Monthly Archives: April 2009

My Cup of Tea

My Cup of Tea

Unless you have been in a coma, it is hard to escape all the talk about the Tea Party phenomena. People are getting tired of government waste and abuse. Frankly, I’m surprised it took this long. The Declaration of Independence states that, “…and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.” The evils to which we are accustomed are no longer sufferable. It does not take government to decide when its evils are insufferable; or even to decide what the People consider evils, but each individual suffering under the systemic denial of their natural, unalienable rights to reach a point where they say, “Enough!”

Even though the Tea Party phenomena is a good starting point, it relies upon people gathering together to express their discontent. The adage, “there is strength in numbers” may hold true, but there must first be strength within. What happens when the Tea Party participants have disbanded and go back to their daily routine? The strength of their collective body is dispersed to the respective individuals; often to be remanded back into the despotism from which they crawled for a moment of outrage. They resign to pay obligatory homage to the State, mind their business, pledge their allegiance, and comply with every regulatory edict that may inject itself into their private affairs. The State is none the worse for the momentary display of petulance from its conscripts.

If one is to take a honest assessment of their conscience, beliefs, and morals they would be hard-pressed to accede that what government does is in harmony with why it was first created. Many, I posit, are so preoccupied and distracted by the day-to-day demands upon their senses for maintaining their burdensome debt that they give little thought, if any, to just how little autonomy they actually possess. There are movements afoot where some States are proposing bills which purport to assert the State’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment; which unfortunately has been all but eviscerated thanks to the States having become federal municipalities through the disbursement of federal monies to supplant the reserved powers of the States. Yes, you have even been compromised by your State legislatures who exercised control over you by pandering to Uncle Sam for the spoils which had previously been extracted from you through fraud and coercion. How these States will substantiate their sovereignty with tainted hands dyed green from the Federal Reserve’s worthless script, or red from the United States’ imperial aggression worldwide, is yet to be seen. It is never too late for change.

Regardless, none of this is worthwhile without a fundamental change within our own minds. There is needed, a paradigm shift in the way we reason. Government is not something that exists in perpetuity. It requires people; people to lend their consent; people to submit to that authority; people to occupy the offices; people to oppress other people. It is all a game. An often violent and oppressive game,but a game nonetheless. If you want to identify the cause for all your suffering you need only to gaze upon yourself.

I held my own Tea Party some time ago. The only participant was myself. There was discord between my conscience and the innumerable demands placed upon me by external restraint and compulsion. I stepped outside myself and took a critical assessment. I was not pleased. Much of what I had done in the past was done through information handed down by others no more invested in their lives than I had been. It was hearsay, presumption, and ignorance. When I asked about the “why” I was to comply with edicts, there was never reasoning founded upon morality or justice, but upon what would happen to me if I did not obey. The truth is, we live under the threat of force, fear, and oppression. We are not truly free, we are free as long as we obey.

Each one of us has to come to terms with how we either submit or rule in our own lives. Over a year ago I took the steps to remove my consent, express or implied, from being a subject under this festering despotism I see before me. I have authored a Declaration which makes unequivocal statements to the world as to who I say I am and where my authority over my life derives. I have divested myself of the subjugation imposed upon me by way of my past ignorance. I can walk proudly and honestly, without fear, and confront so-called authority that believes it has acquired some lawful right to compel my allegiance. After sending a copy to the City of Collinsville, the then-Mayor, Stan Schaeffer, issued a memo identifying me as a possible “threat” because of my promise to exercise my natural right to self-defense. This mentality is prevalent in government institutions. Government actors do not like individuals who have lost their fear and confront their lies. They do not fear me as much as the message I offer taking hold in the minds of other free-thinking individuals. That was my cup of tea.

I still wait for supposed rulers to compel me to obey. I have made my Declaration and stand by it, to the end, if need be. If this causes government actors some discomfort then it is within their minds such discomfort originates. I am a peaceable man, but will defend myself against aggression. I am not to be ruled by any man, or group of men, without my explicit consent. This is where we all find ourselves today. Tea Parties are a good start, but until you possess the temerity, resolve, belligerence, and tenacity to stand upon your natural, Creator-derived rights, you are nothing but a subject. There is no strength in numbers, when the individuals amongst such ranks are living in fear and ignorance. You can read about my journey, and my Declaration, at http://www.markmccoy.com. You can start by freeing yourself, which is only a thought away.

Advertisements

Cops: Public Servants or Fascist Pigs? (Part 1)

It was not many years ago when I considered myself a supporter of
“law enforcement.” (I made donations, had the F.O.P. and Sheriff’s
department stickers and everything.) Cops were, I believed, the
good guys, protecting the innocent and imposing justice upon
evildoers. Oh sure, I knew there was corruption here and there, and
scattered examples of police abuse–a few “bad apples” in the ranks-
– -but all in all, I thought the cops were the good guys.

Now I’m really darn embarrassed that I ever thought that.

This will be the first in a series of messages where we examine the
question, are the American “law enforcers” of today noble public
servants, or despicable fascist pigs?

First, we must define our terms. For example, someone having a
short temper, or exercising bad judgment, even repeatedly, is not
necessarily a fascist pig. No, a cop’s level of “fascismo,” if you
will, must be measured by something other than just being stupid or
even malicious. To truly be a fascist, a cop must demonstrate that
he has the fascist mindset. So let’s define what that is.

A NON-fascist cop, when he looks out at the world, would see lots
of good people, whom he would want to protect, and would never want
to harm, intimidate, or even inconvenience unnecessarily. His goal
would be to find the nasty people in the world, and see to it that
they are prevented from harming any of the decent people.

A FASCIST cop, on the other hand, would view everyone as his
inferior, to be controlled, interrogated, or even abused at will.
He sees himself, a representative of “authority,” as having the
right to forcibly impose his will on anyone he wants, whenever he
wants, for any reason (or no reason) and the right to use outright
violence against any who do not obey his every whim.

So, in this message and the ones to follow, we will examine
examples of police conduct in this country, and rate the level of
“fascismo” demonstrated by American “law enforcement.” What we
won’t bother looking at are things like a car chase which ends with
a cop with too much adrenaline in his blood, or a cop shooting
someone with somewhat questionable justification. No, we are
looking for ATTITUDE. The goal is to determine if American cops
today think like defenders of justice, or like fascist pigs.

– —<>—

As you may know, the feds now do internal “checkpoints,” anywhere
they want within a hundred miles of the border. If you haven’t yet
heard of this Orwellian absurdity, here are the basics:

http://www.aclu.org/priva…

(Yes, I know the ACLU is very selective about which rights it cares
about. It fights hard to defend the First Amendment, while fighting
hard to VIOLATE the Second Amendment. But their site gives a good
summary of the “Constitution free zones.”)

