Inspired during my hearing of a report from a professor friend regarding political debates in America that included a general reference made to "The Constitution". I replied saying the idea that government is based solely on this Constitution doesn't follow historical fact as it is only one fourth of the Organic Laws and as such is required to be read in light of the other three Organic Laws. The professor agreed! American History has been re-written!
Date: 7/29/2016 5:55:08 AM ( 15 mon ) ... viewed 424 times
September 29, 2017 -
"When America was thought of in the 1850s, it was mainly Southerners who came to mind: Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Marshall, Jackson, Davy Crockett, Clay, and Calhoun. After the Civil War, America would be identified with Northerners: Lincoln, Webster, Adams, Grant, and Roosevelt. In short, what is called the Civil War was not a conservative act to preserve the Union, it was a violent revolutionary transformation from a federative polity of sovereign States (a kind of Switzerland writ large) into a would-be unitary state. This brought about a shift of political power from the States to the central government and a transformation of American identity.
Consequently, we have inherited two incompatible visions of America: a founding Jeffersonian America based on State and local sovereignty and a Lincolnian America based on centralized bureaucratic national sovereignty. The latter currently dominates. But there are signs the regime has exhausted its moral and intellectual resources, and has become so large as to be dysfunctional. If so, we would do well to revisit that founding Jeffersonian America to see what salience it has for us today. We cannot do so, however, without passing through the Southern tradition which was, and still is, the most loyal to the Jeffersonian inheritance. To do that is to gain a deeper, more differentiated, and more humane understanding of America."
Corruption is an element that has often used by dominant capitalistic corporations to create a need (that did not exist before the corruption) so that the corporation can sell their "goods and services". The principal also includes centralized banking and centralized government. Although there has been much devastaion in agriculture, economies, law (or legal realm) and in government there still remains pre-corruption elements that are surviving for a possible post-apocalyptic "revival". I am encouraged by what is surviving of the Southern American culture.
July 29, 2016 -
The book: "1984" is possibly the leading narrative on the necessity for re-writing history whenever government deems it in its best interest.
We in the u.s. of A. have been long past "1984" as a (de facto) reality. The history here that has long been re-written (as early as September 17, 1787) when the fourth "Organic Law" in the form of the writing of "the Constitution" was completed. Probably, the most important particular "history" that was re-written at that time was in regards to the validity of the second Organic Law: The Articles of Confederation (1777).
The new Federalist claimed that their new Constitution replaced the second Organic Law however replacement would have required a lawful repealing of the later and that simply never ever occurred. The difference between the historical truth and rewritten history in this instance is the difference between genuine liberty and "doublethink".
August 2nd -
I'm posting the following here rather than start a new blog-post as I begin to research about The California Republic's original constitution that I believe "guaranteed" free higher education to it's Citizens.
In the process of my research I found this to be of interest:
"... Although tradition speaks of the unfurling of the Stars and Stripes immediately after the Declaration of Independence, there is no definite evidence of the use of the flag of thirteen stars and thirteen stripes prior to its adoption by the American
Congress. George Henry Preble, Rear Admiral, U. S. N., in
his "History of the Flag of the United States of America,'' has
this to say :
'Beyond a doubt, the thirteen stars and stripes were unfurled at the battle of Brandywine, September 11, 1777, eight days
after the official promulgation of them at Philadelphia, ...'"
The following is from the "archive" and may be my main reference and basis for a letter to the UC regents:
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS.
Section 1. All men are by nature free and independent, and
have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoy-
ing and defending life and liberty ; acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness. [Constitution of 1849, Art. I, § 1]
The superior "Declaration of Rights" should be based on the phrase "unalienable Rights" exactly as it is written in the first Organic Law: The Declaration of Independence.
The two terms: "unalienable" and "inalienable" have distinctively different meanings.
