Alan Nunnelley has no business writing a book on any subject. I want to make it clear that I am totally under-qualified, because I do not possess a requisite degree in a discipline like: Archeology, Astronomy, Genetics, Sociology, or Theology. Nor am I experienced in literary ventures. Yet that is the point... the fact that I've gotten this far is remarkable.
As of this writing, yours truly, is an inmate in a Texas prison. Lost in a Gulag that is the world's largest penal system, my access to research material is restricted. We don't have internet capability and many books we would enjoy are either outdated or censured. Radio and television is limited to the local stations, and the group decides the programming which is more often, fiction.
Without impressive credentials or a vast array of research material, one might wonder what it is that qualifies me, Alan Nunnelley, to write about controversial subjects like: The origins of the universe; The realm of the spirit; Or how to make a better world. My answer is simply that, I am not qualified! I did not ask for any of this, it just sort of came to me, an epiphany I suppose. This ordinary man stumbled across a little revelatory information and was impelled to write about it. The source of information will be revealed in Chapter One.
First though, I'd like to share with you a few things I have either experienced myself, or feel to be true. These things have relevance to this narrative.
The spirit world exists in my opinion, maybe that means only in my mind. In the early nineties I had the occasion to use a Ouija Board with some people I know. Time and again, the board “spirits,” predicted the future; answered secret questions; or performed a measurable feat. We witnessed the dimming of the room lights by request, and wisdom from the spirits of our grandparents. Weird I know, yet even the pets seemed to be affected in some way, they seemed to have a heightened sense of awareness.
It appears that thoughts have their own power or energy. Have you seen the guy on TV who can bend spoons with his mind? Once, my family traveled to Costa Rica. At the Port of Quepos one evening, we ordered Lobster in a restaurant overlooking the bay. Five adults and three children needed to find a way to coexist while the dinner was being prepared. The problem was, I think there's an unwritten rule in that country, that a restaurant must take two hours to serve a meal! Kids will be kids and it wasn't long before they became fidgety and argumentative. We adults desired to have a grown up conversation, which was not possible at first but I had an idea. While enduring some questioning expressions, I explained to the children about the “spoon bending” thing I had seen on the Tube back home.
I suggested to the kids that they should try to bend their forks (we had no spoons) with their minds in order to defeat their boredom. I said, “Take your forks and concentrate on nothing else in the whole wide world except your forks.” The ruse was working so I continued, “Now imagine them bending.” One of the kids mumbled something which I took as disinterest, so I told them, “Don't talk, just whisper to your fork, “bend, bend, bend.” They did it and it worked. Our waiter brought new forks.
Saturday, February 16, 2013
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Friday, February 17, 2012
"If I Tell You, I'd Have To Kill You"
That phrase is typical of a class of non-responses most government agents give when anomic people make a good faith attempt to resolve a difficult issue. Simple how, why, where, when, what, and who questions that require real responses; beyond the scope of whatever has been prepared for public consumption; will generally take the form of: “FOR REASONS OF NATIONAL SECURITY;” “THAT’S CLASSIFIED;” “GANG RELATED" and so on. By virtue of their offices, it is indisputable that government agents possess superior knowledge of subject matter within the purview of their domain. As public servants, is it not appropriate for them to freely give “We the People” any requested information? However, if agents offer non-responses without empirical evidence or their oath in support of their answers, then how else are we to find out the undisclosed truth about our creation?
The point here then, is how does the single sovereign of we the people compel or obligate a governmental official to alleviate our concerns, via proving or disproving our theories?
Some of us might attempt to use the FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), in the Title 5 UNITED STATES CODE (USC) Section 55. We’re familiar with it because the act has been used to obtain documents with information about UFO’s, the JFK assassination, and more. As demonstrated by the “blacked out” text within many of those documents, the FOIA provides that certain content is exempt from disclosure. The agency holding the documents has the discretion to decide whether the papers should be available to the “public.”
Here’s a thought: If an official employed by an agency which the sovereign “We the People” created, and are thus above, yet that official can refuse access to the public – then is that not proof that the public is not sovereign over their ”creation;” but are truly below or subject to it? See: “twittage #2.”
In the end though, the FOIA is only good for documents and cannot compel officials to respond to specific questions. For that, an order from a court would be in – order. The problem with the judicial method is, the government has unlimited resources and batteries of attorneys ready to oppose an unwanted query at every instance. What else is one to do?
The method I use to obtain undisclosed knowledge from agents of the corporate government entities, or anyone for that matter, I have had to resort to out of necessity; because, no other mechanism seems to be effective. I can’t tell you how many times I have written a given court clerk or sheriff’s office requesting information as benign as a file number or something and they shot me down with the: “If I tell you, I’d have to kill you” type of response. With the agency called TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, there is a form referred to as an “I-60” that is used to request things from officials. If I had a dime for every I-60 submitted where the non-response was totally unrelated to the question – I would be a rich man. Example: to the question “How can I ‘give back,’ redeem, or reject the ‘awarded’ GOOD CONDUCT CREDIT; thereby terminating the quasi-contract, so that I can withdraw my labor without suffering arbitrary disciplinary action?” A response such as “You are properly assigned” appears to defy all logic.
Could it be that the agency official recognizes my sovereign status as a “We the People” descendant, and for some reason is unable to respond to one who ranks above them as a “creator” of their employer? Or, could it be that, by my own use of an I-60 form that is intended for use by an “inmate’ or “offender’ as defined in statutes, is only a legal fiction, an abstraction that only exists on paper – and as a non-three-dimensional entity, possesses no assertable rights anyway? How logical is it for a three-dimensional being to give credence to a one-dimensional entity?
Having established the difficulties of dealing with government officials, I have concluded that the most efficient and maybe the only way period, to achieve the stated goal, is to make them an “offer they can’t refuse.” not something one experiences every day, the ‘offer’ I refer to is actually called a “quasi-contract.” The best definition of this method I have found appears in the “HANDBOOK OF COMMON LAW PLEADING,” by Benjamin J. Shipman, 1895, on page 14: “The term ‘implied contracts’ is also applied to promises implied or created by the law without any agreement in fact between the parties, and even when the circumstances negate the existence of any agreement in fact, as where one person pays money which another out to have paid, or receives money which another ought to have received, or, in some cases, where benefits are conferred upon another without any agreement. The promise in these cases is merely a fiction of law, resorted to for the purpose of allowing a remedy by assumption. The obligation is not contractual but quasi-contractual.”
Our own everyday lives provide numerous examples of implied contracts or agreement in the simplest events like conversation: When “A” speaks to “B” and “B” responds; then “A” responds in turn. The parties, “A & B” to this agreement are said to have willingly accepted the agreement itself; which is implied based on the fact they are actually having a conversation. Had there been no agreement to “converse” – their colloquy would not have been sustained very long. Party “B” could have said to party “A”, “I do not consent to this conversation”; or “B” could have just walked away saying nothing. In that case, it is obvious to anyone that “B” did not accept party “A’s” offer to converse, therefore, a contractual exchange of consideration could not be “Implied in law as a matter of fact.” The elements of a contract are: offer, acceptance and consideration. Consideration in this minor instance is whatever the conversation entails.
