Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

*** Let's Get On With The Solution!

Expand Messages
  • jail4judges
    J.A.I.L. News Journal Los Angeles - September 23, 2000 ____________________________________________________ Listen to HotSeat4Judges daily on Internet Radio
    Message 1 of 2 , Sep 23, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
       

      J.A.I.L. News Journal
      Los Angeles - September 23, 2000
      ____________________________________________________
      Listen to HotSeat4Judges daily on Internet Radio M-Th, 6-7 pm P.T.
      ____________________________________________________
      Get a J.A.I.L. For Judges T-Shirt for your next court appearance.
      Write baronboy@... and place your order today!
       
      NOW THAT WE KNOW THE PROBLEM
      LET'S GET ON WITH THE SOLUTION!
       
          Included below is a writing by Dan Meador, well known researcher and expert in tax matters. While I have greatly admired his many articles and teachings about tax law and how to apply it, I had often wished that Dan could direct his great efforts and wisdom toward the CAUSE of the problem rather than hack away at one of the many effects of it. Now, I am happy to say that he has done so. He has well identified the problem, and now we, the people, must get on with the solution which I discuss below.
       
          I have included only the portions between Dan Meador and Larry Becraft, followed by JAIL's comments. Our thanks to Jack Aiken Lancaster for sending JAIL this powerful information.
       
       
      The Core of Conflict
       
      Redemption or Institutionalized Control and Servitude?
      Dan Meador vs. Larry Becraft
       
      Dan Meador wrote:  The following comment was written by Alabama attorney Larry Becraft, one of the nation's attorneys who has been visibly on the front lines in the effort to correct government for over two decades.
       
      The reasonably short commentary was directed to one of our 'patriot' front-line people.
       
      I have some comments that follow.
       
      Larry Becraft wrote:
       
      I have been going to court for 24 years; I have seen far more than you have or ever will. I know the condition of things in courts and I also know the typical patriot response for this mess is only digging a deep hole for people and ruining their lives.
       
      RWL (Right Way L.a.w.) runs around advocating the "nom de guerre" and similar useless arguments.
       
      People go to hear Dave "psycho-path" Miller for his insanity.
       
      It is unbelievable that people even bought that "Subjects of the British Crown" nonsense.
       
      Now that U.C.C. argument regarding the strawman theory has already brought one indictment and I expect more.
       
      I don't see lawyers out in front of these patriot pep rallies feeding garbage to the people; they know better than to traffic in such crap.
       
      However, there are plenty of "Gurus" out there selling snake oil to the people. Their track record consists of sending thousands of people into the jaws of the enemy, however, you are so blind you will never see this reality.
       
      I applaud your fight against corruption.
       
      However, asserting meaningless legal garbage and trash will never win  any battle.
       
      Until patriots stop following "Trash Law" they will continue to fill up the prisons. But I guess you will have to learn the hard way.
       
      Attorney Larry Becraft
       
      Dan Meador's following comment/response:
       
      To provide context for my comments, I'm attaching the Declaration of Intergovernmental Dependence signed by state and local government delegates on January [22, 1937].
       
      As many others in the "patriot" community, I've followed Larry's work for several years, and generally, I laud contributions he made to understanding federal jurisdiction and many other subjects.
       
      However, there is considerable distance between my understanding of core difficulties relating to government, and his.
       
      We addressed some of the differences in private communications, and there are numerous areas where we simply agree to disagree.
       
      Consequently, it is necessary to examine the context of our respective positions in order to determine why we disagree.
       
      Where Larry is concerned, and hopefully others who might not agree with me, our respective conclusions might be modified when we go to the genesis of disagreement.
       
      If and when we finally achieve general agreement concerning root difficulties, there might be a means for restoring government that operates within the confines of constitutionally enumerated powers.
       
      The attached Declaration of Intergovernmental Dependence provides a context that cannot be denied.
       
       At the third general conference of the council of State Governments, delegates of state and local governments endorsed a compact that flies in the face of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and organic law dating back to the Magna Charta.
       
      Anyone who wants to, can locate the complete set of the Book of the States in a federal depository library.
       
      The document is published in volume 2, Book 2.
       
      In the alternative, order a copy from the Council of State Governments.
       
