Speculation on “Persons,” Emergency, and the Obligation to Pay Taxes and Fines

20 Jun

Comedy & Tragedy

Image by Cayusa via Flickr

One of my readers left the following comment under one of my articles:

“In your opinion, does the definition of person enter the picture. I am not sure what you mean by “capacity” of person. I am in New Mexico and here the word, person, in the New Mexico Criminal Code & the word person in the New Mexico Motor Vehicle Code is different. I am not a person as defined in the N.M.M.V.D. Code but it certainly appears that I am a person as defined in the N.M. Criminal Code.  In trying to explain this to a police officer a while back, he immediately called somebody & said: ‘I have a person here that says he is not a person.’”


That comment got me thinking.  I started to write a brief “reply” to try to briefly explain my understanding of “person”.  But my reply continued to grow until I realized that it was not a mere “reply,” but (at least) the germ of an article.  In fact, this article has grown to about 7,500 words, and veered off from mere “persons” to speculate on the significance of emergency, treason, genocide and even our obligation to pay income taxes and traffic fines.  The article is long and unfocused because many of the “insights” are coming to me for the first time, as I write.  But, despite the rambling nature, I think the article offers some insight (or at least conjecture) that you may find interesting.

•  I’m fuzzy on the concept of “person”.

I’m not sure that the balance of this text is accurate.

However, it appears to me that a “person” can never exist in isolation and all by himself, but is instead defined in relation to some other “person” or entity.  No relationship; no person.

I view “personality” a little like geometry.  Imagine two “points” on a piece of paper:  point “A” and point “B”.  These two “points” are completely separate, independent and free—unless someone “connects the dots” (points) and draws a “line” (relationship) between the two points.  Now, because of rules of their “relationship,” point A is no longer separate, independent and free but must act “in relation to” B.  Likewise, point B is no longer separate, independent and free, but must now act “in relation to” A.

The rules of geometric relationships can vary.  The rule of a particular relationship might be that A can never be more that 3 inches from B; no matter where B moves, A must remain within 3 inches.  Or, the rule of a particular geometric relationship might be that the distance between A and B must double every day for a month.   Or, it could be that the distance between A and B could vary infinitely, but A must always be at an angle of 30 degrees relative to B.

There are an innumerable number of potential geometric relationships between A and B.  The rules of each relationship can vary.  But within the context of any particular relationship, there are rules that control the behavior of A and B in relation to each other.  So long as the relationship exists between A and B, the two points are bound to each other.  Again, no relationship = no “person(s)”

•  OK—let’s expand the illustration of the relationship between geometric “points” to the relationship between persons.  Instead of points A and B, we’ll start with the man “Alfred” and the woman “Betty”.

So long as “Alfred” and “Betty” remain as unrelated people, they are each separate, independent and free (in relation to each other).  But if someone happens to “connect the dots” (say, Alfred goes out on a date with Betty), Alfred is no longer a separate, free and independent man but has instead become a “person” in relation to Betty. Betty, likewise, is no longer a separate, free and independent woman, but has become a “person” in relation to Alfred.

The word “person” is a little like the word “married”.  Both words imply the existence of a relationship with someone else who is also related to you.  The “husband-person” is married (in relation to) the “wife-person”.  The wife-person is married (in relation to) the “husband-person”.  It takes (at least) two individuals to enter into a relationship and thereby cause each become a “person”.

Each “person” is a kind of “mask”.  Depending on whichever kind of relationship you are in, you are expected to wear a different “mask” and play a different “part”.  Insofar as each mask/person is not really you, but merely you “playing a part,” each mask/person is somewhat unreal or artificial.

•  So far as I can tell, a “person” cannot exist in isolation.  A “person” can only exist in relation to another “person”.  In the same sense that an isolated point (dot) becomes the end-point of a line (relationship) when someone “connects the dots,” a “person” is one “end” of a relationship to another individual who, by virtue of the relationship, also becomes a “person” (the other “end” of the relationship).

In the context of a particular relationship, both parties to that relationship are “persons” who are bound by the rules of the relationship.  For example, under the rules of the relationship based on Alfred having dated Betty, Betty can expect Alfred to call her on the day after the date.  If Alfred fails to call Betty on time, he will have violated the rules of their relationship and caused Betty to feel pain or even fury.

In the alternative, if Alfred fails to call following the first date, it may be Alfred’s way of denying the existence of the “relationship” (“That broad is crazy, Jim.  I’ll never date her again!”)  If there is no relationship between Alfred (point A) and Betty (point B), neither is a “person” in relation to the other, neither is  bound by any rules of the relationship, neither can claim and rights or duties against the other.

•  The point I’m trying to illustrate is that the independent man Alfred apparently becomes a “person” only when he enters into a relationship with another independent entity (Betty).  Betty, likewise, can only become a “person” by entering into a relationship with another entity like Alfred.  So long as that relationship exists, the two parties are bound by the rules of the relationship and each has corresponding rights and duties to the other within the context of that relationship.

Whenever Alfred is acting as a person in relation to Betty, he’d better “treat her right” (perform his duties and honor her rights within the context of their relationship).

But Alfred isn’t always acting in relation to Betty.   Sometimes Alfred goes to work where he becomes an entirely different “person” whose relationship is with his employer rather than Betty.  And, while Alfred is acting as an employee-person, Betty had better “treat him right” by not calling him at work every ten minutes to see if he’s having sex with secretary with the big bazooms.

•  If I’m correct that our status as a “person” exists in relation to other entities, then we each become a different “person” every time we enter into a different relationship.  It’s entirely possible for each of us to enter into a multitude of different “personalities” each day—depending on who we are relating to at any given moment.   All by myself, I am the man made in God’s image, endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights and acting at arm’s length.  But, in relation to Betty I’m no longer a “man,” per se, but rather a “person”.  In relation to my boss, I’m a completely different “person”.  In relation to the cop who stops me to give me a traffic ticket, I become a third, completely different person.

For example, if I (an individual man acting at arm’s length) voluntarily enter into a trust relationship as a “fiduciary,” I become a “person” in relationship to the “beneficiary” of that trust.  I am no longer just me (a man).  I am become a “person” in relation to the beneficiary (who is now, also a “person” in relation to me).  Within the context of that particular relationship, I am a “person” who has certain rights and/or duties to the other “person(s)” in that particular relationship which I do not have in relationship to others.   Thus, my fiduciary relationship does not mean that I’m always a “person”—I’m only a “person” in relationship to the beneficiary when I act in ways relevant to the beneficiary.  When I’m out playing baseball, or going to the grocery store, and acting in ways that have no relationship to the beneficiary, I am again a “man” rather than a “person” (at least relative to the beneficiary).

But when I voluntarily play baseball, I become another “person” relative to my team and/or the game.  As fiduciary for a beneficiary, I must conduct myself according to the rules of that particular trust relationship.  As a “baseball person,” I must conduct myself according to the “rules” of the baseball relationship.  As a “baseball person” I have certain rights and duties that I do not have as a “fiduciary person”.  So long as I’m acting exclusively as a “baseball person,” I have no rights or duties as the “fiduciary person” in relation to my beneficiary.

If I go to a grocery store, I become yet another “person” acting in relation to the grocery store “context”.  I can’t eat the food in the grocery store until I pay for it.  I can’t shoplift the broccoli.  I can’t spit on the steaks.  I am expected to pay for the food before I leave the store.   As a “grocery store person,” I have a completely different set of rights and duties than I’d have as a “fiduciary person” or “baseball person”.

If I voluntarily consent to be a “citizen of the United States” I believe that I become a “US person”.  (I don’t know or allege that “US person” is the correct term to describe someone who participates in this relationship.  Maybe it would be more correct to use the term “citizen-person” or “taxpayer-person”.  Nevertheless, I’m using “US person” in this article as a mere convenience—not a statement of truth.)  As a “US person,” I have another brand new set of rights and duties that exist whenever I act in relation to that “United States”.

•  But what happens when I’m acting in two “personalities” at the same time?

For example, what happens if I go to the grocery store to buy food for my beneficiary?  On the one hand, as a “fiduciary person,” I’m obligated to feed my beneficiary.  On the other hand, as a “grocery store person,” I’m obligated to pay for the food.  But what if I’m broke and I can’t (as “grocery store person”) fulfill my obligation to pay for food?  Does my obligation (as “fiduciary person”) supersede and allow (or even compel) me to steal food (break the rules of “grocery store person”) to fulfill my obligation as “fiduciary person” to feed my beneficiary?