One has to admire the simplicity of the concept because when things appear to a third party that the apparent “parties” (in this case, “A & B”) are cooperating in an agreeable situation, what outward observer would argue that further analysis is necessary? If nobody is yelling and pointing fingers, there is no need to intervene, right? That is an observance from outside the situation. Inwardly, that may differ.
How many kids have lost or given their lunch money to a “bully” over the years? Unless there is a witness who sees the threat without the “transaction” there may be no evidence for or against the supposed voluntary bargain between the “parties.” (Bully and victim) The surface implication may support that the victim gave a gift to the bully – creating an apparent implied agreement in the eyes of the third party. The presumption is that no dispute exists. However, should the now penniless victim show up with a black eye or other signs of a struggle then the presumption of voluntariness can be reasonably questioned by any onlooking parent, teacher, friend, etc.
Not in that scenario, but in others wherein the parties actually agree with full knowledge of all the facts involved, the law will uphold implied agreement/contracts so long as the bargained for consideration/action/performance is legal. Then, of course, gray areas exist where some parts of an agreement only appear to be legal or the law sees the agreement as legal because neither party has (publicly or privately) objected to the conditions brought about by the “bargain,” like the bully scenario. No objection by either party implies agreement, but, is it true in a situation where one party only thinks the bargain is fair: based solely on representations by the other party? The law will see no reason to intervene if neither party objects, even though “bullying” another kid for his lunch money is an unlawful act. OK, that’s a stretch but there are conditions wherein the attention of one party to an agreement, is diverted from the ‘fine print’ by what amounts to deception by the manipulating party.
My own experience and the impetus fueling this rant contain observations combined with research – a particular king of research – wherein my theories seem to be not only supported, but proven by authorities who are in-the-know. Their consent is IMPLIED. The CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE FOR VALUE FOR PROOF OF CLAIMS, such as the one referenced above in “JUST CONTRADICTION” Part 3 (JC3), is an example of the document that; when sent to an official [in this case the Secretary of State of Texas], is by its language a sort of implied agreement exists between us and I wish their clarification. I think it is a good idea to include any subject matter that a person in their position might know or have access to. For example, the referenced CAFV, Item #102261/CST, on page 2 – the first PROOF OF CLAIM (POC), reads: ‘PROOF OF CLAIM that the all capital letters name, EDDIE A. NUNNELLEY, is not a corporate fiction created by the STATE, without permission of the undersigned non-corporate human.”
The absolute non-response to that question and others by the Secretary of State is accepted by me as the opposite of what the POC request; in this case, that the all capital letters name indicated IS a corporate fiction! Their consent to that fact is implied by their silence!
Obtaining the tacit agreement from the official is the point, and it is lawful. The law dictates that after a presentation of a document of this nature that a followup notice be sent, along with an affidavit supporting what amount to an admission from the official to whatever the agreement stipulates. In roughly 35 days, with no dispositive response from the official, the law will look at the inaction of the party and accept the quasi-contract as a binding implied consent agreement.
If someone painted you house and said, “I’ll bill you,” then when the bill comes, after notification of the grace period, and you fail to “pay” or even respond to the bill, then your non-response can be presented to a court and the painter can obtain a default judgment and maybe a lien on your house by default. it is the same thing with the government official (in principle). In most stipulations presented, I know or have a good idea what the real truth is, and I’m looking for confirmation. By asking for a response UNDER OATH, should they choose to lie, then I have their own admission of their perjury. It would be implied, which is probably why so many agents of the government do not response, even though they are “Here to help you!”
Currently, I have in my possession, several of this very kind of implied admissions, via tacit agreement from certain officials. I will utilize this as evidence to support my future writings in this blog and elsewhere. Why? I have to tell you, so “we” can kill their corruption, in the figurative sense only
Stay tuned.
The point here then, is how does the single sovereign of we the people compel or obligate a governmental official to alleviate our concerns, via proving or disproving our theories?
Some of us might attempt to use the FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), in the Title 5 UNITED STATES CODE (USC) Section 55. We’re familiar with it because the act has been used to obtain documents with information about UFO’s, the JFK assassination, and more. As demonstrated by the “blacked out” text within many of those documents, the FOIA provides that certain content is exempt from disclosure. The agency holding the documents has the discretion to decide whether the papers should be available to the “public.”
Here’s a thought: If an official employed by an agency which the sovereign “We the People” created, and are thus above, yet that official can refuse access to the public – then is that not proof that the public is not sovereign over their ”creation;” but are truly below or subject to it? See: “twittage #2.”
In the end though, the FOIA is only good for documents and cannot compel officials to respond to specific questions. For that, an order from a court would be in – order. The problem with the judicial method is, the government has unlimited resources and batteries of attorneys ready to oppose an unwanted query at every instance. What else is one to do?
The method I use to obtain undisclosed knowledge from agents of the corporate government entities, or anyone for that matter, I have had to resort to out of necessity; because, no other mechanism seems to be effective. I can’t tell you how many times I have written a given court clerk or sheriff’s office requesting information as benign as a file number or something and they shot me down with the: “If I tell you, I’d have to kill you” type of response. With the agency called TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, there is a form referred to as an “I-60” that is used to request things from officials. If I had a dime for every I-60 submitted where the non-response was totally unrelated to the question – I would be a rich man. Example: to the question “How can I ‘give back,’ redeem, or reject the ‘awarded’ GOOD CONDUCT CREDIT; thereby terminating the quasi-contract, so that I can withdraw my labor without suffering arbitrary disciplinary action?” A response such as “You are properly assigned” appears to defy all logic.
Could it be that the agency official recognizes my sovereign status as a “We the People” descendant, and for some reason is unable to respond to one who ranks above them as a “creator” of their employer? Or, could it be that, by my own use of an I-60 form that is intended for use by an “inmate’ or “offender’ as defined in statutes, is only a legal fiction, an abstraction that only exists on paper – and as a non-three-dimensional entity, possesses no assertable rights anyway? How logical is it for a three-dimensional being to give credence to a one-dimensional entity?
Having established the difficulties of dealing with government officials, I have concluded that the most efficient and maybe the only way period, to achieve the stated goal, is to make them an “offer they can’t refuse.” not something one experiences every day, the ‘offer’ I refer to is actually called a “quasi-contract.” The best definition of this method I have found appears in the “HANDBOOK OF COMMON LAW PLEADING,” by Benjamin J. Shipman, 1895, on page 14: “The term ‘implied contracts’ is also applied to promises implied or created by the law without any agreement in fact between the parties, and even when the circumstances negate the existence of any agreement in fact, as where one person pays money which another out to have paid, or receives money which another ought to have received, or, in some cases, where benefits are conferred upon another without any agreement. The promise in these cases is merely a fiction of law, resorted to for the purpose of allowing a remedy by assumption. The obligation is not contractual but quasi-contractual.”
