Archive for the ‘Sovereignty’ 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 »
by Nicholas Testaccio
I have learned that propaganda is a powerful tool. It is wielded by a select group of politicians, media organizations, and talking heads promoted as experts. No matter how many times judges make unlawful rulings, no matter how many times politicians lie, and no matter how many times the “corporate press” have been shown to be lying, the general public refuses to rebuke those at the forefront of the take-down of America.
Tina Peters was the County Clerk Recorder of Mesa County, Colorado. She was removed, unlawfully by a judge, when she stumbled across evidence of manipulation in a recent City Council election. Let me clarify. Tina Peters is an elected official who cannot be removed from office by any judge. Allow me to repeat. A sitting judge removed an elected official without any authority to do so.
Ms. Peters brought in a consultant to make a forensic copy of the Dominion Voting System in Mesa County. The programmers left evidence that there was election tampering in the code. Because she chose to investigate fraud in our elections, she is now being prosecuted for revealing the facts; https://selectioncode.com/.
We have now been treated to what is an obvious agenda to destroy the process used for the American people to “hire” a representative to enforce Our Laws. Once again, Maricopa County in Arizona, is a point of contention where both democratic and republican poll watchers and officials have come forward to point to discrepancies in the vote.
This is America today.
America today has been planned and fashioned in a manner constructed by social engineers, and subversive agitators for over One Hundred Years. Most people cannot fathom that an agenda is fostered and promoted with a long term plan. The ability to comprehend that evil-doers do not only act from day to day, but that in order to achieve their ultimate goal they must work on a broader scale from decade to decade so that the effects of their plans are dismissed as “conspiracy.”
I have noted that even when discussing firsthand knowledge of an event, the opposite side to the debate will ignore the evidence. There is just too much vested in being ignorant, and in trusting establishments promoted as truth givers. Years back, at an international conference, David Rockefeller thanked the New York Times for misleading the public as to what was taking place under their noses.
“We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years......It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supernational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”
However, as a veteran, I go on undaunted by events, the deniers, the liars, and the fools who choose to believe the tripe they are fed. I do so with this warning to all the nay-sayers who can’t look past their ignorant stance on accepting that, which has been disproven time and again. The elite despise you and me. They have no love for you or your children. They would sacrifice the ones you have nurtured so that the ultimate goal of a totalitarian state is achieved.
For decades, the ability of America to hold the agenda of people like Klaus Schwab, and his disciples in check was predicated on this Republics principle that it is “We the People” who are the sovereign. As such, the power “to execute the Laws of the Union” was placed firmly in the original Constitution, and supported by a Bill of Rights, of which the most critical aspect was a nation of able-bodied men who were to be organized, armed, and disciplined. As Washington put it, a people with the “teeth” to protect all their rights from tyranny.
There is a group of people that hate you and I for doing nothing more than existing in their world. To them we are “deplorable’s” who have no right to do anything other than to serve their perversions. Your children are nothing more than fodder for their war on freedom.
This administration, members of congress, the judiciary, and the “corporate press” are all proponents of open borders. Fentanyl is being allowed to flow into our country at an alarming rate. Children, who are doing nothing more than taking a dose of what appears to be an aspirin, or more insidious, a piece of candy are being murdered. The number of deaths from this invasion of illegals and drugs is staggering, and yet a good portion of the public believes that Joe Biden is doing an outstanding job. I’m not sure how they can look at themselves in the mirror, and deny that they are complicit in those murders.
The road to the destruction of America has, to my sight, been fairly obvious.
In 1913, the federal government composed the destruction of the monetary system by implementing the unconstitutional Federal Reserve Bank. The same year, without any confirmation of legitimacy, both the 16th and 17th amendments were proclaimed as being ratified by the Secretary of State. Despite thousands of certified documents showing that the amendments were only ratified by a few states, neither the courts nor the legislature would review the fraud.
Following those unlawful acts, the government began the confiscation of gold, and then regulated weapons necessary for the proper function of the Militia as commanded at Article I, § 8, Cl. 15. Despite constitutional requirements, congress, along with their allies began the slow erosion of the Right of the People to contain the unlawful acts of public officials.
