Restore the Republic

Common Law

January 18, 2024 | Constitution, Founders, History, Judicial, Jury, Militia, Sovereignty

I have been asked as to what is the nature of ‘common law’? It is not an easy question to answer, given that most are unfamiliar with law in general, and today, few understand our unique form of government “instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” This statement from our Declaration deserves some explanation before going further.

Prior to the Revolution, conducted by our Insurrectionist Founders, men were subjects of monarch’s who ruled by the Divine Right of Kings. They governed their people by the fallacious concept that an individual was placed on a throne by birth right. God had determined that the individual should be the person who ruled. And that person was given allegiance by his people, but if they failed to do so, they were brought into line by the power of the “Sword.” There has always been plenty who would wield the “Sword” against his fellow man for one reason or another.

Those Fifty-Six Insurrectionist’s, who signed their own death warrant, and had “Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms” saw the monarch as “A Prince whose character [was] thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, [was] unfit to be the ruler of a free people.” So, the fight for a government “of, by, and for the people” became a reality for those who sought to abide by law that “We the People” would compose, defend, and prosecute.

There is a history of common law, and it is best that I allow historic figures to explain. I will attempt to give some light to the subject using their words, and case law.

Common Law seems simple enough to me, but to the average person who has been inundated with reams of papers by those claiming some sort of expertise, promoting some foolishness, and judicial legislating, the prescription is anathema to common sense.

Blackstone gives a simple explanation by writing, “THE policy of our ancient constitution, as regulated and established by the great Alfred, was to bring justice home to every man’s door, by constituting as many courts of judicature as there are manors and townships in the kingdom; wherein injuries were redressed in an easy and expeditious manner, by the suffrage of neighbors and friends.”

Our system is that of common law. If you have been harmed in some way, you are entitled to relief. As Justice John Marshall explains in Marbury v Madison, 5 U.S. 137.                                             

“If he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy? The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. *** Blackstone states two cases in which a remedy is afforded by mere operation of law.

‘In all other cases,’ he says, ‘it is a general and indisputable rule, that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law whenever that right is invaded.’

“And afterwards, [still quoting Blackstone] ‘I am next to consider such injuries as are cognizable by the courts of common law. And herein I shall for the present only remark, that all possible injuries whatsoever, that did not fall within the exclusive cognizance of either the ecclesiastical, military, or maritime tribunals, are, for that very reason, within the cognizance of the common law courts of justice; for it is a settled and invariable principle in the laws of England, that every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress.’”

Over the years, there have been numerous hucksters, charlatans, and even those who are of goodwill, who paraded out schemes designed, somehow, to enforce the law, or that the law was some form of secret code designed for the elite to enslave us all. While we have been enslaved to a certain extent, the law does not allow for, and indeed it does provide an ultimate authority for the people to claim redress and enforce our sought remedy.

I sincerely hope that those who read this understand that this nation was formed in turmoil. A bloody revolution fought over years, wherein the end result was a Nation “constructed on the principle that the Supreme Power resides in the body of the people.” – Chisholm v Georgia 2 U.S. 419, 457

How do we attain, and even maintain such a lofty goal? Those who debated the Constitution were not ignorant of the fact that tyranny would always be a threat. The Bill of Rights arose out of that historical record. Patrick Henry, a student of human nature, understood the dangers of leaving questions, or even clearly defined words at risk to the will of the oppressor.

Henry insisted that a Bill of Rights be added over the objections of James Madison who thought it to be superfluous. This is important to demonstrate that both Henry and Madison were correct in their arguments. Madison noted that government is given certain powers to which they must comply, but Henry argued that there would be those, in the future, who would usurp the powers, and prohibitions clearly stated. Today, we argue and ignore the words of both men.

The Bill of Rights bolsters the principles of common law by citing numerous components of the  means to enforce common law; freedom of religion, speech, the press, the right to peaceably assemble, and to redress the government. Security against unreasonable search and seizure. Warrants to be issued upon probable cause. A grand jury and a petit jury. Thomas Jefferson noted,  I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.

Blackstone wrote, “as all wrong may be considered as merely a privation of right, the one natural remedy for every species of wrong is the being put in possession of that right, whereof the party injured is deprived. This may either be effected by a specific delivery or restoration of the subject-matter in dispute to the legal owner *** The instruments whereby this remedy is obtained *** are a diversity of suits and actions, which are defined by *** the right of prosecuting to judgment which everyone is due.”

Today, common law appears to be a novel idea, but the concept of “prosecuting to judgment” is far older than this nation. Blackstone, notes, “THE Romans introduced, pretty early, set forms for actions and suits in their law *** (quoting Cicero) “There are rights, there are forms appointed, for all things, lest any one should mistake either the kind of injury or the mode of redress. For public forms are composed by the praetor (Roman magistrate) from every species of loss, trouble, inconvenience, calamity, and injury, for the accommodation of private suits.”