Our own everyday lives provide numerous examples of implied contracts or agreement in the simplest events like conversation: When “A” speaks to “B” and “B” responds; then “A” responds in turn. The parties, “A & B” to this agreement are said to have willingly accepted the agreement itself; which is implied based on the fact they are actually having a conversation. Had there been no agreement to “converse” – their colloquy would not have been sustained very long. Party “B” could have said to party “A”, “I do not consent to this conversation”; or “B” could have just walked away saying nothing. In that case, it is obvious to anyone that “B” did not accept party “A’s” offer to converse, therefore, a contractual exchange of consideration could not be “Implied in law as a matter of fact.” The elements of a contract are: offer, acceptance and consideration. Consideration in this minor instance is whatever the conversation entails.
One has to admire the simplicity of the concept because when things appear to a third party that the apparent “parties” (in this case, “A & B”) are cooperating in an agreeable situation, what outward observer would argue that further analysis is necessary? If nobody is yelling and pointing fingers, there is no need to intervene, right? That is an observance from outside the situation. Inwardly, that may differ.
How many kids have lost or given their lunch money to a “bully” over the years? Unless there is a witness who sees the threat without the “transaction” there may be no evidence for or against the supposed voluntary bargain between the “parties.” (Bully and victim) The surface implication may support that the victim gave a gift to the bully – creating an apparent implied agreement in the eyes of the third party. The presumption is that no dispute exists. However, should the now penniless victim show up with a black eye or other signs of a struggle then the presumption of voluntariness can be reasonably questioned by any onlooking parent, teacher, friend, etc.
Not in that scenario, but in others wherein the parties actually agree with full knowledge of all the facts involved, the law will uphold implied agreement/contracts so long as the bargained for consideration/action/performance is legal. Then, of course, gray areas exist where some parts of an agreement only appear to be legal or the law sees the agreement as legal because neither party has (publicly or privately) objected to the conditions brought about by the “bargain,” like the bully scenario. No objection by either party implies agreement, but, is it true in a situation where one party only thinks the bargain is fair: based solely on representations by the other party? The law will see no reason to intervene if neither party objects, even though “bullying” another kid for his lunch money is an unlawful act. OK, that’s a stretch but there are conditions wherein the attention of one party to an agreement, is diverted from the ‘fine print’ by what amounts to deception by the manipulating party.
My own experience and the impetus fueling this rant contain observations combined with research – a particular king of research – wherein my theories seem to be not only supported, but proven by authorities who are in-the-know. Their consent is IMPLIED. The CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE FOR VALUE FOR PROOF OF CLAIMS, such as the one referenced above in “JUST CONTRADICTION” Part 3 (JC3), is an example of the document that; when sent to an official [in this case the Secretary of State of Texas], is by its language a sort of implied agreement exists between us and I wish their clarification. I think it is a good idea to include any subject matter that a person in their position might know or have access to. For example, the referenced CAFV, Item #102261/CST, on page 2 – the first PROOF OF CLAIM (POC), reads: ‘PROOF OF CLAIM that the all capital letters name, EDDIE A. NUNNELLEY, is not a corporate fiction created by the STATE, without permission of the undersigned non-corporate human.”
The absolute non-response to that question and others by the Secretary of State is accepted by me as the opposite of what the POC request; in this case, that the all capital letters name indicated IS a corporate fiction! Their consent to that fact is implied by their silence!
Obtaining the tacit agreement from the official is the point, and it is lawful. The law dictates that after a presentation of a document of this nature that a followup notice be sent, along with an affidavit supporting what amount to an admission from the official to whatever the agreement stipulates. In roughly 35 days, with no dispositive response from the official, the law will look at the inaction of the party and accept the quasi-contract as a binding implied consent agreement.
If someone painted you house and said, “I’ll bill you,” then when the bill comes, after notification of the grace period, and you fail to “pay” or even respond to the bill, then your non-response can be presented to a court and the painter can obtain a default judgment and maybe a lien on your house by default. it is the same thing with the government official (in principle). In most stipulations presented, I know or have a good idea what the real truth is, and I’m looking for confirmation. By asking for a response UNDER OATH, should they choose to lie, then I have their own admission of their perjury. It would be implied, which is probably why so many agents of the government do not response, even though they are “Here to help you!”
Currently, I have in my possession, several of this very kind of implied admissions, via tacit agreement from certain officials. I will utilize this as evidence to support my future writings in this blog and elsewhere. Why? I have to tell you, so “we” can kill their corruption, in the figurative sense only
Stay tuned.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
New Twittage (or Twirp)
I said in the beginning of this blog that Ali3nizm/Ali3nz have something to d with people who are “anomic.” The Webster definition being, “people who are alienated from normal society. Lately, it occurs to me that the “Ali3n” definition of anomic should be expanded to stipulate – that “we” are not so much completely disenfranchised per se; but we are alienated from full participation in what is referred to as “normal society.” As referenced in the book, “Ai3nizm” Chapter 8, Ali3nz may be routinely obligated to bear a high percentage of the negative effects of “society”; but we are prevented in partaking in anything but a low percentage of the positive effect society offers.
If we can be considered as “posterity” descended from the original “We the People,” who recorded constitutional evidence of a social construct on paper and theory goes, if “we” are the proxy creators of the social construct, then how did we become anomic or alienated from that which “we” created? In the sense of asking government officials the hard questions related or similar to the one just posed and getting the run around from them, is the reasoning for my offer of the below treatise.
If we can be considered as “posterity” descended from the original “We the People,” who recorded constitutional evidence of a social construct on paper and theory goes, if “we” are the proxy creators of the social construct, then how did we become anomic or alienated from that which “we” created? In the sense of asking government officials the hard questions related or similar to the one just posed and getting the run around from them, is the reasoning for my offer of the below treatise.
"Twittage"
The definition of “twittage” Not exactly a “tweet” because from where I’m standing, to tweet is under-possible – so my ali3n version is more of a “chirp.” Yet, as these chirps are given in the same spirit as tweets, “twittage” it is.
Monday, December 19, 2011
Why Occupy?
It is a basic tenet of Human Nature that we usually don’t perform an action without considering some incentive or cause. With this in mind, I have a simple question, as it relates to the “Wall Street Protestors:” “What’s in it for them?”
I cannot tell you how many times I have heard press interviews of individuals within the ‘Occupy Wall Street” movement. Basing my opinion solely on the mainstream media coverage, one gets the impression that, either the collective ‘protestors’ do not know of a certain platform issue, or the individual protestors who have been interviewed, simply cannot express what even their own motivation is to protest by occupation.
Without the benefit of being ‘on-site’ and conducting our own interviews across a broad spectrum of the occupiers, we can only speculate on the aggregate motives of the movement proper. I will attempt to do so here by the application of logic to the basic “Nature” of Humans, as the protestors are certainly not brainless machines devoid of emotion.
