Archive for the ‘Militia’ Category
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 ...
No Comments »
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[.]
Title 51 Pa.C.S.A. Military Affairs § 301 (a) Pennsylvania Militia
§ 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 ...
No Comments »
by Nicholas testaccio
The document that we now label as the Declaration of Independence, reminds us that “whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it.”
The US constitution, which is the Supreme law of the land, defines this country as a constitutional Federal Republic, wherein all public officials swear an oath to protect and defend “a Republican form of Government,” required by Article IV, Section 4.
For decades now this Republic has been under attack, with little to no relief. The intent of those who fought for and established this country was to create a nation with a unique form of government. Government of, by, and for the people has been the tune for which we were supposed to operate. To most those words mean nothing at all. Just Seven words that define the basic function of our rule of law, yet that simple statement is incomprehensible for the public at large.
Empires come and go over the centuries, but the Founders of this nation gave us the building blocks that would support a lasting enterprise. Paul Simon wrote,
“I have squandered my resistance for a pocket full of Mumbles
Such are promises.
All lies and jest.
Still a man hears what he wants to hear.
And disregards the rest.”
We have squandered all that was bequeathed to us for lies that we feed on from reprobates, scoundrels, and indeed criminals. This is a nation of laws based on “a Republican form of Government.” Over the years we have allowed our representatives to morph this into a democracy, in which mob rule is used to undermine the basic principles of our Law, and unfortunately our liberty.
We support and defend the likes of Bernie Sanders, an avowed communist, on the pretense that his politics are a matter of free speech. Sanders is a United States senator who took an oath to protect and defend the constitution. That oath meant nothing to him, nor to the people who keep voting him back into office.
The terms democracy, socialism, and a host of dribble bandied about by not only those we elect to protect and defend our rule of law, but also those in the media, both corporate and “free” are intended to eviscerate and end our nation. Those who are labeled to the left, progressives, or liberals are allowed to function in the halls of our legislatures when they've clearly committed crimes against the Law, and therefore the people.
Where are the patriots? Those who would muster on the Green to face down the forces of tyranny. Vince Lombardi, the great Packers coach, is credited with saying “The best defense is a good offense.” Again, words and advice that are lost in the rumble of confusion that has become the operational status of our country.
I spend my days rummaging through words of men and women who appeared to be completely devoid of any knowledge pertaining to the function of this Federal Republic. The current mindset among those who profess to be of the patriotic community appears to be that of “prepare for the worst and hope for the best.” Of the numerous YouTube, Rumble, and other enterprise popping up, the paradigm appears to be for bringing truth in news without any regard for the fact that most will do nothing to protect their rights, their families, or their communities. What good is it to know about potential dangers if the only move we are capable of is to prepare rather than deter?
On any given day from the corporate press, you will hear absolute nonsense. There appears to be no truth, nor apprehension towards spewing out blatant falsehoods. Notably, while the “free press” appears for the most part to be engaged in the journalistic enterprise of relaying the facts it stops there. Hours of relaying facts, and reams of papers detailing potentially catastrophic events, and sadly explaining often devious acts of government officials lend little to putting an end to what they all warn for that, for which we must prepare.
The former president, Trump, invoked Title 42, which gave him the authority to prevent an influx of migrants. On May 11th, the emergency status associated with Title 42 came to an end. With that has come the intended invasion of some 1,000,000 migrants. And this is just an extension of the invasion that has taken place since the Biden administration came to office. Estimates of more than 5,000,000 illegals, and numerous terrorists hidden within their ranks, have come to our country.
We were warned of the impending invasion, and prior to that, the “patriots” kept us up on the millions of illegals, and the influx of military age men and potential terrorists. Yet, all that was done to stop the assault on our Homeland was chatter about putting “patriots” into positions of “power” sometime down the road.
Before I go any further I wanted to point a finger. There is a period of time that is referred to as “the summer of love” in the year 2020. During those months the left took to the streets, pillaged, plundered, and even murdered with little pushback from even law enforcement. Where were the patriots?
The patriots, Charlie, Ben, Dan, and a host of others are spewing out what is nothing more than impotent rhetoric. While cities burned, and that includes parts of our capital, they were telling us that they opposed violence. I want to call them out on this particular issue. What they actually oppose is our ability to fight back and defend our lives and property. They are fine accepting the violence that many had to endure and are still experiencing because the left has made it a point of prosecuting anyone who dares to defend themselves.