As long as you can keep your personalities separate, there’s no confusion or conflict.  But what happens when a man acts simultaneously in two “personalities” and the rights or duties of one personality collide with the rights and duties of the other personality?  Which personality is predominant?  Which controls?  Is the subordinate personality merely supplanted or is it suspended or even cancelled?

•  I suspect that governmental immunities illustrate an attempt to resolve conflicts between “personalities”.

For example, if I were to take a club and start beating you on the head, I’d be violating your rights and my duties as a “US person”.  As a “US person,” I have a duty not to thump you on the head.  Conversely, as a “US person,” you have a right to be free from being thumped.

But what if I’m a cop?  What if I’ve shed my “personality” as “US person” to act in the role of “cop person”?   What if the law of “cop persons” allows me (based on probable cause or reasonable suspicion) to conclude that you are no longer a “US person” but instead a “suspect person” in a crime (violation of the “US person” rights and duties).  As a “cop person,” I’m entitled to thump the crap out of anyone I believe to be a “suspect person”.

But what if it turns out that that my reasonable suspicion was wrong and that you’re not a “suspect person” who broke the “law” of conduct for “US persons” but were, at all relevant times, acting properly within the rules of relationships for “US persons”?  If you weren’t a “suspect person,” then I had no right to thump your melon.  So, should I go to jail for beating the crap out of some innocent “US person”?

Of course not.  The legislatures, in their infinite wisdom, have granted me (as a “cop person”) immunity from the laws of “US persons” and the responsibility for not hitting other “US persons” on the head.

In a sense, this “immunity” for “cop persons” (and judge persons and prosecutor persons and government employee persons) is a title of nobility that frees some “US persons” from the duties and obligations of that “personality” whenever they are simultaneously acting in the capacity of “cop persons” or “government persons”.   The legislature resolved conflicts between a man who was sometimes both a “cop person” and a “US person” with the concept of “immunity” for the “cop person” from the obligations imposed by the “personality” of the “US person”.

•  The legislature provides immunities for governmental employees who break the laws regarding their roles as “US persons”.  But juries and even cops can provide similar “immunities” to individuals who seemingly break the law.

For example, under the doctrine of “emergency,” each of us can become a different “person”.  Normally, when the society is running properly and peacefully, I am apparently presumed to be a “US person” subject to the rules and regulations of “this state”.  If I’m caught driving 80 MPH in reverse in a school zone, you can bet I’m going to get some tickets and maybe trip to the slammer.

However, if someone is shooting at me, I become a different “person”.  Because my life is in danger, I am no longer a simple “US person”.  Instead, I become an “emergency person” with a right and duty to protect my life.  As a “US person,” I have no right to drive 80 MPH in reverse in a school zone—as a man whose life is imperiled I become another “person” who does have such rights.

As soon as I show the cop the bullet holes in my radiator and windshield, he should stop writing a ticket to me and instead go looking for the shooter.  If the cop still writes the tickets, a jury might later recognize that I was acting under “emergency conditions” wherein I was entitled to act as an “emergency person” rather than a “US person” and therefore was not liable as a “US person” for speeding in a school zone.

Emergency exempts us from the normal duties associated with being a “US person” as a matter of self-defense.  It’s possible that all acts of self-defense release us from the role of “US person” or “fiduciary person” or “cop person” and allow us to function as individual men and women—not “persons” at all.

As a “US person,” I can’t lawfully shoot other “US persons” nor can they lawfully shoot me.  But if some other “US person” starts chasing me with an axe (and thereby threatening my life and violating his duty as a “US person”), I have the right to defend my life and kill the SOB.

•  It’s not clear to me if the doctrines of “emergency” and “self-defense” are special exemptions from the rules governing “US persons” or if they are absolute repudiations of the role and associated obligations of “US persons”.  In other words, if someone tries to kill me and I kill him instead, am I allowed to kill him because he broke the terms of our relationship as “US persons” by trying to kill me . . . and thereby released me from my role as “US person” . . . and thus allowed me (as an individual man) to kill him?  Or, is there a special exception in the rules of “US persons” that goes something like this:

Rule 1: A US person shalt not kill another US persons.

Rule 2:  But if one US person does try to kill a second US person, the second US person has the right as a US person to kill the first US person.

In other words, in the context of an “emergency” or “self-defense” am I still deemed to be a “US person” acting under an exception the general rules of that “personality”—or am no longer a US person and thereby absolved from the rules of the US person relationship?

I don’t have an answer.  I don’t even have a hunch as to which answer to that question may be correct.  In fact, I suspect that, under certain circumstances, either answer might be right.  Some emergencies might completely absolve you from the role and obligations of a “US person” or “fiduciary person” or “baseball person” and reduce (or elevate—depending on your point of view) you to the status of an individual man.  In the context of other emergencies, you might be allowed to act in “special” ways that would normally be illegal for a US person but would nevertheless still be allowed for US persons during a “special” class of emergencies.

•  Our government has been operating under the pretext of a national emergency since A.D. 1933.   Apparently, it’s under the pretext of an emergency that those officials and employees of “this state” are allowed to violate their oaths of office to the constitutions of The States of the Union.  I.e., under the pretext of “emergency,” those whose oaths of office cause them to appear to be “officer-persons under the Constitution” are allowed to act as some other kind of “private” or “emergency person” under the rules of “this state”.

•  The concept of “emergency” is seldom far from most Americans’ lives.  Most commuters see evidence of “emergencies” every day when they see a traffic cop chasing another car to issue a ticket.

What’s the first thing the cop does as condition prerequisite for issuing a traffic ticket?  He turns on his emergency lights and siren.  When those emergency lights start flashing and the siren starts blaring, the officer appears to be giving notice that he believes an “emergency” exists.  In the context of that alleged emergency, the police officer can violate the law.  Can the officer drive 100 MPH in a 65 MPH zone?  He sure can—provided it’s an “emergency”.

Whether the officer-person must absolutely flash his emergency lights while he’s breaking the law (driving 100 MPH) isn’t absolutely clear to me.  I think he must probably keep those lights flashing whenever he exceeds the speed limit, but I’m not sure.

•  It is conceivable that traffic tickets which are issued without victims, injured parties or property damage may be only allowed under the pretext of an “emergency”.  Suppose you have a wreck and hit another guy’s car and cause property damage, injury or death.  When the cops arrive, will they give you a ticket for reckless driving or some such?  Probably—if the police can conclude that you are responsible for the injuries or damages.

But I’ve heard of instances where two “persons” are involved in a fender-bender, the cops arrive and they do not issue any traffic tickets but instead leave it up to the insurance companies to resolve the problems of injuries and damages.  This failure to issue traffic tickets is probably because the cop didn’t actually witness the collision, can’t testify as to who is responsible and therefore can’t issue a traffic ticket.  But is it possible that the cop can only issue traffic tickets under the pretext of an “emergency”?  Probably not—but, maybe.

What happens when a traffic cop issues a ticket when there’s been no actual injured party or property?  Under common law, if you didn’t injure anyone or damage someone else’s property, you generally couldn’t be held liable for an offense.  It’s like street basketball:  no blood, no foul.

So, what is the rationale for issuing a $200 traffic ticket to someone seen driving without a seatbelt?  There’s no injury.  No property damage.

What if a man is driving 75 MPH in a 65 MPH zone?  Virtually everyone drives 70 to 75 in a 65 MPH zone, so what’s the problem?  If there’s no injury or damages, why the ticket?  In fact, why is the traffic cop even stopping you without a warrant?

Is it possible that by virtue of driving 75 MPH in the 65 MPH zone, you are deemed to be responsible for having created an “emergency”?  The police officer, seeing this purported “emergency” therefore turns on his “emergency lights” to give notice of the purported “emergency” and pulls you over to issue a ticket for speeding or no seat belt or some such—but in fact, actually gives you a ticket for having created an “emergency”?

What happens when the cop pulls you over and comes up to the window on your car?

You say, “What seems to be problem, officer?”

What you’re really saying is “What seems to be the emergency, officer?”

Does the officer ever answer your question?  Does he ever tell you what the alleged emergency was?

Or does he instead ask you a question:  “Do you know how fast you were going?” or “May I see your drivers license, vehicle registration and proof of insurance?”

What would happen if you expressly asked “What is the emergency, officer?”

