Online: | |
Visits: | |
Stories: |
While this tickles the ears of your regular readers, you’re still presuming something into existence that doesn’t exist. What this “law clerk” has no clue about, and is trained to have no clue about, is the legal reality that we do not now have, and have never had, a ”constitutional Government.”
So, to measure ANY “judges” decisions by the Constitution is simply ludicrous. The problem here is not necessarily with the “judges.” There may be problems, but those problems are not likely to be problems with legal reality, which legal reality the “judges” very likely know, understand and apply, and which legal reality this “law clerk” is confessedly clueless about.
This is the same generic problem with the popular Court-slamming books that circulate today. Either those authors are clueless, or else they’re expecting there to be enough book-buyers who are clueless, to make money off the lies and crap they write and publish. At the end of the day, the problem will prove itself. The problem is NOT with the “judges,” where the question that arises has to do with the “Constitution.” The problem is with those who have not yet realized that we do not now have, and have never had, a “constitutional Government.” The Constitution was and is a “compact.” It was never, and is still not, Law. Thus, it was never the Supreme Law of the Land.
And, if you REALLY and TRULY want to make a difference regarding the judiciary, it will help immeasurably to evaluate those opinions from a standpoint of legal reality. This “law clerk” is not yet there. To promote this writing [A Former Lawclerk Who No Longer Trusts Judges] as something competent is to confess the same problem.
I used to be “there.” See http://www.apfn.org/apfn/okc_
I’m no longer living a day dream, and, actually, I’m no longer living a nightmare, either. There’s a tremendous peace of mind that accompanies coming to terms with the stark cold essence of our legal reality. We’ve “been had.” The sooner we come to accept that fact, the sooner we make constructive progress. It’s possible to win a game where the player doesn’t know the rules, but that is all the more difficult where the game is designed by masters to be a game that can’t be won by 99.99999% of those who play. Said another way, the only way to win is not to play. And, we can’t get to the stage of not playing until such time as we understand, in very good detail, the rules of the game(s) at issue.
We don’t get “there” by still thinking that anything about the “federal government” has one stinking thing to do with the “Constitution.”
Keep up the good work.
Harmon L. Taylor
It may not be quite so clear why the State AG is also named, and as a Necessary Party. It’s in the pleadings, but let me address that here, briefly.
Land ownership in the “constitutional Government” depends upon a couple of things, both of which are found in Article I, section 8, clause 17. First, there must be evidence of transfer of title to the property, such as by a Deed, and secondly, there must be Consent by the State Legislature of the State in which the property is found.
For the Murrah Building, neither of these forms of evidence of ownership in the “constitutional Government” have ever shown up; not in the deed records, not in the legislative records, not in either trial (McVeigh or Nichols). Therefore, it is safe to conclude that these documents don’t exist regarding the Murrah Building.
Conclusion: The land on which stood the Murrah Building was never owned by the “constitutional Government.”
If the distinction between the “federal government” and the “constitutional Government” is a topic for which additional information would be helpful, I can also send my “Dissertations on Definitions” page from legalreality.com, which explores, in some detail, what the term “federal” means. In sum, “federal” means “federal.” It doesn’t mean “national.” It most certainly doesn’t mean “constitutional.” “Federal” has everything to do with private obligations and nothing to do with the Constitution. The “federal government” does not arise from the Constitution, which also means that the Constitution is not the language by which we can limit the “federal government.”
The fact that the Murrah Building and that property are characterized, and properly so, as a “federal enclave” is the confession that it is, in fact, private property.
Apply this line of thought one more time. As it turns out, the property on which sits the “United States” Penitentiary in Terre Haute also has a flagrant problem with title, from the point of view of the Constitution. Thanks to excellent and very much appreciated assistance in Indiana, we were able to locate a deed transferring title “to the United States of America, or its successors,” for that property. However, and also thanks to excellent and very much appreciated assistance in Indiana, in particular through the Notre Dame School of Law library, we were completely unable to locate any act by the State Legislature in Indiana “consenting” to that transfer of title. Therefore, we know that the “constitutional Government” never owned that property, either. And, again, the proper characterization of that property’s being a “federal enclave” is the confession that it, too, is private property.
Here’s the legal consequence of these conclusions. Since this property is not owned by the “constitutional Government,” that makes it property that is subject to the authority of the “state.” And, since we cannot find any formal business organizational documents telling us that the “United States” Penitentiary in Terre Haute is a “for profit” business enterprise, we must presume the possibility that it is a “not for profit” business enterprise.
When a “not for profit” business entity gets sued, it is the traditional rule that the AG of the “state” must be included as a Necessary Party, especially in matters sounding in equity, which this one most certainly did. The reason is that the “state” AG is a necessary party to all suits involving public charitable trusts, and if the “state” AG is not included, then the entire matter can be dismissed at the whim of the AG, at practically any stage, including post-judgment, based solely on failure of proper notice to the “state” AG. Some “states” may have rules that vary some from this, but this is the traditional gist of the matter.