I want to make a point of law in hopes that someone will spread the word and it will wind up on the desk of some congressman, senator, local representative, or perhaps a talk radio show will bring up this crucial point of law. This is a ...
No Comments »
by Nicholas Testaccio
Words have specific meanings, and when placed together, those words form a thought, an idea, convey a story, or promote a proposition. In law, the combination of words in a clause cannot be construed to mean something other than what they meant at the time the law was enacted.
In the year 1776, a committee of the Continental Congress was formed to write a document explaining the need “for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth…” their rightful place.
Chosen to write the draft for what could have been the death sentence for its signatories, Thomas Jefferson composed what should be considered the foundation, by which all the people of this World ought to live. In it are the words, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.”
When “A Declaration” was written, slavery was an institution that existed in, not only the colonies, but also, around the World. Jefferson himself, was a slave owner as were other members of the Congress. Slavery was not unique to the America’s. It was an institution that existed for centuries. The Bible speaks of it, telling the story of the Hebrew nation as slaves to the empire of the Egyptians. Slavery existed as part of every culture, nation, and empire. However, in this timeless document that we now refer to as “The Declaration of Independence”, the Congress enacted the words “that all men are created equal.” What they did not agree to, and should be obvious to all, is that all men remain equal throughout their lives. Herein lies one of our problems. The misunderstanding of the words as they come together in a sentence, and in this case a legal document, that provides us with a specific line of thought.
From “A Declaration” to the U.S. Constitution, the people of this once great nation have made it their folly to misinterpret and to misunderstand the rule of law. This, as I've stated in the past, is a constitutional Federal Republic. Those we elect or appoint to perform a specific duty are bound by an oath of office. That office holds its allegiance to the law as it is written not as it has been twisted and bent in order that those seeking power may retain and enhance that power.
England was a monarchy, as it remains today, although the power of the monarchy is greatly reduced from the time of King George. Again, monarchies were the rule of the day when our revolution began. Kings and Queens were not elected, but rather, they were born to their positions. A “Divine Right” as it was known, because of the accepted belief that God placed the individual in the position of authority. It was the doctrine of the time.
However, those Fifty-Six men who signed their own death warrant when they put their name to the Declaration, thought differently. The words in the document do not reflect a contradiction of the world in which they knew, and we, today, seem incapable of understanding. While we can look back and second guess those men, I can assure you that there is a mindset today that would own slaves simply for the pleasure of imposing their authority.
Today, agenda, and propaganda are the norm, reality escapes most who live at a time so distant from the centuries past that it does not seem logical to disparage those who risked it all so that the words of “A Declaration” could come to life. This is the time that we must accept that what we have been taught is designed to oppress, rather than enlighten.
Jefferson wrote “that all men are created equal”, he did not write that all men remain equal, attain equality, or are able to live as all others do. Even to the casual observer, or those who have been fooled into thinking that they learned something worthwhile by attending a university of progressive professors, should comprehend that the words in the Declaration did not reflect some utopian state, wherein everyone goes about their merry way, with all the privileges, wealth, and prosperity of the neighbor across the street, or across the nation.
The propaganda spewed out by the intelligentsia is more in tune with a desire to show themselves as superior, rather than reflecting on the reality of the time, and even today. The nonsense of the “anointed” who cast their superiority, can be easily debunked when we examine the word “unalienable.”
At the time of the writing of “A Declaration” the word unalienable meant that it could not be regulated, taken, or relinquished. If we allow one or even a group of individuals to abdicate a right, we have opened the floodgates to tyrannical government determining that since one has abdicated the right another must follow in that the right is not absolute. Even with a firm explanation of the word, there are members of our legislatures that believe that our rights are not absolute, and that they can regulate them and often place such a burden on them as to rule them out of existence.
So, as we go through time from the creation of this nation to today, we must realize that there are aspects of our law that have been twisted and corrupted. Over the last several decades, with the intent of minimizing our Constitution, the idea of a living document has come into play. In a living document, how do we hold our government to the limited delegated authorities that we assigned?
This was intended to be a nation of popular sovereignty. As a sovereign, you and I claim all the authority of any sovereign state in the world. We claim the right of self-defense, immunity from the state, and therefore a right to be tried by a jury of our peers. The intent was the guarantee that the state could not place its heavy hand upon those ...