The means by which remedy and relief may be obtained, are as old as the stories and fables of Aphrodite and Zeus. However, the forms upon which we may seek, or even bring a suit have been corrupted. The average person runs around blaming the unethical rather than engaging the law as it was promulgated in our unique form.

Common law, as was discussed earlier in this article, is the ability of the individual to be made whole against some transgression, be it a matter of private property, or as addressed in “Marbury,” a deprivation of a vested right.

We held that as a truth in law; “….The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a Citizen. *** He owes no duty to the State since he receives nothing therefrom beyond the protection of his life and   *** His rights are such as existed by the Law of the Land, long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of the law and in accordance with the Constitution. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.” – Hale vs. Henkle 201 U.S. 43 at 74

Underlying the common law is common sense. For all actions, there must be a means by which they are enforced. An aggrieved party may bring a suit but is dependent on some enforcement by an institution with recognized authority to carry out the verdict of the court.

When it is the government, those we elect to represent our interests in law, that cause the injury, today we are dependent on agents given unconstitutional powers to procure relief. How is this to be considered as a legitimate forum when our judiciary has promoted the idea of “compelling interest”? The government always has some interest enforced by agents whose goal is the prosecution of the people they were meant to serve.

“John Locke is one of the founders of “liberal” political philosophy, the philosophy of individual rights and limited govern­ment.” I believe, that in his “Treatise On Government,” too long to elaborate here, we find an underpinning for common law. Locke wrote in his Second Treatise, “And that all men may be restrained from invading others rights, and from doing hurt to one another, and the law of nature be observed, which willeth the peace and preservation of all mankind, the execution of the law of nature is, in that state, put into every man’s hands, whereby every one has a right to punish the transgressors of that law to such a degree as may hinder its violation: for the law of nature would, as all other laws that concern men in this world, be in vain, if there were nobody that in the state of nature had a power to execute that law, and thereby preserve the innocent and restrain offenders. And if any one in the state of nature may punish another for any evil he has done, every one may do so: for in that state of perfect equality, where naturally there is no superiority or jurisdiction of one over another, what any may do in prosecution of that law, every one must needs have a right to do.”

How do we equate what Blackstone and Locke wrote to the application of common law? Both men address rights, and a forum in which an individual may bring a prosecution against a transgressor. Natural rights, which our Forefathers deemed unalienable, must have a forum to provide for the remedy and relief owed to one who has been harmed.

This is where the understanding of common law fails amongst those who use and abuse the term by a lack of willingness to enforce. Those delegates who debated the Constitution were aware of the dangers of any system, especially any system that had no means by which all men could seek a menu of remedy as noted by Cicero.

This is the nature of our laws, and of common law. An injury must have a method for relief, and a means to enforce. Without a prescription with the force of law, we have abdicated our duty, and our responsibility to our fellow citizens. You cannot ask a leopard to change its spots when the leopard has a vested interest in its own well-being.

We have allowed to be erected standing armies all about us in the form of agencies that act with no constitutional authority, and indeed in violation of the powers and disabilities constructed within our rule of law.

James Madison stated, “Always remember that an armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics—that without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe.”

Do we subscribe to a system of common law as some of the great legal minds of history, and our Forefathers provided?

What is common law? As discussed here, it is a system comprised of a forum in which a person may seek remedy in accordance with an assertion of their natural rights, to go about their business unfettered, and obtain relief when their person has been violated. The Founders of this nation were astute enough to know that the application of any right, or those laws welcomed by the people must have an arm of enforcement. This is where we have fallen and discredited our system of equity in law. “Common Law” must have a venue by which to bring prosecution, it must also have an Institution that “We the People” maintain as our enforcement tool.

Redress A Grievance

January 8, 2024 | General

The Continental Congress approved the wording of the abuses and usurpations that were listed by Jefferson as reasons for the dissolution of “the political bands which have connected them with another.”

“A Declaration” goes on, “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.”

Long before our Declaration, the good people of England induced the monarch, King John, to accept and sign the Magna Carta. The monarchy acquiesced to the demands of the people through the Twenty Five Barons.

At Article 61 the document prescribes the doctrine of Redress and its solution if the monarchy failed to comply.

“If we, our chief justice, our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security, and the offence is made known to four of the said twenty-five barons, they shall come to us – or in our absence from the kingdom to the chief justice – to declare it and claim immediate redress. If we, or in our absence abroad the chief justice, make no redress within forty days, reckoning from the day on which the offence was declared to us or to him, the four barons shall refer the matter to the rest of the twenty-five barons, who may distrain upon and assail us in every way possible, with the support of the whole community of the land, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, or anything else saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children, until they have secured such redress as they have determined upon.”

Before delving into this subject, let me propose a correlation between Article I, and Article II of our Bill of Rights, that of the United States, and Article 61 of the Magna Carta.

Amendment I: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Amendment II: “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

It is necessary, indeed it is an imperative of our unique Laws that we understand the progression from one amendment to the other wherein the First addresses a Right, and the Second imposes a duty and resolution constructed long before the Framers of our Constitution designated the means, by which “We the People” were afforded the authority to enforce our Rights.