Digressing for a moment, let us recognize the possible motivations of the various media outlets because, though the corporations are fictitious, they are staffed by human beings. First, popular media owners and executives likely respond to incentives such as gain through the media of advertising dollars, that are valued in relation positive or negative sensationalism; or perhaps other corporate/political favor via the same mechanism. Second, the staff reporters and other team players may seek increase in the form of monetary or ‘spiffs.’ Could it be that such motivation manifests as “target interviews,” of people who the press observe to be less-than-desirable as representatives of the protestors? That might explain the over-abundance of reports lately that focus on only the bad actors. Yet, is that the only explanation?
GROUP-A: No doubt there are an uncounted percentage of people camped out in the common areas of ‘occupied’ cities who are not only sincere in spirit, but may actually harbor coherent reasons for their own protest. For the sake of argument and simplicity, we’ll say this group of occupiers have (for whatever reason) not been questions by popular media, therefore, their motives remain unexpressed publicly.
GROUP-B: We may logically suggest that another unknown number of humans are ‘on-site’ protestors for natural reasons synonymous with food, party ops, or the desire to be a part of anything bigger than themselves – even if they don’t know what that is. Perhaps a number of this group are the ones that have made the news so far – an while some of their motives may be known, they have not offered plausible demands or proposed any viable solutions.
Model analysis of protestor’s in the categories above (“A & B”), however, limited in scope, remains in line with the inherent “Nature” of the human species. Again, without the benefit of proof in evidence we may obtain a working theory by asking ourselves what incentive someone else has to do or not to do a thing, while maintaining the parameters of recognized human nature. Following this premise to the logical conclusion, I propose that we identify an additional group of people, while they may not be on the front lines, are affiliated enough to warrant some reference.
GROUP-C: Anticipating a more definite motive, let us apply the same test to the “Backers” of the movement, who do not seem to be actually ‘in the trenches’ with the rest.
Industrial media indicates that ‘someone’ is behind the movement, such as; George Sorros, the Devil, The Tea Party, etc; but always the culpable party is of the opposite political genre than the norm expressed by the outlet actually making the report. Admittedly, the visible provision of food, shelter, and more at each occupied site is consistent with the theory that some entity is organizing and financing the protestors.
I personally have seen no evidence of who might be fertilizing the roots of the movement so I cannot say whether it is one or a group of private persona, a commercial or corporate entity, or a foreign interest. We can be sure that there is at least one human pulling the strings (somewhere/somehow in this model, therefore, the ‘human nature’ test below.
Why would anyone finance or put together a movement of this nature? What’s “in it” for them? We could ask them but none have come forward claiming responsibility. I wonder why that is? Why has there been no specific argument, manifesto, or solution promoted publicly? I don’t know about the protest financiers but if I wanted a movement or any project for that matter to succeed, I would take steps to ensure that success. I would not attempt to build a picket fence without tools, or pickets. Nor would I try to bake a cake without Betty Crocker. In order to ensure the success of the occupy movement, would it not make sense to hire articulate spokespeople to address the public or the media at each local venue?
The complete lack of express demands or a speaker to deliver a message indicates that the puppet masters backing the protest are not invested in the accomplishment of the occupy movement over time. By implication, that premise also suggests the opposite, or even worse- the whole thing is an experiment.
Pay tell, what would motivate such an experiment, or what is it the instigators hope to discover?
In answer to that question, if we take all the known elements as stated in this article—like the negative press coverage, lack of statement/leadership, and invisible backing--we can reasonably conclude that, on the one hand – this experiment is a method utilized to gauge the public’s reaction to the reported negativity of the protestors themselves, and/or the reaction to the local authorities (potentially violent response to ‘crowd control’ or ‘civil unrest.’ On the other hand, perhaps the powers-that-be are also banking on the predictability of “Human Nature”—angry protestors becoming violent over the authorities’ treatment of them and growing into, or at least reportedly growing into domestic terrorism. That would, of course, lead to an excuse for government to deploy stronger measures for “your” protection, such as Martial Law. “WHY” else?
I cannot tell you how many times I have heard press interviews of individuals within the ‘Occupy Wall Street” movement. Basing my opinion solely on the mainstream media coverage, one gets the impression that, either the collective ‘protestors’ do not know of a certain platform issue, or the individual protestors who have been interviewed, simply cannot express what even their own motivation is to protest by occupation.
Without the benefit of being ‘on-site’ and conducting our own interviews across a broad spectrum of the occupiers, we can only speculate on the aggregate motives of the movement proper. I will attempt to do so here by the application of logic to the basic “Nature” of Humans, as the protestors are certainly not brainless machines devoid of emotion.
Digressing for a moment, let us recognize the possible motivations of the various media outlets because, though the corporations are fictitious, they are staffed by human beings. First, popular media owners and executives likely respond to incentives such as gain through the media of advertising dollars, that are valued in relation positive or negative sensationalism; or perhaps other corporate/political favor via the same mechanism. Second, the staff reporters and other team players may seek increase in the form of monetary or ‘spiffs.’ Could it be that such motivation manifests as “target interviews,” of people who the press observe to be less-than-desirable as representatives of the protestors? That might explain the over-abundance of reports lately that focus on only the bad actors. Yet, is that the only explanation?
GROUP-A: No doubt there are an uncounted percentage of people camped out in the common areas of ‘occupied’ cities who are not only sincere in spirit, but may actually harbor coherent reasons for their own protest. For the sake of argument and simplicity, we’ll say this group of occupiers have (for whatever reason) not been questions by popular media, therefore, their motives remain unexpressed publicly.
GROUP-B: We may logically suggest that another unknown number of humans are ‘on-site’ protestors for natural reasons synonymous with food, party ops, or the desire to be a part of anything bigger than themselves – even if they don’t know what that is. Perhaps a number of this group are the ones that have made the news so far – an while some of their motives may be known, they have not offered plausible demands or proposed any viable solutions.
Model analysis of protestor’s in the categories above (“A & B”), however, limited in scope, remains in line with the inherent “Nature” of the human species. Again, without the benefit of proof in evidence we may obtain a working theory by asking ourselves what incentive someone else has to do or not to do a thing, while maintaining the parameters of recognized human nature. Following this premise to the logical conclusion, I propose that we identify an additional group of people, while they may not be on the front lines, are affiliated enough to warrant some reference.
GROUP-C: Anticipating a more definite motive, let us apply the same test to the “Backers” of the movement, who do not seem to be actually ‘in the trenches’ with the rest.
Industrial media indicates that ‘someone’ is behind the movement, such as; George Sorros, the Devil, The Tea Party, etc; but always the culpable party is of the opposite political genre than the norm expressed by the outlet actually making the report. Admittedly, the visible provision of food, shelter, and more at each occupied site is consistent with the theory that some entity is organizing and financing the protestors.
I personally have seen no evidence of who might be fertilizing the roots of the movement so I cannot say whether it is one or a group of private persona, a commercial or corporate entity, or a foreign interest. We can be sure that there is at least one human pulling the strings (somewhere/somehow in this model, therefore, the ‘human nature’ test below.