[Now (11:06 AM on Tuesday, August 2nd) I'm convinced that this particular post: "Re-writting History" is the perfect place for this additional posting as I read at the adask.wordpress.com:
"... the Jefferson Memorial includes an excerpt from the 'Declaration of Independence' attributed to Jefferson that referred to our 'inalienable Rights'. But the text of the 'Declaration of Independence' expressly refers to our 'unalienable Rights'. Thus, the 'Declaration of Independence' is misquoted in 12″ high letters that are carved in stone."
Purpose of government.
Sec. 2. All political power is inherent in the people. Govern-
ment is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the
people, and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good mav require it. [Constitution of 1849, Art. I, §2]
[Comment] Do UC Regents declare any kind of "oath of office" that includes supporting this constitution? I've not seen one. If the Regents do declare their allegiance to the "spirit of the (American and then California) Law" then the people need to hold the Regents accountable to their declarations and to supporting "the protection ... of the people" who in this instance are students - firstly by protecting their unalienable Rights to "enjoying and defending (their) life and liberty; ... pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness" without risk of injury (as is known to have occurred with vaccinations).
The 6th -
I have made minor edits above to reflect the answers I've received from the California State Library regarding the University regents. The Librarian (like myself) did not find any prescribed oaths for the Regents. IMO - oaths are essential for "office-holders" when their functions are primarily one of public trust in service to the people of the area they serve. I'm surprised not to see an "oath" readily available in the California Constitution for the Regents.
The Regents apparently co-wrote the University of California's new requirement, that they passed last year, for all students to have their MMR, TdaP, Varicella and Meningococcal conjugate shots before the first day of school. There are several areas of issues regarding this including legal issues however I present an additional perspective that some may automatically think is "legal" whereas the foundation I am pointing is actually one of fundamental Law namely the Organic Laws of the United States of America. It is somewhat a "knee-jerk reaction" to think in legal terms as is so often the case in a litigious society and yet loose sight of what comes before the legal system. In such a state I feel the necessity to return to the foundation, not only for the Regents to refer to but especially for the students to be empowered by, possibly "enlightened" by.
I count it a real misfortune that American history as it is taught in the school system is compromised. If we are to continue as an American people we must recover our history. You could say that I'm on a mission for that purpose - The Recovery of American History.
The Declaration of Independence is the first of four Organic Laws the cornerstone of American Law. Without it we do not have American Law or an American Nation. The Constitution of September 17, 1787 is the fourth Organic Law and it naturally comes after the first. Referring to this Constitution as if it were the only foundation for America is truly problematic because it's true standing can only be within the context of the first Organic Law. If the "Constitution" is "divorced" from the Declaration of Independence then we are without our "North Star" as our guiding light. We must "hold these truths to be self evident" or we are subject to whatever the prevailing political winds of the day may be. We must know that "Life" includes our individual health and total well-being that is our natural unalienable Right meaning that it can not be given away or compromised by anything including an institution's "requirement" under color of institutional law and/or in the name of public health. There is no public health without healthy individuals - the only place where health begins. (Health is actually another area of issues regarding vaccinations.)
The second Organic Law is The Articles of Confederation wherein every State is bond to honor the freedom of its "free inhabitants", who are free from external government as that is completely congruent with the first Organic Law that finally rejected external government.
Continuing on the above theme regarding "vaccinations" even though I have sent off my letter to the UC Regents as I now have some additional "leads" regarding deep issues with the law.
In the process I discovered the following book: "Restore The Republic". Serendipitously the forward by Ron Paul speaks to a "redefinition" that is expressed in a Congressional Research Service report that I took note of regarding the Commerce Clause and that I do not agree with.
“… the commerce clause originally was intended as a limited grant of federal power to allow the federal government to ensure free-trade between the states. ‘Progressive’ lawyers, judges, politicians, and academics attacked this accepted understanding, however, and redefined the commerce clause as a general grant of power to regulate all areas of our economic and personal lives. …” Ron Paul in the Forward to Jonathan Emord’s book “Restore the Republic” (2012).
