law of the
          Land known as the Common Law of God, must be adhered to, and

          Fourth: The terms, conditions and responsibilities of any       Lawful contract, properly
          agreed to by the parties, must be applied.

          Fifth: All other forms of law that are foreign to the Common       Law of God, such as
          maritime, admiralty, statutory, commercial, or equity and       others not named herein, are
          hereby abolished.

JG- HAW HAW HAW. You just abolished the constitution. It's authority is COMMERCIAL. If it isn't then you can compel your public officials to work FOR NOTHING. Can you? NOPE.

The common law is composed of justice, reason and common sense, and NOT STRICT RULES AND REGULATIONS (as is Statutory / civil law).  If you make strict rules, and call it Common Law, it isn't.
It's like a vegetarian cannibal - mutually exclusive terms.

    Section 16. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused must be     afforded a speedy public trial, by
    an impartial Jury of twelve of his peers

JG-Citizens? Sovereigns? Residents? 

in the county wherein the     crime shall have been
    committed, unless the accused consent to another county; the     accused shall have the Right to
    demand the nature and cause of the accusation; the accused shall     not be compelled to give
    evidence against himself; the accused shall have the Right of being     heard by himself or
    counsel, or both; shall be confronted with the witnesses against     him who may not testify
    anonymously, and shall have compulsory process for obtaining     witnesses in his favor; shall
    have access to evidence relating to the accusation and adequate     time to prepare a defense;
    any individual may serve as counsel for any accused individual     according to the choice of the
    accused and the consent of the individual chosen as counsel.     Government may not impose
    qualifications or license requirements on counsel nor otherwise     limit the Right to counsel.
    Section 17. All prisoners shall be bailable by sufficient sureties,     unless for accusation of
    criminal acts resulting in the death of any individual, when the     proof is evident or the
    presumption great; this provision shall not be so construed as to     prohibit bail after the
    indictment is found to be returnable on a writ of habeas corpus, as     provided in the Constitution
    below; excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines     imposed, nor cruel or unusual
    punishment unknown to the Common Law of God inflicted; all
    Government courts shall be
    open, and every person, for an injury done him in his lands, goods,     person, or reputation, shall
    have remedy by due process of Law; no person, for the same offense,     shall be twice put in
    jeopardy of life, limb, liberty, or property, nor shall a person be     again put upon trial for the
    same offense after a verdict of not guilty; and the Right of trial     by Jury shall remain inviolate.
    No individual shall be deprived of life, liberty, property, or     privileges, outlawed, exiled, or in
    any manner disfranchised, except by due course of Law.

    Section 18. The sure and certain defense of a free people is a well     regulated militia; and it shall
    be the duty of the government to organize the people that volunteer     their services into the
    organized militia. Treason against this Republic shall consist only     in levying war against it, or
    adhering to enemy belligerents, giving them aid and support. No     soldier shall be quartered in
    any house, without the consent of the owner, expressed in written     contract for which
    consideration is paid by the government. The security of the Rights     of Georgians requires
    public military forces.

JG- I thought a standing army was the bane of liberty? 

These forces are, therefore, established     for the good of all and not for
    the personal advantage of those to whom they shall be intrusted.

    Section 19. No title of nobility, hereditary privileges or honors,     shall ever be granted or
    conferred by government.

JG-Wrong. The prohibition is on FOREIGN titles of nobility. Isn't "Your honor" or "Your excellency" a title bestowed by government?

    Section 20. Each individual has a Right to decide, personally, as     to the necessity of the
    consideration paid; to pay this freely upon entering into the     contract or upon agreeing to its
    annual renewal. Citizens of the Republic of Georgia have a Right to     know to what uses all
    monies paid to government are put.

    Section 21. Each individual has the Right of privacy, to be secure     in their persons, houses,
    papers, and possessions from all unreasonable seizures or searches;     and no warrant to search
    any place, or to seize any person or thing, shall issue, without     describing them in particular as
    near as may be, nor without probable cause supported by
    confirmation in writing;

JG-ACK - no sworn oath or affirmation under penalty of perjury?

    Section 22. The writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended;

    No bill of attainder, ex post facto Law, retroactive Law, or any     Law impairing the obligation of
    Lawful contracts shall be made.

JG-BINGO- you just blew away most of this constitution.

 
    Section 23. No person shall ever be imprisoned for debt.

JG-Why? Aren't non-custodial parents incarcerated for debt caused by their "contract" under Social Security? 

  Section 24. The military shall at all times be subordinate to the     civil authority.

    Section 25. Inheritance taxes, perpetuities and monopolies are     contrary to the genius of a
    true Republic, and shall never be established by Government.

JG- Are you abolishing corporations? 

a. All State of Georgia corporation charters shall become null and void on the
date that the Coalition Transition Government is terminated. Prior to that date,
State of Georgia corporations which wish to continue to do business in Georgia must
convert to either a sole proprietorship or an organization defined entirely by
contract.

b. The charters of any State of Georgia chartered banks shall become null and
void on the date that the Coalition Transition Government is terminated. Prior
to that date, State of Georgia chartered banks which wish to continue to do
business in Georgia must convert to either a sole proprietorship or an
organization defined entirely by contract.

c. Business organizations operating on the soil of Georgia after the date that
the Coalition Transition Government is terminated will no longer be able to
depend upon State of Georgia or United States statutory law to partially define
their business organization. Therefore, all business organizations except sole
proprietorships shall reorganize to a sole proprietorship or an organization
based entirely on contract.

d. Corporations chartered by foreign governments may continue to operate on
the soil of Georgia but they will no longer have any special privileges. Such
corporations shall be treated the same as a corporation based entirely on
contract.

When     an individual dies without
    a will or trust giving instructions for the inheritance of his     property, a Common Law Jury of
    twelve will decide the outcome with the Common Law of primogeniture     found in the Christian
    Holy Scriptures as their guide.

JG- Hokey Smokes! What about curtesy and dower? Aren't they the common law rights of inheritance in absence of a will? 

The Jury shall rule according to     the Common Law of
    primogeniture but may deviate for good cause or reason. The Jury     must disclose their good
    causes and reasons in open court for distributing the property the     way they have decided. This
    provision shall not in any way limit the establishment of
    perpetuities, monopolies,
    primogeniture, or entailments by private contract among
    individuals.

JG- I don't trust juries. Especially those who have an axe to grind.

    Section 26. All individuals have the Right, in a peaceable manner,     to assemble together for
    their common good, and to apply to those invested with the power of     government for redress
    of grievances, or other purposes, by petition, address, or
    remonstrance.

    Section 27. No power of suspending the Constitution by action of     the Government exists.

JG- Oh? Then you're saying that the belligerent Confederate States were illegal?

And no new belligerency is legal?

What about the Declaration of independence?

    Section 28. All Rights are retained by each individual and shall     never be denied, infringed, or
    violated in any way except, in the circumstances of conviction of a     crime, a tort, or a breach of
    contract, by due process of Law as defined in this constitution,     and then only as directed in the
    particular case.

JG-OH MY ACHING FINGERS! This is horrible. To combine common law, equity, and admiralty / maritime into one mish mash... Ouch ouch ouch. If a person is convicted of a parking ticket, under his admiralty maritime contract for commercial use of the public roads, then can his rights be summarily violated? That's what this clause implies. You can't mix differing laws into one.

 
    Section 29. This constitution can only prohibit such actions as     directly cause harm.

JG-WRONG. If a government has the authority over itself, it can prohibit ANYTHING internal to it. Otherwise, it is without power to compel its people to do anything.

Nothing
    may be prevented which is not forbidden by this constitution, and     no one may be forced to do
    anything other than stand trial when accused of a crime or tort by     a grand Jury unless
    provided for by contract, freely, knowingly, and competently     entered, for which consideration
    has been paid.

                Article 2. Powers Denied to Government

    Section 1. Government has no inherent rights or powers, neither     implicit nor explicit. This
    constitution assigns certain functions to the artificial entities     called governments created by
    this constitution and authorizes those artificial entities to take     certain actions necessary to
    accomplish the assigned functions. No national or county government     entity or official shall
    assume any function or authorization not specifically assigned or     authorized by this
    constitution.

    Section 2. Government shall never infringe the rights of
    individuals nor modify any
    governmental processes, duties, responsibilities, or form of     government as specified in this
    constitution.

    Section 3. Government shall never operate outside the limits of a     budget which shall never
    exceed ninety percent of the revenue

JG- In what form is this revenue? Monies? Service?  collected the previous year.

    Example:

      Yr.\Georgia
                Budget
                        Revenue
      1999

                        0
      2000
                0
                        86,000
      2001
                77,400
                        120,000
      2002
                108,000
                        94,000
      2003
                84,600
                        5,700,000
      2004
                5,130,000

      TOTAL
                5,400,000
                        6,000,000
 

    The example given shows that the total accumulated budgets will     always equal 90% of total
    accumulated revenue. This means that the government will always     have an average of a 10%
    surplus, will always be in the black and never in the red. Any     monies not spent as budgeted
    must be counted as revenue for the following year.

JG- Not bad. But impractical. There is no consideration for the exigencies of war.

    Section 4. Government shall never grant monopolies or perpetuities     nor in any way restrict or
    control the free flow of trade within or across the geographical     boundaries of Georgia.

JG- Why not? Would you like the free flow of trade in nuclear waste upon your neighborhood streets? And what if they leaked? OOPS... 

Section 5. Government shall never restrict individuals from     assembling to train with arms for
    the individual or collective defense of life, liberty, or property.

JG-Check the laws. They already do that.

    Section 6. Government shall never restrict nor control the
    manufacture, sale, purchase,
    ownership, use, storage, transportation, or carrying of any arms,     parts, accessories, or
    ammunition.

JG-Ditto. The laws are only upon "their" people.

    Section 7. Government shall never issue charters, licenses,     certificates of competency, nor
    any form of recognition or registration for any organization or     individual.

JG- Then this abolishes civil liberty. Not good. A medical license allows a man to commit manslaughter in the cause of healing. If you abolish his license, the first death of a patient will end his career.

    Section 8. Government shall never promote, control, nor interfere     with any religious or
    philosophical organization or activity.

JG- I don't think this is quite right. I don't want the Fraternal Order of Cannibals to use the public roads and buildings for their "roasts".

Section 8. Government shall never of its own accord, without a Jury verdict
pertaining to the instant case, promote, control, nor interfere with any
religious or philosophical organization or activity, except in the interiors
of government buildings not designated for such use.

 
    Section 9. Government shall never restrict nor control the free     flow of ideas using any present
    or future form or medium of expression.

JG- Hey, let's start using cadavers as our medium of expression. That would be protected, wouldn't it?