We must realize that common sense dictates that we have no rights, for which we are unable, at some measure, to Redress. If, at every level of our system of government, “servants” of the people obstruct, restrict, regulate, and usurp the foundations of those rights, we have none. The Twenty-Five Barons, and king John agreed that failure to redress gave the people the provisional authority to rectify the transgression beyond the means set forth as a peaceful conclusion. Today, we are drawing close to an end, or a beginning. Neither will be pleasant for us, but horrific for our children.

I often point to our children because I have come to realize that they will endure either the horrors of a totalitarian state, or the ravages of war. I have also learned over the years of speaking to others that most truly do not have a concern for the future generations.

“We the People” are currently under duress by factions hell-bent on the destruction of freedom. It should be obvious to the most uncertain, foolish, and frivolous amongst us that there is a turn, an agenda, with its eye towards a prize. That price being the enslavement of the common people by way of decimating any liberty still possessed.

The United States has a Bill of Rights noting that it is the people who are the arbiters of their own lives. It is not a Totalitarian state, Monarchy, Caliphate, nor Democracy that we bow to for our day to day existence, although there are many who subscribe to such a life. It is easier to succumb than to resist. The king, the dictator, the president, nor the mob are the final word in our Republic, but rather an armed citizenry that Petitions and seeks remedy and relief from the transgressions of the state and the “useful idiot.”

Several years ago, G. Edward Griffin interviewed Norman Dodd who had been appointed by Congress to investigate Foundations that might be engaged in un-American activities. I suggest that one might listen to the interview linked in this article. Mr. Dodd reveals, the gist of which is a disturbing picture of what has taken place in this nation, and how the education system has aided in our downfall. I have included it to make the point of a populace that, while aspiring to higher education, has been duped into believing that they are of some intellectually superior moral character. Instead, they are the tools that are now being used to dismantle our distinctive form of a nation based on popular sovereignty.

On January 6, 2020, an impressively large group of people gathered in Washington, DC on the date scheduled for the counting of Electoral votes. Briefly stated, a Redress by those who saw an election that had been manipulated in favor of the cabal most bent on the destruction of our liberty. It is unfortunate that some violence ensued, more than likely instigated by federal agents, and an opportunity was given to those who are working to destroy our rights. In the words of many of those who seek our downfall we must never let an opportunity go to waste. As part of that plot, none of our rights are absolute, although the word unalienable defines them as such, is part of the mantra.

In 1689 the English Bill of Rights was enacted. That Bill states: “That it is the right of the subjects to petition the King, and all committments [sic] and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal.”

Instead of what was an attempt at a Redress has been turned against the People, for whom it is the state that must submit if “any Form of Government becomes destructive of” its constitutional limitations. All abridgement of Rights and Powers retained by “We the People” must be rectified to our desired conclusion, not that of elected or appointed representatives, nor the “useful idiot” hell bent on forming the chains of enslavement.

What has, instead, taken place is a re-education, as Mr. Dodd points out, designed to create a monopoly of power and wealth for the few who subscribe to the One World Government agenda. An agenda that prescribes unimaginable power for the elite, and nothing but abject servitude and woe for those of us who are considered the “deplorables.”

The Redress, as I see it, was based on what has been shown to be fact as uncovered over the last several months. At least five states not only violated election laws, but they were aware that what they were doing constituted a grievous affront to the security of our nation.

In the most recent attack on our freedom, the supreme court of Colorado has determined that Donald Trump must be removed from the ballot as one who participated in an “insurrection.” Against whom, I am unsure, but in their high-and-mighty expression of their disdain for “Redress,” those black robed administrators twisted the third section of the Fourteenth Amendment as another indication of the elite’s disdain for “rights secured by our Constitution.”

This latest attack shows contempt for congress’ authority at Section 5; “The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article”, and long historical record, to which even king John agreed that the entire community “may distrain upon and assail us in every way possible”.

As to whether our Civil War was an insurrection is debatable. Had the war gone the other way, history would see it in its proper perspective as a fight to maintain the integral structure of our rule of law.

In the debate leading to the ratification of the Bill of Rights, it was questioned; “what *** shall we secure the freedom of speech, and think it necessary, at the same time, to allow the right of assembling? If people freely converse together, they must assemble for that purpose; it is a self-evident, unalienable right which the people possess; it is certainly a thing that never would be called in question; it is derogatory to the dignity of the House to descend to such minutiae.”

We have the solemn duty, and  “the Right of the People to alter or to abolish” government when it acts in such a manner as to be destructive of our sovereign positions.

At what point do we remove the veil that clouds are minds from the truth of who we are, and the recognition of the forces aligned against freedom? We must realize that ambivalence and inaction are not how we maintain this nation’s foundation. “We the People” are not the subjects of laws that abridge our sovereign powers, nor can we be held accountable when those who serve us make a mockery of our institutions.