What would happen if you insisted (politely) that the officer specify the alleged “emergency” that allowed him to pull you over?

What if you disputed the existence of a genuine “emergency”?  (Does an unfastened seatbelt constitute a genuine “emergency”?  Does driving 75 when everyone else is driving 70 to 75 constitute a real “emergency”?)

Without the pretext of an emergency, can the officer “break the law” by trespassing on your right to travel, cause you to stop without warrant, and create an even greater “emergency” by causing you (and the officer) to park alongside the highway where you might both be killed by some other crazy driver?

What would happen if you conceded that if your driving without a seatbelt may have constituted an emergency, you’ve fastened your seatbelt, that emergency is therefore ended, and you asked the officer to therefore turn off his emergency lights and let you go?

Why are the police officer’s emergency lights still flashing after you’re parked alongside the highway?  Because your seatbelt wasn’t fastened (alleged “emergency” #1)?  Or because you and the cop are parked alongside the highway and may thereby cause a serious wreck and some fatalities (emergency #2)?

•  My point in all of this is that the officer is empowered by law to declare when small “emergencies” exist.  More, under the pretext of an “emergency,” the officer (who may not really be a public servant of “The State” of the Union but is actually a private, corporate employee of “this state”) is entitled to “break the (common?) law” by stopping people from traveling who have not caused actual injury or damages.

In the context of an alleged “emergency,” is a private, corporate employee (“US person”?) entitled to become a different “person” who is not bound by constitutional rules, but is instead empowered to break the law?  In the context of an alleged “emergency,” are you (the driver who failed to fasten his seatbelt and thereby created the alleged “emergency”) deemed to have compromised or even cancelled your status as a “US person” (who might be “free to travel”) to become an “emergency-causing person” who is effectively “outlawed” and denied whatever protections from trespass his status as “US person” might otherwise provide?

Our status as a particular kind of “person” can be altered by our current context.  In a state of peace, you might be one person.  In a state of emergency, you might be deemed to be an entirely different person.  The context determines the nature of the relationship.  The relationship determines the rules that govern the persons who are party to the relationship.

•  I am increasingly suspicious that the “this state” territory (as an alternative to The States of the Union) may exist in large measure under the doctrine of emergency.  Under the alleged “emergency” of A.D. 1933 and the subsequent loss of gold and silver coin from domestic circulation, the governments of The States of the Union were rendered insolvent and apparently inoperable.  Under the pretext of this “emergency,” the governments of The States of the Union were supplanted by the privatized, administrative agencies of “this state” (which appears to be a territory rather than a State of the Union).  [If you’re not familiar with the The State/“this state” dichotomy theory, consider “The States of the Union vs. The Territory” at]

If that that “this state” has been built on the cornerstone of a national “emergency,” it’s also true that this emergency is presumed by gov-co, but largely unknown by the people.

If “this state” is based on the unstated presumption of the existence of an “emergency,” then a primary defense against prosecutions by “this state” may be to expressly deny the existence of any emergency.

Suppose we can prove that gov-co’s oppressive powers can only exist in an emergency.  Suppose we effectively deny under oath the existence of any such emergency.  In theory, this would compel a prosecutor to prove in court that an emergency exists that is sufficient to justify the violations of your State or federal constitutions.

In essence, whenever a cop, prosecutor or judge drops his constitutional pants and orders you to kiss his oppressive ass—it may be that under the pretext of an “emergency,” you are deemed to be an “emergency person” who must pucker up (a “puckering person”?) and kiss as ordered.

But, assuming my conjecture about emergencies and the effect of “emergencies” on our status as “persons” is roughly correct, must you really kiss their governmental asses if there is no emergency?

Maybe not.

If you can effectively deny the existence of any “emergency” sufficient to suspend the constitutions and reduce you to the status of “US person” rather than one of the People of The United States of America, will the gov-co dare to produce evidence on the public record and in front of a jury that an “emergency” has existed since A.D. 1933 to justify the suspension of the constitutions and the suspension of your status as one of We the People?

I don’t think so.

Will the gov-co admit on the public record that they’ve been exploiting the pretext of a 78-year old “emergency” in order to abolish State governments and suspend enforcement of all State and much of the federal constitutions?  Wouldn’t such an admission constitute a confession of treason against the States of the Union?  Isn’t treason a capital offense?  [For explanation of my notions on “treason,” see my Article “The States of Union vs. The Territory” at:]

Will the gov-co publicly admit (even implicitly) to having committed treason for the past 78 years?

I don’t think so.

•  But, let’s suppose that my conjecture about the relationship of “emergency” to “person” is mistaken.

OK—where’s the harm in denying the existence of an “emergency” as part of your strategy as a defendant?

I can deny that the prosecutor is Donald Duck.  That denial will certainly sound silly, but insofar as the prosecutor is not actually “Donald Duck,” my denial will not create any additional liability for myself.

Similarly, despite my conjecture to the contrary, maybe “this state” is not ultimately founded on the existence of an “emergency”.  Therefore, if (in the context of my defense) I deny the existence of an emergency, I might sound a little silly, but where’s the harm?  Has my denial added any more liability to the mess I’m already in?  I can’t see how.

The first rule of “guerilla lawfare” is “Guru, do thy patriot no harm.”  I.e., try not to advocate a strategy that might increase, rather than diminish, a defendant’s liabilities.

•  The similarity between “emergency” and “self-defense” also suggests some intriguing conjecture.

If it were true that “this state” and gov-co’s current levels of non-constitutional oppression are based on the presumption of an emergency, that emergency not only frees the cops (judges, legislators, etc.) to violate the Constitution, it might also free me to violate my State’s Constitution—and perhaps even the statutes.

Prosecutor:  “Did you shoot Mr. Brown?”

Defendant:  “Yes.”

Prosecutor:  “Why?”

Defendant:  “We were in a state of emergency, I was no longer a “US person” bound by normal laws, and therefore it was OK for me to shoot the bastard.”

Assuming that “this state” (including the court and the prosecutor) exists as a function of an emergency, the prosecutor might be faced with a very difficult task if an accused defended his conduct as justified under the pretext of an “emergency”.  How does a prosecutor prove that there was no emergency to free the defendant from liability for breaking the rules and obligations imposed on a “US person” without also denying the existence of the emergency that allows the cop, prosecutor and judge to violate the rules and laws that apply to We the People?

If an emergency can justify the gov-co’s offenses, will it also justify mine?

If the gov-co is acting (especially in a privatized capacity) under the pretext of a national “emergency,” why can’t I also (in a private capacity) operate under the pretext of a national “emergency”?   There may be good reasons for that inequality, but I don’t know what they are and I doubt that any real authority exists to justify that inequality.

•  Here’s another possibility:

As I’ve explained in my first two “man or other animals” articles ( and our gov-co has expressly declared the American people to be animals.  So far as I know, the earliest instance of this atrocity occurred in the A.D. 1906 Food and Drug Act. Our gov-co has expressly declared you, your spouse, your children and your parents to be “animals” for over a century.

If you think the rules and obligations imposed on a “US person” are bad, the rights and duties of being an “animal person” must be even worse.   Reducing Americans from the status of We the People to the status of animals is virtually certain to constitute an act of treason.

But, as I explained in my third article on “man or other animals” (, reducing Americans from the status of We the People to “animals” also constitutes an act of genocide.

Which brings up a couple of interesting questions:

1.  What is my legal obligation to pay income taxes to support an alleged “government” clearly and demonstrably engaged in treason against the several “United States” (the States of the Union)?

2.  What is my legal obligation to pay income taxes to support an alleged “government” that is clearly and demonstrably committing genocide against me and the rest of the People of The United States of America?

Insofar as the government can be shown to have committed treason against the States of the Union and genocide against the People of The United States of America, hasn’t that government (much like a “US person” who’s chasing me with an axe) essentially violated the rules of our relationship so as to destroy that relationship and release me from my obligations as a “US person”?  Just as I’m allowed (as an act of self-defense) to shoot the axe murderer, am I not also allowed as an act of self-defense to stop sending tax revenues to a government that’s subjecting me and the American people to treason and genocide?

Isn’t self-preservation (self-defense) the highest of man’s duties?

Isn’t refusing to pay income taxes to a government engaged in treason and genocide and act of self-preservation?

Should the Jews have been legally obligated to pay income taxes to the Nazis that were subjecting them to genocide?  Of course not.  The Jews had no more moral duty to support the Nazis trying to kill them, than I do to support the axe murderer chasing me around the backyard.  Instead, my duty is to disable or destroy those who seek to destroy me.