    Section 10. Government shall never invade the privacy of any     individual without due process
    of Law.

JG- Why give it any power to invade privacy? If privacy isn't private, then what is it? Publicity? It's like being a little bit pregnant...

    Section 11. Government shall never operate, own, control, nor fund     any means of education
    not specifically related to performing the functions of government     authorized by this
    constitution.

    Section 12. Government shall never infringe the right of the free     movement of individuals
    within or across the geographical boundaries of Georgia.

JG- What about fugitives?

    Section 13. Government shall never borrow money nor pledge the     assets of individuals or
    non-governmental organizations.

JG- Why? Should they just steal what they need?

    Section 14. Government shall never offer nor provide gifts,     subsidies, or assistance of any kind
    to any individual, group of individuals, organization, or nation     other than that provided for in
    this constitution.

JG- Dangerous. Never give qualified power. That's what a back seat driver is. Give responsibility AND power.

    Section 15. Government shall never accept gifts, subsidies, or     assistance of any kind from any
    foreign government, organization, or nation other than that     provided for in this constitution.

    Section 16. Government shall never issue currency nor cause     currency to be issued.

JG- Why not? According to definition of real money and money, a certificate of deposit of real money is still money.  Are you forcing people to use species coin?

    Section 17. No organization established, controlled, employed, or     enabled by government
    shall violate any part of this constitution.

    Section 18. Government shall never own title to any real property     which is not specifically
    authorized by this constitution.

JG- Why not restrict title to custody.

    Section 19. Government shall never restrict individuals from freely     associating or assembling.

JG- Why not? Assembly of pig farmers in front of a synagogue isn't nice...

    Section 20. Government shall never extend payment, credit, gifts,     subsidies, endowments,
    retirement benefits, nor anything else of value or worth to any     individual beyond the time of
    actual service to the government in whatever capacity.

JG- NO pensions?

    Section 21. Government shall never impose taxation of any kind.

JG- How does it get revenue?

    Section 22. Government shall never own methods of extracting any     mineral, including water,
    from it's source. JG-Stupid. You can ban a teakettle from the government because it might extract alcohol by distillation.

    Section 23. Government shall never regulate the use of publicly     owned rights of way.

JG-Stupid. If they aren't in charge, WHO IS?

    Section 24. Government shall never impose emergency powers nor     suspend any part of this
    constitution, neither in time of war nor for any other reason.

JG- This is a ghastly document that is so ignorant of law that it makes one shudder at the widespread dissemination of it.
This is disinformation of the worst kind, damning generations into a "Holy War" to defend customs as laws, and deny the real protections of LAW.  Jeff Ganaposki

 
jetgraphics@...
http://www.geocities.com/jetgraphics

--- In anti-federalist@egroups.com, ABeliever@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 5/18/00 12:16:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> anti-fed@n... writes:
>
> << I think you saw my post in the newsgroups?
>  I was a little confused at first in trying to understand what you

meanthere
>  but I think I understand.
> First, I would like to say that I agree with you on your position

onusury
> however
>  many people may not agree with that concept. We are probably in

theminority
>  on that view.
> Georgia Constitution 2000 allows the Jury to decide on whether or

not
>  it is a capital offense. Are we in agreement that that is a good

idea?
> gene karl
>  &nbsp; >>
>
> HOW ARE YA ALL DEFINING USURY?  Anyone here read the book by Mooney

called
> USURY DESTROYER OF NATIONS?
>
> MS
> A Believer@a...

I haven't read it. Jeff may have. Jeff's position is that even
1% interest is usury and I agree that it technically really is.
Jeff has an excellent treatise on usury available either on
his website or via snail mail newsletter.

Jeff has had the advantage of being in Atlanta and being able
to rub shoulders with lots of 'patriots' in some of the finest
'patriot' meetings in all of Georgia. Being here in Savannah,
I've only been able to go to a couple of them, and that is where
I met Jeff, who has authored about 4 or more books.

I haven't yet been able to read most of Jeff's attack on
Georgia Constitution 2000, but I am fairly aware of Jeff's
position on certain things. Many of which I agree with, and
many of which I do not. Jeff has been a proponent of a national
sales tax and this is one area that I cannot support.
From the last time that I've been able to analyze any answers
that Jeff may have, those answers were something like live like
a free inhabitant within the confines of the State of Georgia
and the U.S.Government under the belief that 'this is still the
finest country' in the world.' Well, that kind of 'solution'
to our problems isn't good enough for me. Fighting taxation
and traveling without a license, tag and registation and all
that jazz and stopping there, being continually harrassed by
the feds and corporate governments, just isn't my idea of
winning this 'war'. It looks like Georgia Constitution 2000
can really uncover people's real belief systems. And it's
about time!

I'll have more to say after I've read his critiques.

Best wishes all,
gene karl

When I forwarded this message the first time, I didn't notice that
the emailer ran everything together and made it hard to determine who
wrote what, so I'm resending it again (a copied version) so that
everything
can be understood.
gene karl
------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Watch out for "God's Law"
Date:  Thu, 18 May 2000 16:27:32 -0400
From:  "J Ganaposki" <jetgraphics@...>
Organization: LWM

GENE WROTE:
I would like to say that I agree with you on your position on usury
however
many people may not agree with that concept. We are probably in the
minority
on that view.

JG- USURY is impossible to pay for two reasons: 1) Compound interest
allows the debt to exceed the total amount of
money in circulation - an impossibility, and 2) Money is dead and doen't
reproduce like living things (original concept of
rate-of-return-on-investment)

Georgia Constitution 2000 allows the Jury to decide on whether or not
it is a capital offense. Are we in agreement that that is a good idea?

JG- NO. A Jury can be as assize, an inferior tribunal. Read up on
Arraigning the Assize, Nisi Prius, and Plaint. Also, I
don't want the government to have the power of life and death - so I am
against "capital punishment" (Doesn't that mean
the executed was capital?). I do support private people shooting
trespassers, however.
I don't trust a jury to uphold law, either. Too many times, juries
convicted or acquit out of prejudices, not a love for
justice.


gene karl


jetgraphics@...
http://www.geocities.com/jetgraphics

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Constitution 2000 for The Republic of Georgia
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 17:13:58 +0100
From: "Anil" <anil@...>
To: nodebt@...
References: <whzU4.7558$4u3.60143@...>

I thought this was a well written document, and I'm not going to send it
all
back to you, simply the parts that I thought left opne to abuse or
misinterpretation
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene Karl <prosper@...>
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 4:54 PM
Subject: Constitution 2000 for The Republic of Georgia


> http://www.no-debts.com/anti-federalist/gaconsti.html
> Constitution 2000 for The Republic of Georgia
>
>                                 Declaration of Intent
>
>      I. We hold that God's Law is the Supreme Law of the Land, above and
>      beyond any mere
>      constitution or act of man, and that from these Supreme Laws come
>      our God-given Rights.

I know that later you declare the rights of man of  whichever
denomination
or religious persuasion to be inalienable, but the danger of adhering
sectarian, civil government to religious tenets is inherent if careful
transparency is not maintained.  But that's only a minor issue.  Most
doubts
I have are covered later.

>      III. We hold that the people of Georgia are free to create a new
>      government in accordance
>      with the precedents set by the following authorities:
>
>
>           The Christian Holy Bible;
>
>
>           The Declaration of Independence in 1776;
>
>           The Rules and Regulations of the Colony of Georgia 1776 where
>        it says: "the people, with
>           whom all power originates, and for whose benefit all
>        government is intended..."
>
>
>           The Constitution of Georgia; February 5, 1777 where it says:
>        "... the people, from whom
>           all power originates, and for whose benefit all government is
>        intended..."
>
>
>           The Georgia Constitution of 1789 where it says: "Article VIII.
>        All powers not delegated by
>           the constitution, as amended, are retained by the people."
>
>
>           The Georgia Constitution of 1861 where it says:
>           "ARTICLE I - DECLARATION OF FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES
>           1. The fundamental principles of Free Government cannot be too
>        well understood, nor
>           too often recurred to.
>
This is merely a practical query.  Would it be beneficial to the people
and
state of Georgia to set themselves independent from the rest of the US?
Economically the trade process would undoubtedly be damaged and the free
movement through Georgia advertised later could cause migratory and
excise
problems.


>           2. God has ordained that men shall live under government; but
>        as the forms and
>           administration of civil government are in human, and
>        therefore, fallible hands, they may
>           be altered, or modified whenever the safety or happiness of
>        the governed requires it. No
>           government should be changed for light or transient causes;
>        nor unless upon reasonable
>           assurance that a better will be established.

Is there a body set up outside of this constitution to police such an
alteration?

>           17. Legislative Acts in violation of the fundamental law are
>        void; and the Judiciary shall
>           so declare them.
>
The judiciary would have a great deal of power if they held authority to
overturn statutes handed down from an elected assembly.  I am personally
in
favour of greater judicial discretion, but again transparency and
accountability would need careful observation.

>           27. The enumeration of rights herein contained shall not be
>        construed to deny to the
>           people any inherent rights which they have hitherto enjoyed."
>
This clause seems to invalidate the whole constitution if it can be
proved
that for every provision made herein there is a "right hitherto enjoyed"
in
direct conflict with this document.

>      V. We hold that the foundation of our economy shall be the free
>      market system unfettered by
>      intrusions of government and based upon the free and voluntary
>      exchange of goods and
>      services.
>
Later, there is a clause declaring government maintained monopolies
unconstitutional but the free market laissez faire economic structure
will
inevitably lead to the growth and dominance of certain corporate
interests
over others.  Co-ercion in business is viewed in some circumstances as
much
in conflict with the letter of this constitution as co-ercion through
physical means.  "Intrusions of government", therefore, may be necessary
to
protect the "free and voluntary" exchange here mentioned.
>
>      Section 5. Each individual has the inherent Right of defending the
>      life, liberty, or property of
>      any individual using whatever force is necessary, through whatever
>      means available,
>      including the use of deadly force.
>
The defence of life by deadly force is a natural and incontrovertible
instinct, but the defence of freedom and property, given this
constitution's
previous allegiance to religious tenets, seem excessive to a large
degree.
There is no material possession's worth a life in civilian society and
this
should be recognised under law.

>      Section 6. Each individual has the inherent Right of owning, using,
>      and carrying arms of any
>      description.

Having seen and heard the carnage caused by the possession and use of
firearms throughout the rest of the US, it seems strange that a
constitution
adhering to Biblical law should expressly support the possession of
deadly
weapons.  A rifle or handgun seems reasonable in the current climate, if
so
deemed, but surely citizens of moderate western democracy have no need
nor
reasonable desire for automatic or heavy weaponry for use in defence of
life, liberty and possession.  There is only one designated use for arms
beyond sport and hunting (both of which require no semblance of the
artillery mentioned earlier) and that is for either offense or defensive
use
against fellow humans.