The ability to have free and open elections that are not clouded by suspicious activities or improbable outcomes must be questioned. There is no excuse for anyone, of any ilk, to sustain dubious conclusions, and then rebuke those who seek Redress. And if that redress is also marred by suspicious activity from planted agents, then there is more the reason that we must constantly assail the plots and plans of the corrupt.

Redress must be held sacred until all questions have been answered with irrefutable facts.

A Free Press

September 10, 2023 | 1st Amendment, Civil Liberties, Constitution, Founding Documents

by Nicholas Testaccio

“I have proved, sir, that not only some power is given in the constitution to restrain, and even to subject the press, but that it is a power totally unlimited; and may certainly annihilate the freedom of the press, and convert it from being the palladium of liberty to become an engine of imposition and tyranny. It is an easy step from restraining the press to making it place the worst actions of government in so favorable a light, that we may groan under tyranny and oppression without knowing from whence it comes.” –  Cincinnatus, no. 2, TO James Wilson, November 8, 1787

Arthur Lee, using the pseudonym Cincinnatus, wrote what he feared might become of the press if it did not hold some guarantee of a right to be free from government intervention. He was, like many of our Founders, an astute observer of history and what the record held. Government, that is to say men and women jealous of power, are apt to strike at every measure of liberty and the institutions that are held as safeguards against the designs of the tyrant.

The Bill of Rights begins “Congress shall make no law respecting *** the freedom of speech, or of the press”. Despite his fear of a corruption made of the press without some protection, and contrary to Mr. Wilson’s assurance that congress lacked any power to influence or control the press, we are now subject to an institution void of conscience, and a willing conspirator to the worst of men. Those, sometimes faceless bureaucrats or worse still, those we elect to represent our interests in the halls of the legislatures.  

Lee wanted, as did many others, a written assurance against the reaches of government to perform as so many others had in the past. Wilson noted that the law written as it was, gave no power to the state to make any encroachments on the press. Regardless of the lessons of history and the protection sought against the contrivances of power seekers, we have been witness to a press willing to collude with those in such positions that they may lend a hand in the subjugation of the people.

“Fake news” is a term to which we were introduced by former president Donald Trump in his run-up to the White House, and then again during his presidency. There would be a long list, far too long for this column, to enumerate. The corporate media made a display of lies and propaganda that would make German propagandist Joseph Goebbels proud. Obvious lies, distortion, and failure to correct mistakes and disinformation are legion. Today they continue along the path of either thinking they are legitimate, or they are an instrument for the destruction of this Republic.

The common man neither has the time, nor the resources to investigate and corroborate what comes from the corporate press. Instead, for the most part, the average citizen takes as fact the distortions that come out of institutions that were meant to be a check on government. I must wonder why it is that the continuation of lies spewed out from the corporate media, still a majority of the population takes for granted that what they read in the New York Times, or regurgitated from CNN to MSMBC is taken as trusted sources of information.

Repeatedly, false claims, such as Russian interference in the 2016 election, the corporate media played along with the lies that were common out of the mouths of people such as Adam Schiff, and Hilary Clinton. In the face of the Mueller report, the corporate media played along by failing to admit that they promoted propaganda in order to assist in the aversion to revealing the truth. A twist here, a coverup there, a lie designed to obfuscate, and the truth vanishes into the ether.

Accuse your opponent of the crimes you’ve committed, and the falsehoods become part of the mindset that distorts reality. The “free press” is quite adept at concealing the truth if they believe  it will help their side.

What we should do is examine the facts around Georgia, and Michigan for some insight as to the corruption that is rampant throughout the corporate media.

Let’s start with the false narrative that Trump brought Sixty suits to the courts that were dismissed. Trump brought one election contest, and that case revolved around the Georgia election. All the other cases were ancillary and brought by others attempting to find the truth. Trump’s election contest was never heard.

Georgia law is, that if you file an election contest, a court must be assigned, and within five days set a hearing, and within ten days hold that hearing. Georgia violated its own law by not setting a hearing, and then negating a chance for a hearing to be held. It set the hearing date after January 6th, which made it moot at that point. The claim was therefore dismissed.

Trump filed an appeal stating that Fulton County would not abide by the rules for an election contest. The Georgia supreme court essentially avoided the issue by referring it to the court of appeals that never did anything about taking up the claims. A brief summary of the election contest asked what amounted to constitutional questions, such as were there only constitutionally qualified people who voted; were there only constitutionally qualified ballots that were correctly cast; and were the ballots canvassed in a constitutionally qualified manner? I should point out that the state legislature is the authority in creating the law surrounding the presidential election, and the questions posed in the Trump election contest were based on what Georgia law required.

Trump lawyers presented over Four-Hundred sworn affidavits in support of that election contest. It was backed up by details, data, and documents. For instance, there were some Ten-Thousand people who were dead before their ballots were sent in. To put a frightening point on this, Mark Meadows is now under indictment for requesting that Georgia show and publish the data that was sought in the complaint.