Jonathan begins his Introduction (after a quote from Madison) with: “The United States has lost its constitutional identity.”
I don’t think there is more precise wording that can be assembled to express the mammoth truth of this statement. The more I contemplate it the more profound it becomes in my awareness! To know the depth and breadth of the truth in this statement (IMO) requires a graduate level understanding of the four Organic Laws of The United States of America. That is because the three preceding Organic Laws are required as a collective context for a true understanding of the last Organic Law: the Constitution of September 17, 1787. This last Organic law didn't suddenly appear out of no where! In fact it is a direct extension of the second Organic Law: The "Articles of Confederation", a Law that is still recognized in the set of four by the United States Government Printing Office in the publication of "United States Code" where on the title page of Volume One it reads: "Organic Laws" followed by "Title 1".
Understanding the four Organic Laws will give you a true historical perspective of the "United States" whereby you will see that that the "United States" is distinctly preceded by "The United States of America" in both the first and second Organic Laws; that the "United States" pertains to property owned by "The United States of America" as set forth in the Northwest Territory as represented in the third Organic Law: "Ordinance of 1787: The Northwest Territorial Government". A "myopic" focus just on the "Constitution" does not necessarily include the greater and very essential context of the complete foundation for "the last Organic Law: the Constitution of September 17, 1787".
Also - More on "Unalienable":
“…1778, John Jay … in an essay entitled. ‘A Freeholder, A Hint to the Legislature of the State of New York’ …The undoubted right and unalienable privilege of a freeman …”:
The 11th -
From Black's Law Dictionary -
"Incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred."
"Not subject to alienation ..."
Although both of these legal terms share the core term of "lien these are actually two different terms with separate and distinct meanings. The difference is between "incapable" and "not subject to".
The 12th -
Alfred Adask explains the difference:
At first glance the two terms seem pretty much synonymous. However, while the word “inalienable” is “not subject to alienation,” the word “unalienable” is “incapable of being aliened”. I believe the distinction between these two terms is this:
“Unalienable” is “incapable” of being aliened by anyone, including the man who holds something “unalienable”. Thus, it is impossible for any individual to sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of an “unalienable Right”. It is impossible for you to take one of my “unalienable rights”. It is likewise impossible for me to even voluntarily surrender, sell or transfer one of my “unalienable rights”. Once I have something “unalienable,” it’s impossible for me to get rid of it. It would be easier to give up the color of my eyes or my heart than to give up that which is “unalienable”.
That which is “inalienable,” on the other hand, is merely “not subject to alienation”. Black’s 2nd does not declare that it’s absolutely impossible for that which is “inalienable” to be sold, transferred or assigned. Instead, I believe that “inalienable” merely means that “inalienable rights” are not subject to “alienation” by others. That is, no one can compel me to sell, abandon or transfer any of my “inalienable” rights. I am not “subject” to compelled “alienation” by others.
But that leaves open the question of whether I may am entitled to voluntarily and unilaterally sell, transfer, abandon or otherwise surrender that which is “inalienable”. Thus, while it is impossible for me to abandon, or for government to take, my “unalienable rights,” it is possible for me to voluntarily waive my “inalienable” rights. I strongly suspect that our gov-co presumes that our rights are at best “inalienable,” and that since we have not expressly claimed them, we could have and therefore must have waived them.
I highly encourage your clear understanding of the above distinction. Let there be no doubt in your thoughts or in your heart about all your Rights both your natural unalienable Rights as well as your inalienable rights.
Alfred Adask continues to articulate the difference:
If we look at Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (A.D. 1856) we’ll see:
“INALIENABLE. A word denoting the condition of those things the property in which cannot be lawfully transferred from one person to another. ...”
“UNALIENABLE. Incapable of being transferred. Things which are not in commerce, ... The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable.”