      The Declaration of Intergovernmental Dependence is an historical fact.
       
      And since state and local representatives endorsed this and other compacts in the 1930s, the Federalism scheme has engulfed our nation.
       
      Federalism, also known as Cooperative Federalism, is an existent man-made system.
       
      The Declaration of Intergovernmental Dependence articulates root ideology.
       
      As a system, Federalism has substance and the mechanics of operation.
       
      It is purposeful. It has an end objective. It relies on institutionalized accommodation. (It's called Matrix.)
       
      In general, I believe most people in the patriot community would agree with these minimum statements concerning Federalism.
       
      However, I am convinced that those who have invested lifetimes in the existent system via profession or employment have more difficulty coming to terms with Federalism as the vehicle for usurpation of power and general despotism than those who are directly victimized by it.
       
      I think attorneys find it more difficult to come to terms with core system corruption than most.
       
      I have a 1927 constitutional commentary that probes at least part of the reason. It was written by the commissioner of the Department of Education. In his opinion, there probably weren't any more than ten people in the nation who truly understood the Constitution.
       
      The foreword also mentions a report given to the American Bar Association national conference held in Denver. The report alleged that American law schools were turning out Constitutionally illiterate attorneys.
       
      If that was the case in the 1920s, the situation is considerably worse today. It has to be.
       
      In July 1995, one of the best defense attorneys in Northern Oklahoma told me I know more about Constitutional Law than any attorney in our country.
       
      If that was the case then, I must know more about Constitutional Law than all the attorneys in the country put together by now (not to mention the judges!)
       
      In 1990, I considered attending Law School.
       
      When I went through the curriculum, I found that only one constitutional course was required to earn a juris doctorate.
       
      I don't know for certain, but I've heard the requirement has since been dropped!
       
      I think this is the greatest disability there is to the law profession.
       
      Attorneys go through three years of law school brainwashing, then they spend their professional lives genuflecting to black robed bandits.
       
      If they don't yield, and practice proper decorum, they are banished from practice and are apt to get thrown in the clink.
       
      To step back far enough to conclude the whole damn mess is a charade and accommodates usurpation of power and despotism has to be extremely traumatic.
       
      It's traumatic for anyone, but those who operate within the system throughout their professional lives are even more encumbered.
       
      Larry serves as a primary example. He has written superior memoranda on federal jurisdiction, and the necessity of Congress creating federal agencies before they have lawful authority.
       
      He knows Congress didn't create the Internal Revenue Service or the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and he knows that if it required a constitutional amendment to impose a national prohibition against alcohol, it would require an amendment to impose national prohibition against drugs.
       
      Yet he does nothing significant to correct conspicuous usurpation of power.
       
      He recites case law that accommodates IRS, FBI, DEA, et al, as though the decisions are legitimate.
       
      My objective isn't to be overly critical of Larry.
       
      Larry does a hell of a lot more for the constitutionalist cause than most attorneys.
       
      And among his contributions is the occasional caution like the one above.
       
      Remember the Texas group responsible for Credit Money Orders? They and others who promoted similar devices are in prison. Remember the Comptroller Warrant?
       
      And how about the farm claim program?
       
      Was there any doubt that government would target the commercial Redemption program "Sight Draft"?
       
      I get a giggle out of some of Larry's criticisms.
       
      Dave "psycho-path" Miller has distorted the English language sufficiently that his briefs are impossible to understand.
       
      But I learned something important from Dave: The least common denominator.
       
      And even though Right Way L.a.w. may not have what is presently an effective defense, the "Straw man" (JOHN DOE) juristic entity is a legitimate issue.
       
      But the current commercial "Redemption" rage, whether concerning the juristic JOHN DOE or the Treasury Account used to "charge-back" presentments "accepted for value" will fall through the cracks when the powers-that-be settle on strategy.
       
      Why? Because the constitutionalist community doesn't carry a big enough enforcement stick.
       
      If the crook doesn't fear the cops, he has no incentive to quit stealing.
       
      Likewise, if the moral reprobate dressed in black (robe) has no fear of legal reprisal, he doesn't give two hoots in hell what paperwork someone puts in his court.
       
      So long as he can send a county sheriff or U.S. Marshal to nab whomever he wants, that's what he will do.
       