With the “checkpoint” information in mind, here is the specific
incident we’re considering this time, with our “fascistometers” at
the ready:

http://www.youtube.com/wa…

Once you’ve watched the entire video (it’s less than nine minutes),
consider a few things:

1) First of all, would anyone who is NOT a fascist pig take part in
these warrantless, suspicionless searches at all? Well, no. To
think you have the right to stop and interrogate anyone who happens
to drive down a road, and the right to search through his stuff, is
a classic symptom of being a fascist pig.

2) Would anyone who is NOT a fascist pig view someone’s reliance on
his Fourth Amendment rights (to not be subjected to an unreasonable
and unjustified search) as a REASON to search his car? Put another
way, would anyone who is NOT a fascist pig think that someone must
be a criminal if he doesn’t want to volunteer to let some jackboot
rummage through his stuff? No. Again, this is a classic symptom of
someone with a fascist pig world view. (Note that in the clip, the
guy describes how the fascist pigs at one point admitted that
everything the guy went through was because he wouldn’t answer a
question.)

3) Would anyone who is NOT a fascist pig FAKE “probable cause” in
order to get around that pesky Fourth Amendment? No. They had no
reason to suspect anything–to stop him at all, or to search him
after the stop–and then they LIED about it to make up an excuse to
do a search. Classic fascist pig behavior.

4) Would anyone who is NOT a fascist pig smash someone’s car
windows, taser him, and forcibly extract him from his car, without
ANY “probable cause” to think the person had committed a crime?
Again, no. (If you’re finding these questions difficult to answer,
please move to Cuba.)

5) Would anyone who is NOT a fascist pig grind someone’s face into
broken glass, throw him to the ground, stomp on his head, and
otherwise assault him, when the person is unarmed and not
resisting, and when there is still no evidence that the guy had
committed any crime? No. (The clip doesn’t say whether the cops
ever knew that the guy is a pastor.)

6) Would anyone who is NOT a fascist pig openly delight in someone
else’s misery and suffering, while the person is handcuffed and
bleeding profusely, mocking and insulting the guy, when there was
still NO EVIDENCE that the guy had committed any crime? No. (I
could make another item about not letting the guy go to the
bathroom, but I’m trying to keep this relatively short.)

7) Here’s an important one: Would anyone who is NOT a fascist pig
QUIETLY STAND BY while his fellow “officers” did what is described
above? NO. If this was a case of one or two “bad apples” in law
enforcement, wouldn’t some other cop there have tried to stop it,
or at least complained about it afterwards? So how often have you
ever seen that? Where are the “good cops” speaking out about this
stuff?

8) Would anyone who is NOT a fascist pig want to proceed to
prosecute the VICTIM of all the abuse I described above, despite
the fact that there is STILL no evidence that he committed a crime?
No.

Okay, so what’s the verdict for this example? Well, if the story
above is an accurate reflection of what “law enforcement” in this
country is like today, then American cops are indeed fascist pigs,
who deserve our utmost contempt and condemnation. (And if it is NOT
an accurate reflection of the attitudes and behavior of the police
in this country, where are the GOOD cops speaking out against this?)

In closing, I’d like to say the following to Mr. C. Diaz, Mr. B.
Griffiths, and Mr. E. Gomez, and any other Nazi swine who
participated in the incident described above. If some day you pick
the wrong target for your Gestapo crap, and the guy blows your damn
fascist pig heads off, the world will be a better place.

Oh, and have a nice day.

Larken Rose
http://www.larkenrose.com

Limited Time Offer to Government

I wish to make a point. I know you are watching. You are looking for a reason. I bet it will be tied to some of the draconian legislation dealing with domestic terrorism. The free expression of ideas is no longer sacrosanct. Should an individual’s words go against the grain of what government believes is in its best interests in preserving its powers then they are an enemy of the State.

I’ve been told by people who are concerned for me that I should lay low. I have “painted a target on my chest”. It is foolish to express my opinions in provocative and controversial ways. If my words cause government anxiety then that is a shortcoming of government.

I will do this. I will make this overture. To-date, every effort I have made to engage government in extracting honest answers regarding its authority has brought nothing but silence. Considering the increasingly violent actions of government through aggression, police state tactics, disregard for individual liberties, I feel it prudent to avail myself to being humbled by the almighty State should it wish to contact me personally and with proof-shown, enlighten me to the error of my ways. Take me under the wing and reason with me. Correct my misperceptions and elucidate me with the higher, moral-law which I mistake as despotism, fraud, and tyranny. Bring me back into the fold, if you can.

Please, contact me. I will meet with you, personally. I will not engage you on your territory, but will meet at a neutral location. You may email or phone me as well. Know this, I will record the conversation. I will make it public. I am no stranger to being questioned by the “feds”. I am aware of the games and pretenses. Do not insult my intelligence. I expect that if there was any evidence which gave rise to a criminal act I would already be in custody. I expect you to make my point and show the people how you assail a peaceable man.

Use my contact us form and provide when and where you wish to meet. I will be unarmed, and I would expect the same.

I will say that I do not expect any takers on this offer. I will instead expect violence, hyperbole, and contrived accusations. I hope you prove me wrong. What is there to fear? Why not take the opportunity to possibly convert me?

I await any contact, but not for long.

Citizenship created for slaves ala the 14th Amendment

“GOVERNMENTS ARE INSTITUTED AMONG MEN, DERIVING THEIR JUST POWERS
FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED!”
Guess who are consenting to be Governed ? Answer: Voters, 14th
Amendment citizens of the United States. If you don’t claim to be
one of them, don’t pretend you are one them, guess what ? You are
not one of the governed (voters) and will get no administrative
relief. Treason by Design, By L.B. Bork
pacinlaw.org
HERE IS THE UNCONSCIONABLE KICKER! You may refer to it as the SET-UP!
It is a fact that is well documented that you have to be a citizen of
the United States to vote in any elections. You may verify this by
checking your [S]tate statutes regarding the state voting
regulations. Although it is difficult to see as the language is
intentionally written to confuse people if you decipher Section 2 of
the Fourteenth Amendment you will see that the de facto states or
governments only represent people who are voting. Someone who is
versed in syntax may be of assistance in the deciphering process.
Accordingly, earlier above in this article it was stated that it is a
crime to vote in elections! Illustrated forthwith is the pertinent
text taken from Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment which
exemplifies that it is a crime to vote. This is so evil it is beyond
belief:
“. . . the right to vote at any election. . . is denied. . . except
for participation in rebellion, or other crime. . . ”
You must understand that you cannot just create “citizens of the
United States ” without violating inherent Constitutional premises
under the Law of Nations; accordingly, the constitutional government
[s] of the several states of America need to be usurped. This is done
by making voters unwittingly throw off their allegiance to their
lawful governments. The clause illustrated in Section 2 of the
Fourteenth Amendment does this.