Clearly, the words are not synonymous. While “inalienable” rights can’t be “lawfully” transferred “to another,” they might nevertheless be waived by the holder or perhaps “unlawfully” (privately??) “transferred” to someone else. However, those rights which are “unalienable” are absolutely incapable of being transferred lawfully, unlawfully, administratively, privately or by implication or operation of law. That which you have, which is “unalienable,” is your wrists in an absolute sense that cannot possibly be discarded, transferred, sold, or otherwise abandoned.
Also, note that the word “unalienable” describes things which are “not in commerce”. However, it appears that those things which are “inalienable” could be “in commerce”. As you know, much of the trouble we have with the modern government is based on government’s claim of power to regulate all that is involved in interstate commerce. In so far as you may be able to prove that any item or right you seek to use or exercise is “unalienable,” that item or right would be beyond the power of our government to regulate under interstate commerce. You can see the power potential in “unalienable”.
Most importantly, as declared in the “Declaration of Independence,” all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. Our unalienable rights flow from God and are not subject to man’s meddling. Bouvier’s agrees by defining “unalienable” as including our “natural” rights (which flow from “nature’s God”).
I would encourage you to underscore: "You can see the power potential in 'unalienable'" in every way that you can. What is unalienable is absolutely beyond the jurisdiction of Congress! What is beyond the jurisdiction of Congress is not subject to governmental regulations. Let your unalienable Rights be your reality! Let all things to the country be the illusionary fiction that they truly are.
August 13, -
The importance of human history lies in its meaning. Answering this question (one of eight) is a requirement that helps characterize one's world view: "What is the meaning of human history?"
the 24th -
Although we have a virtually undisputed history in the court room referred to below you won't find the inspiration for the making of the German dictator included in the United States history books.
In a suggested letter by Ed Rivera to presidential candidates Ed quotes from a DVD version of the Nuremberg Trial. I had to verify that quote before posting it here. I just found it at Amazon:
“Stahmer cued Goring to explain where the idea had come from to combine the ceremonial head of state and the head of government in one person, Adolf Hitler. That was simple, Goring explained. They had taken their example from the similar dual roles of the president of the United States.” -
Nuremberg : Infamy on Trial Reprint Edition
by Joseph E. Persico
I find this a rather electrifying verification. Now I'd like to see how close I can get to the court transcripts!
In the meanwhile here's another reference to the above:
“Goring even claimed that when Hitler subverted Germany’s republican constitution by amalgamating the offices of chancellor and president, he was merely emulating the powers of the office of President of the United States, which merged the roles of head of government and head of state.”
Author of the above quoted article provided me with two links. One to: "The International Military Tribunal for Germany - Contents of The Nuremberg Trials Collection" at the Lillian Goldman Law Library 127 Wall Street, New Haven, Conn.. I need to contact their librarian.
August 26th -
There are two different offices of President referred to in the American Constitution of September 17, 1787.
Also found an impressive old newspaper with article on the combined offices that were given to Hitler.
“Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany on January 30, 1933. … in private Hitler had expressed hope that ‘the old reactionary’ would die soon so that he could merge the two offices of president and Chancellor together. ...”
Plus: A “… course was adopted for curtailing the (separate) powers of the president. One prerogative after another was taken from Hindenburg, as in the second Reichstag Fire Decree the right to appoint national commissioners …, and in the Enabling Act the right to issue decree laws. As for the balance, Hindenburg’s death was awaited. When he did die in August 1934, Hitler could have had himself or some puppet elected president. But he preferred combining the two offices of president and chancellor by decree, subsequently sanctioned by plebiscite.”
August 28th -
Cont. research Re: the Nuremberg Trials:
"... Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Allied Control Council (ACC) Law No. 10, October 1946-April 1949.
Originally, a second international trial at Nuremberg was to have focused primarily on the activities of German finance and industry during the Third Reich. The so-called 'industrialists trial,' was widely regard(ed) as of equal importance to the prosecution of the Nazi and SS high command. The United States vetoed this plan, declaring in the autumn of 1945 that it would refuse to participate in any further international trials and would hold separate prosecutions on its own."