Simply remember that if you continually count illegitimate votes, the outcome will be the same. It is akin to “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”.

Now we have been told of the evidence from Michigan that was turned over to Bill Barr, who shelved the information he received. With the story uncovered that the evidence was hidden, we see the media and all those who claimed no fraud, going hard against Trumps claims. You can find numerous articles debunking claims of fraud, but you would be hard pressed to find an article that explains and highlights that facts were supplied to Bill Barr, and that Barr hid the evidence. That real fraud took place, and the corporate media is suppressing the information to maintain the status quo.

There have been attempts to quell the licentiousness of the press. In 1798, “The Alien and Sedition Act” was passed by congress, with then President John Adams supporting the measure, and vice-president Thomas Jefferson arguing in opposition. The intent of the act was created as a means by which to suppress that of a political rival.

Arguing against the act in the Virginia Resolutions, it is stated that “To punish all malicious calumnies against an individual with an intent to defame him, is a wrong on the part of the calumniator, and an injury to the individual, for which the laws afford redress. To write or print these calumnies is such an aggravation of the crime, as to constitute an offence against the government, and the author of the libel is subject to the additional punishment which may be inflicted under an indictment. To publish malicious calumnies against government itself, is a wrong on the part of the calumniator, and an injury to all those who have an interest in the government. Those who have this interest and have sustained the injury, have the natural right to an adequate remedy. The people of the United States have a common interest in their government, and sustain in common the injury which affects that government. The people of the United States therefore have a right to the remedy for that injury, and are substantially the party seeking redress.”

While the acts were repealed when Jefferson came to office, they nonetheless give us points to consider. Currently, the party in power is doing all it can to suppress political opposition. Indeed, there have been both civil and criminal charges against former president Trump, and numerous others who have not only been advisors, but also those who are counsels.

Every indictment has its flaws, to the point of absurdity, but more importantly they violate the most fundamental of our rights. The Sixth Amendment reads, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed…” The question has already been posed as to why a grand jury in the District of Columbia, a district composed of supporters of the democratic party, has been employed in the indictment for a case outside its jurisdiction. The answer is obvious.

Further to the affront that “endanger[s] the peace, and threaten[s] the tranquility of the American people” is a corporate press that continually validates the need for some remedy from its constant violations of sanguinity. “We the People” are entitled to nothing less than truth and transparency.

The corporate press is a conspiracy of obfuscation and deception. It claims immunity from its most callus publications designed to inflame that, which the populace can find no respite. Indeed, obvious lies on the part of the “trusted source” remains in the public center as the truth rather than the blatant propaganda it is in fact.

Former president Clinton kept records that were deemed to be sensitive and classified after leaving office. He refused, and this is a matter of record, to return the documents. Judicial Watch, well known for its dogged attempts at seeking the truth, sued because of Clinton’s refusal to return said documents. However, the courts ruled, and the DOJ concurred that the president is the ultimate authority of classification. This makes the issue stare decisis;a settled matter; precedent. Yet, illegitimate action has been taken against the former president, and the corporate media continues to promote outright abuses by those who reside in agencies that are of questionable constitutional validity.

We are at a juncture. We can come forward and press for our rights, our privileges, and our constitutional authority. The Framers of the Constitution were foresighted enough to place the ultimate power of the “Sword” in the hands of the People. That is to say, “We” did so by the ratification of that document. What we have failed to do, over the years, is to enforce it as it was written. As I have noted, so many times before, we have abdicated our powers, and have acquiesced to those seeking powers never entrusted to them. In modern vernacular, “We dropped the ball”.

How could we be so foolish as to trust those who have continually shown their willingness to deceive, and promote their personal agenda? How can we be so frivolous as to continue to vote for those who repeatedly lie, and then collude to destroy the principles of this Republic?

“The Fourth Estate” as it has been labeled, has become a propaganda tool, spewing out misinformation on a daily basis, never rectifying the falsehoods it promotes, and never being duly punished for its libels and deceit.

I am a firm believer in “freedom of speech, or of the press”. These things, along with the right to “redress” is essential, some consider them as a palladium of a free Republic, but how does this work if the press is corrupt, and the courts live in fear of agenda, rather than the fear that they have violated the authority of the Constitution, and the rights of the People whom they serve?

We will not rest easy as our children are forced to suffer the burdens that we imposed by our ambivalence and ignorance.

This nation was founded on principles that recognized a government “of, by, and for the people”. We have not only abandoned those principles, but we’ve also sought, at every turn, to diminish and destroy the freedom and liberty so precious to our own security.

Lawful Militia

September 3, 2023 | 2nd Amendment, Constitution, Militia

            This is an outline of a presentation I recently gave at a meeting of the Monroe County Patriots. I added color and context as I went along. It should give you enough information so that you can build your knowledge of the issue.

Some of the quotes for the original Militia statutes herein come from the writing of Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School), contained in “The Sword and Sovereignty”. He has written other books, and numerous article on the subject, for which I attempted to give its proper context. He has been a trusted advisor, and teacher from whom I have been able to learn and study law over and above what is taught to the average lawyer.