>     The social compact of
>      marriage or any act which produces a human fetus, through sexual
>      intercourse or otherwise,
>      is recognized to be the Lawful union of a man and a woman into a
>      family unit which becomes
>      one Lawful entity. As such there can only be one recognized head of
>      this Lawful entity,
>      therefore, unless the woman is declared to be the head of the
>      family unit on the marriage
>      agreement confirmation paper, the man is recognized as the head of
>      the family under the
>      authority of the Common Law.
>
In twentieth century western civilisation, all being equal under
previous
provisions set herein, it is both anachronistic and in direct
contravention
of human civil liberties that legal rule of a family is by default the
male.
This is obvious, and to forestall this I would advise the recognition of
all
parties within a family over the age of suffrage and with capital input
into
said family, equal rights of expression and influence.  No provision is
made
for either homosexual or lesbian relationship or lasting relationships
that
produce no human foetus.  This again, seems a glaring error and in
conflict
with human rights.

>      In the case of separation or divorce of various members of a
>      natural family, the children are to
>      remain or be reunited with the father as Lawful custodian and
>      guardian unless there is a
>      marriage agreement confirmation paper that declares the mother to
>      be the head of the family,
>      in which case the children are to remain or be reunited with the
>      mother as Lawful custodian
>      and guardian. Children born out of wedlock are naturally recognized
>      to have their natural
>      fathers to be their Lawful custodian and guardian.
>
In nature as well as society, it is apparent that maternal instincts to
protect and care for children through infancy and  adolescence are
stronger
than paternal.  This is no evidence that paternal particpation in
raising
children is inadvisable, but it seems, empirically and historically,
that
the mother is more likely to raise the child and the father more likely
to
leave care of the child to the mother.

>      Lawful custodians and guardians of children shall honor the natural
>      bonds, ties and
>      relationships that a child should have with both parents and make
>      all attempts to be
>      reasonable and allow the other parent to have access and physical
>      custody of the child for
>      one-half of the time of the child's life as a minor under the age
>      of 18 years of age unless a
>      Common Law Jury has ruled that the Law requires restrictions to
>      access and physical custody
>      of the child upon a guilty verdict declared by the same Common Law
>      Jury which shall declare
>      what those restrictions to access and physical custody of the child
>      actually are.

A common law jury is unqualified legally to put stipulations on custody
of a
child.  Verdict alone are they entitled to give.  Precise restrictions
upon
reception of the relevant verdict should be made by educated judicial
officers.

>      Section 13. No fact tried by a Jury shall be otherwise reexamined
>      in any court except to appeal
>      a conviction.

I shall return to this under the issue of double jeopardy

>     no person, for the same offense,
>      shall be twice put in
>      jeopardy of life, limb, liberty, or property, nor shall a person be
>      again put upon trial for the
>      same offense after a verdict of not guilty; and the Right of trial
>      by Jury shall remain inviolate.
>      No individual shall be deprived of life, liberty, property, or
>      privileges, outlawed, exiled, or in
>      any manner disfranchised, except by due course of Law.

Although this has been a part of educated judical systems for many
centuries, times have changed and new evidence such as DNA
fingerprinting
and other enhanced forensic technology may make it possible to identify
beyond resonable doubt a perpetrator previous acquitted when said
technology
was lacking.  I contend that this right should, in serious cases where
siginificant new evidence has been discovered, be open to debate on the
merits of the individual case.  Every criminal convicted of a serious
crime
will appeal, and where circumstances stand firm under examination, the
prosecution should hold this right also.
>      Section 19. No title of nobility, hereditary privileges or honors,
>      shall ever be granted or
>      conferred by government.

While hereditary titles that confer access to the legislative process
fly in
the face of true democracy, there can be no harm in recognition of the
achievements and excellences of individual citizens by way of award,
both
incentive to others to achieve and reward to those who have achieved

>      Section 25. Inheritance taxes, perpetuities and monopolies are
>      contrary to the genius of a
>      true Republic, and shall never be established by Government.  This
>      provision shall not in any way limit the establishment of
>      perpetuities, monopolies,
>      primogeniture, or entailments by private contract among
>      individuals.
My complaint against this was uttered earlier, but I write it again.
Government organised monopolies (nationalised industry) may be in
contravention of republican philosophy, but at leat they are accountable
to
the people.  Private companies holding monopoly are accountable only to
their shareholders and are under no obligation to show responsibility or
restraint when dealing with their affairs.

>      Section 4. Government shall never grant monopolies or perpetuities
>      nor in any way restrict or
>      control the free flow of trade within or across the geographical
>      boundaries of Georgia.

As a state disconnected politically from the rest of the US, it could
practically become a through port for companies or individuals looking
to
make use of a lack of market legislation, causing logistical problems
throughout.  That's only a minor issue though.

>
>      Section 5. Government shall never restrict individuals from
>      assembling to train with arms for
>      the individual or collective defense of life, liberty, or property.

Again, the previous complaint still stands.  Why do people need to
practise
killing unless they intend on it?  This flies in the face of the Ten
Commandments and could invalidate the whole of the constitution if the
"holy
law of God" is suspended to protect a human right to bear arms.
>
>
>      Section 6. Government shall never restrict nor control the
>      manufacture, sale, purchase,
>      ownership, use, storage, transportation, or carrying of any arms,
>      parts, accessories, or
>      ammunition.

The previous two objections come together here.  If free trade movement
is
combined with the free production and movement of military hardware,
there
is an intensive danger of  terrorist activity becoming the norm in the
newly
formed state.  In the interests of the rest of the population of the
republic, I advise at least some regulation and licensing to ensure
responsibility and care taken with the manufacture and supply of
weapons.
This then invalidates the next clause, but the danger to consumers in
civilian industry and citizens in arms production and deployment is
apparent
without licensing legislation.

>      Section 21. Government shall never impose taxation of any kind.
Affairs of government, however minimal and non-particpatory in market or
civil issues, will still require paying for somehow.  What proposal is
there
to levy the funds necessary to maintain the earlier mentioned budget?

On the whole, this is a well written and legally sound document, but
beware
of the dangers I have higlighted lest you slip into the same federal
trap
you attempt to escape.

-------- Original Message --------

Welcome and an especially warm welcome to the new Redemption Centers from the Private Society that I spoke to in Las Vegas.

THE BIG NEWS: Certainly the biggest news is the DOUBLING of NORFED at the recent conference in Las Vegas&hellip;US Government silver stockpile is running out&hellip;Why gold can not be confiscated again&hellip;CSE &hellip;Winning Stories&hellip;Errors on Silver Liberty&hellip;

PLEASE READ THE FIRST FOUR ARTICLES:

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

1. DOUBLED IN SIZE at Private Society Conference in Las Vegas.
2. New introductory video on the NORFED currency.
3. US Government silver stockpile is running out.
4. Why gold can not be confiscated again.
5. Why gold and guns are inseparable?
6. New American Dollar is out/ The Liberty Dollar is in.
7. Citizens for a Sound Economy
8. Errors on the Silver Libertys
9. Silver Liberty in your pocket?
10. "Winning Stories"
11. Gold Promotion
12. Media Bypass Promotion
13. Salt Lake Tribune article
14. Personal message

1. Private Society Conference in Las Vegas:


WOW!!! You just never know what is going to happen. Last weekend I journeyed to Las Vegas and gave a talk on the American Liberty Currency and NORFED DOUBLED in size over night. There are now close to 800 Redemption Centers! It was fun, it was exciting, it was evidence that we are not alone. I wish everyone in NORFED could have been there. (Please read #2 as I am doing the next best thing.) My sincere thanks to J. W. Zidar and the Private Society International for their support of NORFED and a value backed currency. For those of you who are not familiar with Private Society International, I encourage you to get more information at: www.privateassets.com. For new RCs, you may want to access past NORFED Reports for a wealth of information, the 1966 article on gold by none other than Alan Greenspan, etc&hellip;

2. New introductory video on the NORFED currency.


The Las Vegas talk was video taped and will be made available to all the Redemption Centers ASAP. For those of you who have used the earlier video with Dennis Grover and my self, I think you will be favorably impressed. The results should also be impressive. Please let me know your feed back after you have shown it. There is also a training tape in the works about how the Redemption Centers can use the currency. It too will be available ASAP.

3. US Government silver stockpile is running out!


Liberty&rsquo;s Outlook, a newsletter by Liberty Coin Service in Michigan, re-published an article by The Silver Institute. The article should be of keen interest to all of us as the document shows the US Government has used almost 120 million ounces of silver from its strategic stockpile for the Silver Eagle program. More importantly is that they only have 21.2 million ounces left as of December 1999. But the best part is that they use about a million ounces a month and when they run out, they will have to go to the free market! Hot damn! And even though a million ounces a month only accounts for 1 to 2% of the world demand, it will add to the demand that has exceeded mine production for the past ten years. This could be the trigger for inevitable higher silver prices. You may want to get more of the "$10 silver based" ALCs before we go to a "$20 silver based". The complete article by the Silver Institute is also available at http://www.silverinstitute.org/news/pr02242000.html. Liberty Coin Service can be reached at: 300 Frandor Avenue, Lansing, MI 48912 or call 800.933.4720. Please mention NORFED and The Liberty Dollar when you call.

4. Why gold can not be confiscated again.


It is this writer&rsquo;s opinion that gold can not be confiscated for three reasons. 1.) When gold was confiscated in 1933 our country was blessed with a peaceful society. The people trusted the government. So when the government said that they had to turn in their gold, they did. We simply do not have that society today. 2.) The government did not steal the gold, they can&rsquo;t. They had to reimburse the people for the gold they turned in. That was relatively easy because they set the price of gold and paid in paper money. There was no free market in gold as there is today. (Yes, I know the gold price is manipulated but it is a lot freer than when the government set the price). So if the government ever tried to confiscate the gold, the price would explode. They might pay $300 on the first day or first hour, but the gold market would explode and make it impossible for the government to pay for the gold. The government is a lot more vulnerable than they let on and the impossibility of gold confiscation should be a very empowering insight. The government is not God, although those b*st*rds would have us think so! 3.) Quite simply, can you possibly conceive that the American people would ever respond to a government order to turn in their gold? That would be like turning in our guns. Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on you! The government can not steal the gold nor can they pay for it. The cat is out of the bag. Now if we simply stop using "their" money, we would change the money / change the country.