Why would anyone finance or put together a movement of this nature? What’s “in it” for them? We could ask them but none have come forward claiming responsibility. I wonder why that is? Why has there been no specific argument, manifesto, or solution promoted publicly? I don’t know about the protest financiers but if I wanted a movement or any project for that matter to succeed, I would take steps to ensure that success. I would not attempt to build a picket fence without tools, or pickets. Nor would I try to bake a cake without Betty Crocker. In order to ensure the success of the occupy movement, would it not make sense to hire articulate spokespeople to address the public or the media at each local venue?
The complete lack of express demands or a speaker to deliver a message indicates that the puppet masters backing the protest are not invested in the accomplishment of the occupy movement over time. By implication, that premise also suggests the opposite, or even worse- the whole thing is an experiment.
Pay tell, what would motivate such an experiment, or what is it the instigators hope to discover?
In answer to that question, if we take all the known elements as stated in this article—like the negative press coverage, lack of statement/leadership, and invisible backing--we can reasonably conclude that, on the one hand – this experiment is a method utilized to gauge the public’s reaction to the reported negativity of the protestors themselves, and/or the reaction to the local authorities (potentially violent response to ‘crowd control’ or ‘civil unrest.’ On the other hand, perhaps the powers-that-be are also banking on the predictability of “Human Nature”—angry protestors becoming violent over the authorities’ treatment of them and growing into, or at least reportedly growing into domestic terrorism. That would, of course, lead to an excuse for government to deploy stronger measures for “your” protection, such as Martial Law. “WHY” else?
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Just Contradiction Part Two
Hello again,
While researching the law regarding the points in this post, I noticed some government and media attention has been focused on a group name “Sovereigns” as being classified as if they were a ‘hate’ group. Based solely on news reports, it’s my understanding other groups believe people who consider themselves sovereign are a threat to – someone. Situations like this remind me to consider the motive of a group that brings a claim against another group, prior to the formation of my own opinion.
I do realize, however, that not all politicians are crooked; not all Muslims are terrorists; not all lawyers are liars; not all prisoners are evil; and not all “Sovereigntists” are haters who some consider a threat because of a perceived exploitation of the system.
With the above in mind, I’d like to make it perfectly clear that Ali3nz are not allied with those people labeled as sovereign or any other group that allegedly promotes hate, fraud, or a violation of any other just law or moral standard. Any references to ‘sovereignty’ herein is made only to educate the reader within the context of unreasonable “contradictions” of a supposedly fair and impartial system of justice, and are supported by case law or other precedential rule. It follows that we’ll present certain quotas along with what the legal profession calls, ‘a citation’ by which anyone may check the veracity of the quoted material. A typical citation consists of the name of the case or rule, and the subsequent volume number of the book where the cite may be found. Then an abbreviation of the particular type of record [i.e.: Sct. = U.S. Supreme Court Reporter, or F3d = Federal Reporter – third edition (Circuit Courts of Appeals)], followed by the page number of that volume. Bold, underlined or other emphasis applied to the following text is my own addition.
The point to all this is to expose the unfair justice system for the arbitrary effect it has on some people, to uncover reasons for the unfairness/why the injustice is allowed, how all this relates to disenfranchised Ali3nz, and to specify a possible method to remedy the contradictions, thereby gaining true justice.
The previous entry about systemic in-justice exposed even more questions which led yours truly to investigate further, but where to start? How does one find the nature of something so infinitely complex?
For forty-odd years, my thinking process has been anything but logical, as evidenced by my admitted ups-and-downs (well, mostly downs). Over time, I’ve learned to ‘break down’ a given subject into its lowest terms (or essence) in order to discover the nature of a thing. In my mind this is somehow a substitute for logic. In that light, I didn’t believe it was too much of a stretch to conclude the in-justice system did not become contradictory overnight. There had to be some history involved. Recorded history can be located and studied. Working from that hypothesis, the mechanism which appealed most to me for finding the separation point between what these days makes zero sense and what seemed to make sense in the past – is time travel.
Back in the 80’s – well that’s far enough back, although Huey Lewis did make the “Back in Time’ reference then “Where American history is concerned, how far ‘back’ should I look? If the government gets its power from a contract/compact in the form of a constitution, then where does the power of the constitution come from? So I ask a lot of questions that anyone who paid attention in government class would find elementary. I failed that class three times.
Something else I’ve discovered is that judges have given their opinions both for and against a seemingly countless number of issues. For example, the Supreme Court opinion of, Martin et al vs. The Lessee of Waddell, 41 US 367, states: “for when the revolution took place, the people of each state became themselves sovereign.” If that were true then, when people came together in a common cause (to oust the King of England), then each and every living human was at that time in fact, a sovereign, owing no fealty to anyone because they were no longer “subjects.”
What is the Nature of Sovereignty?
“Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source f law…” Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, 118 US 356. Therefore, one might conclude, as I did, that sovereign humans either entered into some kind of agreement wherein they gave up some of the sovereignty to the government (or government’s creditors) or they kept their sovereignty and created a government that was supposed to be subject to the sovereign people. And it appears the latter took place because:
“The Constitution is the voice of the people speaking in their sovereign capacity. People vs. Parks, 58 Ca. 624.
So we might reasonably conclude that, the people who created the constitution and their ‘posterity’ were superior to government, initially anyway. Carrying that point forward in an unaltered state then, when I entered this world, kicking and crying, I should have been a sovereign automatically, not subject to government regulation at least until another “sovereign” human has/had an issue with me. At that point, two sovereigns might use the ‘government’ to settle a dispute, like an umpire.
After tentatively establishing that point in my own mind, I wondered if governmental rules would directly apply since I have not (knowingly) relinquished my sovereign status in any way (hell, I didn’t know ‘sovereignty’ existed in the first place). Without entering into such an agreement, how could I become subject to a corporate entity that is supposed to be subject to me (or at least subject to the original framers of the constitutional compact)?
Keeping in mind the ‘commercial contract’ premises found in Part One, as we return to the American post-revolutionary period, I learned (or maybe re-learned), the Continental Congress incurred some debt from fighting the war with Brittain. As a result of this debt, in 1781 the Congress was obligated by its Brittish creditors to form the First National Bank of the United States. The term of a bank’s charter was to be for twenty years. When the government elected to not renew the charter, the War of 1812 was fought mostly within the District of Columbia. Seemingly, after the Brigs possessed D.C. they mysteriously “surrendered” and went home. The U.S. government promptly renewed the charter for the First National Bank.
Some say (though Ii have no proof as yet), that in 1871 the District of Columbia was ‘incorporated’ in England. I did find, however, the “Act to Provide a Government for the District of Columbia,” at 16 STAT 419 that was passed and states:
“The United States of America is a corporation, whose jurisdiction is applicable only in the ten-mile-square parcel of land known as the District of Columbia and to whatever properties are legally titled to the United States, by its registration in the corporate county, state, and Federal court governments that are under the military power of the United States and its creditors.”
Even in this day and age, we find that, “The UNITED STATES” means: “A Federal corporation…” Title 28 USC 3002 (5).
We also learn that the United States is a “Debtor” located “in the District of Columbia.” UCC 9.307.