Similarly, should the American People be obligated to pay income taxes to a gov-co that subjects them to genocide?

It think not.

•So, what if I sent a notice to the IRS (and maybe the US Attorney General) precisely informing them of the treason and genocide being committed by the US gov-co against the American people?  What if I informed them that this treason and genocide constituted a national emergency?  What if I informed them that self-preservation is man’s highest duty?   What if I informed them that the gov-co’s acts of treason and genocide terminated my relationship to the gov-co as a “taxpayer-person”?   What if my notice included my declaration that, in the context of this national emergency, I was no longer a “taxpayer-person” and I was going to stop paying income taxes as an act of self-preservation and self-defense . . . ?

Inquiring minds wanna know.

•  If I were to send such Notice to the IRS and Attorney General, and if they could “get me” all alone and prosecute me without any public scrutiny, they might bury me in a pretty deep prison or maybe just bury me.

But if I’d already published the fundamental theory underlying my Notice, the world might have reason to wonder if my theory were true.  Then, if the gov-co were to grab me and cause me to be “disappeared,” some of the world might deem my disappearance to be evidence of my theory’s validity.

And then, the IRS and Attorney General might start receiving more Notices that were similar to mine.  And sooner or later, the gov-co would have to answer in public whether the People had a legal obligation to pay taxes to support a government engaged in both treason against the States of the Union and genocide against We the People.

Interesting line of conjecture, no?

And this conjecture is not limited to questions of income tax.

For example, suppose—under the pretext of “emergency”—your friendly, local cop gave you a $200 ticket for failure to fasten your seat belt.  Is the municipal court that wants to collect that $200 part of a “government” that’s defined the people to be animals and thus subjected them to genocide?

If so, what’s your legal or moral obligation to pay money to any agency of any government engaged in treason against the States of the Union and/or genocide against We the People of The United States of America?  As an act of self-preservation and self-defense, don’t you have a right and even a duty to refuse to pay that $200?

In fact, when you get right down to it, if the distinction between “The States” of the Union and “this state” (of the territory) is real (again, see “The States of the Union vs. The Territory” at, then it’s arguable that virtually everything “this state” does constitutes an act of treason against The States of the Union.  I.e., doesn’t “this state” “levy war” against the States of the Union by trying to supplant them?  Isn’t “this state” (territory) therefore intrinsically and innately guilty of treason at all times?  Is there any other justification or pretext for the treason of “this state” other than the claim of a “national emergency”?

What if that “emergency” is denied or even proved not to exist?  Isn’t an “emergency” a temporary state of affairs?  How can we still be in the same national emergency that was first declared by FDR in A.D. 1933?  Why hasn’t anyone in government worked to end that emergency?

Could it be that “this state” cannot exist except under the pretext of an emergency?

•  What about “identification”?  Do your identification documents identify you as an individual man or woman (one of We the People) within a State of the Union?  Or do they identify you as a person in relation to “this state”?   Do your identification documents identify you or do they identify the “state of affairs” (peace or emergency??) with which you are related?   If you identification identifies your context or “state of affairs,” does your identification thereby signify one of your many “persons”?  Does that “person” operate under the rules of a particular relationship which grant you far fewer rights than you might have as one of We the People and also subject you to far more duties and obligations?

•  This conjecture raises another interesting question:


1)  Each of us has the potential to act as several different “persons”;

2)  Each of us can sometimes act in more than one personality at the same time;

3)  Those simultaneous personalities sometimes conflict and/or contradict each other; and,

4)  Government recognizes some “personalities” to be predominate over others—then,

5)  Is there a single “personality” that is predominate over all other “personalities”?  Is there a single “personality” that “trumps” all other personalities and thereby absolves anyone acting in that personality from any liabilities imposed by “lower” or “subordinate” personalities?

Could it be the cop-person?  Nah.

Judge-person?  No.  Prosecutor?  Legislator?  President?  Pope?  No.

Each of these “persons” would seem to enjoy varying degrees of immunity from liabilities and obligations imposed by other “lower” persons.  But none is absolutely immune.

Nor does absolute immunity exist for any man in any “personality”.

But if I had to guess—if you were deemed to be a “sovereign” (a man made in God’s image as per Genesis 1:26-28 and endowed by your Creator with certain unalienable Rights as per the “Declaration of Independence”) and you stayed in that “person” or capacity, you would probably be “immune” from 90% or more of the current rules and regulations to which “US persons” or “taxpayer persons” are routinely subjected.

Who would that “sovereign” be?  He’d be a man in relation to God rather than a person in relation to government.  That sovereign would be absolutely subject to God’s law, but only subject to man’s law insofar as man’s law did not conflict with God’s.  That sovereign’s law would be the Bible, and any time he entered court, he might do so with the Bible as “his law”.

Maybe. . . .

•  Finally, who is to say which of your several potential “persons” you must play at any given time?

If you were only a dot (“point A”) on a piece of paper, a mathematician might “connect you” to another dot (“point B”) and thereby reduce you from the status of free and independent “dot” into a “person” in relation to point B.

But as a man in a purportedly free society, aren’t you free to determine whatever relationships you enter into?  And if you are free to choose your relationships, then are you also free to choose whichever of your various “persons” to choose to act as?

In a tyrannical or despotic society, you wouldn’t be “free” to choose your relationships and thus you wouldn’t be free to determine whichever “person” you wanted to be.  The tyrant or despot (or their governmental agencies) would determine your “person”.  It would be like being in the Army.  The Army would determine if you were a “private-person” or a “sergeant-person” or an “officer-person”.   Your job would be to play the “part” or “person” assigned to you as flawlessly as possible.  If you performed your assigned “person” properly, you might be rewarded with promotion to an even higher “person”.  If you performed your assigned person badly, you might be punished and demoted.  But you would have virtually no direct choice as to whichever “person” you’d be allowed to “play”.

•  It’s arguable that the essence of a free society is the ability of all the people to pick their own “persons”.

Do we have a free society?  To some degree.  That degree seems to be diminishing with each passing year, but there are still significant vestiges of freedom in this country that the government has not yet overtly destroyed.

For the moment, if my conjecture about “persons” is roughly correct, it appears likely that you still have the right and freedom to choose whichever “person” you want to act as, at any particular time.  That would seem to be a good thing—except that the vast majority (99%?) of Americans have no idea of what I’m talking about and would therefore regard my notion that you can “pick your persons” to be incomprehensible or absurd—and they might be right.

But what if my conjecture was roughly correct and the vast majority of people of Americans were ignorant of their right to “pick their person”?  Could the gov-co exploit the public’s ignorance by subjecting the people to being certain “persons” (maybe “US person” or “taxpayer person,” etc.) based on each individual’s conduct, the court’s presumption that they were a certain kind of “person,” and the individual’s failure to expressly deny that he had voluntarily consented to enter into a relationship that rendered him into a “person” with duties that were contrary to his interests or desires?

A classic illustration of this possibility is seen in implied trust relationships.

If a plaintiff (say, Point B/ “Betty”) were to enter into a court of equity and merely imply that:

1)  An implied trust relationship existed between herself and “Point A” (“Alfred”);

2)  That she (“Betty”) was the beneficiary-person of this relationship and Point A (“Alfred”) was the fiduciary-person;

3) Under this implied relationship, the fiduciary-person Alfred had violated his fiduciary obligations to beneficiary-person Betty; and,

4)  If Alfred isn’t smart enough to expressly deny the existence of any trust relationship between himself and Betty wherein he is presumed to have voluntarily accepted the “servitude” of being the “fiduciary-person” for Betty’s “beneficiary-person”; then,

5) The court, hearing no objection or denial from Alfred as to the existence of the implied trust relationship, will presume the implied trust relationship to have actually existed; will “construe” that unenforceable implied trust relationship into an enforceable constructive trust; will deem Alfred to be a fiduciary-person; will deem Alfred to be in breach of fiduciary obligations; and finally, fine or otherwise penalize Alfred for breaching his duties as “fiduciary-person” to Betty’s plaintiff-beneficiary-person.

All of this can happen based primarily on the ignorance of both alleged “persons” and the silence of the implied “fiduciary-person” Alfred.  No one need say the words “trust,” “fiduciary,” “beneficiary”.  In a court of equity, the judge will have discretion to “construe or not construe” (that is the question) the plaintiff’s complaint from an implied trust into a constructive trust that’s enforceable against Alfred.