      And he will continue to do it until someone slaps his butt in jail.
       
      Entrenched powers operate on what my mother calls the Golden Rule: He who has the Gold makes the Rules! And they're darned sure going to pull out the stops when people go meddling with their fiat credit and monetary monopolies.
       
      I don't know that I can emphasize this enough: Those responsible for the binary system implemented here in the United States via the Uniform Commercial Code are responsible for 40% of the world's population going to be hungry.
       
      They could care less about ten-thousand or several hundred thousand patriots turned out on the street, thrown in prison, or outright killed.
       
      So long as they can get by with what they are doing, they will.
       
      They're intent on undermining American Sovereignty and solvency, and to the point there is a sufficient enough unified force to put an end to it, they will continue to pursue their objectives.
       
      [The economic control and manipulation of the credit system to the detriment of the people-- where they remain "property" of the state as well as "what" they think they own!]
       
      Consequently, there must be more focused strategy that engages the contest in judicial and political forums in such fashion as to force general disclosure.
       
      We aren't going to secure reliable individual remedies until we secure general remedies.
       
      But, even before that, we're going to have to come to grips with what we're dealing with, and the mechanics of how it operates.
       
      Mechanics of Federalism were pretty well advanced by the time the attached Declaration of Intergovernmental Dependence was endorsed.
       
      But the Declaration serves as a point of demarcation.
       
      It was among the early compacts that facilitated a secret war against the American people through state and local government institutions.
       
      Today, we are dealing with the end product-- the product is institutionalized despotism. In order for the scheme to succeed, it has relied on moral reprobates in virtually all decision-making positions, particularly our court systems.
       
      And I would suggest that since the first quarter of the century, there hasn't been a published court decision that isn't tainted by the underlying Federalism scheme.
       
      This, I believe, is the great gulf that divides Larry and me: Larry hasn't come to terms with the reality and implications of Federalism.
       
      I laud his research-- The two memoranda cited earlier don't scratch the surface of his contributions, but he is conceptually encumbered because he has yet to accept that government institutions, particularly what passes for courts of law, are corrupt to the core!
       
      On the other hand, I appreciate his realism concerning so many patriot silver bullets, including the commercial "Redemption" program.
       
      In 1995 or 1996, Walker Todd, former general counsel for the Cleveland Federal Reserve Bank, testified at one of the CMO trials in Dallas. Todd told the jury the privately issued CMO is [as] legitimate as those issued by banks. Banks issue the fool things every day!
       
      But the defendants went to prison in spite of Todd's testimony.
       
      [Gee, I wonder what percentage of the jury were federal employees... 75%?]
       
      Would you go to a pirate's court for justice? Hardly. To the pirate, law is a matter of convenience.
       
      I've been there, so I speak with the voice of experience.
       
      Just as certainly, every criminal tax case or tax civil suit prosecuted by the government in the several states is without law.
       
      Larry knows that as well as I do, and as well as most other patriots know. Consequently, there is common ground that even Larry shares if he considers what he knows in that context: Our court systems are completely reprobate, [and] they are lawless.
       
      But on the other end of the spectrum, where patriots will quickly agree that our courts are without even the semblance of integrity, there is a lack of cognitive understanding.
       
      The lack of understanding pivots on our inability to execute and enforce lawful remedies.
       
      Coming to terms with the institutional Golden Rule might help understand the perils of screwing with the current de facto credit and monetary schemes.
       
      Read the Declaration of Intergovernmental Dependence agreement. Then if you don't know it, read the Declaration of Independence.
       
      Let the former soak in. Until you come to intellectual and emotional terms with what each document means, you probably aren't going to be able to grasp how deeply rooted this scheme is.
       
      We are dealing with a highly organized scheme that is entrenched throughout institutional America. So long as we pursue individual remedies, without deploying strategy to effect general remedies, the patriot community will continue to provide fodder for the grist mill.
       
      *   *   *
       
      1937 Declaration of Intergovernmental Dependence
       
      The Declaration of Intergovernmental Dependence that follows is published on pages 142, 143 of the Book of the States, Volume 2, Book 2.
       
      Delegates who attended the third general assembly of the Council of State Governments signed it.
       