No Comments »
by Nicholas Testaccio
The fear that a nation cannot survive the traitor has been in the back of the mind of many for centuries. Someone, at some time made the point because the traitor looks like us, talks like us, and lives among us. They may be a friend or relative. They may be someone we elect to represent us, or uphold the law. They could be the perceived do-gooder who uses a political, or social position to build an organization based on some need. That need to correct whatever the issue might come with flowers, tears, and is presented with all the fanfare of a greater good. It has never, to my knowledge, achieved anything more than wealth for the promoters, and hardship for the intended beneficiaries. The far greater harm is to those of us who seek to maintain liberty.
Perhaps I am wrong about those organizations, or even government programs, but I do not see where I have missed the outcome. We need only look at “The War on Poverty”, “The War on Drugs” as two of our most malicious governmental programs. A war on something is nothing more than an attack on freedom. Most conspicuously, with open borders, cartels running amok, and over One Hundred Thousand deaths this year alone from fentanyl, we are either failing, or the traitor is succeeding.
We can look all around us and find agenda’s that are foisted upon the unsuspecting so-called beneficiary pleas for more assistance. I, myself, was fooled for years by supposed pro-2nd organizations fighting for my right to keep and bear arms. They took my money, and here it is over Forty years since I was first introduced to the NRA, and I am now looking at the possibility that this government will pass a total ban on all semi-automatic weapons. This even though the U.S. Constitution was designed to prevent such a blatant attack on the ability to deter and prosecute “public officials” much the same as we would common criminals. More importantly to the preservation of liberty, the protection of life, and the means, by which this nation cannot be turned from a Republic to a democracy.
Marcus Tullius Cicero, the famous Roman statesman is credited with saying “To be ignorant of what occurred before you were born is to remain always a child. For what is the worth of human life, unless it is woven into the life of our ancestors by the records of history?”
Our history has been under attack for some time now. While there are skeletons in just about everyone’s closet, the accomplishments of our Founders so far outweigh their faults that the linking of the two can in no way deter what was past to posterity. A form of government, so unique that it is lost in today’s political landscape. It is not only a tragedy that most Americans are ignorant of this nation’s laws, but also a crime of immense proportions.
The general public is so ignorant of our rule of Law that they are jeopardizing the future to a point of no return. By that I mean to say there is a reading comprehension level, and a planned destruction of our founding documents.
I am often completely puzzled by those who are prolific readers, those who abhor racism, and bigotry, yet they will make perplexing statements such as “a great democracy.” I know what a democracy is, and what our Constitution commands, Article IV, Section 4 – “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…”
Why the Framers placed that command in the Constitution could best be explained by the man who has been labeled the father of that document. James Madison stated "Democracies have been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death."
I have spent considerable time studying our rule of Law. I label the Constitution as such because that is exactly what it is. It does not mention women. It does not mention any races, ethnicities, nor religions. It certainly does not mention men of any race, creed, or color. What it does contain are rules of delegated authorities, powers, and disabilities. It does “not mean to leave room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power.” Not my words but that of Justice Stanley Mathews who delivered the opinion of the court in a case regarding “A municipal ordinance to regulate…”
I have chosen those few words from that case for a specific reason. This is a nation of laws, but the Laws, the foundation, and the principles of the Republic are being torn apart by the foolish, the evil, and the traitor.
Alex Jones is among other things, a purveyor of truth. While he has been demonized as a sensationalist and “conspiracy theorist,” he is none-the-less one who has brought forth facts that were dismissed, and then shown to be true. His record is long, and because he has a following who know his record he must be silenced.
For his record, Jones must be silenced so that others who might speak the truth and challenge the current descent into tyranny, will fear to voice their concerns. Much the same as the political prisoners of January 6th, a cruel and unusual punishment must be made the norm. It must be obvious to anyone who is willing to see and hear that speaking out against the agenda will not be tolerated.
In the latest show of force, the Alex Jones trials, in both Connecticut and Texas are a harbinger of what is to come unless we start regaining our sovereignty.
I am going to take a turn here, to which most will disagree. So be it if I’ve crossed the line. Throughout history, treason has come for numerous reasons. Some for gain, some for power, and some for vengeance. General Benedict Arnold turned on the Colonists because he was passed over though his actions in the field ...
No Comments »
Recent Form Posts