Where has this brought us? What are we seeing today? Look at the leaders of this nation. Those who are lauded as progressive thinkers pushing America forward into some Utopian State. In reality, those who seek office, those ...
No Comments »
by Nicholas Testaccio
On August 27th of 2020, the online site Revolver wrote the following; “In a surprising turn of events, the New York Times has done some actual, real investigative reporting and confirmed Revolver’s conclusion that the Kyle Rittenhouse shooting is an open-and-shut case of self-defense. Shockingly, the evidence turned up by the New York Times actually strengthens the case for self-defense.”
Despite the protests, the propaganda, deceit, and the outright lies, a jury of his peers agreed that Kyle Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. I am sure that there were many thoughts as to the ramifications of a not guilty verdict that played heavy on the minds of the jurors, but they delivered a verdict that should never have been in question. Instead, the propagandist in the media and government doubled-down on their lust for more blood and suffering. The congressman from New York, Jerald Nadler, has called for the DOJ to investigate the matter.
This is what our future will look like, a nation torn apart by those whose goal is to bring America to its knees. We have already seen the DOJ unleashed on parents concerned about the quality of education their children are receiving. In fact, Attorney General Merrick Garland has lied before congress on this matter, but the AG is part of the internal threat to American’s so he will not suffer any consequences. Hopefully, I am wrong with that assessment.
As I go about the business of learning what others think of such matters, I am constrained to conclude that because of the factors of ambivalence, ignorance of our law, and naivety we may fall to a civil war, or devolve into a tyrannical state. I have heard enough people, who perceive themselves as intelligent, make the outlandish statement that they do not believe in conspiracies. You need only read the words of our Founders and examine the Constitution to recognize that conspiracy is the norm, but not the aberration. The Constitution is clear, it is an instruction manual for limited delegated authority, with the power of the Sword placed firmly in the hands of the people. There are no hidden meanings as professed by self-proclaimed scholars, nor is it open to interpretations made by black robed administrators, and their lackeys, commonly known as lawyers.
As I have attempted to convey, on so many occasions, this is a nation of sovereigns. “We the People” set down the Law, and “We the People,” in order to preserve our sovereignty established that it is our Right and our Duty to protect and defend our freedom, and especially our lives above the protestations of the oligarch and ignorant alike. The rule is “innocent until proven guilty” and “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer..”
Bear in mind that in the Rittenhouse case, without any evidence that the young man was a racist or bigot he was labeled as such, and after the fact that he did not shoot anyone of African descent, the media is still playing the race card. More so disturbing is that there is still a large number of people who believe that young Rittenhouse killed Black men in his defense of himself, and therefore a murderer regardless of the facts.
Consider the fact that our government, I say “our” with a smirk because it no longer acts as our servant, has, for decades worked to disarm the public, and destroy the right of self-defense against this most pernicious enemy; the institution itself.
“We inquire, therefore, what, at the time the Constitution was framed and adopted, [was] recognized” as self-defense? The Constitution is not a difficult document to read, as are the unconstitutional, verbose, and often ambiguous acts of contemporary legislators. It came with a set of detailed instructions from the delegates and observers of the constitutional convention. The history of political and legal doctrine was no secret to the Framers, and they were religious in their reliance on the brilliant minds of politics and law that had gone before them, and fortunately, lived at that moment.
John Locke is referred to as the Father of Liberalism, a political and moral philosophy that underlines our form of government; “Consent of the governed.” His writings and principles helped guide our Founders to establish a government of, by, and for the people. It is no easy task to maintain that mindset when we have a legal system that has bastardized the law and usurped the authority of the people in order to centralize it to the ever growing threat that is government. Let us reflect on Locke’s explanation as it plays an important role with regard to the Kenosha affair and the push to disarm the American people.
John Locke described self-defense in this manner; "The defence of one's self, or the mutual and reciprocal defence of such as stand in the relations of husband and wife, parent and child, master and servant. In these cases, if the party himself, or any of these his relations, be forcibly attacked in his person or property.” Let’s pause here a moment. If you recall, during the Rittenhouse trial the prosecutor asserted that there is no right to protect property. In general, that is, of course, contrary to the instinct of man, and a violation of a natural right.