The only strategy that I know of that can stop this presumptive freight train is for Alfred to stand up in court, under oath, and say:

“Hell, no!  There is no implied trust relationship between Betty and myself. I have never voluntarily and knowingly consented to act as a fiduciary for Betty’s benefit.  I have not assumed a “person” in relation to Betty.  I have always acted at arm’s length with regard to Betty.  If she alleges that I’ve caused her any actual injury or damages, she can take me to a court of LAW—but she has no basis (a voluntary relationship between two persons/“points”) for suing me in equity.”

My point is that I strongly suspect that we are subjected to many of our most detrimental “persons” based on presumptions based on our mere silence.  While it may be true that anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law, it’s also true that anything you don’t say can and will be used against you in a court of equity.

More, in a court of equity, I strongly suspect that the plaintiff is not suing me (the man)—the plaintiff is instead suing one of my alleged “persons” (a party to an alleged or implied relationship).

Therefore, I suspect that if a defendant could accurately determine the exact “person” that the plaintiff or prosecutor was suing/charging, and if the defendant could effectively and expressly deny ever having voluntarily agreed to enter into a relationship with the plaintiff/prosecutor to play that particular “person,” then burden of proving the existence of the relationship and the defendant’s status as “person-party” to that relationship would be placed on the plaintiff/prosecutor.  In some instances, the plaintiff-prosecutor might be able to prove that relationship (and your status as “person-party” to that relationship) did, in fact, exist.

But, if my notions about person are roughly correct, I’d bet that at least 90% of the time, the plaintiff/prosecutor could not prove the existence of the underlying relationship and/or the defendant’s voluntary consent to assume the obligations of “person” in that alleged relationship.

•  Again, this is all conjecture.  Take it all with salt.

This conjecture could be fundamentally mistaken and is certainly incomplete.  However, for the moment, the “insights” in this article still resonate with me as something that appear (roughly) valid and vital.

It may well be that if you can control your “person(s),” you might once again become free.


Tags: , , , , ,

64 responses to “Speculation on “Persons,” Emergency, and the Obligation to Pay Taxes and Fines

  1. Jim

    June 20, 2011 at 7:23 PM

    “person” ,” state” and ” united states” have a priceless ambiguity exploited by the legal profession.

    • Donald Blaine-Bailey

      June 25, 2011 at 3:07 PM

      AMEN!! With a Resounding N

    • Nelson Dock Trouble

      June 20, 2012 at 1:19 AM

      You can use that ambiguity to your advantage by contra proferentem or by Baron Parke’s rule.

  2. Cody

    June 21, 2011 at 2:02 AM

    Thank YHWH, He’s no respecter of persons! He created man in his own image. Man then created persons in order to corrupt the appropriate relationship between Father God and himself first. Then man proceeded to create more persons to corrupt the appropriate relationships between men. And finally, men created persons to prevent an appropriate relationship between YHWH and his creatures, mortal men. Interestingly, some persons live on after their creator person has died. I know my thoughts are sophomoric, but I’m new at trying to hang with real people.

    • Nelson Dock Trouble

      June 20, 2012 at 1:22 AM

      They (Elohim) created men in their image, both male as female. Monotheism came from Babylon.

  3. pop de adam

    June 21, 2011 at 9:00 AM

    A related article, from the now defunct website: “ATGpress”

  4. palani

    June 21, 2011 at 8:12 PM

    To truly understand “person” you must read chapter 16 of Hobbes Leviathan. A person is 1)an Action 2) words spoken or written or 3) representation. Kill somebody …. your Action created a person. Slander or libel someone? .. You have just created another person. Hire an attorney to represent you? There you have yet another person.

    Have Rights? If someone trespasses on those Rights you must create a person to defend those Rights (another type of Action).

    I daily expend attention and energy to keep the number of persons associated with me to a bare minimum even to the point of tolerating trespass.

    • pop de adam

      June 22, 2011 at 2:15 AM

      I have pondered why anyone would need to be represented, could one simply present themselves?

      • Donald Blaine-Bailey

        June 23, 2011 at 1:34 AM

        To pop de adam:
        For an example a lawyer “represents me.” He is not me but he “represents” me.Then how in the hell can I “represent” me when I am me.???

  5. Dominick Mastroserio not (DOMINICK MASTROSERIO)

    June 21, 2011 at 10:23 PM

    Maybe a psychological look into the implications of this wearing of countless hats or “poly-phrenia” could disclose the consequent toll on mental well-being such alleged legalisms might impose on the common man over a lifetime.

    A brand new mental disease called “legalism-engendered degenerative cognitive dysfunction syndrome” or something to that effect could then be inscribed into the psychological register of dysfunctional syndromes and Big Pharma can capitalize on it, eh?

    Why not?

    I know Big Pharma is big on disease invention, publicizing and eliciting fear about it and then brewing up “breakthrough” medicinal therapies to “control” those “ailments”.

    They might have a big wnner in this one, yuk, yuk.

    I really wish, though, that all of this wasn’t as maddening and so on the subliminal edge of ubiquitous probability that I’d feel this compelled to find something humorous about it.

    It all needs to be exposed one way or another.

    For, its hard enough to come to some understanding about the myriad processes and disciplines that go into making this civilization when most are not one’s intellectual forte…but to have to deal with planned, nefarious schemes continually operated upon in secret by occult agencies on top of that is ridiculous…and THEY probably know this.

    Interpenetrating “Rube Goldberg-isms” of every stripe constantly going on everywhere may be breathtaking and a source of limitless fascination when they’re above board but to have a shadow legal system undermining one’s liberty at all times is an impositon which, if real, cannot be sustained.

    It must, therefore, (if it exists) be dragged out of its subterranean stronghold and judged by the light of common sense and reason…and be at last expunged from our midst.

    Meanwhile gotta laugh darkly about it all…or succumb to the terrors of “legalism-engendered degenerative cognitive dysfunction syndrome”.

  6. Dan

    June 22, 2011 at 4:04 PM

    I have been speculating about the word “person” myself. I view it as possibly a conjunction of TWO words:

    1. Per
    2. Son

    Looking at it this way, per-son means “by means of–in the legal position of a son” (and other construable breakdowns).

    Parens patriae comes to mind. Perhaps by merely allowing oneself to be called a”person” places one in a son-to-father relationship with government as father.

    I DO know for a fact that the Social Security Administration asks people who are receiving “benefits” to provide their mother’s maiden name every time an identification is required. NEVER do they ask who one’s father is/was.

    Your article is good, very thought provoking. Please keep thinking along these lines because I just heard something go “Quack.”

    • Nelson Dock Trouble

      June 20, 2012 at 2:57 AM

      Capitis deminutio severs the father-son relationship resulting in being of indeterminate gender, i.e. a human being or a person. British = bryt eysh (Hebrew) = covenant male. The covenant of circumcision applies only to males. Parts of Hebrew law were introduced into common law by King Alfred the Great. The nineteen year winter was an example of the conflict between common law and Roman (civil/canon) law.

  7. Dan

    June 22, 2011 at 7:28 PM


    If I am in a courtroom and the judge says, “Al Adask” and I sy, “Her, sir!” then the judge may reasonably assume that I am Al Adask. On the other hand, if I am in a courtroom and the judge says, “Al Adask” and I just sit their like a bump on a log then the judge may reasonably understand that I am NOT Al Adask.

    If the judge says, “DAN R. IGNORANT” and I say, “Here, sir!” even though my name is really Dan R. Ignorant then the judge may reasonably understand that I am DAN R. IGNORANT.

    Once upon a time (in Irving, Texas no less) I was incarcerated for assault and the judge said, “You are charged with assault. How do you plead?” As there is a difference between a misdemeanor assault and a felony assault, I asked the judge whether I was charged with Class A assault or Class B assault or Class C assault.

    The judge, who really wanted to charge me with a felony, clarified that I was charged with a misdemeanor, which I plead guilty to. So I was released with time served. Had I merely answered, “Guilty” then I would have done prison time without a trial…years instead of days.

    The point I am trying to make here is that court actions are premised on an individual having a certain amount of knowledge and that this knowledge must be demonstrated in the courtroom. Otherwise, it is taken for granted that one is WILLFULLY not using such knowledge.

    Hosea 4;6 comes to mind: “My people perish from a lack of knowledge.”