California Appellate Court Confirms Fragility of Red Light Camera Cases ~~~‚~"œ You Have to Fight to Win

California Appellate Court Slams Sacramento Red Light Camera Program
Appellate court rules Sacramento County, California red light camera
program does not produce sufficient evidence to convict drivers.
A decision issued last month by the Appellate Division of the
Superior Court in Sacramento County, California would invalidate
at least eighty percent of red light camera tickets in Sacramento
if drivers were to bring their case to court and contest their
citations. A three judge panel found the photo system did not
generate evidence sufficient to convict local motorist David Graham,
38, of running a red light.
"Sometimes you can fight city hall," said Graham. "Now those bozos
will have to give me back every penny of the $371 they bilked me
for the ticket."
On March 2, 2008, Graham’s 1995 Oldsmobile was photographed by a
red light camera at the intersection of Power Inn Road and Folsom
Boulevard. However, unlike most newer programs in California, the
angle of the red light camera photographs in Sacramento County do not
actually show the signal light in the photograph itself. Instead,
a data box superimposed on the citation photo shows the letter "R"
which indicates that the signal was red, according to Affiliated
Computer Services (ACS), the for-profit company that operates the
program. That was not sufficient evidence for the appellate court.
"Without photographs showing appellant committing the violation,
the system must be proven reliable beyond a reasonable doubt in
order for the people to meet their burden of proof," Presiding
Judge Maryanne G. Gilliard wrote.
The police employee who testified in Graham’s case, Officer Holt,
said that he had examined logs that showed an ACS technician
had maintained the camera properly and that there were no
malfunctions. Graham used the California Rules of Evidence to
challenge this claim as hearsay.
"We have no way of knowing what the technician did to reach these
conclusions, because that technician is not in court, and Officer
Holt admits to having no direct, personal knowledge of what the
technician did," Graham wrote in his brief to the court.
The court noted that the first photograph on Graham’s citation
showed his Oldsmobile behind the limit line with cross traffic
facing a red — not a green — light.
"Given the evidence adduced at appellant’s trial, this panel finds
that a rational trier of fact could not reasonably find, beyond a
reasonable doubt, that the light controlling appellant’s entry into
the intersection was red when he first crossed the limit line,"
Judge concluded "Therefore, we find that substantial evidence does
not support appellant’s conviction. The conviction is reversed with
directions to dismiss the complaint."
Graham is now asking the court to publish his case so that it will
have precedential value. California courts have protected red light
camera programs in the past by holding similar decisions unpublished
to prevent mass refunds from programs operating in ways that violate
California law.
A copy of the decision is available in a 150k PDF file at the source
link below.
Source: California v. Graham (California Superior Court, Appellate
Division, 2/20/2009)
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/27/2715.asp

California Appellate Court Confirms Fragility of Red Light Camera Cases – You Have to Fight to Win

California Appellate Court Slams Sacramento Red Light Camera Program
Appellate court rules Sacramento County, California red light camera
program does not produce sufficient evidence to convict drivers.
A decision issued last month by the Appellate Division of the
Superior Court in Sacramento County, California would invalidate
at least eighty percent of red light camera tickets in Sacramento
if drivers were to bring their case to court and contest their
citations. A three judge panel found the photo system did not
generate evidence sufficient to convict local motorist David Graham,
38, of running a red light.
"Sometimes you can fight city hall," said Graham. "Now those bozos
will have to give me back every penny of the $371 they bilked me
for the ticket."
On March 2, 2008, Graham’s 1995 Oldsmobile was photographed by a
red light camera at the intersection of Power Inn Road and Folsom
Boulevard. However, unlike most newer programs in California, the
angle of the red light camera photographs in Sacramento County do not
actually show the signal light in the photograph itself. Instead,
a data box superimposed on the citation photo shows the letter "R"
which indicates that the signal was red, according to Affiliated
Computer Services (ACS), the for-profit company that operates the
program. That was not sufficient evidence for the appellate court.
"Without photographs showing appellant committing the violation,
the system must be proven reliable beyond a reasonable doubt in
order for the people to meet their burden of proof," Presiding
Judge Maryanne G. Gilliard wrote.
The police employee who testified in Graham’s case, Officer Holt,
said that he had examined logs that showed an ACS technician
had maintained the camera properly and that there were no
malfunctions. Graham used the California Rules of Evidence to
challenge this claim as hearsay.
"We have no way of knowing what the technician did to reach these
conclusions, because that technician is not in court, and Officer
Holt admits to having no direct, personal knowledge of what the
technician did," Graham wrote in his brief to the court.
The court noted that the first photograph on Graham’s citation
showed his Oldsmobile behind the limit line with cross traffic
facing a red — not a green — light.
"Given the evidence adduced at appellant’s trial, this panel finds
that a rational trier of fact could not reasonably find, beyond a
reasonable doubt, that the light controlling appellant’s entry into
the intersection was red when he first crossed the limit line,"
Judge concluded "Therefore, we find that substantial evidence does
not support appellant’s conviction. The conviction is reversed with
directions to dismiss the complaint."
Graham is now asking the court to publish his case so that it will
have precedential value. California courts have protected red light
camera programs in the past by holding similar decisions unpublished
to prevent mass refunds from programs operating in ways that violate
California law.
A copy of the decision is available in a 150k PDF file at the source
link below.
Source: California v. Graham (California Superior Court, Appellate
Division, 2/20/2009)
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/27/2715.asp

The Origins of Birth Registration ~~~‚~"œ It's not what you think.

 

The Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act was "for the promotion, the welfare and hygiene of maternity and infancy and for other purposes," It was passed with a vote of 63 to 7, and by the house with a vote of 279 to 39, and was finally signed by the president and became law on Nov. 23, 1921. The act provided for the current fiscal year (1922) $10,000 for each state accepting the provisions of the act, and additional sum of $1,000,000.