Sent email message to author Joseph Persico asking for his assistance in accessing an online source of the Nuremberg trial transcripts.
Got a reply from a family member of Joseph Persico informing me that he had crossed the threshold.
Further research regarding Hitler's rise to power gave me what I call the connecting surface dots except for the financing. Now I have both surface and backing in one article.
Sept. 18th -
It appears that Hitler (with the essential help he needed from others) had accomplished in a relatively short period of just a few years what it took the government of the "United States" about 214 years to accomplish.
The 19th -
"... unalienable rights are God’s laws and written laws must, as supported by the Declaration of Independence, apply only to a government whose purpose it is to secure those unalienable rights for the people. Complex and intricate bureaucratic government institutions are meant to ensnare those looking for the simple application of God’s unwritten law. Government laws must conform with God’s laws, so as with all written laws loopholes abound in government laws. ..."
May 17, 2107 - Your Unalienable Rights.
"Unalienable Rights are the inherent, Sovereign, Natural Rights that existed before the creation of the state, and which, being antecedent to and above the state, can never be taken away, diminished, altered or levied by the state, except by due process of Law, nor can any Unalienable Right be fundementally removed or waived by contract, whether by non disclosure, which is fraud and unenforceable in Law, or knowingly by sufferance, which is contrary to the Spirit of Law and prejudicial to Sovereignty.
The Original, Permanent, Unalienable Rights of Every Man or Woman Include:
The Right to Life, Freedom, Health and Persuit of Happiness.
The Right to Contract or not to Contract which is unlimited.
The Right to earn a living, Income by being compensated with wages or a salary in a fair exchange for ones work.
The Right to travel in the ordinary course of ones life and business.
The Right to privacy and confidentiality, free from unwarranted invasion.
The Right to own and hold property, Lawfully without trespass.
The Right to self defence when threatened with harm, loss or deceit.
The Right to Due Process of Law with notice and opportunity to defend.
The Right to be presumed innocent, suffering no detention or arrest, No search or seizure, without reasonable cause.
The Right to remain silent when accused to avoid self incrimination.
The Right to equality in the eyes of the law and to equal representation.
The Right to trial by jury, being an impartial panel of ones peers.
The Right to appeal in law against conviction or sentence, or both.
The Right to expose knowledge necessary to ones Rights and Freedoms.
The Right to peaceful association, Assembly, Expression and Protest.
The Right to practice a Religion and to have beliefs of ones choosing.
The Right to Love and Consensual Marriage with children, as a Family.
The Right to security from abuse, Persecution, Tyranny and War.
The Right to refuse to kill under command, by reason of Conscience.
The Right to live in peace and to be left alone when Law Abiding.
Surely the most critical failure of the people is their failure to ensure the teaching and common knowledge of their Unalienable Rights. If You do not know Your Rights You effectively have none. By the path of ignorance, weather by apathy or deception. The people arrive in a state of exploitation, oppression and tyranny.
Learn Your Rights, They are Your Rights, No body or State can take away or alter Your Unalienable Rights."
I have posted on other blog pages the difference between Unalienable Rights and inalienable rights. The Declaration of Independence declares "unalienable Rights" however "governmental" agencies speak of inalienable rights. Why is that?
May 26, 2017 -
"To understand the differences between unalienable and inalienable, we have to precede the Declaration of Independence, ..."
July 7, 2017 -
Commented at a Lyndon LaRouche YouTube video (with a link to this blog) stating that there is a difference between "unalienable" and "inalienable" - the later being the term that the narrator had uttered while apparently reading the Declaration of Independence printing of "unalienable".
"You can search for twenty years, as we have, and never find a Congressional declaration of war nor a peace treaty related to the so-called 'American Civil War'".
July 10, 2017 -
Posted the following (at Paul Stramer's site) Re: "Dear George.... " by Anna Von Reitz:
Has the "Hereditary Head of State" been officially recognized by any countries outside of the united States of America? If so how was that recognition expressed?