    • Donald Blaine-Bailey

      June 25, 2011 at 5:23 PM

      IS Dan a.k.a Alfred Adask? The reason I ask is, I’m trying to understand what I did or said or both to say I took a cheap shot at either “Dan or Alfred Adask. I have not seen any response from either one in regards to my answer about me making a cheap shot at one or the other. I find it also difficult to believe that Alfred Adask responded that I took a cheap shot at him. If anyone reads this IS there a way you can & will reply to me & tell me if Dan & Alfred are the same one?

      • Adask

        June 25, 2011 at 5:41 PM

        Donald, you are sounding paranoid. If I write something on this blog, it will carry MY name and no other. If you think that I’d go the trouble of using an alias on my own blog, you are a long ways from understanding me. “Dan” and “Alfred” are not the same person. If I write something, you’ll know it’s from me. If it’s not absolutely clear that I wrote a particular article or comment on this blog, you can presume it was written by someone else.

  8. Donald Blaine-Bailey

    June 23, 2011 at 1:52 AM

    To Dominick:
    You’re both a psychiatrist/ psychologist. If not, you have missed your calling, but I doubt that since you express yourself as being up on and understanding everything. You’re the only “human” I know of that could say yes if you were about to testify in court that you will tell the truth,the whole truth and nothing but the truth.You wax eloquent.

  9. Donald Blaine-Bailey

    June 23, 2011 at 2:24 AM

    To Dan:
    The old saying that Birds of a feather flock together is true. The word person as defined in all the statutes, ordinances,etc. that I’ve seen definitely means an artificial or non living entity. There is a legal doctrine called noscitur a soccis which means the word is known by its associates. So when when we see a statute that says: person means/is any human being, corporation,trust … we know that a corporation is a non living entity, don’t we?
    The meaning of person as defined in the statutes is an artificial/nonliving entity because of the OTHER words in the statute,e.g. corporation,etc. This is why I also personally believe the words human being is used to define person in legislation instead of man or woman to define “person.” It fits in with the Ballentine law dictionary definition of human being.

    • Dan

      June 23, 2011 at 7:11 PM

      To: Donald Blaine-Bailey:

      Thank you for your comment.

      I was speculating whether there MIGHT be more to the word “person” than is commonly recognized or acknowledged. I thought that perhaps a different etymology or a different semantic, that it would be a good idea to inquire of this on a public forum that is interested in such things, and this is surely such a place.

      I copied and pasted “noscitur a soccis” into Google translator and it detected Latin and offered “Soccer is known from the.”

      Going by your definition above, it looks like noscitur a soccis is just an obscure way of saying “words are known by their context.” “Words are known by their context” would likely stand up in a court of law but everyone who speaks English could understand it without interpretation nor explanation.

      One can only specualate as to why you prefer to multiply concepts beyond necessity but it violates Rand’s Razor (Concepts are not to be multiplied beyond necessity.).

      • Donald Blaine-Bailey

        June 25, 2011 at 5:29 PM

        I made an error in spelling. It should be sociis, not soccis.Also see, ejusdem generis.

  10. Donald Blaine-Bailey

    June 23, 2011 at 4:05 AM

    To Alfred:
    You say in pertinent part: “While it may be true that anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law, it’s also true that anything you don’t say can and will be used against you in a court of equity. ” I must have been in a court of equity at least once then, because I chose to remain silent. In that particular I was dragged into the “court” in leg irons & handcuffs. I was forced to sit in a straightback chair in front of the “pews.” The “Judge” walks in & says: “Mr. Bailey, waddle on up here.” I did not respond. Two deputies picked me up in the chair & set me down in front of him (judge). He said: “Mr. Bailey, you have been charged with speeding, no valid driver license, blah blah etc. how do you plead?” I did not respond. “Mr. Bailey you do have the right to remain silent and anything you say can and will be used against you do you understand?” I did not respond. Well, if I had said yes, according to what he just said, that would have been used against me & I think I know how & why. Anyway, the judge was getting angry and said/shouted: “I am going to ask you one more time HOW DO YOU PLEAD TO THESE CRIMINAL CHARGES?” I did not respond. He then screamed “OH NO!!! YOU DON”T COME INTO MY COURT TRYING TO TAKE OVER THIRTY DAYS!!!. So, I guess I was in a court of equity. Now, as to why & how my response by just saying yes would have been used against me, look up the word mystery in a law dictionary and see where that leads you. I know it’s in Black’s 5th Ed. I think you will be stunned. hint: Mystery, Mister.This was one of those situations of Damned if you do and damned if you don’t. BUT !!! they do have what is called the “merger of law and equity and the development of the law.” Development?? Destroying of the law is the term that should be used. See one of my cases on the books, State v. Bailey , 118 N.M. 466, 882 P.2d 57 (N.M.

    • pop de adam

      June 23, 2011 at 6:07 AM


      I was curious about the case you cited, so I did a google search. While I found it and a related one(baily vs romero?). I also noticed you also posted at Quatloos and asked about it here in the contact replies, you should be aware Quatloos was founded by a tax lawyer named Jay Adkisson. Dave Champion who I haven’t heard much of in a long while called him out on his positions. I thought you might be cautious while engaging them. Playing Q&A with them may be fun, but watch out for yourself, “den of vipers” and all that.

      • Donald Blaine-Bailey

        June 23, 2011 at 12:21 PM

        To: pop de adam
        Thank you for your reply.I did not know anything about “Quatloos but I found out pretty quick: There is a man by the name of Troy Beam whom I like. I was the trustee on some of his trusts. In essence, I was ordered to testify re: the trusts and when I was asked: “Do you swear or affirm to …..” you know the rest. I said: “I promise to tell all the truth I AM AWARE OF IF I AM ALLOWED TO AND I WILL DO SO UNDER THE PENALTY OF PERJURY. I DON”T THINK I KNOW THE TRUTH THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH ABOUT ANYTHING. That was accepted believe it or not. Anyway, I saw Troy Beam listed somewhere, somehow,and I clicked on the “site”(?) Quatloos, just to see what was being said about Troy. After seeing what I did, I asked this question. If you can tell me how a Federal Reserve Note is also a dollar, maybe I could understand at least some things better. The response started out to be sarcastic, eg. “If you don’t like your frns I’ll be glad to take them off your hands” & YEAH send me 1,000 of your frns & I’ll tell you how eacn one is a dollar.” These kind of “answers” told me a lot about “Quatloos.” I wish you could bring up what was said. I don’t know how. One thing led to another & I don’t remember how or what sparked their interest to bring up things on me but they did. I wish I knew how to do that. Anyway, I finally told them I will just take my toys & find another sandbox. I told them this after I let them know they were perverts. I asked: “where did you have your celebration party after the Waco incident? Reponse: “WE HAD A BARBECUE.” Wow, can you believe that. They finally called my segment with them, “Bailey’s Lament”
        Thank you so much for responding “pop de adam. ” I sincerely appreciate it. Let me know if you get this. I am a novice at using a computer/ lingo etc.

  11. pop de adam

    June 23, 2011 at 3:04 PM

    Donald, reply recieved:

    Matthew 5:34

    “But I say unto you, swear not at all; neither by heaven for it is God’s throne; nor by the earth for it is his footstool.”

    So here we have a court asking one to swear upon a bible. Could this be considered perjury in itself, swearing upon a book that forbids this very thing?

    • Donald Blaine-Bailey

      June 24, 2011 at 2:57 PM

      To:pop de adam,
      Re: Matthew: 5:34. You write/say-“So here we have a court asking one to swear upon a bible.”

      Is that comment directed to me as something you think I did? I did not swear & there was no “Bible” in the courtroom to my knowledge. I wish there was. I feel comfortable that “The Creator & Sustain- er of the Universe” is pleased with me for “promising to tell the truth & doing so.” How can it be otherwise? In all honesty, I may be misunderstanding your reply, but it seems to me you’re saying I violated the command of Matthew 5:34. Is The Creator, in your estimation, angry for anyone telling the truth? I KNOW he is “not pleased, etc”. with liars. In addition, I have a case here somewhere, can’t find it right now, but that “court” said in essence: “Our decision is based upon the common law & the bible which is the SOURCE of the common law.” I put source in caps for emphasis. If you think I did wrong by PROMISING to tell the ALL the truth I am aware of IF I am ALLOWED to do so violates ANYTHING written in the “Holy Bible” please tell me how & why for that is something I don’t want to do
      Thanks again!!