5. Why gold and guns are inseparable?


Gold is indispensable to the financial sphere as it brings discipline to the monetary system. With out gold the government or monetary authority is free to steal as much as the people will bear.. Likewise, the gun provides the same discipline in the social sphere as gold does in the financial sphere. When there is chaos, the gun provides discipline to restore order. It is best when this comes from the people themselves. Systems are like spoiled children, they must have discipline.

6. New American Dollar is out/ The Liberty Dollar is in.


With the introduction of the government&rsquo;s Sacagawea Dollar that has been referred to as the "new American dollar", NORFED has stopped using "New American Dollar" as the nickname for the American Liberty Currency. We certainly would not want any confusion with that fraudulent, ugly, "Golden Dollar" from the government that contains no gold whatsoever! And just as soon as the current brochure is gone, we will bring out a new brochure with "The Liberty Dollar" as the currency&rsquo;s nickname. Meanwhile, please begin using Liberty Dollar or ALC when referring to the American Liberty Currency.

7. Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE)


I became aware of Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE) when I was invited to one of their meetings in Florida earlier this year. Oh! What a spread it was! Somebody put out a lot of money&hellip;as if they have all the money in the world. Complete with a high power speaker, it had all the trappings of a well run political machine. But wait! It was supposed to be grass roots. It was supposed to be of, by and for the people. I classified it as a government front for diversionary action. Something to feed you (there was lots of good food), make you feel like you are really doing something and divert your energy nowhere so those seeking the truth are kept from learning the truth. Well as it turns out CSE appears to be another suck-off government backed organization. The very slick, very expensive CSE booklet proudly identifies the Board and the Foundation staff. Chairman of it all is one "C. Boyden Gray" of Winston-Salem who happens to be an attorney with Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering of Washington DC. No real problem there except that he is George Bush&rsquo;s personal attorney! And you know who George Bush is and what he did in the basement of the White House. You can learn more from "Family Bloodlines of the Illuminati", a book by Fritz Springmeier. If you have time I invite you to delve into this and let me know what you find. CSE is a government front. Get involved at your own risk.

8. Errors on the Silver Libertys


Please be aware that there is a serious error on the obverse (front) of the new Silver Liberty - 2000 and you may be in possession of an "ungodly" collectable. Errors are a fact of life for numismatics and for us too. Unfortunately, when Sunshine made the new obverse die they omitted the phrase: TRUST IN GOD. Not knowing that they had erred, they minted 2000 Silver Libertys just in time for the Las Vegas Conference. So if you were in Las Vegas, or received an order recently, please check, you may have an "ungodly" collectable as only 2000 were minted before the error was noticed. Of course, if you want to exchange any of these hot errors, we would be most happy to do so. And in addition, there are errors on the reverse too! The engraver was supposed to use the same design that is on the Gold Liberty for the new Silver Liberty - 2000. If you have any of the "ungodly" Silvers, then you have samples of a mix-mash of the old design with the lettering of the new design. Due to the nature of this error it will take some time to re-engrave a new die. So the next few batches of Silver Libertys will have the correct-ed obverse and the erred reverse will eventually be changed to the correct design. The benefit will be that we will now be able to add "Liberty Dollar" to the reverse. Enjoy.

9. Silver Liberty in your pocket?


Do you carry a Silver Liberty in your pocket or in your coin purse? Although I love the new currency, I find that carrying a silver is very advantageous to explaining the idea of a silver backed currency. Just dropping it in someone&rsquo;s hand is a very convincing statement and always draws a positive response. So if you are not carrying a Silver, I encourage you to give it a try. Many people have also passed the $10 Silver in trade and received their change in those dreaded Federal Reserve Notes. But be forewarned, the beautifully minted Silver Libertys are almost "Proofs" and probably have a sharp edge on them. So please burnish (rub) all the sharp spots with the shank of a screwdriver. If you don&rsquo;t get all the sharpness the first time, then just re-burnish it until it is smooth and user-friendly. If you are like me, I don&rsquo;t want you to get any holes in your pants or clothing.

10. "Winning Stories"


We are still looking for "Winning Stories". The stories of how you used the currency. It does not have to be long. A sentence or two is fine. If you remember the date, that helps. Just give us any particulars like the amount, item bought, name of store, etc. And we will add it to our list of "Winning Stories" on our web site. Visit www.norfed.org/winning.htm to see samples and get ideas as to how the currency has been used. Most importantly, email us your own story. (No faxes please.) Thank you so much in advance as stories of how the currency is circulated is extremely important.

11. Gold Promotion


Well, with continued low gold prices, the gold promotion rolls on. I can&rsquo;t say how long it will be available, but as of this Report the Gold Libertys are still only $330 cash or $350 on a credit card. To place an order, just call/email/fax NORFED.

12. Media Bypass Promotion


As you know, NORFED&rsquo;s national fulfillment office is located in the same building as Media Bypass Magazine. In fact, Jim Thomas - the publisher&rsquo;s office is right next to mine. They are currently having a subscription drive and I ask for your support. It is an outstanding publication that publicizes many of the censored stories. If you are not familiar with Media Bypass, I encourage you to call: 812.477.7887. You will not be disappointed and could earn more ALCs in the process. And YES, you can pay for your subscription with ALCs.

13. Salt Lake Tribune artilce


Another major article with new quotes from the US Treasury. It follows after the US Treasury running out of silver.

14. Personal

If you would like to meet me, invite me to speak to your group or organization, please email me directly at bernard@... and I will add you to the list. Meanwhile I encourage you to show the currency to someone everyday. Take a sample to your local newspaper and ask them to do an article about their local Redemption Center. With your continued help we can Change the Money / Change the Country.

Thanks again for all your support and efforts to return America to value and take back our inalienable rights to freedom &ndash; one dollar at a time.

That&rsquo;s it. Wishing you a great day.

National Defense Silver Stockpile Nearly Depleted  February 24, 2000 (Washington, DC - February 24, 2000) The US Mint consumed nearly 10.3 million ounces of silver in 1999 for its coinage programs, dramatically reducing stocks of silver from the US National Defense Stockpile. Once exhausted, the US Mint must purchase silver for its coinage programs from the open market, boosting silver demand by up to 1 percent annually. This increased demand would further widen the gap between overall silver supply and fabrication demand. Between 1990 and 1999, cumulative silver fabrication demand far exceeded mine production, which resulted in reducing above-ground silver bullion inventories by an estimated 1.25 billion ounces during that period. In 1999, the Mint issued nearly 9.5 million ounces of American Eagle Silver bullion coins and proofs and consumed roughly 460,000 ounces in the manufacture of commemorative coins. Approximately 360,000 ounces of silver were used in the production of 1999 Commemorative Silver Proof Coin Sets. Some silver is also used in gold coinage alloys, as in the production of American Eagle Gold Bullion coins, proofs, and gold coin commemoratives. As of December 1999, the Defense Department's silver stockpile totaled 21.2 million ounces, down 85 percent from its opening balance of 139.5 million ounces. The silver stockpile once posed a serious threat to the market when government officials determined it was no longer needed and that domestic silver production combined with reliable imports could sustain the United States in the event of an emergency. In the early 1980s, the General Accounting Office (GAO), an investigative arm of Congress, recommended that silver from the stockpile be used for coinage rather than sold on the open market. GAO's proposal assured that using silver to mint a bullion coin and other forms of coinage would minimize or eliminate any short-term market price disruption by developing new demand to offset the increased supply. GAO's proposal was implemented when Congress created the American Silver Eagle bullion coin in 1986 and specified that metal for the coin be drawn from the stockpile, unlike the Gold Eagle for which the US Mint is required to use newly mined gold from domestic mines. Annual Silver Eagle sales have significantly accelerated the reduction of silver from the stockpile, using nearly 91 million ounces since it was created 14 years ago. As bullion coins, Eagles are considered legal tender by the United States government and their silver content is guaranteed. The $1 face value of an Eagle is largely symbolic since its market value depends totally on the silver content. In addition to the Eagle, the US Mint has struck silver coins commemorating events and people ranging from Christopher Columbus, Dolley Madison, the Olympics, and the Yellowstone National Park Silver Dollar. The United States was the largest single user of silver for coinage in 1999. Having consumed almost 120 million ounces of silver over the past 19 years, the US Mint is one of the largest silver users in the world accounting for more than 1 percent of worldwide demand during that period. For Further Information Contact: Mike DiRienzo The Silver Institute 1112 16th Street, N.W., Suite 240 Washington, D.C. 20036 Tel: (202) 835-0185 Fax: (202) 835-0155

http://www.silverinstitute.org/news/pr02242000.html
 

Y2K Threat Has Passed, But Utahns Holding On to

Silver-Backed Liberty Currency
 

BY MICHAEL VIGH
THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE

While the rest of the country celebrates the creation of the new Sacagawea

coin, a handful of Utahns proudly display their maroon and brown
silver-backed notes.
 