I could be wrong, yet the above authorities lead me to believe that the United States, the Republic, has been superceded by the Federal Corporation with the same name, and although the corporation portends to be a democracy, its jurisdiction should end with the boundries of Federal Property. This premise sat me to ponder that the Federal power is too far removed from myself to ever apply to me – unless the corporate governments of state, county, etc., are somehow under the military power of the U.S. and its creditors.
Later, I practically stumbled over the U.S. Senate report 93-549 93rd Congress 1st session 1973, which suggests:
“A majority of the people of the United States have lived all their lives under emergency rule…and, in the U.S., actions taken by the government in times of great crisis have – from at least the Civil War, in important ways, shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency.”
At this point in the inquiry, I was still failing to see the whole picture, I mean, yeah, the president can declare an emergency but I still do not get where I gave up my ‘sovereignty,’ so I dug deeper. What president declared an emergency and hy? The above quoted Senate Report suggested the emergency rule goes back to the Civil War. Also, I’m told that in 1850-61, the representatives for the Southern states of the union, walked out of the congressional session, creating ‘sine die’ (without day).
So, some would say that the republican form of government ceased to exist as a result of the sine die, leaving only a portion of the legislative democracy (private), and the executive branch of government to make the day to day decisions. An emergency form a government would have kept things operating to an extent. It appears Abraham Lincoln became President, and while still under a National Emergency and Martial Law the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were enacted under Executive Order. Those old Executive Orders had no expiration date and are likely to remain in effect. There are whispers (which I have yet to prove or disprove, suggesting that when the South seceded from the Union, Martial law was necessary, so there may be some truth to suppositions such as: While after the Civil War, Congress (what was left) proceeded as if business was usual and the emergency powers remained at work to be utilized behind the scenes when needed; that under military law, the several states lost their true sovereignty and were subject exclusively to the Federal Corporation from that point on.
The foregoing seems to demonstrate some of the circumstances placing the states under de facto control of the Fedcorp, but I’m not ‘state’ so I feel like I’m again staring ‘square one’ right in the face…until I discovered information about the governmental insolvency of 1933 (Great Depression). Long before the Constitution was created, the money of exchange everyone in the New World used, was gold and silver coin, or drafts promising to pay in that specie – per the Coinage Act of 1792 (as mentioned in the post on “Borrowing”). The event which precipitated the bankruptcy/depression, as it turns out, the Treasury didn’t have gold in reserve to cover the demands made by anyone holding negotiable power. As a result, the 73rd U.S. Congress proposed House Joint Resolution 193 (HJR0192), and on page 83 in the first paragraph reads:
“Under the new la the money is issued to the banks in return to government obligations, bills of exchange, drafts, notes, trade acceptances, and bankers acceptances. The money will be worth 100 cents on the dollar, because it is backed by the credit of the nation. It will represent a mortgage on all the homes and property of all the people in the nation. The money so issued will not have one penny of gold coverage behind it…” (See Title 31 USC 463 also), “Federal Reserve Notes are Deb Obligations of the United States Government.” (found in Title 12 USC 411).
That being the case, it was in the interest of the members of the corporate government to obligate all the people to the debt because: Take any large amount of debt and divide it among a small number of people/debtors like a few hundred Congressmen), and those Congressmen would be solely responsible for the satisfaction of that debt under the pre-1933 law, in my opinion. Where the credits of the nation is concerned, Congress had to figure a way to ‘dilute’, if you will, their own portion of the debt by making every single soul then existing or yet to be born, a part to the debt. More people ‘paying’ equals less actual debt per individual. And if I was in their position, I’d likely want to “share” the debt also.
From the law I’ve read, it appears the emergency powers enabled the Fedcorp to obtain the consent of each and every one of us via our unknowing participation in/with government, like when a perceived government instant benefit is accepted. Evidence President Franklin Roosevelt’s “New Deal” as one example, and perhaps the recent “financial bailout” as well (and a whole lot more). I’ll get back to “acceptance” in due time, but first, let me say that: Corporation or not, military power or not, “…the Congress cannot revoke the sovereign power of the people.” Perry vs. United States, 294 US 330,353 (1935). And: “There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States. In this country sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it: all else is withheld.” Julliard vs. Greenman, 110 US 420.
Using my own case as an experiment and comprehending the fact that the particular statue law I was charged under was the Texas Penal Code, I noted within the code and other) the recurring term: “person.” This term is applied in such a way that causes one to think (due to common usage), the word ‘person’ could be me or any other living human being. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, “in Common usage, the term ‘person’ does not include the sovereign, and statutes employing it will ordinarily not to construed to do so.” U.S. vs United Mine Workers, 330 US 258 (1947).
Nor can a sovereign human be, “…named in any statue merely as a ‘person’ or ‘any person’. “Wills vs. Michigan State Police, 105 Led 2d 45 (1989). Yet, as in my own case, we find that government is routinely applying statues directly to private human beings via every code or rule imaginable. Contradictory, is it not?
History shows that, even in a permanent state of ‘national emergency,’ contractual obligations are made and enforced among parties whether local or international, commercial or non-commercial, public or private, civil or criminal. Where is the international-commercial-agreement which unconscionable replaces my sovereignty with an obligation that subjects me to arbitrary rule which are so inherently obese with contradictions, the proponent corporations may construe those rules however the occasion suits them? Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations (DFR) at 72.11 tells us that, “All the following crimes are commercial crimes…” and then goes on to list my own accusation along with others. Evaluating that federal rules indicate that crimes are ‘commercial’, on a whim I checked the la regarding commercial transactions, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), and, as sure as I’m sitting here, an “agreement” means: The bargain of the parties in fact, as found in the language or inferred from other circumstances…”. Based on that premise, it may be reasonable to conclude that I have been subject to one or more ‘implied’ agreements as ‘inferred’ by my ‘unknowing’ participation in certain commercial transactions. (See: UCC 1.201 (b) (3), agreement). Unfortunately, I may have unknowingly ratified the agreements via “acceptance” as defined in UCC 2.606: “When a part fails to make a effected rejection…”
The UCC also defines the word “person”: “An individual, corporation, business, trust, estate, trust, partnership, LLC… or any other legal or commercial entity.”
Then I had an epiphany – the term “people” as used in the cited cases above, refers to a group of sovereign humans in a collective sense, but also necessarily includes the single sovereign human standing alone, because it takes a group of solitary humans to make up a “people”! Take this as an example, what if all the ‘people’ in this nation suddenly disappeared except for a solitary soul – would that human by him/herself be any less ‘sovereign’ in that case?
Webster’s definition of the noun, “sovereign” is: a ruler with supreme power; a monarch.” As an adjective “Possessing supreme jurisdiction or authority.”
On the other hand, the adjective, “individual” is related as: “Of, for or relating to a single human being.” It would appear that the term individual indicates entity which is of ‘lesser’ status than the sovereign.