Locke goes on in his description to say, “it is lawful for him to repel force by force; and the breach of the peace, is chargeable upon him of the human mind; and (when external violence is offered to a man himself, or those to whom he bears a near connection) makes only who began the affray. For the law, in this case, respects the passions it lawful in him to do himself that immediate justice, to which he is prompted by nature, and which no prudential motives are strong enough to restrain. It considers that the future process of law is by no means an adequate remedy for injuries accompanied with force; since it is impossible to say, to what wanton lengths of rapine or cruelty outrages of ...
No Comments »
by Nicholas Testaccio
The charge of Treason has been bandied about for some time now in light of government infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. After years of listening to the charge cast, I have decided to examine the issue in order to ascertain whether I could make the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Article III, § 3, Cl. 1 – “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”
The Constitution is clear as to how such an indictment might come about. To start I must ask the following questions:
Is there someone, entity, agency, or organization engaged in “levying War” against the United States?
Does war include covert acts, propaganda, sabotage, and acts subverting our ability to wage a war and defense of the nation?
Is there someone, entity, agency, or organization who “in adhering to their Enemies, [is] giving them Aid and Comfort”?
Considering the unique form of government in the United States, do the definitions of “levying War”, “Aid and Comfort” expand the criteria by function and implication of our law?
Does disarming “the body of the people” rise to the level of treason?
In his commentaries, William Blackstone wrote, “Treason, proditio, in it's very name (which is borrowed from the French) imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of faith. It therefore happens only between allies, *** This is looked upon as proceeding from the same principle of treachery in private life, as would have urged him who harbours it to have conspired in public against his liege lord and sovereign: *** [W]hen disloyalty so rears it's crest, as to attack even majesty itself, it is called by way of eminent distinction high treason, alta proditio”.
Sir Michael Foster, Discourse on High Treason. “High Treason being an Offence committed against the Duty of Allegiance, it may be proper before I proceed to the several Species of that Offence which will be the Subject of this Discourse, to consider From whom, and To whom Allegiance is due.” Foster goes on to explain that “Natural Allegiance is founded in the Relation every Man standeth in to the Crown considered as the Head of that Society whereof He is born a Member”.
Foster wrote his Discourse in 1762, a time when monarchs ruled, and the not yet formed United States was nothing more than a hope and dream of a few who wished to throw off the bonds of allegiance to royalty. Someone who came to power in birth under the divine right of kings. Those who claimed the loyalty of the people simply by being born into the right family.
In 1776 a new nation was formed with the unique concept “That all men are created equal, That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, *** That to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”. Within those words are the construct of a government of, by, and for the People. It was an idea so novel as to foster a revolution here and in nations so inspired by our Declaration. Sadly, in today’s world, the principle of the rule of law for this nation has died through years of judicial and legislative twists that “evinces a design to reduce [us] under absolute Despotism”. Be that as it may, this country remains, in the rule of law, 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
The United States Constitution requires an oath of allegiance that we have assigned to every officer, from dog catcher, to jurist, to representative, to the president. In so doing we bind those public officials, and ourselves to adhere to the powers and restrictions laid out in the Constitution. The contract and the rule are pointless if both parties avoid and deny the force of law as it was laid out in plain language.
That “the Supreme Power” be the doctrine of this nation, it is only logical that the people constructed the State, and therefore the central government subordinate to the State. In 1776 when the Colonies “dissolve[d] the political bands” with England, they created a unique nation in law by vesting authority in the People who would be the caretakers of their freedom, rights, and liberty. The first act of the Continental Congress was to lay out the doctrine of law, by which all law is to follow the fundamental principal that “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”.