      • pop de adam

        June 24, 2011 at 4:24 PM


        I was not suggesting that you did this, I just thought you might also appreciate that a court would engage in what is a contradiction that could call their own legitimacy into question: The courts respect the bible and then ask a witness to swear upon it.

  12. Donald Blaine-Bailey

    June 25, 2011 at 1:48 AM

    To: pop de adam:

    Thank you for continuing to correspond with me. The oath demanded by the courts is: “Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth & nothing but the truth so help you “god.” I spelled god in little case because I don’t know if the courts use a capital G if it was written out. But I believe their “god” is Satan. I don’t think it is possible for any flesh & blood being to tell the truth, the whole truth & nothing but the truth about anything. Only the Elohim knows ALL the truth. I just know some truth. I found out about 20 years ago that they will not even let you tell ALL the truth that you are aware of & yet they demand up front that you must tell the truth, the whole truth & nothing but the truth so help you “god.” It’s as though they try hard to get you to perjure yourself I expected to be found in contempt of court by my answer to their oath demand as I have been before. Once again, instead of answering yes,or I do,or I will, I said. ” I promise to tell the truth and all of the truth I am aware of IF I am allowed to & I will do so under the penalty of perjury” It,my answer was accepted but not happily. For example on the very first question, my truthful answer upset the judge as he blew his stack & said I was giving “gratious information” that is unnecessary. He was very upset. But I was answering truthfully. See why I said IF I am allowed too? All I know is, I was answering truthfully,but I’m convinced they did not want “too much truth.”

    Thanks again for your reply. Please keep in touch. By the way, do you ever read any of “Jerry Lee’s comments? I like him too!!!

  13. Donald Blaine-Bailey

    June 25, 2011 at 4:12 PM

    To palani:

    1.-Have you ever been arrested for a victimless crime & FORCED to accept an attorney(public defender) against your will & over your objection?

    2.-You say: ” Hire an attorney to represent you? There you have yet another person.”

    Re: # 1 above. One time I was arrested & charged with criminal trespass for “being at the Eddy County Courthouse, Carlsbad,N.M.” I was told that the “probable cause” for the arrest was this: “Probably cause we don’t want you here. This is public property & you are interfering in a private matter.” This “case” dragged on for over a year, I guess,because I refused to plead guilty. I was kept in jail the whole time except when being transported to court & later being forced to waddle to court in leg irons & handcuffs, for,as I was told: “We goan git cho mind rat.” The court was only about a half mile away so it wasn’t that bad. It was the waddling back to jail that was getting to me. Sometime down the line during this ordeal I was forced to accept a public defender & against my will & over my objection. This P.D. browbeat me to death to plead guilty & he would see to it that I would be released with time served & “pay whatever the fine was at that time.” I refused. Here is the end of the story. The Prosecuting Attorney,Terry Hake,just out of nowhere started talking to the judge & I could not believe my ears as to what he was saying. I won’t bend your mind & ear with it but it was all in my behalf. I will tell you the last thing he said. He said: “So what we have here your honor IS a MESS AT BEST. So your honor I move that this case be dismissed in the interest of justice.” The public defender stood up & OBJECTED. Something in my head went SQUAWK. The P.D. said: Your Honor This is not a mess as Mr. Hake is trying to make it out to be blah blah blah.
    SEE, they were playing mind games with me. Anyway I or it, I’m a IT to them.was found guilty. So much for that part of the ordeal.

    Re:# 2 above. This Public defender was “representing me !!??” Here is my point. If anone represents me but is not me, how can I represent me when I am me. Someone is knocking on the door. gotta go. HEY Thanks!!

    • palani

      June 25, 2011 at 6:32 PM

      To your #1 … no … I was arrested for a crime where I was the only victim but was not “forced” to accept representation. I chose to appear by accepting bail and chose to appear later at “jury trial” because I was truly interested in what lies I would hear … and wanted those lies on record for future action.

      You are not forced to “waddle”. If you are placed in leg restraints it is because they don’t want you to walk. Why are you walking? It is your choice. Should have told ’em “remove the leg irons or get me a wheelchair”.

      You accept representation by not objecting timely. It is sort of like checking into an insane asylum. Once you have accepted representation hired by the judge for your “cause” then only the judge can fire him. Public defenders have only one function:: to make sure at the end of the trial your rights have not been violated … or …. put another way … to make sure you have no basis for appeal.

      Take a look at the the maxim: NECESSITAS INDUCIT PRIVILEGIUM QUOAD JURA PRIVATA. Bacon’s max #5 — In the domain of Jus privatum necessity imports privilege.

      A criminal walking to execution is under compulsion if any one can be said to be so, but his motions are just as much voluntary actions as if he were leaving his place of confiement to regain his liberty. That the law will hold no man responsible for an act, which is involuntary in the strict metaphysical sense, it is unnecessary to state.

      Everything action that you make is voluntary. It is your choice.

      • Donald Blaine-Bailey

        June 26, 2011 at 2:02 AM

        To palani,

        You say in pertinent part: “A criminal walking to execution is under compulsion ……”

        what do you think would happen if he/she refused to move one iota, lets say?

        When a judge informs you for the first time that he is going to appoint the public defender to represent you & you object vigorously right there & then, I don’t see how that is untimely. No need to respond to this.I apologize for wasting your time. I am positive that you do not live in New Mexico. & yes, I am doing my utmost to get out of the land of enchantment(witchcraft).

  14. Donald Blaine-Bailey

    June 25, 2011 at 5:05 PM

    To: pop de adam

    Now I “see,” in a different light, your comment & I agree with you 110%. I thought the word “one” in your message might mean me which should also be strong evidence if not proof of more truth I was not aware of. What I’m trying to say IS: I did not know the truth, the whole truth & nothing but the truth about your comment. And, I say again, I don’t know the truth, the whole truth & nothing but the truth about anything. Remember though, I did ask if your previous message,e.g.”So here we have a court asking one to swear upon a bible,” was directed to me as something I did, if I was the”one” in your message You cleared that up. Thank you for your patience with me. I wish you the best of everything.

  15. palani

    June 26, 2011 at 7:31 AM

    [quote] what do you think would happen if he/she refused to move one iota [/quote]
    What would happen if you did not voluntarily consent? Why speculate? Why not find out?

    [quote]you object vigorously right there & then [/quote]
    A waitress brings you a slice of pie, you object and then you eat it. Should you be forced to pay for it then? I suspect you have no idea of how to avoid contracts because you just entered into one, most probably by your behavior. The dishonorable way to avoid a contract (and thereby accept it) is to turn the offer down. The honorable way to avoid a contract is to counteroffer, something like “Thank you for the offer, oh high priest in the black dress, but instead why don’t I appoint you fiduciary of the trust you are administrating and then you won’t need my participation in this off-broadway play?”

    The answer to a question is ALWAYS another question.

    • Donald Blaine-Bailey

      June 26, 2011 at 9:26 PM

      Stay out of New Mexico,NEW MEXICO, NM N.M.

    • Donald Blaine-Bailey

      June 27, 2011 at 2:03 PM

      To: palani

      What we have here is a failure to communicate.

      Oh how well I know you want to respond to that statement & tell me more about my stupidity,etc, not entirely why I am stupid because we both know you could not do that in a lifetime. Don’t waste your time even telling me MORE about it with your subtle implications of your superiority. The words Stay out of New Mexico,NEW MEXICO, NM N.M. were meant for you too, as this is one place your balloon will burst. However, if it makes you feel better to let off a little steam go for it. Crucify me if that helps you. I have a feeling your dwelling is made of ivory.

      • palani

        June 27, 2011 at 7:17 PM

        Without reading your case I have a feeling you lost. Rather than pout why not examine why you lost? I wasn’t there and I don’t really feel like guessing about your circumstances.

        If New Mexico is commercial I doubt if you will ever find me there with or without your recommendation.

    • pop de adam

      June 27, 2011 at 2:41 PM


      Why would the rejection of said pie be dishonorable? If it is offered and rejected, why would an explicit rejection be dishonorable? I could acknowledge the concept that “silence equates to acquience” if there were no response, I must admit it seems especially inflexible however probably does assist a courts’ expiediency. If one’s response is considered a part and parcel of a larger negotiation then the subject would never have really been about said pie. This type of squishy logic stinks of fraud even if on its face it appears reasonable.