September 3, 2017 - Need to know the Law in effect in 1776:
"Proof that the Colonies are still in Crown possession is the use of the word 'State' to signify a 'legal estate of possession.'"
Just emailed a Law library asking for the legal definition for "state" and/or "State" in effect in 1776. (I am so grateful for all the computer technology and especially the research assistance that I have access to now!)
September 16, 2017 -
Sent the following message to a friend who forwarded the "Seven Elements Of Jurisdiction" to our group:
"Although a part of elementary American Law yet what US public school student has ever seen this in any class on government?
Much appreciate the information (that I hope will become common knowledge for every American from at least age fourteen on up)."
 "Nineteen Eighty-four (published in 1949), a novel (George Orwell) wrote as a warning after years of brooding on the twin menaces of Nazism and Stalinism. The novel is set in an imaginary future in which the world is dominated by three perpetually warring totalitarian police states. The book’s hero, the Englishman Winston Smith, is a minor party functionary in one of those states. His longing for truth and decency leads him to secretly rebel against the government, which perpetuates its rule by systematically distorting the truth and continuously rewriting history to suit its own purposes.":
 Lien -
"A qualified right of property which a creditor has in or over specific property of his debtor, as security for the debt or charge or for performance of some act. ...":
 The Universe Next Door A BASIC WORLDVIEW CATALOGUE; September 2010 - Introduction:
 TAUNTON DAILY GAZETTE, Massachusetts, August 2, 1934 -
* Germany President Paul Von Hindenburg death
* Adolph Hitler becomes president
* Nazis begin climb to full power of Germany:
 “Phoenix Rising: The Rise and Fall of the American Republic By Donald G. Left:
 “Political Education of Arnold Brecht: An Autobiography, 1884-1970” by Arnold Brecht:
"Arnold Brecht witnessed and participated in the course of German history from the late 19th century to the present. Serving under seven Reich chancellors, he became acting Secretary of State, and was finally removed from office by Hitler in 1933.":
 The "Right to Due Process ..." is one of at least "Seven Elements Of Jurisdiction" -
"1. The accused must be properly identified, identified in such a fashion there is no room for mistaken identity. The individual must be singled out from all others; otherwise, anyone could be subject to arrest and trial without benefit of 'wrong party' defense. Almost always, the means of identification is a person's proper name, BUT ANY MEANS OF IDENTIFICATION IS EQUALLY VALID IF SAID MEANS DIFFERENTIATES THE ACCUSED WITHOUT DOUBT. (There is no constitutionally valid requirement you must identify yourself (4th Amendment); see Brown v. Texas, 443 US 47 and Kolender v Lawson, 461 US 352.)
2. The statute of offense must be identified by its proper or common name. A number is insufficient. Today, a citizen may stand in jeopardy of criminal sanctions for alleged violation of statutes, regulations, or even low-level bureaucratic orders (example: Colorado National Monument Superintendent's Orders regarding an unleashed dog or a dog defecating on a trail). If a number were to be deemed sufficient, government could bring new and different charges at any time by alleging clerical error. For any act to be triable as an offense, it must be declared to be a crime. Charges must negate any exception forming part of the statutory definition of an offense, by affirmative non-applicability. In other words, any charge must affirmatively negate any exception found in the law.
3. The acts of alleged offense must be described in non-prejudicial language and detail so as to enable a person of average intelligence to understand nature of charge (to enable preparation of defense); the actual act or acts constituting the offense complained of. The charge must not be described by parroting the statute; not by the language of same. The naming of the acts of the offense describes a specific offense whereas the verbiage of a statute describes only a general class of offense. Facts must be stated. Conclusions cannot be considered in the determination of probable cause.