      The Council of State Governments, which now has headquarters in Lexington, Kentucky, was incorporated in 1933 as the product primarily of members of the Council of State Legislatures.
       
      Both were financed to a great extent by Spelman Fund, which was and still is a fund of the Rockefeller Foundation.
       
      A Declaration of Intergovernmental Dependence was signed at the general assembly held in Denver in 1935, but a limited number of states were represented.
       
      Representatives of the several states have since signed at least one similar declaration.
       
      The Council of State Governments is contemporaneously classified as a government entity, albeit a third tier of non-constitutional government.
       
      Most funding is currently approved by state governments.
       
      The following declaration provided the early ideological framework and rationalization for the state and local government side of Federalism, also known as Cooperative Federalism.
       
      +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
       
      Declaration of Interdependence of the Governments
      within the United States of America in Common Council,
      signed at Washington, District of Columbia,
      January 22, 1937
      by delegates to the Third General Assembly
      of the Council of State Governments
       
      When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for a nation to repair the fabric which unites its many agencies of government, and to restore the solidarity which is vital to orderly growth, it is the duty of responsible officials to define the need and to find a way to meet it.
       
      A way does not come of itself.
       
      The maintenance of just and efficient government is as intricate, as arduous, and as imperative as any human endeavor.
       
      One hundred and fifty years ago - a government dedicated to the preservation of every man's endowment of life, liberty and happiness.
       
      Inevitable changes have come.
       
      The fundamental patter of states united for the benefits of all the people remains the same as it was when the founding fathers wove it.
       
      But the far flung tapestry of our many governments has stretched so taut that the fabric has weakened.
       
      The essential thread of cooperation too often is lacking.
       
      Now, for the first time since the memorable day when the form of our Constitution was determined, official delegates of the States are gathered together, seeking to revive the original purpose-- "to form a more perfect union."
       
      It was meant that the States, while creating a nation, should yet preserve their own sovereignties and a maximum of self-government.
       
      But, now if the claim of states' rights is to prevail, it must be justified by a demonstration of states' competence.
       
      When our union was formed, there was no land transportation, nor any remote communication, except by the revolutionized, by the advent of transportation as swift as the wind and of communication more rapid than lightning.
       
      Our area has trebled. The number of our people has increased beyond belief.
       
      How have our governments met their mutual problems by this modern era?
       
      They have developed a "No Man's Land" of jurisdiction.
       
      In thousands of instances their laws are in conflict, their practices are discordant, their regulations are antagonistic, and their policies are either competitive or repugnant to one another.
       
      In taxation alone, scores of conflicts between federal and state laws exist.
       
      The interstate criminal is a standing headline on Page One of every newspaper.
       
      The forty-eight states pass laws on crime, labor, taxation, relief, corporations, parole, domestic relations, and other questions momentous to our social and economic system, with no thought of harmony.
       
      And this discord has been further stitched into our pattern of life by all other agencies possessing the power of legislation.
       
      This is not as it should be.
       
      The trend of federal-state projects, exemplified by social security, demands immediate action if those projects are to succeed completely.
       
      All officials should conduct their own governmental properly.
       
      But we hold that they must act with earnest regard also to the other units of government.
       
      The bonds of good will ands the lines of communication, which connect our many interdependent governments, must be immeasurably strengthened.
       
      Through established agencies of cooperation, through uniform and reciprocal laws and regulations, through compacts under the Constitution, through informal collaboration, and through all other means possible, our nation, our states, and our localities must fuse their activities with a new fervor of national unity.
       
      We, therefore, representatives of the officers of government here assembled, do solemnly pledge our loyal efforts to the accomplishments of such purpose.
       
      As our forefathers by the Declaration of Independence affirmed their purpose to improve government for us, so do we by this Declaration of Interdependence affirm our purpose to improve governments for our contemporaries and for our posterity.
       
      *   *   *
      End... ?
      Note:  Well, here we have representatives of "officers" (agents/ employees) pledging efforts and compacts for themselves and NOT FOR THE SOVEREIGN PEOPLE whom they are servants of.
       
      But, as to "improve" government is a bit ludicrous, when we have more socialist/communistic government today in America, than at any other time in our country's history.