In simplest terms, this is a nation based on popular sovereignty. Everyone owes allegiance to the Constitution created by “We the People”. The sovereign, in international law, claims the right to prosecute, to defend, to wage war, and ultimately to control all that is within his/her sphere of influence. As a sovereign, I do not consent to any “statute *** extending beyond those matters which it was within the constitutional power of the legislature to reach.”. - McCullough v. Commonwealth Of Virginia, 172 U.S. 102
While our form of government is unique throughout the world, it is nonetheless a fact of law instituted and defined in our first two documents of Law: The Declaration, and the Constitution. They clearly establish that in our nation, “Sovereignty, is of course, not subject to the law, for it is the author and source of the law, but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to agencies of government, sovereignty itself, remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.”. – Yick Wo v Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356
To protect and defend the principle function of a nation so fashioned in the matter that “the Supreme Power resides in the body of the people” there must be a method for caretaking. Of course, it ...
1 Comment »
by Nicholas Testaccio
In the late 1930’s, Abbott and Costello introduced the nation to a comedic routine that they had performed in Vaudeville. It was a sketch that played on certain words in order to create confusion, but more importantly it gave us enjoyment, pleasure, and a piece of entertainment for the ages.
Today, our elected representatives have turned the English language upside down, around, and around, to confuse and confound the people they supposedly serve. While Abbott and Costello brought us laughter, our servant government brings us derision, turmoil, and angst. There is no upside to allowing government to wander from the strict meaning of the law as set out in the Constitution.
Playing words for an outcome that produces laughter is one thing, but when you twist the legal nomenclature of your founding documents you morph into a society hell bent on self-destruction.
Article IV, Cl. 3 of the U.S. Constitution requires that “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution”.
The oath binding our representatives to the Constitution should not be taken lightly. The Constitution is a written contract produced by “We the People” instructing those we elect or appoint to be our servants. The words are clear, and they were extensively debated by those who took up the responsibility to produce the rule of law, by which this nation should be guided. It does not live in the minds of the foolish, the despots, and the corrupt. It means what it says to the extent, to which we may decide to alter or change its provisions, restrictions, and delegated authorities.
Article V allows for changes by “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof”.
If there are changes to be made then it should be done by the process laid out in the Constitution. For more than One Hundred years, the government comprised of our representatives have made changes that restrict, encumber, and suppress the people those servants are elected to serve. While writing on the provisions set out by the delegates to the constitutional convention, Alexander Hamilton commented that “There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”.
For more than One Hundred years, a government of the People has operated in a manner “that the servant is above his master”. Prior to the last century the idea of regulating every aspect of the lives of the people who elected them to office was met with stiff resistance. The courts ruled by “What *** those who framed and adopted [the Constitution] underst[oo]d the terms to designate and include”. The terms were not fictions of law, but rather hard and fast rules set out to maintain a Constitutional Federal Republic.
Article IV, § 4 reads in no uncertain terms, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion”. Were I to be granted the task of some play on the word “Invasion”, I would consider it to be interpreted by the words for which was originally declared in that an internal force “has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.”. I see no other way to interpret the promotion of such agencies that enforce the myriad of rules and regulations that not only restrict, but also feast on the labor, production, and property of the populace.
We have “public officials” playing the words of the Constitution to suit their avarice rather than applying them in “the common parlance of the times in which the Constitution was written” for instructing “those for whom the instrument was intended”. In no uncertain terms, the rendering of the Constitution into a bastardized document has been promoted by usurpers, tyrants, and to their own foolishness a segment of the population that is functionally illiterate. As comedic was the confusion laid out by Abbot and Costello in their use of “who” and “what”, the reinterpretation of the Constitution into a living document is regrettably tragic. Should I say disastrous, foolish, and ignorant to a level so profoundly deep as to give new meaning to the word idiotic.
“In expounding the Constitution, every word must have its due force and appropriate meaning, and no word is to be regarded as unnecessarily used or needlessly added.” Where it states a specific delegated authority or restriction, it is not to be interpreted to mean anything other than what is clearly written. Under Article I, § 8 there are eighteen clauses that constitute the “Powers of Congress”. Under § 9, the Constitution enumerates eight clauses that list the “Powers Denied Congress”. And at § 10 of Article I, the Constitution lists three clauses that detail the “Powers Denied to the States”. So, when the Constitution provides for specifically enumerated powers, or denies certain powers it does not mean to leave room for the laws to go beyond, or in many ...
No Comments »
Recent Form Posts