In sum, because, through a “no evidence” line of proof, we CAN establish that the “United States” Penitentiary in Terre Haute is not sitting on property owned by the “constitutional Government,” we know that it is a business entity subject to the authority of the State of Indiana. That being the case, and not having affirmative proof that it is, in fact, a “for profit” business enterprise, of some organizational structure or other, the question arises that it very well may be a public charitable trust, and if that’s the case, then the Indiana AG is a necessary party to the suit.
The Indiana AG’s Office never provided proof, one way or the other, as to any Consent by the Indiana Legislature or of the “for profit,” or “not for profit,” character of that Penitentiary. So, we still don’t know, for certain, but the series of reasonable and still unanswered questions continues to give us a clue, per the above article: http://www.apfn.org/pdf/
Harmon
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/MSTAY-
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/mtro-
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/
Thus, in sum, to solve any problem, it helps greatly to identify it correctly, first. Here, not only do we need to learn to distinguish between the “federal government” and the “constitutional Government,” but also we need to learn that there is presently no “constitutional Government” in operation, but only the “federal government.”
Since the Constitution was not “admissible evidence of Law” for this case, that got me started trying to find when it stopped being the Supreme Law of the Land. Right now, I’m satisfied that it had to have occurred prior to 1850. In the early 1850′s, Lysander Spooner witnessed the “court’s” giving the “jury” the instructions to follow the “law” given by the “court.” This is a complete abrogation of the Law stated in Brailsford v.
Georgia, meaning, telling us, giving us “notice,” that the “United States District Court” in Massachusetts was no longer bound to the Constitution or to the prior opinions of the Supreme Court. In other words, the Constitution, and the “constitutional Government” it created, got deep-sixed at or before those cases came on for trial in the early 1850′s.
Another interesting indicia of the non-existence of the “constitutional Government” is the “popular vote” of 1824. Five Presidents, four of them for two terms each, were elected per Article II, section 1. That’s nine elections before the thought ever existed of any “popular vote,” a concept found nowhere in the Constitution for choosing a President.
And, even with the 12th Amendment (1804), there were still 20 years before the “popular vote” made its entrance. How fitting is it that John Quincy Adams, the sixth President, won neither the “popular vote” nor the Electoral Vote? It definitely earmarks that event for our study.
The legal reality of the non-existence of the “constitutional Government” just didn’t sink in until I read the 7th Circuit’s opinion in this case. Now, it’s as clear as day. Since it took the padded 2×4 of the 7th Circuit to get me “over” that barrier, I don’t realistically expect anything short of personal experience to persuade anyone else, either. But, then, there’s always hope!
To combine the attached notes with these, here’s one perspective, with which I’ll close this note.
The State is the sine qua non regarding the “constitutional Government.” Without States, there is no “constitutional Government.” Starting with Article I, if there are no States, then there are no Representatives, for Representatives represent People in the States.
And, if there are no States, then there are no Senators, for Senators represent the States, directly, in that legislative process. (You’re right, of course, to look to the so-called 17th Amendment (1913). However, I’ve already traced the non-existence of the “constitutional Government back to 1850, so this particular “notice” to us, in 1913, that the States no longer exist, and, therefore, that the States have no more need of representation in Congress, is about 60 years “late.”) The entire purpose of the Senate is to have the States, as such, participate in the legislative process. If there are no States, then not only is there no Congress, but also there is no need even for a Senate.
Thus, where there are no States, there is no Congress.
Continuing with Article II, where there are no States, there is no President. From where come the Electors? Right, the States. The Electors hold an Office in the “constitutional Government,” which exists for the sole purpose of choosing the President. If there are no States, then there are no Electors. Where there are no Electors, there is no President.
Thus, where there are no States, there is no President.
Continuing with Article III, where there are no States, there are no Judges. From where come the Judges? Right, the President nominates and appoints, and the Senate gives Advice and Consent. Thus, where there is no President, there is no nomination or appointment, and where there is no Senate, there is no Advice or Consent.
Thus, where there are no States, there are no Judges.
In sum, where there are no States, there is no “constitutional Government,” for not one Office can be filled.
Thus, it behooves us to learn the difference between the “federal government” and the “constitutional Government,” and, even more importantly, the present non-existence of the “constitutional Government.”
The “federal government” is the “government” “of the banks, by the banks, for the banks.” For it to be curbed, we start by ceasing to “trade with the enemy.”
Harmon
per the article above http://www.apfn.org/pdf/
Although the FBI interviewed Graham, they never showed her any pictures or brought her before a sketch artist. “They only wanted to know if I could identify McVeigh or Nichols,” she said. “I said it was neither of these two gentlemen.
NESARA- Restore America – Galactic News