>> American Liberty Currency originally was billed as survival money for a
>potential Y2K disaster. Although the cataclysmic computer failures never
>materialized on New Year's Day, boosters of the loot have not lost their
>zeal for the alternative cash.
>> "Why do I believe in it?" asks Murray's Hal Massey, who boasts that he is
>the first Utahn to discover the new currency. "Have you watched the stock
>market lately?"
>> Nationwide, there are more than 300 redemption centers where people can
>exchange traditional U.S. Federal Reserve notes for the currency, which is
>purportedly backed 100 percent by a large cache of Idaho silver. The
>currency can be bought on a dollar-for-dollar basis and is actually a
>"warehouse receipt" redeemable in pure silver.
>> In Utah, there are two redemption centers -- in Murray and Vernal. There
>are also five redemption centers each in Idaho and Colorado and several more
>in Utah's other neighboring states.
>> American Liberty Currency (ALC) is the brainchild of Bernard von NotHaus,
>a self-acclaimed "senior economist" for the National Organization for the
>Repeal of the Federal Reserve Act and the Internal Revenue Service (NORFED),
>an Indiana organization whose unabashed aim is to bring the Federal Reserve
>to its knees.
>> Last year, von NotHaus published a book about the currency, Y2K Money:
>Your Survival Currency, explaining the value of the newly minted dollars in
>the event of a year 2000 cash meltdown.
>> Each bill contains von NotHaus' signature, a picture of the Statue of
>Liberty and a phone number to the NORFED organization.
>> Because worldwide chaos didn't occur at the century switch, many people
>have been left with a large amount of the alternative cash. But Utahns
>contacted by the The Salt Lake Tribune didn't seem to mind.
>> Manti's Peggy Layton, who dabbles in the "New American" currency, says
>she is not trying to make a political statement. Instead, she bought some of
>the unique-looking bills and coins at a trade show because she thought they
>were "cool."
>> "It's more of a novelty thing," says Layton, who sells food-storage
>cookbooks from her home. "[The NORFED people] seemed to have a cause, they
>seemed pretty weird to me. We just bought some bills because we thought they
>were neat."
>> Layton accepts the currency -- $1, $5 and $10 bills -- as payment for her
>cookbooks, though no one has actually done so. Her business is even listed
>on the NORFED Web site, www.norfed.org.
>> Tom Curtis of Salt Lake City's Healthy Choices, another company that
>accepts ALC, says he has used the bills at businesses in Oregon and
>California. He declined to name the stores, however.
>> "We accept the currency because it's real money, that's the real reason,"
>Curtis says. "It's not really a political thing. When I was young we had
>silver-backed currency and I think we should have it again. That is what
>this new currency offers."
>> Indeed, the silver is stored at the Sunshine Minting Inc. warehouse in
>Coeur d' Alene, Idaho, according to an official NORFED statement. Sunshine
>Minting Inc. is totally independent, conducts independent audits and is not
>part of NORFED, according to the organization.
>> The alternative money is perfectly legal tender, says Claudia Dickens, a
>spokeswoman with the U.S. Department of Treasury's Bureau of Engraving and
>Printing in Washington, D.C. But holders of the money might have difficulty
>finding a business owner that accepts it -- or has even heard of it.
>> "The U.S. government cannot tell a merchant what not to accept," Dickens
>says. "It is illegal, however, for someone to say this is the same as U.S.
>currency minted by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing."
>> The United States has been off the gold standard since the early 1930s.
>Backers of ALC say the new notes give them choice -- the new, stable
>currency vs. the Fed, and what they contend are "worthless" greenbacks.
>> "This money is backed by silver; greenbacks are backed by nothing,"
>says Massey, who runs the only redemption center on the Wasatch
>Front."Roosevelt took away the gold and Nixon the silver."
>> Massey, a former state chairman of the conservative American Party, says
>he made the discovery almost by happenstance.
>> "I found it on the Internet," Massey says. "It looked good and it
>sounded good. I'm in it for what value it is to me."
>> Only "one or two people" have exchanged their Federal Reserve notes for
>ALC, Massey says. "I'm not out pushing this. It's just a personal interest."
>> Although hard to find because so few people have heard about it, there
>are critics. One organization, calling itself the "Militia Watchdog," says

there is a danger that no actual silver is behind the notes and coins, despite

the "independent audits" that NORFED assures people are conducted. In this
case, people would be exchanging good money for worthless money, the organization
>says. The group, which maintains it is not alleging any illegal activity,
says >there are "many other potential problems as well, all of which cry out for
>careful scrutiny of NORFED and its operations," according to a statement by
>the nonprofit watchdog organization.
>> But supporters of the currency say they are careful to follow all laws.
>And von NotHaus swears his new currency is 100 percent legitimate.
>> "Legal opinions have been obtained by prominent attorneys who say the
>American Liberty Currency complies with all U.S. laws and the Uniform
>Commercial Code," the NORFED leader says.
 
 Bernard von NotHaus
Designer/Senior Economist
American Liberty Currency
N O R F E D
4900 Tippecanoe Drive
Evansville, IN  47715
PHONE:  812.473.5250
FAX:  812.473.5199
EMAIL: bernard@...
URL:  http://www.norfed.org

-------- Original Message --------

 NORFED REPORT: VOL. 2 NO. 5 ___ _MAY 2000

Welcome and an especially warm welcome to the new Redemption Centers from the Private Society that I spoke to in Las Vegas.

THE BIG NEWS: Certainly the biggest news is the DOUBLING of NORFED at the recent conference in Las Vegas&hellip;US Government silver stockpile is running out&hellip;Why gold can not be confiscated again&hellip;CSE &hellip;Winning Stories&hellip;Errors on Silver Liberty&hellip;

PLEASE READ THE FIRST FOUR ARTICLES:

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

1. DOUBLED IN SIZE at Private Society Conference in Las Vegas.
2. New introductory video on the NORFED currency.
3. US Government silver stockpile is running out.
4. Why gold can not be confiscated again.
5. Why gold and guns are inseparable?
6. New American Dollar is out/ The Liberty Dollar is in.
7. Citizens for a Sound Economy
8. Errors on the Silver Libertys
9. Silver Liberty in your pocket?
10. "Winning Stories"
11. Gold Promotion
12. Media Bypass Promotion
13. Salt Lake Tribune article
14. Personal message

1. Private Society Conference in Las Vegas:

 

 

WOW!!! You just never know what is going to happen. Last weekend I journeyed to Las Vegas and gave a talk on the American Liberty Currency and NORFED DOUBLED in size over night. There are now close to 800 Redemption Centers! It was fun, it was exciting, it was evidence that we are not alone. I wish everyone in NORFED could have been there. (Please read #2 as I am doing the next best thing.) My sincere thanks to J. W. Zidar and the Private Society International for their support of NORFED and a value backed currency. For those of you who are not familiar with Private Society International, I encourage you to get more information at: www.privateassets.com. For new RCs, you may want to access past NORFED Reports for a wealth of information, the 1966 article on gold by none other than Alan Greenspan, etc&hellip;

2. New introductory video on the NORFED currency.

 

 

The Las Vegas talk was video taped and will be made available to all the Redemption Centers ASAP. For those of you who have used the earlier video with Dennis Grover and my self, I think you will be favorably impressed. The results should also be impressive. Please let me know your feed back after you have shown it. There is also a training tape in the works about how the Redemption Centers can use the currency. It too will be available ASAP.

3. US Government silver stockpile is running out!

 

 

Liberty&rsquo;s Outlook, a newsletter by Liberty Coin Service in Michigan, re-published an article by The Silver Institute. The article should be of keen interest to all of us as the document shows the US Government has used almost 120 million ounces of silver from its strategic stockpile for the Silver Eagle program. More importantly is that they only have 21.2 million ounces left as of December 1999. But the best part is that they use about a million ounces a month and when they run out, they will have to go to the free market! Hot damn! And even though a million ounces a month only accounts for 1 to 2% of the world demand, it will add to the demand that has exceeded mine production for the past ten years. This could be the trigger for inevitable higher silver prices. You may want to get more of the "$10 silver based" ALCs before we go to a "$20 silver based". The complete article by the Silver Institute is also available at http://www.silverinstitute.org/news/pr02242000.html. Liberty Coin Service can be reached at: 300 Frandor Avenue, Lansing, MI 48912 or call 800.933.4720. Please mention NORFED and The Liberty Dollar when you call.

4. Why gold can not be confiscated again.

 

 

It is this writer&rsquo;s opinion that gold can not be confiscated for three reasons. 1.) When gold was confiscated in 1933 our country was blessed with a peaceful society. The people trusted the government. So when the government said that they had to turn in their gold, they did. We simply do not have that society today. 2.) The government did not steal the gold, they can&rsquo;t. They had to reimburse the people for the gold they turned in. That was relatively easy because they set the price of gold and paid in paper money. There was no free market in gold as there is today. (Yes, I know the gold price is manipulated but it is a lot freer than when the government set the price). So if the government ever tried to confiscate the gold, the price would explode. They might pay $300 on the first day or first hour, but the gold market would explode and make it impossible for the government to pay for the gold. The government is a lot more vulnerable than they let on and the impossibility of gold confiscation should be a very empowering insight. The government is not God, although those b*st*rds would have us think so! 3.) Quite simply, can you possibly conceive that the American people would ever respond to a government order to turn in their gold? That would be like turning in our guns. Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on you! The government can not steal the gold nor can they pay for it. The cat is out of the bag. Now if we simply stop using "their" money, we would change the money / change the country.

5. Why gold and guns are inseparable?

 

 

Gold is indispensable to the financial sphere as it brings discipline to the monetary system. With out gold the government or monetary authority is free to steal as much as the people will bear.. Likewise, the gun provides the same discipline in the social sphere as gold does in the financial sphere. When there is chaos, the gun provides discipline to restore order. It is best when this comes from the people themselves. Systems are like spoiled children, they must have discipline.

6. New American Dollar is out/ The Liberty Dollar is in.

 

 

With the introduction of the government&rsquo;s Sacagawea Dollar that has been referred to as the "new American dollar", NORFED has stopped using "New American Dollar" as the nickname for the American Liberty Currency. We certainly would not want any confusion with that fraudulent, ugly, "Golden Dollar" from the government that contains no gold whatsoever! And just as soon as the current brochure is gone, we will bring out a new brochure with "The Liberty Dollar" as the currency&rsquo;s nickname. Meanwhile, please begin using Liberty Dollar or ALC when referring to the American Liberty Currency.

7. Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE)

 

 

I became aware of Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE) when I was invited to one of their meetings in Florida earlier this year. Oh! What a spread it was! Somebody put out a lot of money&hellip;as if they have all the money in the world. Complete with a high power speaker, it had all the trappings of a well run political machine. But wait! It was supposed to be grass roots. It was supposed to be of, by and for the people. I classified it as a government front for diversionary action. Something to feed you (there was lots of good food), make you feel like you are really doing something and divert your energy nowhere so those seeking the truth are kept from learning the truth. Well as it turns out CSE appears to be another suck-off government backed organization. The very slick, very expensive CSE booklet proudly identifies the Board and the Foundation staff. Chairman of it all is one "C. Boyden Gray" of Winston-Salem who happens to be an attorney with Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering of Washington DC. No real problem there except that he is George Bush&rsquo;s personal attorney! And you know who George Bush is and what he did in the basement of the White House. You can learn more from "Family Bloodlines of the Illuminati", a book by Fritz Springmeier. If you have time I invite you to delve into this and let me know what you find. CSE is a government front. Get involved at your own risk.

8. Errors on the Silver Libertys

 

 

Please be aware that there is a serious error on the obverse (front) of the new Silver Liberty - 2000 and you may be in possession of an "ungodly" collectable. Errors are a fact of life for numismatics and for us too. Unfortunately, when Sunshine made the new obverse die they omitted the phrase: TRUST IN GOD. Not knowing that they had erred, they minted 2000 Silver Libertys just in time for the Las Vegas Conference. So if you were in Las Vegas, or received an order recently, please check, you may have an "ungodly" collectable as only 2000 were minted before the error was noticed. Of course, if you want to exchange any of these hot errors, we would be most happy to do so. And in addition, there are errors on the reverse too! The engraver was supposed to use the same design that is on the Gold Liberty for the new Silver Liberty - 2000. If you have any of the "ungodly" Silvers, then you have samples of a mix-mash of the old design with the lettering of the new design. Due to the nature of this error it will take some time to re-engrave a new die. So the next few batches of Silver Libertys will have the correct-ed obverse and the erred reverse will eventually be changed to the correct design. The benefit will be that we will now be able to add "Liberty Dollar" to the reverse. Enjoy.