      The bill was a direct outgrowth of a nine year study made by the "Federal Children’s Bureau." Note the Bureau was not the federal bureau for children but the bureau of the federal children. This act and the acceptance of its benefits by the states created the "United States birth registration area."44

      "(2) Birth Registration Document. The Social Security Administration (SSA) may enter into an agreement with officials of a State… to establish, as part of the official birth registration process, a procedure to assist SSA in assigning social security numbers to newborn children. Where an agreement is in effect, a parent, as part of the official birth registration process, need not complete a Form SS-5 and may request that SSA assign a social security number to the newborn child.45

      Did the federal government have the right to impose such legislation on the States? In 1923, it was argued by Mr. Alexander Lincoln, Assistant Attorney General of Massachusetts, "The act is unconstitutional. It purports to vest in agencies of the Federal Government powers which are almost wholly undefined, in matters relating to maternity and infancy, and to authorize appropriations of federal funds for the purposes of the act." The complaint went on to state that, "The act is invalid because it assumes powers not granted to Congress and usurps the local police power." "The act is not made valid by the circumstance that federal powers are to be exercised only with respect to those States which accept the act, for Congress cannot assume, and state legislatures cannot yield, the powers reserved to the States by the Constitution. The act is invalid because it imposes on each State an illegal option either to yield a part of its powers reserved by the Tenth Amendment or to give up its share of appropriations under the act."46

      In the final analysis the Act was an offer from one corporate entity to another for the purpose of providing an avenue for the individual citizen of America to register as a subject of the State and therefore a citizen of the Federal corporate State, the true and actual sovereign agent, called the United States. The federal government would assume the position of Father of the subject citizen according to the law of Parens Patriae.47

http://presys.com/ekklesia/cvc.htm

The Origins of Birth Registration – It’s not what you think.

 

The Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act was "for the promotion, the welfare and hygiene of maternity and infancy and for other purposes," It was passed with a vote of 63 to 7, and by the house with a vote of 279 to 39, and was finally signed by the president and became law on Nov. 23, 1921. The act provided for the current fiscal year (1922) $10,000 for each state accepting the provisions of the act, and additional sum of $1,000,000.

      The bill was a direct outgrowth of a nine year study made by the "Federal Children’s Bureau." Note the Bureau was not the federal bureau for children but the bureau of the federal children. This act and the acceptance of its benefits by the states created the "United States birth registration area."44

      "(2) Birth Registration Document. The Social Security Administration (SSA) may enter into an agreement with officials of a State… to establish, as part of the official birth registration process, a procedure to assist SSA in assigning social security numbers to newborn children. Where an agreement is in effect, a parent, as part of the official birth registration process, need not complete a Form SS-5 and may request that SSA assign a social security number to the newborn child.45

      Did the federal government have the right to impose such legislation on the States? In 1923, it was argued by Mr. Alexander Lincoln, Assistant Attorney General of Massachusetts, "The act is unconstitutional. It purports to vest in agencies of the Federal Government powers which are almost wholly undefined, in matters relating to maternity and infancy, and to authorize appropriations of federal funds for the purposes of the act." The complaint went on to state that, "The act is invalid because it assumes powers not granted to Congress and usurps the local police power." "The act is not made valid by the circumstance that federal powers are to be exercised only with respect to those States which accept the act, for Congress cannot assume, and state legislatures cannot yield, the powers reserved to the States by the Constitution. The act is invalid because it imposes on each State an illegal option either to yield a part of its powers reserved by the Tenth Amendment or to give up its share of appropriations under the act."46

      In the final analysis the Act was an offer from one corporate entity to another for the purpose of providing an avenue for the individual citizen of America to register as a subject of the State and therefore a citizen of the Federal corporate State, the true and actual sovereign agent, called the United States. The federal government would assume the position of Father of the subject citizen according to the law of Parens Patriae.47

http://presys.com/~ekklesia/cvc.htm

Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest

Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest

These are not my words. These are the words uttered by the courts within the United States and other States. I am not advocating violence or promoting the unjust taking of life. As a matter of fact, I am morally opposed to any taking of life.

However, in the realm of our humanity and circumstances we cannot control, any individual has to allow for some possibility of death to others, whether intentional or unintentional, when defending themselves from what they perceive to be imminent harm or death to themselves. That said, government, being the incarnation of force, has recognized at the judicial level the right of people to defend themselves when that force is exercised unjustly.

How can any of this be avoided? In my opinion, by abolishing government and creating better ways for society to function. That option notwithstanding, by government mitigating the potential harm it causes by limiting its actions to those involving violent actions of others as opposed to regulatory edicts imposed upon an otherwise peaceful populace.

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903. “An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

“Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, ‘If there be any remedy at all … it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.'” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.

As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)

“Common as the event may be, it is a serious thing to arrest a citizen, and it is a more serious thing to search his person; and he who accomplishes it, must do so in conformity to the law of the land. There are two reasons for this; one to avoid bloodshed, and the other to preserve the liberty of the citizen. Obedience to the law is the bond of society, and the officers set to enforce the law are not exempt from its mandates.” Town of Blacksburg v. Bean 104 S.C. 146. 88 S.E. (Wis 1924)

“Where officers do not conform to the ‘law of the land’ they have no authority and the right to resist them exists. A Public Officer, as with a citizen, who unlawfully threatens life or liberty, is susceptible to be injured or killed; for by such acts ‘they draw their own blood upon themselves’ As stated in some cases, ‘where a peace officer has no right to make an arrest without warrant he is a trespasser and acts at his own peril.” 6A CJS., “Arrest” Section 16 page 30; A sheriff who “acts without process,” or “under a process void on its face, in doing such act, he is not to be considered an officer but a personal trespasser.” Roberts v. Dean, 187 So. 571, 575 (Fla. 1939)

“A person has a lawful right to resist an arrest by an unlawful authority, i.e., an officer without a valid warrant.” Franklin,118 Ga. 860, 45 S.E.

“What of the resistance to the arrest? The authorities are in agreement that since the right of personal property is one of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, any unlawful interference with it may be resisted and every person has a right to resist an unlawful arrest. * * * and, in preventing such illegal restraint of his liberty, he may use such force as may be necessary.” City of Columbus v. Holmes, 152 N.W. 2d, 301, 306 (Ohio App. 1058)

“It is the law of self defense and self preservation that is applicable. “One has and “unalienable” right to protect his life, liberty or property from unlawful attack or harm.” “* * * it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody without resistance.” Adarns v. State, 121 Ga 163, 48 S.E. 910 (1904)

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right, and only the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” State v. Robinson, 145 Me. 77, 72 Atl, 2nd.260, 262 (1950)

“A citizen illegally arrested “cannot initiate the use of force” and neither do “words alone justify an assault.” However, “when the officer initiates the assault by physical contact, which is usually the case, and there is an unlawful arrest, the citizen has the right to protect his liberty to the extent of killing the officer.” See Green v. Kennedy, 48 N.Y. Rep. 653, 654 (1871) and/or Hicks v. Matthews, 266S.W. 2nd. 846, 849 (Tex. 1954)