Looking again at the UCC’s definition of “person” and considering the undeniable commercial context, we find that the word is listed along with other corporate constructs which are not alive yet they have legal rights. That thought led me believe that; not only is the “individual” of a lesser status than a “sovereign,” but an ‘individual/person’ may be a human conducting commercial transactions in a non-sovereign capacity! (via a strawman). Otherwise, why wouldn’t the code actually use the term ‘sovereign’ or ‘human’ instead of ‘individual’? All the UCC corporations are non-sovereign, i.e.: created by the State, whereas a Sovereign is created by God. Does that also mean that only state created entities may interact/conduct intercourse with other corporations/state agencies? Is any transaction in that type of scenario, a commercial transaction?
My on conclusion is this: A ‘person’ as defined in the Code is not a term that would directly apply to a living human, which raises a few more questions that Id like to address in a future installment. Feel free to check my work and challenge the reason.
Until next time, try to be less of a ‘person’ but a better ‘human’.
While researching the law regarding the points in this post, I noticed some government and media attention has been focused on a group name “Sovereigns” as being classified as if they were a ‘hate’ group. Based solely on news reports, it’s my understanding other groups believe people who consider themselves sovereign are a threat to – someone. Situations like this remind me to consider the motive of a group that brings a claim against another group, prior to the formation of my own opinion.
I do realize, however, that not all politicians are crooked; not all Muslims are terrorists; not all lawyers are liars; not all prisoners are evil; and not all “Sovereigntists” are haters who some consider a threat because of a perceived exploitation of the system.
With the above in mind, I’d like to make it perfectly clear that Ali3nz are not allied with those people labeled as sovereign or any other group that allegedly promotes hate, fraud, or a violation of any other just law or moral standard. Any references to ‘sovereignty’ herein is made only to educate the reader within the context of unreasonable “contradictions” of a supposedly fair and impartial system of justice, and are supported by case law or other precedential rule. It follows that we’ll present certain quotas along with what the legal profession calls, ‘a citation’ by which anyone may check the veracity of the quoted material. A typical citation consists of the name of the case or rule, and the subsequent volume number of the book where the cite may be found. Then an abbreviation of the particular type of record [i.e.: Sct. = U.S. Supreme Court Reporter, or F3d = Federal Reporter – third edition (Circuit Courts of Appeals)], followed by the page number of that volume. Bold, underlined or other emphasis applied to the following text is my own addition.
The point to all this is to expose the unfair justice system for the arbitrary effect it has on some people, to uncover reasons for the unfairness/why the injustice is allowed, how all this relates to disenfranchised Ali3nz, and to specify a possible method to remedy the contradictions, thereby gaining true justice.
The previous entry about systemic in-justice exposed even more questions which led yours truly to investigate further, but where to start? How does one find the nature of something so infinitely complex?
For forty-odd years, my thinking process has been anything but logical, as evidenced by my admitted ups-and-downs (well, mostly downs). Over time, I’ve learned to ‘break down’ a given subject into its lowest terms (or essence) in order to discover the nature of a thing. In my mind this is somehow a substitute for logic. In that light, I didn’t believe it was too much of a stretch to conclude the in-justice system did not become contradictory overnight. There had to be some history involved. Recorded history can be located and studied. Working from that hypothesis, the mechanism which appealed most to me for finding the separation point between what these days makes zero sense and what seemed to make sense in the past – is time travel.
Back in the 80’s – well that’s far enough back, although Huey Lewis did make the “Back in Time’ reference then “Where American history is concerned, how far ‘back’ should I look? If the government gets its power from a contract/compact in the form of a constitution, then where does the power of the constitution come from? So I ask a lot of questions that anyone who paid attention in government class would find elementary. I failed that class three times.
Something else I’ve discovered is that judges have given their opinions both for and against a seemingly countless number of issues. For example, the Supreme Court opinion of, Martin et al vs. The Lessee of Waddell, 41 US 367, states: “for when the revolution took place, the people of each state became themselves sovereign.” If that were true then, when people came together in a common cause (to oust the King of England), then each and every living human was at that time in fact, a sovereign, owing no fealty to anyone because they were no longer “subjects.”
What is the Nature of Sovereignty?
“Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source f law…” Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, 118 US 356. Therefore, one might conclude, as I did, that sovereign humans either entered into some kind of agreement wherein they gave up some of the sovereignty to the government (or government’s creditors) or they kept their sovereignty and created a government that was supposed to be subject to the sovereign people. And it appears the latter took place because:
“The Constitution is the voice of the people speaking in their sovereign capacity. People vs. Parks, 58 Ca. 624.
So we might reasonably conclude that, the people who created the constitution and their ‘posterity’ were superior to government, initially anyway. Carrying that point forward in an unaltered state then, when I entered this world, kicking and crying, I should have been a sovereign automatically, not subject to government regulation at least until another “sovereign” human has/had an issue with me. At that point, two sovereigns might use the ‘government’ to settle a dispute, like an umpire.
After tentatively establishing that point in my own mind, I wondered if governmental rules would directly apply since I have not (knowingly) relinquished my sovereign status in any way (hell, I didn’t know ‘sovereignty’ existed in the first place). Without entering into such an agreement, how could I become subject to a corporate entity that is supposed to be subject to me (or at least subject to the original framers of the constitutional compact)?
Keeping in mind the ‘commercial contract’ premises found in Part One, as we return to the American post-revolutionary period, I learned (or maybe re-learned), the Continental Congress incurred some debt from fighting the war with Brittain. As a result of this debt, in 1781 the Congress was obligated by its Brittish creditors to form the First National Bank of the United States. The term of a bank’s charter was to be for twenty years. When the government elected to not renew the charter, the War of 1812 was fought mostly within the District of Columbia. Seemingly, after the Brigs possessed D.C. they mysteriously “surrendered” and went home. The U.S. government promptly renewed the charter for the First National Bank.
Some say (though Ii have no proof as yet), that in 1871 the District of Columbia was ‘incorporated’ in England. I did find, however, the “Act to Provide a Government for the District of Columbia,” at 16 STAT 419 that was passed and states:
“The United States of America is a corporation, whose jurisdiction is applicable only in the ten-mile-square parcel of land known as the District of Columbia and to whatever properties are legally titled to the United States, by its registration in the corporate county, state, and Federal court governments that are under the military power of the United States and its creditors.”
Even in this day and age, we find that, “The UNITED STATES” means: “A Federal corporation…” Title 28 USC 3002 (5).
We also learn that the United States is a “Debtor” located “in the District of Columbia.” UCC 9.307.
I could be wrong, yet the above authorities lead me to believe that the United States, the Republic, has been superceded by the Federal Corporation with the same name, and although the corporation portends to be a democracy, its jurisdiction should end with the boundries of Federal Property. This premise sat me to ponder that the Federal power is too far removed from myself to ever apply to me – unless the corporate governments of state, county, etc., are somehow under the military power of the U.S. and its creditors.
Later, I practically stumbled over the U.S. Senate report 93-549 93rd Congress 1st session 1973, which suggests:
“A majority of the people of the United States have lived all their lives under emergency rule…and, in the U.S., actions taken by the government in times of great crisis have – from at least the Civil War, in important ways, shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency.”