9. Silver Liberty in your pocket?

 

 

Do you carry a Silver Liberty in your pocket or in your coin purse? Although I love the new currency, I find that carrying a silver is very advantageous to explaining the idea of a silver backed currency. Just dropping it in someone&rsquo;s hand is a very convincing statement and always draws a positive response. So if you are not carrying a Silver, I encourage you to give it a try. Many people have also passed the $10 Silver in trade and received their change in those dreaded Federal Reserve Notes. But be forewarned, the beautifully minted Silver Libertys are almost "Proofs" and probably have a sharp edge on them. So please burnish (rub) all the sharp spots with the shank of a screwdriver. If you don&rsquo;t get all the sharpness the first time, then just re-burnish it until it is smooth and user-friendly. If you are like me, I don&rsquo;t want you to get any holes in your pants or clothing.

10. "Winning Stories"

 

 

We are still looking for "Winning Stories". The stories of how you used the currency. It does not have to be long. A sentence or two is fine. If you remember the date, that helps. Just give us any particulars like the amount, item bought, name of store, etc. And we will add it to our list of "Winning Stories" on our web site. Visit www.norfed.org/winning.htm to see samples and get ideas as to how the currency has been used. Most importantly, email us your own story. (No faxes please.) Thank you so much in advance as stories of how the currency is circulated is extremely important.

11. Gold Promotion

 

 

Well, with continued low gold prices, the gold promotion rolls on. I can&rsquo;t say how long it will be available, but as of this Report the Gold Libertys are still only $330 cash or $350 on a credit card. To place an order, just call/email/fax NORFED.

12. Media Bypass Promotion

 

 

As you know, NORFED&rsquo;s national fulfillment office is located in the same building as Media Bypass Magazine. In fact, Jim Thomas - the publisher&rsquo;s office is right next to mine. They are currently having a subscription drive and I ask for your support. It is an outstanding publication that publicizes many of the censored stories. If you are not familiar with Media Bypass, I encourage you to call: 812.477.7887. You will not be disappointed and could earn more ALCs in the process. And YES, you can pay for your subscription with ALCs.

13. Salt Lake Tribune artilce

 

 

Another major article with new quotes from the US Treasury. It follows after the US Treasury running out of silver.

14. Personal

If you would like to meet me, invite me to speak to your group or organization, please email me directly at bernard@... and I will add you to the list. Meanwhile I encourage you to show the currency to someone everyday. Take a sample to your local newspaper and ask them to do an article about their local Redemption Center. With your continued help we can Change the Money / Change the Country.

Thanks again for all your support and efforts to return America to value and take back our inalienable rights to freedom &ndash; one dollar at a time.

That&rsquo;s it. Wishing you a great day.

National Defense Silver Stockpile Nearly Depleted  February 24, 2000 (Washington, DC - February 24, 2000) The US Mint consumed nearly 10.3 million ounces of silver in 1999 for its coinage programs, dramatically reducing stocks of silver from the US National Defense Stockpile. Once exhausted, the US Mint must purchase silver for its coinage programs from the open market, boosting silver demand by up to 1 percent annually. This increased demand would further widen the gap between overall silver supply and fabrication demand. Between 1990 and 1999, cumulative silver fabrication demand far exceeded mine production, which resulted in reducing above-ground silver bullion inventories by an estimated 1.25 billion ounces during that period. In 1999, the Mint issued nearly 9.5 million ounces of American Eagle Silver bullion coins and proofs and consumed roughly 460,000 ounces in the manufacture of commemorative coins. Approximately 360,000 ounces of silver were used in the production of 1999 Commemorative Silver Proof Coin Sets. Some silver is also used in gold coinage alloys, as in the production of American Eagle Gold Bullion coins, proofs, and gold coin commemoratives. As of December 1999, the Defense Department's silver stockpile totaled 21.2 million ounces, down 85 percent from its opening balance of 139.5 million ounces. The silver stockpile once posed a serious threat to the market when government officials determined it was no longer needed and that domestic silver production combined with reliable imports could sustain the United States in the event of an emergency. In the early 1980s, the General Accounting Office (GAO), an investigative arm of Congress, recommended that silver from the stockpile be used for coinage rather than sold on the open market. GAO's proposal assured that using silver to mint a bullion coin and other forms of coinage would minimize or eliminate any short-term market price disruption by developing new demand to offset the increased supply. GAO's proposal was implemented when Congress created the American Silver Eagle bullion coin in 1986 and specified that metal for the coin be drawn from the stockpile, unlike the Gold Eagle for which the US Mint is required to use newly mined gold from domestic mines. Annual Silver Eagle sales have significantly accelerated the reduction of silver from the stockpile, using nearly 91 million ounces since it was created 14 years ago. As bullion coins, Eagles are considered legal tender by the United States government and their silver content is guaranteed. The $1 face value of an Eagle is largely symbolic since its market value depends totally on the silver content. In addition to the Eagle, the US Mint has struck silver coins commemorating events and people ranging from Christopher Columbus, Dolley Madison, the Olympics, and the Yellowstone National Park Silver Dollar. The United States was the largest single user of silver for coinage in 1999. Having consumed almost 120 million ounces of silver over the past 19 years, the US Mint is one of the largest silver users in the world accounting for more than 1 percent of worldwide demand during that period. For Further Information Contact: Mike DiRienzo The Silver Institute 1112 16th Street, N.W., Suite 240 Washington, D.C. 20036 Tel: (202) 835-0185 Fax: (202) 835-0155

http://www.silverinstitute.org/news/pr02242000.html
 

Y2K Threat Has Passed, But Utahns Holding On to

Silver-Backed Liberty Currency
 

BY MICHAEL VIGH
THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE

While the rest of the country celebrates the creation of the new Sacagawea

coin, a handful of Utahns proudly display their maroon and brown
silver-backed notes.
 

>> American Liberty Currency originally was billed as survival money for a
>potential Y2K disaster. Although the cataclysmic computer failures never
>materialized on New Year's Day, boosters of the loot have not lost their
>zeal for the alternative cash.
>> "Why do I believe in it?" asks Murray's Hal Massey, who boasts that he is
>the first Utahn to discover the new currency. "Have you watched the stock
>market lately?"
>> Nationwide, there are more than 300 redemption centers where people can
>exchange traditional U.S. Federal Reserve notes for the currency, which is
>purportedly backed 100 percent by a large cache of Idaho silver. The
>currency can be bought on a dollar-for-dollar basis and is actually a
>"warehouse receipt" redeemable in pure silver.
>> In Utah, there are two redemption centers -- in Murray and Vernal. There
>are also five redemption centers each in Idaho and Colorado and several more
>in Utah's other neighboring states.
>> American Liberty Currency (ALC) is the brainchild of Bernard von NotHaus,
>a self-acclaimed "senior economist" for the National Organization for the
>Repeal of the Federal Reserve Act and the Internal Revenue Service (NORFED),
>an Indiana organization whose unabashed aim is to bring the Federal Reserve
>to its knees.
>> Last year, von NotHaus published a book about the currency, Y2K Money:
>Your Survival Currency, explaining the value of the newly minted dollars in
>the event of a year 2000 cash meltdown.
>> Each bill contains von NotHaus' signature, a picture of the Statue of
>Liberty and a phone number to the NORFED organization.
>> Because worldwide chaos didn't occur at the century switch, many people
>have been left with a large amount of the alternative cash. But Utahns
>contacted by the The Salt Lake Tribune didn't seem to mind.
>> Manti's Peggy Layton, who dabbles in the "New American" currency, says
>she is not trying to make a political statement. Instead, she bought some of
>the unique-looking bills and coins at a trade show because she thought they
>were "cool."
>> "It's more of a novelty thing," says Layton, who sells food-storage
>cookbooks from her home. "[The NORFED people] seemed to have a cause, they
>seemed pretty weird to me. We just bought some bills because we thought they
>were neat."
>> Layton accepts the currency -- $1, $5 and $10 bills -- as payment for her
>cookbooks, though no one has actually done so. Her business is even listed
>on the NORFED Web site, www.norfed.org.
>> Tom Curtis of Salt Lake City's Healthy Choices, another company that
>accepts ALC, says he has used the bills at businesses in Oregon and
>California. He declined to name the stores, however.
>> "We accept the currency because it's real money, that's the real reason,"
>Curtis says. "It's not really a political thing. When I was young we had
>silver-backed currency and I think we should have it again. That is what
>this new currency offers."
>> Indeed, the silver is stored at the Sunshine Minting Inc. warehouse in
>Coeur d' Alene, Idaho, according to an official NORFED statement. Sunshine
>Minting Inc. is totally independent, conducts independent audits and is not
>part of NORFED, according to the organization.
>> The alternative money is perfectly legal tender, says Claudia Dickens, a
>spokeswoman with the U.S. Department of Treasury's Bureau of Engraving and
>Printing in Washington, D.C. But holders of the money might have difficulty
>finding a business owner that accepts it -- or has even heard of it.
>> "The U.S. government cannot tell a merchant what not to accept," Dickens
>says. "It is illegal, however, for someone to say this is the same as U.S.
>currency minted by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing."
>> The United States has been off the gold standard since the early 1930s.
>Backers of ALC say the new notes give them choice -- the new, stable
>currency vs. the Fed, and what they contend are "worthless" greenbacks.
>> "This money is backed by silver; greenbacks are backed by nothing,"
>says Massey, who runs the only redemption center on the Wasatch
>Front."Roosevelt took away the gold and Nixon the silver."
>> Massey, a former state chairman of the conservative American Party, says
>he made the discovery almost by happenstance.
>> "I found it on the Internet," Massey says. "It looked good and it
>sounded good. I'm in it for what value it is to me."
>> Only "one or two people" have exchanged their Federal Reserve notes for
>ALC, Massey says. "I'm not out pushing this. It's just a personal interest."
>> Although hard to find because so few people have heard about it, there
>are critics. One organization, calling itself the "Militia Watchdog," says

there is a danger that no actual silver is behind the notes and coins, despite

the "independent audits" that NORFED assures people are conducted. In this
case, people would be exchanging good money for worthless money, the organization
>says. The group, which maintains it is not alleging any illegal activity,
says >there are "many other potential problems as well, all of which cry out for
>careful scrutiny of NORFED and its operations," according to a statement by
>the nonprofit watchdog organization.
>> But supporters of the currency say they are careful to follow all laws.
>And von NotHaus swears his new currency is 100 percent legitimate.
>> "Legal opinions have been obtained by prominent attorneys who say the
>American Liberty Currency complies with all U.S. laws and the Uniform
>Commercial Code," the NORFED leader says.