“What rights then has a citizen in resisting an unlawful arrest? An arrest without warrant is a trespass, an unlawful assault upon the person, and how far one thus unlawfully assaulted may go in resistance is to be determined as in other cases of assault. Life and liberty are regarded as standing substantially on one foundation; life being useless without liberty, and the authorities are uninformed that where one is about to be unlawfully deprived of his liberty he may resist the aggressions of the officer, to the extent of taking the life of the assailant, if that be necessity to preserve his own life, or prevent infliction upon him of some great bodily harm.” State v. Gum, 68 W. Va. 105, 69 S.E. 463, 464 (1910)

“It is the law that a person illegally arrested by an officer may resist that arrest, even to the extent of the taking of life if his own life or any great bodily harm is threatened. State v. Rousseau, 40 Wash. 2nd, 92, 241 P. 2nd. 447, 449 (1952); Porter v. State, 124 Ga. 297, 52 S.E. 283, 287 (1905); see also State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2nd 100, 102 (1954); Wilkinson v. State, 143 Miss. 324, 108 So. 711, 712-13 (1926); American Jurisprudence, 2nd Ed., “Arrest”, Section 94, pp. 778-780; Thomas v. State, 91 Ga. 204, 18 S.E. 305 (1892); Presley v. State, 75 Fla. 434, 78 So. 532, 534 (1918); Burkhard v. State, 83 Tex. Crim. 228, 202 S.W. 513; Mullins v. State, 196 Ga. 569, 27 S.E. 2nd. 91 (1943); Ownes v. State, 58 Tex. Crim. 261, 125 S.W. 405 (1910); Caperton v. Commonwealth, 189 Ky. 652, 655, 225 S.W. 481, 481 (1920)

“The United States Supreme Court, and every other court in the past deciding upon the matter, has recognized that “at common Law”, a person had the right to “resist the illegal attempt to arrest him.”John Bad Elk v. United States, 177 U.S. 529, 534-35 (1899)

See also The Law of Arrest in Civil and Criminal Actions

Thanks to this site for information – http://www.constitutiondefender.com/natural_law_to_defend_yourself.htm

THE RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE

I have often wondered what it was like when communities were small, and everybody knew everybody. This thought occurred to me while I was driving through Tombstone, Arizona, site of the famous gunfight. As was reported in the papers of the day (not television news), the Earps and Doc Holliday were walking down the street, knowing that the Clantons and Lowery were at the corral. These factions had been at odds with each other for years, and on this day there appeared to be a plan, for as the Earps and Doc walked by the Clantons, the Earps threw some hateful words out. This, apparently, did not provoke the desired action, so Doc pulled his shotgun from under his coat, turned and fired. The Earps then joined in and only two of the others got away.

Similarly, here in Waco, one faction, with color of law, was able to open up on the other in a devastating gunfight that left 9 dead. The color of law was sufficient, at least for the time being, to vindicate the aggressors. In both cases the side with color of law would have, if circumstances warranted, been given time off, with pay, while adjudication occurred. The other side would have been incarcerated until adjudication was completed. Those with color of law would not be charged with a crime, but the others would be charged with serious crimes.

While I was here during the siege I ran across an interesting piece of Texas law. In the Texas Penal Code, �9.31 (C), reads as follows: �9.31 (C) The use of force to resist arrest or search is justified: (1) If, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest; and (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer”s (or other person”s) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

There must have been a reason for this law to have been passed, so I went back and reread the definition of:

liberty 1. Exemption from slavery, bondage, imprisonment, or control of another. 2. Freedom from external restraint or compulsion (Webster”s New Collegiate Dictionary). LIBERTY Freedom; exemption from extraneous control. The power of the will to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice, and to direct the external acts of the individual without restraint, coercion, or control from other persons. (Black”s Law Dictionary – Third Edition)

It appears, then, that the right for each of us to walk freely, subject to not harming or injuring another person or his property is the concept of liberty that the Founding Fathers spoke of, and we have let our liberty be lost in a myriad of regulation, rule and control. What gives a “peace officer” the right to take a persons liberty, or property? Obviously the Texas legislators realized that excessive force could be used, unlawfully, justifying lawful retaliation. Perhaps they understood human nature and knew that personal bias might play a part when one person, operating under color of law, might exceed lawful exertion of force.

Understanding that abuse of power might occur, isn’t it possible that both time and extension of power might result in “law enforcement” officers exerting an authority that is beyond lawful authority? Wondering how, and why, the scope of law enforcement may have changed, I began searching further and ran into an interesting account of a significant change that came as a result of a major trauma in the history of the United States of America. During World War II, especially with the troops being an occupation army after the armistices, there was a rather carefree attitude among those who thought they may never see home again. To control the servicemen the Military Police had to impose arbitrary authority under the maritime jurisdiction that all soldiers were subject to. Meanwhile, back in the states, police officers approaching retirement during the war tended to stay on to help out in the war effort. As the MP”s began returning stateside (literally tens of thousands of them) they began to fill the ranks of local law enforcement, filing in the gap made by those now retiring. The attitude of arbitrary enforcement was ingrained in the returnees, and, although tempered by training as they joined the local ranks, still became a prevalent attitude which began a change of servant to master. I looked further (American”s Bulletin, September 1993) and found an interesting article, portions of which follow:

This fundamental premise was upheld by the Supreme court of the United States in the case of John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529 (1900) when the court stated: “…where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What might be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed. “an arrest made with a defective warrant; or one issued without affidavit; or one that fails to allege a crime is without jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested may resist arrest and break away. If the arresting officer is killed by one who is resisting, the killing will be no more than involuntary manslaughter. In reviewing the case we find that: “The court charged the jury: “The deceased, John Kills Back, had been ordered to arrest the defendant; hence he had a right to go and make the attempt to arrest the defendant. The defendant had no right to resist him. .. In this connection I desire to say to you, gentlemen of the jury, that the deceased, being an officer of the law, had a right to be armed, and for the purpose of arresting the defendant [John Bad Elk] he would have the right to show his revolver. He would have had the right to use only so much force as necessary to take his prisoner, and the fact that he was using no more force than was necessary to take his prisoner would not be sufficient justification for the defendant to shoot him and kill him. The defendant would only be justified in killing the deceased when you should find that the circumstances showed that the deceased had so far forgot his duties as an officer and had gone beyond the force necessary to arrest the defendant, and was about to kill him or to inflict great bodily injury upon him, which was not necessary for the purpose of making the arrest. The jury, relying on these instructions, convicted John Bad Elk of murder and the case went to the higher court on error. The higher court stated: “We think the court clearly erred in charging that the policeman had the right to arrest the plaintiff [John Bad Elk] in error, and to use such force as was necessary to accomplish the arrest, and that the plaintiff had no right to resist it. “At common law, if a patty resisted arrest by an officer without a warrant, and who had no right to arrest him, and if in the course of resistance the officer was killed, the offence of the party resisting arrest would be reduced from what would have been murder, if the officer had the right to arrest, to manslaughter. .. So we can clearly see that something has happened that has had the affect of allowing us to be arrested (lose our liberty) by the design of a law enforcement officer when the Supreme Court has held that the officer has no right unless certain procedures (constitutional protections) are adhered to.