4. The accuser must be named. He/she may be an officer or a third party, but some positively identifiable person (human being) must accuse; some certain person must take responsibility for the making of the accusation, not an agency or an institution. This is the only valid means by which a citizen may begin to face his accuser. Also, the injured party (corpus delicti) must make the accusation. Hearsay evidence may not be provided. Anyone else testifying that they heard that another party was injured does not qualify as direct evidence.
5. The accusation must be made under penalty of perjury. If perjury cannot reach the accuser, there is no accusation. Otherwise, anyone may accuse another falsely without risk.
6. To comply with the five elements above, that is for the accusation to be valid, the accused must be accorded due process. Accuser must have complied with law, procedure and form in bringing the charge. This includes court-determined probable cause, summons and notice procedure. If lawful process may be abrogated in placing a citizen in jeopardy, then any means may be utilized to deprive a man of his freedom, and all dissent may be stifled by utilization of defective process.
'The essential elements of due process are notice and an opportunity to defend.' Simon v Craft, 182 US 427.
'one is not entitled to protection unless he has reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer. The mere assertion of a privilege does not immunize him; the court must determine whether his refusal is justified, and may require that he is mistaken in his refusal.' Hoffman v US, 341 U.S. 486.
￼￼￼￼The Frog Farm FAQ, version 1.7 37 / 60
7. The court must be one of competent jurisdiction. To have valid process, the tribunal must be a creature of its constitution, in accord with the law of its creation, i.e., Article III judge.
Lacking any of the seven elements or portions thereof, (unless waived, intentionally or unintentionally) all designed to ensure against further prosecution (double jeopardy); it is the defendant's duty to inform the court of facts alleged for determination of sufficiency to support conviction, should one be obtained. Otherwise, there is no lawful notice, and charge must be dismissed for failure to state an offense. Without lawful notice, there is no personal jurisdiction and all proceedings prior to filing of a proper trial document in compliance with the seven elements is void. A lawful act is always legal but many legal acts by government are often unlawful. Most bureaucrats lack elementary knowledge and incentive to comply with the mandates of constitutional due process. They will make mistakes. Numbers beyond count have been convicted without benefit of governmental adherence to these seven elements. Today, informations are being filed and prosecuted by 'accepted practice' rather than due process of law.
See, Corpus Juris Secundum (CJS), Volume 7, Section 4, Attorney & client: The attorney's first duty is to the courts and the public, not to the client, and wherever the duties to his client conflict with those he owes as an officer of the court in the administration of justice, the former must yield to the latter. Clients are also called "wards" of the court in regard to their relationship with their attorneys.
Corpus Juris Secundum assumes courts will operate in a lawful manner. If the accused makes this assumption, he may learn, to his detriment, through experience, that certain questions of law, including the question of personal jurisdiction, may never be raised and addressed, especially when the accused is represented by the bar. (Sometimes licensed counsel appears to take on the characteristics of a fox guarding the hen house.)
Jurisdiction, once challenged, is to be proven, not by the court, but by the party attempting to assert jurisdiction. The burden of proof of jurisdiction lies with the asserter. The court is only to rule on the sufficiency of the proof tendered. See, McNutt v. GMAC, 298 US 178. The origins of this doctrine of law may be found in Maxfield's Lessee v Levy, 4 US 308.":
 At lease one additional element "... Of Jurisdiction" regards the proprietary nature of jurisdiction. The lawful jurisdiction of Government is entirely proprietary based. In other words government has jurisdiction only over what it owns. I.e. Federal jurisdiction is limited to the ten square miles of Washington, DC, the Federal territories and Federal lands that have been sold to the the "United States" allowing for exclusive legislative jurisdiction over those lands. Incorporated States with State Constitutions that include "the Constitution of the United States" as the supreme law of the land thereby have the same limitations to proprietary-based jurisdiction whether it is exclusively State owned property or joint jurisdiction between State and Federal Government. (I intend to return to this Footnote to include references.)
The Constitution, government, historical fact, Organic Laws, American History, California history, California constitution, university of california, tuition free, unalienable, God's law, written law
Add This Entry To Your CureZone Favorites!