At this point in the inquiry, I was still failing to see the whole picture, I mean, yeah, the president can declare an emergency but I still do not get where I gave up my ‘sovereignty,’ so I dug deeper. What president declared an emergency and hy? The above quoted Senate Report suggested the emergency rule goes back to the Civil War. Also, I’m told that in 1850-61, the representatives for the Southern states of the union, walked out of the congressional session, creating ‘sine die’ (without day).
So, some would say that the republican form of government ceased to exist as a result of the sine die, leaving only a portion of the legislative democracy (private), and the executive branch of government to make the day to day decisions. An emergency form a government would have kept things operating to an extent. It appears Abraham Lincoln became President, and while still under a National Emergency and Martial Law the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were enacted under Executive Order. Those old Executive Orders had no expiration date and are likely to remain in effect. There are whispers (which I have yet to prove or disprove, suggesting that when the South seceded from the Union, Martial law was necessary, so there may be some truth to suppositions such as: While after the Civil War, Congress (what was left) proceeded as if business was usual and the emergency powers remained at work to be utilized behind the scenes when needed; that under military law, the several states lost their true sovereignty and were subject exclusively to the Federal Corporation from that point on.
The foregoing seems to demonstrate some of the circumstances placing the states under de facto control of the Fedcorp, but I’m not ‘state’ so I feel like I’m again staring ‘square one’ right in the face…until I discovered information about the governmental insolvency of 1933 (Great Depression). Long before the Constitution was created, the money of exchange everyone in the New World used, was gold and silver coin, or drafts promising to pay in that specie – per the Coinage Act of 1792 (as mentioned in the post on “Borrowing”). The event which precipitated the bankruptcy/depression, as it turns out, the Treasury didn’t have gold in reserve to cover the demands made by anyone holding negotiable power. As a result, the 73rd U.S. Congress proposed House Joint Resolution 193 (HJR0192), and on page 83 in the first paragraph reads:
“Under the new la the money is issued to the banks in return to government obligations, bills of exchange, drafts, notes, trade acceptances, and bankers acceptances. The money will be worth 100 cents on the dollar, because it is backed by the credit of the nation. It will represent a mortgage on all the homes and property of all the people in the nation. The money so issued will not have one penny of gold coverage behind it…” (See Title 31 USC 463 also), “Federal Reserve Notes are Deb Obligations of the United States Government.” (found in Title 12 USC 411).
That being the case, it was in the interest of the members of the corporate government to obligate all the people to the debt because: Take any large amount of debt and divide it among a small number of people/debtors like a few hundred Congressmen), and those Congressmen would be solely responsible for the satisfaction of that debt under the pre-1933 law, in my opinion. Where the credits of the nation is concerned, Congress had to figure a way to ‘dilute’, if you will, their own portion of the debt by making every single soul then existing or yet to be born, a part to the debt. More people ‘paying’ equals less actual debt per individual. And if I was in their position, I’d likely want to “share” the debt also.
From the law I’ve read, it appears the emergency powers enabled the Fedcorp to obtain the consent of each and every one of us via our unknowing participation in/with government, like when a perceived government instant benefit is accepted. Evidence President Franklin Roosevelt’s “New Deal” as one example, and perhaps the recent “financial bailout” as well (and a whole lot more). I’ll get back to “acceptance” in due time, but first, let me say that: Corporation or not, military power or not, “…the Congress cannot revoke the sovereign power of the people.” Perry vs. United States, 294 US 330,353 (1935). And: “There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States. In this country sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it: all else is withheld.” Julliard vs. Greenman, 110 US 420.
Using my own case as an experiment and comprehending the fact that the particular statue law I was charged under was the Texas Penal Code, I noted within the code and other) the recurring term: “person.” This term is applied in such a way that causes one to think (due to common usage), the word ‘person’ could be me or any other living human being. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, “in Common usage, the term ‘person’ does not include the sovereign, and statutes employing it will ordinarily not to construed to do so.” U.S. vs United Mine Workers, 330 US 258 (1947).
Nor can a sovereign human be, “…named in any statue merely as a ‘person’ or ‘any person’. “Wills vs. Michigan State Police, 105 Led 2d 45 (1989). Yet, as in my own case, we find that government is routinely applying statues directly to private human beings via every code or rule imaginable. Contradictory, is it not?
History shows that, even in a permanent state of ‘national emergency,’ contractual obligations are made and enforced among parties whether local or international, commercial or non-commercial, public or private, civil or criminal. Where is the international-commercial-agreement which unconscionable replaces my sovereignty with an obligation that subjects me to arbitrary rule which are so inherently obese with contradictions, the proponent corporations may construe those rules however the occasion suits them? Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations (DFR) at 72.11 tells us that, “All the following crimes are commercial crimes…” and then goes on to list my own accusation along with others. Evaluating that federal rules indicate that crimes are ‘commercial’, on a whim I checked the la regarding commercial transactions, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), and, as sure as I’m sitting here, an “agreement” means: The bargain of the parties in fact, as found in the language or inferred from other circumstances…”. Based on that premise, it may be reasonable to conclude that I have been subject to one or more ‘implied’ agreements as ‘inferred’ by my ‘unknowing’ participation in certain commercial transactions. (See: UCC 1.201 (b) (3), agreement). Unfortunately, I may have unknowingly ratified the agreements via “acceptance” as defined in UCC 2.606: “When a part fails to make a effected rejection…”
The UCC also defines the word “person”: “An individual, corporation, business, trust, estate, trust, partnership, LLC… or any other legal or commercial entity.”
Then I had an epiphany – the term “people” as used in the cited cases above, refers to a group of sovereign humans in a collective sense, but also necessarily includes the single sovereign human standing alone, because it takes a group of solitary humans to make up a “people”! Take this as an example, what if all the ‘people’ in this nation suddenly disappeared except for a solitary soul – would that human by him/herself be any less ‘sovereign’ in that case?
Webster’s definition of the noun, “sovereign” is: a ruler with supreme power; a monarch.” As an adjective “Possessing supreme jurisdiction or authority.”
On the other hand, the adjective, “individual” is related as: “Of, for or relating to a single human being.” It would appear that the term individual indicates entity which is of ‘lesser’ status than the sovereign.
Looking again at the UCC’s definition of “person” and considering the undeniable commercial context, we find that the word is listed along with other corporate constructs which are not alive yet they have legal rights. That thought led me believe that; not only is the “individual” of a lesser status than a “sovereign,” but an ‘individual/person’ may be a human conducting commercial transactions in a non-sovereign capacity! (via a strawman). Otherwise, why wouldn’t the code actually use the term ‘sovereign’ or ‘human’ instead of ‘individual’? All the UCC corporations are non-sovereign, i.e.: created by the State, whereas a Sovereign is created by God. Does that also mean that only state created entities may interact/conduct intercourse with other corporations/state agencies? Is any transaction in that type of scenario, a commercial transaction?
My on conclusion is this: A ‘person’ as defined in the Code is not a term that would directly apply to a living human, which raises a few more questions that Id like to address in a future installment. Feel free to check my work and challenge the reason.
Until next time, try to be less of a ‘person’ but a better ‘human’.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)