Perhaps we have been led to believe that law enforcement has superhuman rights. Perhaps the Founding Fathers, and those that followed recognized that no special privilege could be granted to normal humans who took a job that put them at risk. Perhaps arrest cannot be made, unless by indictment, properly obtained information or if a serious crime, not minor, is committed in the presence of the officer, and, perhaps not even in this last case unless property or lives are at stake. As a general rule we have accepted the fact that we may shoot another person to protect our lives, property or money. But what is property or money if not a previous conversion of time. The time exerted to achieve the money or property surely had value.

When someone attempts to “steal” that time prior to conversion are we not able to understand that even more is being taken away than when property is? Just because a man is wearing a badge gives him no right to take from us what we would not allow to be taken by someone without a badge. Why have we come to a point that we accept authority, such as that which invaded Mt. Carmel Center, Waco, Texas, without question? However, when the matter comes to life or death we are willing to protect our property, by any means necessary, when just the property jeopardized.

“It is the law that a person illegally arrested by an officer may resist that arrest, even to the extent of the taking of life if his own life or any great bodily harm is threatened. State v. Rousseau, 40 Wash. 2nd, 92, 241 P. 2nd. 447, 449 (1952); Porter v. State, 124 Ga. 297, 52 S.E. 283, 287 (1905); see also State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2nd 100, 102 (1954); Wilkinson v. State, 143 Miss. 324, 108 So. 711, 712-13 (1926); American Jurisprudence, 2nd Ed., “Arrest”, Section 94, pp. 778-780; Thomas v. State, 91 Ga. 204, 18 S.E. 305 (1892); Presley v. State, 75 Fla. 434, 78 So. 532, 534 (1918); Burkhard v. State, 83 Tex. Crim. 228, 202 S.W. 513; Mullins v. State, 196 Ga. 569, 27 S.E. 2nd. 91 (1943); Ownes v. State, 58 Tex. Crim. 261, 125 S.W. 405 (1910); Caperton v. Commonwealth, 189 Ky. 652, 655, 225 S.W. 481, 481 (1920)

“The United States Supreme Court, and every other court in the past deciding upon the matter, has recognized that “at common Law”, a person had the right to “resist the illegal attempt to arrest him.” John Bad Elk v. United States, 177 U.S. 529, 534-35 (1899)

1. State v. Robinson, 145 Me 77, 72 Alt. 2d 260, 262 (1950)

2. State v. Gum, 68 W. Va. 105

3. State v. Rouseau, 40 Wash. 2d. 92, 241, 242 P.2d 447, 449 (1952)

4. State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 446, 83 S.E., 2d 100, 102 (1954)

5. Wilkinson v. State, 143 Miss. 324, 108 So. 711

6. Thomas v. State, 91 Ga. 204, 18 SE 305

7. Presley v. State, 75 Fla. 434, 78 So. 523

8. Burkhardt v. State, 83 Tex Crim 228, 202 S.W. 513

9. Mullis v. State, 196 Ga. 569, 27 SE 2d 91 (1943)

10. Owen v. State, 58 Tex Crim 261, 125 S.W. 405 (1910)

11. Franklin,118 Ga. 860, 45 S.E. 698 (1903)

12. Graham v. State, 143 Ga. 440 85 S.E. 328, 331

13. City of Columbus v. Holmes, 152 N.W. 2d, 301, 306 (Ohio App. 1058)

14. Adams v. State, 121 Ga 163, 48 S.E. 910 (1904)

15. Robertson v. State, 198 S. W2d 633, 635-36 Tenn. (1947)

16. Roberts v. Dean, 187 So. 571, 575 Fla. 1939

17. The State of Connecticut against Leach, 7 Conn, Rep. 452 (1829)

18. Housh v. The People, 75 ILL Rep. 487, 491 (1874)

19. Plummer v. The State, 135 Ind. 308, 313, 334 N.E. 968 (1893)

20. John Bad Elk v. U.S. 177 U.S. 529 (1899)

21. People v. Hevern, 127 Misc. Rep. 141, 215 NY Supp 412

22. U.S. v. Cerciello, 86 NJL 309, 90 Atl.1112, (1914)

23. U.S. v. Kelly, 51 Fed 2d 263 (1931)

24. Bednarik v. Bednarik, 16 A 2d, 80, 90, 18 NJ Misc. 633 (1948)

25. State v. Height, 117 Iowa 650, 91 NW 935

26. People v. Corder, 244 Mich. 274, 221 NW 309

27. Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616

28. State v. Newcomb, 220 Mo 54 119 SW 405

29. Town of Blacksburg v. Bean, 104 S.C. 146. 88 S.E. 441 (1916)

30. Allen v. State, 197 N.W. 808, 810-11(Wis 1924)

31. Adarns v. State, 121 Ga 163, 48 S.E. 910 (1904) Green v.Kennedy, 48 N.Y. Rep. 653, 654 (1871)

32. Hicks v. Matthews, 266 S.W. 2nd. 846, 849 (Tex. 1954)

33. Porter v. State, 124 Ga. 297, 52 S.E. 283, 287 (1905)

34. Mullins v. State,196 Ga. 569, 27 S.E. 2nd. 91 (1943)

35. Caperton v. Commonwealth, 189 Ky. 652, 655, 225 S.W. 481, 481 (1920)

The Abolishment of Local Government

FEDERAL REGIONALISM
The Abolishment of Local Government

Credit for this information is given to http://www.barefootsworld.net/regional.html

Centralization of power must be stopped because centralized power in the federal government, and the resulting loss of States’ rights, is the one thing necessary for the success of a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.

REGIONAL GOVERNMENT

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION ARTICLE IV, SECTION 3, PARAGRAPH 1:

“New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of two or more States.; or parts of States without the consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as the Congress.”