       
      Ron Branson of J.A.I.L. now writes:
       
      Mr. Meador identifies the core problem as follows: "Today, we are dealing with the end product-- the product is institutionalized despotism. In order for the scheme to succeed, it has relied on moral reprobates, in virtually all decision-making positions, particularly our court systems." (emphasis added).
       
      He goes on to say that lawyers who operate within the court system throughout their professional lives are "conceptually encumbered because [they do not] accept that government institutions, particularly what passes for courts of law, are corrupt to the core!" (emphasis added). 
       
       I call people who constantly make excuses for the judiciary "apologists for the courts." We receive so many on our email saying that the court is acting properly because-- and the list goes on:  we are slaves; we have no rights, only privileges; we're under marshal law; the Constitution has been suspended; the country is bankrupt; the courts operate under commerce; and many more excuses. Most of these people consider themselves "patriots" and yet they buy into these schemes.
       
      When I tell them that we have no forum for redress and that it's the judiciary that are responsible for the ruination of our lives, I am told "The judges aren't to blame. They're only doing what the system allows them to do. Judges are making the right decisions according to the codes they are operating under."  Those "patriots" closest to me and who've known me personally for many years, who know what I stand for, who know about the years I've sought redress of grievances in the courts-- including fourteen petitions to the U.S. Supreme Court over the years involving several cases-- are lukewarm, at best, to the cause I am promoting.
       
      At an annual patriots' picnic, one of my patriot friends told me "We don't need judicial accountability. We have our own common law courts." She has since fled the state and I haven't heard from her since. But there are others here who belong to the "Jural Society" who believe the same way.
       
      Many of my friends in the patriot community today are heavily involved in the "current commercial 'Redemption' rage" as Dan calls it. He says that that program "will fall through the cracks when the powers-that-be settle on strategy." 
       
       I cringe when I hear redemptionists tell me "We're winning in court with the strawman strategy. Judges are speechless when we approach them using this program. We've got 'em cold! They have no alternative but to rule in our favor, as long as you file the proper paperwork, and say the right thing, using the proper wording." (This is the general gist of what they tell me.) 
       
       I say to myself "It's just a matter of time for these dear, sincere folks."  As Dan says, "[T]hey're [the tyrants] darned sure going to pull out the stops when people go meddling with their fiat credit and monetary monopolies."  One dedicated redemptionist was unable to receive her teacher's retirement for some time, but now she is receiving it in full by using the program. She's convinced that she has found the right method. As the saying goes, "The proof is in the pudding." 
       
      Dan says that this "silver bullet" isn't going to last. "Why? Because the constitutionalist community doesn't carry a big enough stick. If the crook doesn't fear the cops, he has no incentive to quit stealing. Likewise, if the moral reprobate dressed in black (robe) has no fear of legal reprisal, he doesn't give two hoots in hell what paperwork someone puts in his court. So long as he can send a county sheriff or U.S. Marshal to nab whomever he wants, that's what he will do. And he will continue to do it until someone slaps his butt in jail."
       
      Dan states that "there must be more focused strategy that engages the contest in judicial and political forums in such a fashion as to force general disclosure. We aren't going to secure reliable individual remedies until we secure general remedies."
       
      In other words, I believe what Dan is saying here is that before any of us, as individuals, can expect to get redress in our courts, we have to develop a system of the people, separate and independent of the powers-that-be, that will hold the "moral reprobates dressed in black robes" to account for their tyrannical actions, i.e., "force general disclosure."  That is exactly the objective of the Judicial Accountability Initiative Law. (JAIL). For the non-initiative states, and for federal accountability, it's called the Judicial Accountability & Integrity Legislation (JAIL) which has the same objective.
       
      We can see that the government has usurped its power over the people, not only by reading the "Declaration of Interdependence of the Governments" but in everyday life by observing and experiencing the fact that the people are blocked, by lawless judicial tyrants (moral reprobates), from receiving judicial redress of grievances in our courts.
       
      Furthermore, this blockage is sealed and secured by the judge-made doctrine of "judicial immunity" which allows these tyrants to do as they please with impunity. To exacerbate this problem, these moral reprobates have consistently abused the doctrine to the point where we, the people, MUST rise up to our duty to halt this abuse as a matter of our survival as a free people in this nation under the precepts of our Constitution.
       