 Bernard von NotHaus
Designer/Senior Economist
American Liberty Currency
N O R F E D
4900 Tippecanoe Drive
Evansville, IN  47715
PHONE:  812.473.5250
FAX:  812.473.5199
EMAIL: bernard@...
URL:  http://www.norfed.org

-------- Original Message --------

GENE WROTE:
I would like to say that I agree with you on your position on usury however
many people may not agree with that concept. We are probably in the minority
on that view. JG- USURY is impossible to pay for two reasons: 1) Compound interest allows the debt to exceed the total amount of money in circulation - an impossibility, and 2) Money is dead and doen't reproduce like living things (original concept of rate-of-return-on-investment) Georgia Constitution 2000 allows the Jury to decide on whether or not
it is a capital offense. Are we in agreement that that is a good idea? JG- NO. A Jury can be as assize, an inferior tribunal. Read up on Arraigning the Assize, Nisi Prius, and Plaint. Also, I don't want the government to have the power of life and death - so I am against "capital punishment" (Doesn't that mean the executed was capital?). I do support private people shooting trespassers, however.I don't trust a jury to uphold law, either. Too many times, juries convicted or acquit out of prejudices, not a love for justice.  gene karl
  jetgraphics@...
http://www.geocities.com/jetgraphics

-------- Original Message --------

More Houston Wisdom

In 1858 war clouds were gathering in the South and there was already talk in Texas about withdrawing from the Union and joining a new Southern Confederacy. Sam Houston, governor of Texas at the time, felt joining the confederacy would be a mistake.

He had a better idea, as detailed in this excerpt from one of his speeches:

"If the principals are disregarded upon which the annexation of Texas was consummated – Louisiana was a purchase; California, New Mexico, and Utah, a conquest; but Texas was a voluntary annexation – sorrowing for the mistake she made in sacrificing her independence on the alter of her patriotism, she would unfurl again the banner of the Lone Star to the breeze and reenter upon a national career."

If only more people had listened to Houston, this very day, New Mexico, Arizona, Southern California, and parts of Mexico might be states in the Republic of Texas. But no one listened.

No Doubt About It

Sam Houston once said, "Texas is the finest portion of the globe that has ever blessed my vision."Texas Wit & Wisdom

Wallace O. Chariton

Wordware Publishing Inc

Page 14  ----------------------------------------------------------------------Texas Constitution 2000It's About Freedomwww.tcrf.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."      --Samuel Adams

-------- Original Message --------

Dear Gene: Your web site offers much information. But you also offer much that is disinformation. Unfortunately disinformation will detract from it's efficacy. You are making mistakes in presuming that rights of the people are identical to the rights of the citizen. And you fail to realize the difference between the term: republic & the "republican form of government". I realize that your religious allegiances might color your view point. But NEVER use a religion to circumscribe rights and law. All law is the protection of property rights, all else is policy, and policy requires consent. The "true enemies" of private property are those that prey upon those who do have private property:[] pirates[] plunderers and[] parasites. Under the current state of emergency caused by usury (an abomination) that few Christians take task to, the pirates are in the government, itself. Aided by parasites in Socialism and Banking, they are draining the people for their own benefit. But you have to be wary of any solution that compounds the problem. Remember that relationships are defined by men.Religion defines your relationship with that which you understand as a supreme being.Law defines your relationship with other men.Don't ever let the two cross over. For example: "Blue laws" that forbid alcohol sales on Sunday. They may appease some of the pious and self-righteous, but they are an infringement of freedom.This is how you can pave the way to a "hell" with good intentions. NEVER NEVER NEVER delegate a power without responsibility.NEVER EVER accept a privilege that denies a right, without consent. If I may use the analogy of IBM.When I was an employee, I could buy at a 20% discount. But I had to wait until all other customers were served.Government acts the same way. It may offer a special to its citizens, but they are subservient to the people's rights.But if I am not an employee of IBM, I only can demand specific performance - what I purchased - not demand HOW it is made and by WHOM.If I am not part of government, I can't demand HOW or by WHOM I am served.So you can't mix voting citizenry with the free people. The GA2000 CON is a terrible mixture of mutually exclusive groups and identities. hierarchy:people (free inhabitants)people who create  / submit to government (citizens)people who are property of government  (denizens - U.S. citizens)persons (artificial entities - corporations)  Also - - -You do not address the two greatest evils attacking free people:USURYCORPORATIONISM Usury is an abomination.[see:http://www.freeyellow.com/members/living-word/page2.html ]Corporationism is both usury (dividends) and limited liability - ducking responsibility to compensate injured parties.That's why "persons" can only have an interest in "real estate" while individuals can own "private property" absolutely. Capitalism is the private ownership of the tools of production. Usury and corporationism are not capitalism, but hide inside it.=========================================GOVERNMENT (Republican Form of Government) -  One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people,  either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people,  to whom those powers are
specially delegated. - - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 695

DEMOCRACY - That form of government  in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole  body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation,  as distinguished from monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. - - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 432

Don't be fooled into thinking they're equivalent.
Identify WHO is the party with SOVEREIGN powers.
In one the people are sovereign, in the other the whole body of free citizens are sovereign.
Which would you rather be in?

-----------------------------

"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in Court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The States are the parties to it. And they may complain. If they do, they are entitled to redress. Or they may waive the right to complain. If they do, the right stands waived. Could not the States, in their sovereign capacities, or Congress (if it has the power) as their agent, forgive such a breach of the Constitution, on the part of a State, as that of imposing a tax on imports, or accept reparation for it? In case this were done, what would become of the claims of the private person, for damages for such breach? To let such claims be set up against the forgiven party, would be to do away with forgiveness. No, if there existed such claimants, they would have to appeal, each to his own sovereign for redress. It was that sovereign's business to get enough from the offending sovereign, to cover all private losses of his own citizens - and if he did not get enough to do that, those citizens must look to him, alone, for indemnity."
- - -Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. Mayor and Alderman, City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438, 520 (1854) Supreme Court of GeorgiaNEVER PRESUME A CONSTITUTION INCLUDES "THE PEOPLE".============================================== Jeff Ganaposki
jetgraphics@...
http://www.geocities.com/jetgraphics

-------- Original Message --------

Dear Gene: The authors of this Constitution make several errors that negate the effect of it.
I shall mark my comments with JG-  
http://www.no-debts.com/anti-federalist/gaconsti.html
Constitution 2000 for The Republic of Georgia

                                Declaration of Intent

    I. We hold that God's Law is the Supreme Law of the Land, JG- "Law of the Land" refers to common law - not biblical law. Common law derives many of its concepts from Anglo-Saxon principles such as the Man-Bote & Kine-Bote - paying a price for the murder of a man or animal. Biblical law is "eye for an eye" and it is not the "common law".  
 above and  beyond any mere constitution or act of man, and that from these Supreme Laws come     our God-given Rights. JG- Rights aren't what you think. A human's "right to life" isn't protection against a lion's "right to life" - especially when the lion is hungry and you're about to be eaten. Your right to life is useless unless defended against attack.  Both have God given rights!

    II. We hold that crimes are against God and the victim, not against     any form of government. JG- How is God an injured party?     We hold that victims should be compensated JG- The Biblical suggested compensation is 100% for civil, 120% for criminal injury. , in court where possible, or under court order, in accordance with the scriptures and judgment of a Common Law Jury. JG- Common law jury is a prerogative of sovereigns. Since the State is a servant, it has no sovereign prerogatives to convene a common law jury, unlike the English sovereigns who do convene common law courts. The 7th amendment already guarantees "rules of the common law".  
     We hold that this compensation shall come from the party or parties found guilty as     punishment for their crime.
    We hold that government shall not profit from acts of crime. All     references to a Jury in this
    constitution refer to a Common Law Jury of twelve jurors selected     randomly from the men and
    women citizens of the respective county in Georgia. JG- At the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, all common law courts were abolished. You can't have a constitutional government AND the common law.  
    III. We hold that the people of Georgia are free to create a new     government in accordance
    with the precedents set by the following authorities: JG-Whoa. You are mixing apples and oranges. People are sovereign. Citizens are subjects. Those who create the government submit themselves to it. Only those who remain free inhabitants are sovereign.
 

          The Christian Holy Bible;

JG-Which version? With or without tampering?

          The Declaration of Independence in 1776; JG-It's already Statute #1 in the Statutes at Large.

          The Rules and Regulations of the Colony of Georgia 1776 where       it says: "the people, with
          whom all power originates, and for whose benefit all
      government is intended..." JG- Colony of Georgia is a creation of the English Crown. Wrong authority.
 

          The Constitution of Georgia; February 5, 1777 where it says:       "... the people, from whom
          all power originates, and for whose benefit all government is       intended..."

JG-But there are exclusions.

          The Georgia Constitution of 1789 where it says: "Article VIII.       All powers not delegated by
          the constitution, as amended, are retained by the people." JG-But there are exclusions.

          The Georgia Constitution of 1861 where it says:
          "ARTICLE I - DECLARATION OF FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES           1. The fundamental principles of Free Government cannot be too       well understood, nor
          too often recurred to.

          2. God has ordained that men shall live under government; JG- Where? Didn't the Israelites BEG for a King? There was no Divine ordination for monarchy. I think this CONstitution is a fraud.  
 but       as the forms and
          administration of civil government are in human, and
      therefore, fallible hands, they may
          be altered, or modified whenever the safety or happiness of       the governed requires it. No
          government should be changed for light or transient causes;       nor unless upon reasonable
          assurance that a better will be established. JG-This is heifer dung. The author doesn't understand law - only policy. All law is the protection of property rights, all else is policy, and policy requires consent. "Forms and administration" are policy. That's internal to government and not a subject of a compact.  
          3. Protection to person and property is the duty of
      Government; and a Government which
          knowingly and persistently denies, or withholds from the       governed such protection,
          when within its power, releases from the obligation of       obedience. JG- Duh - see Declaration of Independence. BUT THERE ARE EXCLUDED CLASSES. See Articles of Confederation (Art  IV).  
          17. Legislative Acts in violation of the fundamental law are       void; and the Judiciary shall
          so declare them. JG- Waste of time. All laws already have the catch all term "shall". Read the definition of the terms: shall, may, mandatory and directory. Courts can negate a law at a whim.

          27. The enumeration of rights herein contained shall not be       construed to deny to the
          people any inherent rights which they have hitherto enjoyed."

JG- But all people aren't citizens, citizens have privileges and immunities that may require the surrender of rights.