President Nixon, on March 27, 1969, through the Government Reorganization Act divided the United States into 10 Regions. To further implement this Regional Governance over the U.S.A., President Nixon signed Executive Order 11647 and entered it in the Federal Register February 12, 1972. (Vol .37, No.30) Through the authority vested in him as President of the United States, President Nixon established a Federal Regional Council for each of the 10 standard regions. It stated that, the President shall designate one member of each Council as Chairman of the Council and such Chairman shall serve at the pleasure of the President. The fact that State borders have been destroyed to create 10 REGIONS instead of 50 Union States is something your government doesn’t want you to know.

There is no constitutional jurisdiction for the federal government to legislate for a municipal government in a Union State. The usurpation of state jurisdiction can only be achieved by conspiracy and fraud on the part of our duly elected public servants. It stands to reason that if there is no constitutional jurisdiction for the federal government to legislate for a municipal government in a Union state, there is also no jurisdiction for a federal bureaucracy to legislate for a municipal government in a Union state. As example: the EPA, the DEA, the IRS and the FBI, etc., have no Constitutional authority to legislate in a Union State. These are agencies of the Federal government, having jurisdiction only on federal territory. This is something your government doesn’t want you to know.

Demeaning the authority of elected officials and replacement of these officials by appointed Federal “administrators” is a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER to representative government posed by Federal Regional Government. Outlawed by the Supreme Court decision of January 13, 1982 (Case #80-1350, “Community Communications Co, Inc v City of Boulder, CO) the ten regional capitols were dismantled by President Reagan’s Executive Order #12407 on February 22, 1983.

However, grant making agencies of the ten Federal Regions remain in place assuring continuity of control over all Americans and their elected representatives by the central government.

Federal grants to state government are the fuel which make the Regional engines “go.” The individual Union States are blackmailed, through the withholding of federal funds, if federal legislation is not enacted into State law, thereby opening the door to a power base for the silent revolution of Federal Regionalism.

There is a clear pattern of uniformity in all laws passed. On the state level, all fifty legislatures appear to become simultaneously concerned about solving a particular problem in an identical fashion. On the local level, the same thing happens in thousands of City Halls and County Seats. This strange coincidence is never publicized by the press, thereby it is rarely questioned by the public. Unknown to most of the public, all our laws are written by the Uniform Commission on State Law, also known as the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. (ACIR)

FATAL STEPS

PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATIONS 2039 and 2040 March 6, 1933, March 9, 1933
Declaration of National Emergency and Declaration of War against the American People by the Government of the United States.

WAR POWERS ACT . . . March 9, 1933

TITLE 12 USC. Section 95(a) and 95(b)
This Act states that “During time of war or during any period of national emergency declared by the President, the President may, through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise investigate, regulate, prohibit, under such rules and regulationas as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit between or payments by banking institutions as drfined by the President and export, hoarding, melting, or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currancy, by any person within the United States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

FEDERAL REGISTER ACT . . . July 26, 1935
The Federal Register Act enabled the president to create unlimited bureaucracies and empower them with the force of law. All that was needed to implement bureaucratic regulations into law was to enter or publish those regulations in the Federal Register, by-passing all constitutional oversight.

THE BUCK ACT . . . October 9, 1940
Congress in 1940 passed the “Buck Act” 4 U.S.C.S. 104-113. By clever legal maneuvers from 1935 to 1940, the feds entirely circumvented the U.S. Constitution. In Section 110(e), this Act allowed any department of the federal government to create a “Federal Area” for imposition of the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939, the imposition of this tax is at 4 U.S.C.S. section 111, and the rest of the taxing law is in Title 26, The Internal Revenue Code. The Social Security Board had already created an overlay of a “Federal Area.”

As a result, the Federal Government created Federal “States” which are exactly like the Sovereign States, occupy the same territory and boundaries, but whose names are capitalized versions of the Sovereign States. (Remember that Proper Names and Proper Nouns in the English language have only the first letter Capitalized.) For example, the Federal “State” of ILLINOIS is overlaid upon the Sovereign State of Illinois. Further, it is designated by the Federal abbreviation of “IL”, instead of the Sovereign State abbreviation of “Ill.” So too is Arizona designated “AZ” instead of the lawful abbreviation of “Ariz.”, “CA” instead of “Calif.”, etc. If you use a two-letter CAPITALIZED abbreviation, you are declaring that the location is under the jurisdiction of the “federal” government instead of the powers of the “Sovereign” state.

As a result of creating these “shadow” States, the Federal government assumes that every area is a “Federal Area,” and that the Citizens therein are “Federal” citizens.

PUBLIC LAW 79-404 entitled “Administrative Procedures Act of 1946.”
This act set up the procedure yielding lawmaking authority to agencies in the executive sector of government (federal bureaucracies), and provided that administrative rules and regulations be printed in the Federal Register giving these regulations the force of law.

TITLE 3 USC Section 301, October 31, 1951: General authorization to delegate functions; publication of delegations.
This law authorized the President of the United States to designate and empower the head of any department or agency in the executive branch, or any official thereof who is required to be appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to perform without approval, ratification, or other action by the President (1) any function which is vested in the President by law, or (2) any function which such officer is required or authorized by law to perform only with or subject to the approval, ratification, or other action of the President:
Provided, That nothing contained in the act relieved the President of his responsibility in office for the acts of any such head or other official designated by him to perform such functions. Such designation and authorization would be in writing, and published in the Federal Register
.

PUBLIC LAW 86-380 and its amendment 89-733, 1959 under the Eisenhower Administration, created the Advisory Council On Intergovernmental Relations. (ACIR) This commission consists of 26 individuals, of which 14 are appointees representing groups such as the Council of State Governments, The League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, and the Governors Conference . . . all proponents and strong lobbyists for Federal grant programs that are subordinating local governments to Regional governing bodies.

PUBLIC LAW 89-136 entitled “Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965”.
This act is the basis for the manner in which the 10 Federal regions are to be governed by a “Multi-State Regional Commission”. It also states that the Secretary of Commerce has the power to “acquire in any lawful manner, any property (real or personal) whenever deemed necessary.”

PUBLIC LAW 89-754. The Model Cities Act of 1966.
Section 204 of this act requires that a broad spectra of public facilities type projects which seek federal assistance must be brought under the aegis of area wide Regional comprehensive planning agencies, the clearing house system.

PUBLIC LAW 90-577 1968, 90th Congress, INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ACT

“To achieve the fullest cooperation and coordination of activities among the levels of government . . . to establish coordinated intergovernmental policy and administration . . . to provide for the acquisition, use, and disposition of land within urban areas by Federal agencies.”