      The Preamble of the JAIL Initiative in California states: "We, the People of California, find that the doctrine of judicial immunity has been greatly abused; and when judges abuse their power, the people are obliged - it is their duty - to correct that injury, for the benefit of themselves and their posterity. In order to ensure judicial accountability and domestic tranquility, we hereby amend Article I of our Constitution with these provisions, which shall be known as "The Judicial Accountability Amendment."
       
      This California initiative is authorized by Article II, Section 1, of the California Constitution, which states: "All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require." [Former Section 26 of Article I, as renumbered June 8, 1976.]
       
      Other initiative states, I believe there are 26, have similar provision. In California the provision was renumbered in June of 1976. The Declaration of Interdependence of Governments was signed in 1937. According to the above California provision, the 1937 document doesn't serve the purpose for which government was instituted which is for the "protection, security, and benefit" of the people.
       
      Dan himself notes at the end of the article that under the 1937 document, we have representatives employed by government pledging "protection, security, and benefit" for THEMSELVES, and not the sovereign people for whom they are to provide those attributes.
       
      Clearly, government is NOT providing "protection, security, and benefit" to the people. A judiciary accountable to the people is necessary for "their protection, security, and benefit" and the people have the basic right to ensure the effectiveness of those attributes to themselves BY the government, as well as to ensure the enforcement of all the several basic rights of the people delineated under Article I, by means of "The Judicial Accountability Amendment" to Article I of the California Constitution. The same principle applies to other states.
       
      The Declaration of Independence provides:  "... That to secure these [unalienable] rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. ..."
       
      The JAIL Initiative is the power of the people to enforce judicial accountability only when the existing judicial system fails. JAIL is about the power of the people in the first instance. JAIL is not intended to be a government function, nor can it be if it is to serve the purpose for which it is written. The JAIL provision must remain separate and independent of any function of government.
       
      It is imperative to distinguish between the power of the people and the function of government in serving the people. JAIL provides a means by which the people, not the government, can hold judges to account when the government, i.e., the judiciary (the moral reprobates), fails to function according to the Constitution and compatible law.
       
      The people have found that the government has failed to achieve its purpose, and more particularly the judicial branch, by the abusive use of the judge-made, self-serving doctrine of judicial immunity. Insofar as the enforcement of judicial immunity precludes or prevents the protection, security, and benefit of the people, such doctrine must be set aside in order for government to carry out its purpose.
       
      The people have the basic right to challenge the function of government by redress of grievances to the judiciary which right must remain open and available to the people for that purpose without government (judicial) interference. Today, the basic right of redress by the people to their government is being blocked by the government with the abusive enforcement of judicial immunity.
       
      "...But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, (emphasis added) to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. ..." (Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776).
       
      Folks, the time has come, and is long overdue, for JAIL-- the only answer to this "institutionalized despotism."  The longer we wait, the worse it will become. JAIL is the ONLY answer this nation will ever know!

       
      JA.I.L. is an acronym for (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law)
      JAIL's very informative website is found at www.jail4judges.org
      JAIL proposes a unique new addition to our form of government.
      JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!
      JAIL's is spreading across America like a fast moving wildfire!
      JAIL is making inroads into Congress for federal accountability!
      JAIL may be supported at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603
      To subscribe or be removed:  add-remove-jail@...
      To send published judicial articles: USA-jail4judges@...
      To contact the author of JAIL4Judges: jail4judges@...
      All E-Groups are encouraged to sign on at jail4judges@egroups.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
       
      "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is
      striking at the root."                         -- Henry David Thoreau    <><
    • jail4judges
      Molli: The difference is in approach to the problem: (1) whether you choose to educate yourself on the fraud and deception game the corrupt system is playing
      Message 2 of 2 , Sep 24, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        Molli:
         
           The difference is in approach to the problem: (1) whether you choose to "educate" yourself on the fraud and deception game the corrupt system is playing against the people, and then participate in that game under "their" rules; or (2) whether you choose to alter or abolish it, and institute new government (speaking here of a people's oversight body of the judiciary) to provide new guards for our future security. (See Declaration of Independence).
         