            I encourage others to seek out his work and learn of this most critical aspect of our law, in which the Constitution, and “the Laws of the Union” define, not only a right, but the means, by which the Founders codified our Sovereignty over the State. Today, it is indeed a Struggle vital to the survival of this nation.  

  • Nicholas Testaccio    

The Duty, the Right, and the Struggle

On April 19, 1775, 70 Militia men under the command of Captain John Parker mustered on the Green in Lexington to face 700 British Regulars.

Why did those men muster on the Green?

In 1215 king John signed the Magna Carta under pressure from the people of England.

At Article 61 we see the beginning of the Right to Redress, and the authority to enforce a right.

            “If we, our chief justice, our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security, and the offence is made known to four of the said twenty-five barons, they shall come to us – or in our absence from the kingdom to the chief justice – to declare it and claim immediate redress. If we, or in our absence abroad the chief justice, make no redress within forty days *** the four barons shall refer the matter to the rest of the twenty-five barons, who may distrain upon and assail us in every way possible, with the support of the whole community of the land, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions…”

The whole community being the Militia that the Barons maintained in order to keep the peace, and repel invasion.

When the Pilgrims came to the New World, they were of course armed. Bearing arms in a new and uncharted territory was of course necessary to protect yourself, and provide for the needs of family and community.

However, once the colonies were formed and made viable, they were required to maintain a militia in order to keep the kings peace and protect his lands. Each village, township, and colony maintained a militia, primarily citizens, and when needed, to act as soldiers.

Each colony had its requirements that read something to the effect that every able-bodied man capable of bearing arms must be enrolled in the militia. He must possess a good musket, or rifle that he himself supplied, and it must be kept in good working order.

•[1619] “All persons whatsoever upon the Sabaoth daye shall frequent divine service * * * , and all suche as beare arms shall bring their pieces swordes, poulder and shotte.”

•[1624 and 1632] “That no man go or send abroad without a sufficient partie will armed” and “[t]hat men go not to worke in the ground without their arms (and a centinell upon them).”

•[1659 and 1662] “[T]hat a provident supplie be made of gunn powder and shott to our owne people, and this strictly to bee lookt to by the officers of the militia, (vizt.) That every man able to beare armes have in his house a fixt gunn two pounds of powder and eight pound of shott at least which are to be provided by every man for his family[.]

•[1672] “[A]s against all tymes of danger it ought to be the care of all men to provide that their armes and habiliments for war, be alwayes kept fixed and fitt for service[.]

•[1703] Recognizing that “the most effectual means for the defence of th[e] Colony depends upon the well ordering and disciplining the Militia”, the Governor ordered the “Commanders in cheif of each County * * * to appoint a Gen Muster of all the Militia under their respective commands, and take especial care & give strict directions that all Persons serving in the Militia be well provided with arms & ammunition according to Law. And * * * to give directions to the Captains of each Troop & Company * * * duly to exercise their said Troops & Companys once every three weeks, and to take care that all Persons without Priveledge or exemption be listed & Personally Performe their duty at the said Musters.”

•[1727, 1732, 1734, 1738, 1740, 1744, 1748, and 1753] “[U]pon any invasion of an enemy by sea or land, or upon any insurrection, the governor * * * have full power and authority to levy, raise, arm, and muster, such a number of forces, out of the militia * * * as shall be thought needful for repelling the invasion, or suppressing the insurrection, or other danger[.]  

  1. Title 51 Pa.C.S.A. Military Affairs § 301 (a) Pennsylvania Militia
  2. § 507.  Draft from militia for emergency.

The Governor shall have the power to order out for actual service with the Pennsylvania Guard by draft as many persons from the militia as necessity demands during a war or other emergency. The Governor is hereby authorized to form, adopt and prescribe such rules and regulations, and appoint such officers and civilian boards and fix their compensation, for the purpose of drafting the militia, when such process may be required, as deemed best and most expedient. Any such rules or regulations shall not conflict with any Federal Selective Service Act or National Draft Act in effect at the time.

The 70 Militia men who mustered, in Lexington, under the command of Captain Parker were not volunteers. They mustered because the law required that able-bodied free men be enrolled in the Militia. They were organized, armed, and disciplined, bearing arms that they themselves supplied.

On that day, those 70 men stood in defiance of General Gage’s attempt to disarm them and confiscate the weapons in the armory. A shot was fired, a skirmish ensued, and 8 militiamen died. From that point on, the word went out, and militia from the neighboring communities engaged and harassed the Regulars retreating back to Boston.

A year later a delegate from Virginia, Thomas Jefferson, was tasked with writing the  document that has become the seminal dissertation of the relationship between government, and the people it serves. Fifty-Six men signed their name to their own death warrant.