PUBLIC LAW 90-577 destroyed the separation of powers which is the principle of the U.S. Constitution. By its Title IV the U.S. Congress purported to yield legislative power to the president. He, in turn, allegedly transferred that law making power to his appointed directors in the grant making agencies of the Federal Regions per section 403 of the Bill. Out of that arrangement has grown the A-95 regional clearing house review system, designed by the Office of Management and Budget. The resulting Federal Region-Sub State control system straps regional governance (control by regulation) as a way of life over all America.

The separation of powers principle of the U.S. Constitution is destroyed by Title IV of this Regional Law in which Congress yields Legislative Power to the U.S. President. Through this act, the President was empowered to yield that lawmaking power to his appointees. (Section 403) From that arrangement has grown the controversial A-95 REGIONAL CLEARING HOUSE review system designed by the executive OMB (Office of Budget and Management). This system binds Regionalism over all of America by non-laws (administrative rules and regulations) which are not backed by LAW.

Congress thus legislated a system of government that is not permitted by our U.S. Constitution.

March 27, 1969, President Richard M. Nixon announced that he had divided the United States into eight (subsequently ten) Federal Regions. The President, by his act, set in motion a series of events which, unless reversed will dissolve sovereign state governments, disenfranchise the electorate, and merge the American pioneer spirit in an amorphous “world citizenship”. The American people have been moved into the orbit of a financial/industrial cabal who control their corporate world state through the United Nations, the U.S. Congress, and other front organizations.

The fatal steps which transformed the Republic into a dictatorship of the financial elite are set out in the following Congressional statutes, executive orders, and proclamations which trace a seditious conspiracy of interlocking subversion in government departments during the period October 16, 1968 to 20 October, 1972.

27 March, 1969
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT ON RESTRUCTURING OF GOVERNMENT SERVICE SYSTEMS, The White House

Quoting the Reorganization Act, signed the same day, as his authority, President Nixon divided the United States into eight (later ten) Federal Regions or provinces, each with a new provincial capitol. Coordination and control of the ten Federal Regions would be administered from Washington. Formation of such “super states” is, of course, a violation of paragraph 1, section 3, Article IV, United States Constitution.

Objective: To transfer political power from the respective sovereign State government to appointed Federal agencies, whose controllers are the directors of the corporate world state.

30 October, 1969
EXECUTIVE ORDER #11490, “Assigning Emergency Preparedness Functions to Federal Departments and Agencies,”. . . The Federal Register

E.O. 11490 consolidated executive orders of previous administrations into one omnibus directive, and provided for implementation of its powers “by an order or directive issued by the President in any national emergency type of situation.”

E.O. 11490 authorizes the Office of Emergency Planning to put all controls into effect “in times of economic or financial crisis.”

Takeover by government agencies includes: communications media; all electrical power, gas, petroleum fuels, and minerals; food resources and farms; all modes of transportation and control of highways, seaports, etc.; health, education, and welfare functions; airports and aircraft.

Provision is also made for the mobilization of civilians into work brigades under government supervision. The order directs the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons; permits the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, and grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in E.O. 11490, and to operate penal and correctional institutions.

29 December, 1970
PUBLIC LAW 91-596 — OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT OF 1970

PUBLIC LAW 91-596 known as the “Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970” was passed. This Act was necessary in order to gain control of private property “usage”. The Act specifically limited itself to private businesses and excluded State, County, Municipal, School District, and Conservation District governing bodies.

It set forth that its enabling legislation must provide that the above State government and its political subdivisions must also abide by the standards set forth in the Federal Act.

15 August, 1971 EXECUTIVE ORDER 311615, “Providing for Stabilization of Prices, Rents, Wages, and Salaries,” The Federal Register

E.O. 11615 designated the Chairman, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System as the director of a Cost of Living Council, with authority to request the Department of Justice to bring actions for injunctions “whenever it appears to the Council that any person has engaged, is engaged, or is about to engage in any acts or practices constituting a violation of any regulation or order issued pursuant to this Order.” (See EO 11490).

The Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board thus became czar over prices, rents, wages, and salaries, in addition to his control over money, interest rates, and the stock market, granted under the provisions of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

15 August, 1971
PROCLAMATION #4074, “Imposition of Supplemental Duty for Balance of Payments Purposes,” The President.

The principal objective of Proclamation 4074 was to “declare a national emergency” and so establish stand-by authority to implement any or all of the of the provisions of Executive Order #11490 at such time as the American people had been conditioned to accept dictatorship. The people are now being brainwashed to accept, in fact demand, full government control over their lives and property.

12 February, 1972
EXECUTIVE ORDER #11647, “Federal Regional Councils”, The Federal Register

E.O.#11647 established a Federal Regional Council for each of the ten standard Federal Regions” which Nixon effected by proclamation on March 27, 1969. The Office of Management and Budget was designed to be the control age
ncy.

By this order the ten provincial capitols were staffed by the directors of grant-making agencies: Department of Labor, Health, Education and Welfare, and Housing and Urban Development, the Secretarial Representatives of the Department of Transportation, and the directors of the regional offices of the Office of Economic Opportunity, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration.

The President of the United States subsequently appointed a commissar for each Federal Region.

18 October, 1972
PUBLIC LAW 92-500 — FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1972

PUBLIC LAW 92-500, which is known as the “Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972” was passed which set forth that States may assume pollution control enforcement on all businesses, land owners, and their equipment and land. This Act provides an effective “informer system” for citizens to squeal on their neighbors and/or employers. It also creates a body corporate to be known as the Environmental Financing Authority to have the power to acquire private property (real or personal) by whatever means and to also sell or lease said property. It also set forth that if the States desired to assume the enforcement duties of the federal government that it–the State–must enact enabling legislation which must be approved by the federal government.

20 October, 1972
PUBLIC LAW 95-512, 92nd Congress, H.R. 14370 — FEDERAL—STATE REVENUE SHARING

“To . . . authorize Federal collection of State individual income taxes, and for other purposes.” The primary function of P.L. 92-512 is to provide that, “after January 1, 1974, if two or more States request it of the U.S. government, and at the option of the individual States, all State taxes may be collected and administered by the federal government.” (The decision is irreversible.) It further provides a “ceiling and floor” for State Income Taxes, and states that no State may thereafter alter its tax structure without first obtaining permission of the federal government. It further provides for the manner in which State and local “boundary changes, and government reorganization” could be handled.

Under this Act, state and county governments will, in time, wither for lack of tax funds, representative government will die (although the trappings of a republican form of government may be retained to fool the people), and dictatorial control over people and property will be imposed upon once free Americans.