            I choose the latter method, as I firmly believe that it is the DUTY of the people to do so as the Declaration sets forth. I cannot expect to go into a corrupt forum and obtain honest redress. As Dan Meador so aptly put it, "Would you go to a pirate's court for justice? Hardly. To the pirate, law is a matter of convenience."
         
            Dan also states "We aren't going to secure reliable individual remedies until we secure general remedies."  A system fraught with fraud and deception is hardly a formulae for "general remedies." Until the judicial system operates on an honest and constitutional basis, it is my opinion that people are wasting valuable time and energy operating with a corrupt authority.  I do not believe that "posing problems to them where they have to run to their legal eggheads asking 'what do I do now?' " is providing the "general remedies" so sorely needed.
         
            It is important to "pose problems," in a forum OUTSIDE the corrupt court system-- and THEN let them run to their "legal eggheads" and say "What do we do now?"  It is the forum that must be abolished and replaced with a new one.
         
            As far as we must "understand the very clever con they are running on us in terms of the current governing entity and the jurisdiction in which it operates,"  it is precisely because we recognize it for what it truly is-- "clever con they are running on us" -- that we cannot participate in it. Participating in a fraud and con game isn't the solution. I have written a proposal which IS the solution.
         
            Thank you for writing.
         
        -Ron-
         

         
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2000 3:05 AM
        Subject: Re: *** Let's Get On With The Solution!

        Dear Ron -
        This posting is very interesting; Meador makes a lot of very good
        points. I agree with him that the system is essential corrupt, that the
        untouchable sacred cow of the usurpers is their 'cash cow' - the central bank/fiat money system - and that the Constitutionalist community at present is too small to have much clout or force. Might makes right now as throughout history. Sad but true. Which means that our main effort should be - trying to educate/raise the consciousness of 'the thinking few' capable of understanding and caring.

        Which leads me to my main subject - according to the Bible, it is the
        truth which shall make us free. BUT - the teachers have to know the
        truth before they can teach it. One comment of yours, in the posting
        which I am responding to, that I have a problem with - the paragraph in which you dismiss information/theories such as - we are all slaves; the judges are ruling correctly based on current law/codes/
        jurisdictions, and etc.

        I believe you are seriously missing the point of such comments. You
        are interpreting them to be apologias or defenses of the current set-up, which I believe they are not. Rather, they come from a position of 'you can't solve the problem until you understand it.'

        If we go into court thinking & acting as if we are in a lawful original
        jurisdiction court, when we are not - when we are in fact presumed by the court to be under contract - to have voluntarily waived our rights as guaranteed by the Constitution in exchange for benefits, under specific contract(s) with a legislatively created corporation which is governing in the stead of the original government - then the judge in a narrow 'letter-of-the-law sense' is correct (although I agree that the whole set-up is dishonest and a fraud at base) to find against us.
        IF we can learn the true nature of the jurisdiction the courts
        operate in almost all the time, and if we can use that knowledge to
        press on some of the weak points in the structure of quasi-legality they have created, and on which their putative authority and right to govern are based - THEN we are putting the fire to their feet and posing them some problems they, at the very least, have to run to their legal eggheads with, asking 'what do I do now?"
        IF more of the patriot/legal reform community could elevate their
        understanding and write briefs that come from an understanding of the current corporate/commercial jurisdiction and the presumptions which underlie it - presumptions which are assailable at several key weak points - then we could make things a little hotter, at least, for this at base fraudulent and deceitful system or engine for wealth
        appropriation, or transfer - from the working masses, the source of all wealth, to a tiny  elite or de facto aristocracy of wealth (OUR wealth).
        I hope you will read and think on the above a bit & not just dismiss
        out out of hand. I truly believe that if you - or any reformer -  do not
        understand the very clever con they are running on us in terms of the
        current governing entity and the jurisdiction in which it operates, then
        you are as the old saw goes, more a well-intentioned but fatally
        ill-informed part of the problem - and not, sadly, part of the solution.
        I am not saying that you should accept what I am saying on faith or
        just because I say it - but I think it would be frankly irresponsible of
        you to reject it out-of-hand without trying to educate yourself
        regarding this research to the point of being able to make an informed decision regarding its merit.

        Molli
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.