The struggle lasted until 1783, when the colonists won their Independence. In 1787, the original Constitution was formed. At Article I, § 8, Cls. 15 & 16, the delegates to the Convention placed the power of the Sword clearly in the hands of the People, assigning to Militia the authority “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions”. Almost 4 years later, with obvious purpose to insure that the states would maintain their Militia, the 2nd Amendment was ratified along with 9 others, because men such as Patrick Henry, George Mason, Richard Henry Lee, and other’s understood that no matter what delegated authorities or prohibitions were laid out, there would be men who would plot to usurp the rights of the people.

•GEORGE NICHOLAS—“The power of arming the [Militia] is concurrent between the general and state governments; for the power of arming them rested in the state governments before; and although the power be given to the general government, yet it is not given exclusively; for, in every instance where the Constitution intends that the general government shall exercise any power exclusively of the state governments, words of exclusion are particularly inserted. Consequently, in every case where such words of exclusion are not inserted, the power is concurrent to the state governments and Congress, unless where it is impossible that the power should be exercised by both. It is, therefore, not an absurdity to say, that Virginia may arm the militia, should Congress neglect to arm them. But it would be absurd to say that we should arm them after Congress had armed them, when it would be unnecessary[.]

•JOHN MARSHALL—“If Congress neglect our militia we can arm them ourselves. Cannot Virginia import arms? Cannot she put them into the hands of her militia-men?

In 1792, congress using its delegated authority, created the Militia Act, “That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside”.

The 13 original colonies had statutes from which congress drafted the original Militia requirements; “Thus, in the first Militia statute under the Constitution, Congress provided that “every citizen” enrolled in the Militia “shall * * * provide himself with a good musket or firelock * * * or with a good rifle”, which faithfully followed the pattern set in the pre-constitutional Militia laws, even to the specification of particular types of equipment.”

•All men are to possess, not just “armes and habiliments”, but “armes and habiliments for war”—that is, of contemporary military grade—which are always to be “kept fixed and fitt for service”.

However –

As early as 1833, in his “Commentaries on the Constitution”, Justice Joseph Story lamented, “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpations and arbitrary power of rulers…And yet, though this truth would seem so clear…among the American people, there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of  rights.”

Although the desire to perform any duty had waned, and the states failed to uphold their obligation to the Union, on July 2nd, 1863, at Gettysburg, on a hill known as Little Round Top, Colonel Chamberlin led the 20th Maine Regiment. Those men were formerly militia, now part of the army. They engaged the Confederates in a critical battle that helped determine the outcome.

Thirty-Five years later, noting the conditions in Europe, and the failure of the states to maintain the constitutionally required militia, congress began, what has now become the excuse of almost every able-bodied man in this nation, to shirk his duty to the Republic, his family, and his community.

In 1902, congress, using its delegated authority at Article I, § 10, Cl. 3, created the Dick Act, or Efficiency of Militia Act, in which they granted to the states the authority to “keep Troops *** of War in time of Peace,” now known as the Army National Guard.

Each state recognizes that there is supposed to be militia composed of able-bodied men, in current times, any citizen residing within the state. In Pennsylvania, the ages are between 17-55. The statues read as follows:

PA. C.S. Section 301

Formation:

(a)  Pennsylvania militia.–The militia of this Commonwealth shall consist of:

(1)  all able-bodied citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied persons who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, within this Commonwealth, who are at least 17 years six months of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than 55 years of age; and 

(2)  such other persons as may, upon their own application, be enlisted or commissioned therein.

•Besides being “properly armed”, the citizens are to be “taught the knowledge of military duty”, “trained to arms”, subjected to “a due regulation”, and “reduc[ed] * * * under a proper discipline”.

•They are “to be ready on all occasions for the defence and preservation” of their community.

(August 21, 2022 – Certified letter under  PA ST 65 Chapter 3A Right-To-Know Law Chapter 3, et. seq. asking governor Wolf for regulations.)

United States v Miller 307 U.S. 174 (1939) – Justice McReynolds points to Article I, § 8, Cls. 15 & 16, and wrote “With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.”

Justice McReynolds goes on to note;

“The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia — civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

“The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. “A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.” And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”

Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, Book V. Ch. 1, contains an extended account of the Militia. It is there said: ‘Men of republican principles have been jealous of a standing army as dangerous to liberty.’ ‘In a militia, the character of the labourer, artificer, or tradesman, predominates over that of the soldier: in a standing army, that of the soldier predominates over every other character; and in this distinction seems to consist the essential difference between those two different species of military force.

DC v Heller 554 U.S. 570 (2008) – Justice Scalia wrote “Among the other defences to personal liberty should be mentioned the right of the people to keep and bear arms… . The alternative to a standing army is ‘a well-regulated militia,’ but this cannot exist unless the people are trained to bearing arms. How far it is in the power of the legislature to regulate this right, we shall not undertake to say, as happily there has been very little occasion to discuss that subject by the courts.” 