    IV. We hold that the foundation of this nation is that an
    individual's body, life, labor, ideas,
    thoughts, and material possessions that the individual has created     or acquired without
    coercion are that individual's property and that no individual,     majority, society, or
    government may legitimately take or control an individual's     property without that individual's
    consent. JG- Restatement of the obvious - at first. BUT the foundation isn't what you think. Do you agree that bankruptcy is against God's law? Or do you think that screwing a creditor is moral? JG- Who is "we"? According to the GA supreme court, the US CON is a compact, but no private person is party to it. Is this another fraud to entrap people in to another contract?  
    V. We hold that the foundation of our economy shall be the free     market system unfettered by
    intrusions of government and based upon the free and voluntary     exchange of goods and
    services. JG- Who makes the money? Who controls the creation of the medium of exchange? A "free market" is a fraud without money powers. Recall that government can only "coin" money - not create it. Who is making the money??????

    VI. We hold that peaceful relations with other nations is based     upon the concept of mutual
    respect and that war and other interference in the affairs of other     nations serves only to
    destroy such peaceful relations. It is therefore declared that     Georgia shall remain neutral in
    the affairs of, and between, other nations. JG- War is piracy or the defense against piracy. And Georgia is forbidden by its agreement under the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION to get involved in international affairs. P.S. the Articles created a perpetual UNION.  
                                        Preamble

    We, the people of Georgia, in order to form a lasting government,     establish justice, insure
    domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty JG- Which liberty? There are 4 types: natural, personal, civil, political.  to     ourselves and our posterity,
    acknowledging and invoking the guidance of Almighty God, the Author     of all good government, JG- Presumptious and preposterace. God hasn't authored a thing. If He has, show me His copyright and Agent's office. "Inspired" men claimed to be guided in their writings-  and that includes just about every religion on the planet (except Scientology ;-)     do ordain and establish this constitution for the Republic of     Georgia:

                        Article 1. Declaration of Rights

    Section 1. In order that the general, great, and essential
    principles of God-given Rights
    associated with Life, Liberty, Property and a true Republic JG- Republic IS NOT A Republican form of government.  may be     recognised and established
    we declare that this declaration of Rights is a part of this     Constitution and of our Contract, JG- BINGO - who are the parties obligated to perform? Under the Constitution, it's only those who take an oath. What is this scam peddling?  
 and
    shall never be violated under any pretense whatsoever. In order to     guard against the
    transgression of the powers we have delegated to government, we     declare that every Right
    defined in this Declaration of Rights is reserved to the people.     Rights not enumerated,
    including God-given Rights not yet expressed or conceived, exist to     the extent that no Right
    as such may impose an obligation on any individual except to     respect that Right in others. JG- Wrongo. One who exercises the "political right" to join the military can be compelled to surrender his life, on orders, to secure the rights of another.  All
    such non-enumerated Rights are reserved to the people. All powers     not specifically delegated
    to Government are reserved to the people. The specification of     these Rights in a certain order
    is not intended to prioritize the Rights or to indicate a hierarchy     of Rights, but is provided for
    convenience. JG- Do you know that the term: convenience isn't what you think ? Legalese is legal for a specific reason - intelligibility.  
    Section 2. Each individual has the inherent God-given Right to life     and of life from physical
    conception to natural death. JG-So? What's stopping the hungry lion's right to life?

    Section 3. Each individual has the inherent Right of liberty, which     is the unrestrained exercise
    of free will, JG- NO, liberty is not that - Natural liberty is close. But that's only exercised upon private property.
Liberty, in general, 1700s term, refered to in  "Give me liberty or give me death" is the "freedom to act without prior PERMISSION" - like Ship's Liberty and Shore Leave.  which shall never be infringed provided the exercise     thereof does not violate the
    Rights of any other individual. JG- WHOA. Do you have the right to fart? In an enclosed space? Isn't that a violation of my rights? Can't you see that this is absurdity?  
 Liberty consists in the freedom to     do everything which injures
    no one else; JG- Wrong. Liberty is freedom to act without permission, in general. Natural liberty is the freedom from restrictions save that of Natural Law (gravity, thermodynamics) - and limited to private property. Personal liberty is the freedom of travel upon the public highways and waterways. And those "liberties" may be constrained by custom (Rules of the Road!).  
 hence the exercise of the natural Rights of each man     has no limits except those
    which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of     the same Rights. JG- BAD BAD BAD. Never give a blanket exemption or obligation. BE SPECIFIC.
For example, if I have a right to life, but am poor, can I DEMAND that government help "secure" my rights with charity from the public treasury? By this constitution, I CAN. That's SOCIALISM.
EGADS! Socialism = Piracy upon the productive for the benefit of the non-productive.  
    Section 4. Each individual's body, life, labor, ideas, thoughts,     and possessions that the
    individual has Lawfully created or acquired are that individual's     property. JG-Did you create yourself? Or did your parents?  
 Each individual has
    the inherent Right of the ownership, JG- Wrong. Tell it to the slaveowners. Tell it to the chattels and wards. And who shall enforce that right of ownership? Is it private property or "personal" property?  non-coercive acquisition, and     use of property. Since
    property is an inviolable and sacred Right, JG- Who says so? Aren't convicts denied rights? Are convicts less protected by sacred law? Where?  no one shall be     deprived thereof except where
    public necessity shall clearly demand it, JG- Mob rule. "We" declare that the rights of <fill in the blank> no longer exist. BAH.  and then only on
    condition that the owner shall have
    consented and been compensated under contract entered freely, JG-Oh really? Imagine a war. Imagine troops need to hide in your barn. You aren't there to give consent. Do they wait - and die? Or go ahead and hide?      knowingly, and competently.

    Section 5. Each individual has the inherent Right of defending the     life, liberty, or property of
    any individual using whatever force is necessary, through whatever     means available,
    including the use of deadly force. JG- Does that include "individuals" who promised to protect my hide? And now can take a pot-shot at me? JG- Even when misled? Such as in the case of a woman thief yelling "rape! murder!" Do you want people to just shoot any poor sod she accuses? And does that include public as well as private property?
If you extend that to private property, then a trespasser has the right to shoot the owner who is defending HIS OWN PROPERTY!  
    Section 6. Each individual has the inherent Right of owning, using,     and carrying arms of any
    description. JG-Oh really? How about a "dead-man" bomb that ignites on your death. So that an accident like a heart attack can take out a whole group of people?

    Section 7. Law must be the same for all, whether it protects or     punishes. JG- WRONG. Contract law is only binding upon those who are parties to the contract. Who are the parties to THIS CONTRACT? Which law? No constitutional law can impair the obligations of contracts? What about impossible contracts, like usury? What about gambling, via insurance?  
 All individuals, when
    they form a social compact such as a constitution, JG- FRAUD. The constitution is not a "social compact"...Specific performance is required of the parties to the compact. Who signed the constitution? My copy says it was only "witnessed". There are no identified parties in the U.S. Constitution.  have equal     Rights, and are equally eligible
    to all dignities and to contract for any public positions JG- Dangerous mishmash of natural liberty, and political liberty.
According to court cites, the exercise of political liberty impairs "other" rights. Ben Franklin stated that public service must be a drop in status (loss of rights) otherwise the servant shall become the master. This CONstitution is slavery.  
 or     occupations, according to their
    abilities, and without distinction except that of their virtues and     talents. The social compact of
    marriage or any act which produces a human fetus, through sexual     intercourse or otherwise,
    is recognized to be the Lawful union of a man and a woman into a     family unit which becomes
    one Lawful entity. JG-Marriage is for the protection of property rights to the next generation. Under the common law, "rights" of curtesy and dower do not exist if there are no children issued from the marriage. Modern licensed marriages are for people who don't have property rights (such as foreigners, slaves and bondsmen). Fetus protection is already a fact - see feticide. Forget "Lawful union", the real issue is who has a claim upon a parent's property. Without a marriage contract, a bastard child can't claim his father's inheritance under the common law.  
 As such there can only be one recognized head of     this Lawful entity,
    therefore, unless the woman is declared to be the head of the     family unit on the marriage
    agreement confirmation paper, the man is recognized as the head of     the family under the
    authority of the Common Law. JG- Oh really? Are you refering to the sole duty of support a man has until he is deprived of the custody and possession of chattels and wards? And who IS the authority of the common law? Is it a sovereign or a subject? Are you aware of the common law naming convention? He who names a thing, controls that thing. That's why a woman took her husband's name, to signify his control & duty of support. When a woman does not take her husband's name, he is absolved of the duty of support. Why bother with enacting constitutions to "enforce" the custom?     In the case of separation or divorce of various members of a     natural family, JG-Common law divorce? Or statutory? What is an unnatural family?  the children are to
    remain or be reunited with the father as Lawful custodian and     guardian unless there is a
    marriage agreement confirmation paper that declares the mother to     be the head of the family, JG- BAD LAW. Mixes up property right law with possessory law. A woman "makes" a baby in her body and if she takes off with "her child" a man cannot compel her to surrender to him that which she made. The best he can demand is that he is absolved of any duties to the woman and child(ren).       in which case the children are to remain or be reunited with the     mother as Lawful custodian
    and guardian. JG- Custody is not ownership. These are mixed concepts. Children are the property of freemen. Children of slaves are in the custody of slaves. Which type does this law infer? Recall in "Tom Sawyer" that Huck Finn's drunken father had ABSOLUTE power and only on his death did the townsfolk "take in" the orphaned Huck.  
 Children born out of wedlock are naturally recognized     to have their natural
    fathers to be their Lawful custodian and guardian. JG-EGAD! You have just violated EVERY property right principle in the Bible and common law.
Without a compact (marriage) a child IS NOT THE Property of the father - unless he gave birth to it.  
    Lawful custodians and guardians of children shall honor the natural     bonds, ties and
    relationships that a child should have with both parents and make     all attempts to be
    reasonable and allow the other parent to have access and physical     custody of the child for
    one-half of the time of the child's life as a minor under the age     of 18 years of age unless a
    Common Law Jury has ruled that the Law requires restrictions to     access and physical custody
    of the child upon a guilty verdict declared by the same Common Law     Jury which shall declare
    what those restrictions to access and physical custody of the child     actually are.

JG- More heifer dung that denies the LAWFUL powers of the owners of children. Under such laws, a religious recluse would be obligated to "share" his children with those he feels is unrighteous, etc.. etc.     Section 8. Any individual whatsoever, of any background, religious     faith, creed, ethnic or
    national origin, gender, or age may enter into any Lawful contract     provided they do so
    willingly, knowingly, and competently. JG- What do you define as "lawful"? Contract murder? Voluntary servitude?  
 When the competency of any     party to a contract is
    questioned by any other party to the contract, or by the guardians,     heirs, or assigns of the
    party in question, a Jury of twelve will decide competency based     solely on whether, in the
    judgement of a simple majority of jurors, the party in question is     competent to understand
    and faithfully execute the terms of the contract as written. JG- Where does a jury get the power to decide competency? For what purpose? Who's benefit?