*** HOWEVER ***

“[T]his cannot stand in the face of its own decision in Miranda, (Miranda v Arizona, 384 U.S. 436) in which this Court ruled, “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”

There are 27 words in the 2nd amendment. Today, we focus on the last 14 words rather than the first 13, which give us the purpose and the reason of the amendment.

It is, as stated; “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State.”

“In expounding the Constitution of the United States, every word must have its due force, and appropriate meaning, for it is evident from the whole instrument, that no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added. *** Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation and its force and effect to have been fully understood.” – Williams v United States 289 US 553 (1933)

Why do we ignore the 2nd amendment as it is written, and for that which it was designed? Justice Story gave us insight in his commentaries written 190 years ago. Laziness, ambivalence, pride, greed, and ignorance are part of the equation that will lead us from sovereign to subject.

If the 2nd amendment were removed today, would it change the wording in the original Constitution that must have its due force, and appropriate meaning”?

Both federal and state statutes require Militia composed of able bodied men capable of bearing arms that they themselves supply. It is not “theory” as has been foisted upon us by both sides of the debate; for and against the right to keep and bear arms.

In law there is no theory. Either the Constitution means exactly what it says, or it means nothing at all. We have to decide which it is. The Constitution commands, and “the Laws of the Union” require that “We the People”, the author’s and source of the law, maintain an armed populace in order that we remain a free people.  

Reference:

10 U.S. Code § 246 – Militia: composition and classes

Dick Act, or Efficiency of Militia Act

United States v Miller 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

Title 51 Pa. C.S.A. Military Affairs § 301

Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr. –

How The States Can Suppress Illegal Immigration

What “Right To Keep And Bear Arms” Is That?

The President Can Suppress School Shootings

This Fourth of July 2023

July 4, 2023 | Civil Liberties, General, History

by Nicholas Testaccio

On this day of national celebration, the day the greatest political experiment in the world began, I ask myself these questions.

Why is it that a Nation that fought from the very beginning to achieve that which no other had accomplished is mired in division and strife?

Why is it that a Nation “conceived in Liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal,” faces turmoil from the convulsions of those who are blinded by false allegations?

Why is it that a Nation that struggled to live up to the ideals of its Founding documents must suffer the antagonistic accusations of the ignorant and foolish?

Why is it that a Nation of, by, and for the People is the one so singularly attacked as the monster that every other country in the World must admit is a part of, and still is a measure of their existence?

The United States is unique in every aspect of its journey from colonies, to states, to Super Power. Those colonies fought for Independence from a monarchy, a form distrusting of, and brutal to its people. Those colonies became independent states that embraced the sovereignty of its people. Till this day, it is unique in the fact that “We the People” are sovereign with the right and the duty to “alter or to abolish” its government when it abuses its mandate to insure the rights of the people. Not to create, nor grant, but rather to hold as sacred, rights given to us by our Creator.

For this moment in time, this Nation must fight each day against those who would tear apart its foundation to bring about systems that have repeatedly failed to achieve supposed benefits. Those systems preaching equality of outcome have instead brought heartache and hardship to millions of those who will suffer from the illusion. In a time when knowledge rests on the simple act of pushing a key, or a button, the ignorant and the foolish subscribe to their own demise.

There are none so foolish who will not see the truth or recognize the lie. In these United States we have a Free Press engaged in the most insidious behavior aimed at the dissemination of falsehoods and deception. Its only goal appears to be the enslavement of the people by the direction of subversives and tyrants in the dark halls of government.

There are none so foolish than those who refuse to learn from the lessons of history. “Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.” Yet, there are many amongst us who would wrest the power of the Sword from the people, to place it solely in the grasp of that evil.

There are none so evil as to place their hand on a bible, and then violate that oath without a second’s delay. We trust and hope for men and women who will abide that oath, but instead we continually elect those who have no regret in their destruction of the freedoms that we once cherished.

There are none so blind as to ignore the manipulations, deceit, and conspiracies of an education system designed to destroy the fabric of our Nation. From the earliest ages our children are subjected to the whims, fancies, and sometimes perversions of those who believe they know better. Reaching into higher education those still fertile minds are subject to indoctrination by those given to twists and deceit aimed at villainizing the foundations of this once great enterprise.

We are engaged in a great struggle, for which we have relinquished our powers, our tools, and sadly our willingness to recognize the truth. We go from day to day reticent in learning from the lessons of history. We foolishly disavow our sovereignty for some measure of safety. An idea that can never be secure when we abdicate our powers to those whose goal is the enslavement of those they are supposed to serve.

This Fourth of July, I wonder what it is that I must celebrate. What any of us with eyes to see, and ears to ear must acknowledge is a concerted effort by dark and nefarious forces in the “deep state,” with the aid of their myrmidons in media, and education in a long and devious plan for our demise.

I can rejoice momentarily for family and friends, but I must focus on the fact that a Nation, once conceived in liberty is under attack at every level. From the halls of government to the streets filled with looters, murderers, scoundrels, and deviants, we are bombarded by the perversions of those whose goal is the destruction of these once free United States of America.