      I suppose an effective counter offer might be: I will accept said pie contingent upon recieving an equal amount of money in order to offset or purchase pie should any conflict arise over said pie? In this manner you have basically had the offeror insure the pie he has presented to you, so if they were to make a complaint about pie you would be able to simply return it or its equal value, the risk was really theirs to begin with and in my opinion should be borne by them.

      • palani

        June 27, 2011 at 7:28 PM

        You are occupying space that a paying customer could be occupying. Pie was offered and refused yet the waitress still finds your sorry behind occupying a seat that could otherwise provide her with a tip. If you are offered pie and refuse then move on. No harm and no foul. This is a commercial environment (a restaurant) and you are supposed to be here because of a hole in the belly that needs filled.

        Why are you in court? Same reason?

        I knew an electrician once who had a migraine. He went to the hospital and they gave him a cat-scan. If he had gone to a brain surgeon he might instead have had his head examined through a surgical opening. If he had gone to a holistic healer he shouldn’t be surprised if they lay hands on him. If he had gone to an allotropic type he shouldn’t be surprised if prescription medicine is the order of the day. What I am suggesting is that you are the master of the commercial enterprise you choose to engage in.

        Doubt it? Go to that same restaurant where you refused the pie and ask the waitress to operate on your head. She might agree to do it (for a fee).

  16. Donald Blaine-Bailey

    June 27, 2011 at 8:23 PM

    To palini:

    1.- You say “I knew an electrician once who had a migraine.” I understand that!! I think that you only knew him once because he did not want you to know him twice or anymore,for that matter. Once is enough!

    2.- I always tip anyone who serves me,waitress or waiter. Well, I should say I once did. I don’t have the “funds” anymore to dine out.

    3.-As far as losing a case,I have had many so I don’t know which one you are talking about. In all honesty I feel I won them all because I proved my point & my point/assertion was correct. For example, After a Judge issued an injunction, an order let’s say for me to obey, he asked me if I understood the order. I said no I don’t. He said well what is it about the order you do not understand? I said, well number one, you don’t have authority to issue such an order. I think you know what happened next, but to say all hell broke loose is an understatement. What did a higher court have to say about this,e.g. if he had the authority or if he did not? I have just recently learned how to cut & paste & here short & sour is what the higher court said:

    “We hold that the district court’s injunction exceeded its authority, but we nonetheless affirm the citation for contempt.”

    Let me add one more statement from the New Mexico court of appeals, as it should shed more light on their corruption.

    “We reverse the injunction entered by the district court as part of Defendant’s sentence for violation of the Motor Vehicle Code. The finding of contempt is affirmed because the district court had jurisdiction…..”

    I proved two things in this case, 1, the district court DID NOT have the authority to issue the order & 2, there is no integrity in the N.M. judicial (??) system. I think you probably will disagree.

    • palani

      June 27, 2011 at 9:11 PM

      You choose to sail the high seas of commerce and then wonder that there is a charge for the service?

      You appeared and were charged. You don’t know when you appeared or for what you are being charged. Was it a word? Was it an action? Was it representation? Was it two of these three or all three? Is dishonor a behavior? Is a behavior an action? Is a person created by dishonor?

      Do you agree with the following or not?

      Matthew 5:25
      Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.

      • Donald Blaine-Bailey

        June 27, 2011 at 10:08 PM

        palani !! I agree I agree I agree . I hope my agreeing with you is quick enough. I was probably not quick enough, I was too slow wasn’t I. You win again.

      • pop de adam

        June 28, 2011 at 12:30 AM

        Whilst aware of scripture you fail.

        jesus was jewish, romans are pagan, romans despise pagans.

      • palani

        June 28, 2011 at 8:22 AM

        From Hobbes Leviathan Ch XVI —

        he that maketh a Covenant with the Actor, or Representer,
        not knowing the Authority he hath, doth it at his own perill.
        For no man is obliged by a Covenant, whereof he is not Author; nor
        consequently by a Covenant made against, or beside the Authority he gave

        The system would rather do business with the Representer (strawman?) and
        needs your authority to do so.

  17. Donald Blaine-Bailey

    June 28, 2011 at 10:21 AM

    Doth thou knoweth what it meaneth? I thinketh I knoweth.

    • palani

      June 28, 2011 at 10:58 AM

      Rather than making sport of the language your time would be more wisely spent on reflecting upon the message.

  18. Donald Blaine-Bailey

    June 28, 2011 at 3:36 PM

    Is your mode of conveyance to go from point A to point B, a horse & buggy or Roller Skates? You completely evade anything I ask you by not responding in plain English. You love archaic terms. It’s ok for you to make sport of me but I believe what is good for the goose is good for the goose-e.
    For some strange/unknown reason I am beginning to like you.Re:your instruction to me of: ” Agree with thine adversary quickly,”Please answer in plain English if I agreed with you “quickly” enough?”

    • palani

      June 28, 2011 at 7:18 PM

      Have you any evidence that I am an adversary?

      If you are worried about timely response then just include the phrase “nunc pro tunc” in you posting.

      Not really advice but it seems like the proper thing to do.

      • Donald Blaine-Bailey

        June 29, 2011 at 1:30 AM

        To palani,
        I have used “Now for then, under threat of force of arms, under duress,under stress,TDC” ,In pro-per-not pro-se & more, so what.

        I was arrested one time & I sincerely believe the arrest was lawful & appropriate because two people brought charges against me,all serious felonies except for 1 charge,a petty misdemeanor. That case went went on for a little over a year & I was finally told that if I would plead guilty to the petty misdemeanor charge the serious felony charges would be dropped. I guess I was stupid in that I refused to do that simply because everything I was charged with was all trumped up, The case was finally dismissed because according to “them” I was incompetent to stand trial. In fact, that as been the final decision in all the latter/latest cases. Back in April of this year,& what is ironic is that I am ordered to testify for “gov-co” in a high priority case,United States of America v.Troy Beam. Incompetent to stand trial, but competent to testify in a high profile case. In all honesty, I am at a loss to explain this other than to say it depends on what is expedient for them. By the way, I like Troy Beam. After my testimony, he shook my hand & thanked me. I believe he did so because he KNEW I was honest & truthful. I don’t know if “gov-co” wiil ever want me to testify again, maybe they/IT will, I don’t know. ANYWAY, DEAR PALANI,Will/would you be willing to “represent me” as “my next friend” in the future re: any charges,cases,etc. as long as there is no “injured party except me”? An Answer of, yes, no, or, maybe is sufficient. Are you wondering what the catch is???? If you knew I do not at least knowingly play mind games,you would know there is no catch. But I do want to see if I can read hearts & minds just a fraction or so as much as you can. OH!!! have to tell you this. A State trooper told me one time after he wrote up some tickets, & threw them inside my automobile to have a nice day. I responded by saying: “Officer Jennings, you have a nice life that’s a lot of nice days”. I meant it sincerely. He arrested me. He said I was threatning his life.

      • palani

        June 29, 2011 at 10:24 PM

        Not trying to be obnoxious or anything but if you engage these guys in the benefit of discussion they will eventually end up finding something to take exception to.

        I am no expert on behavior to engage in with any expectation of winning while talking to a policyman. Anything you say can and will be used against you. This is true for statements. This is less true for questions. Figure out how to ask questions like a 3 year old and demand due process. Due process isn’t complete until all inquiry is done and don’t ever plan on getting done.

        Persons are 1) words, 2) actions 3) representation …. words are not persons when they are in the form of a question.

  19. Donald Blaine-Bailey

    June 28, 2011 at 6:51 PM

    To palini:

    You say: “Without reading your case I have a feeling you lost.”

    Verbatim, the court said:

    “This case presents two interesting questions. The first is whether a court exercising criminal jurisdiction and acting sua sponte may include in its sentencing order an injunction against further criminal conduct. The second is whether the injunction, even if invalid, insulates Defendant from a contempt citation for its wilful violation. We hold that the district court’s injunction exceeded its authority, but we nonetheless affirm the citation for contempt. ”

    I do not understand to this day how you,I,or anyone can not only violate, but wilfully violate an invalid made without authority order. What would the court have said if the order was made “with authority & the order was/is a valid order”? Same difference.The court was also telling me that I did not have the right to determine whether the order was valid or invalid.

    This is why I believe the court said the order was invalid. There is the country called “Old Mexico.”
    There is a State called “New Mexico.” The “invalid order demanded that I go to “Old Mexico & get a “new” Old Mexico driver license to drive in “New Mexico.” The Court of appeals said the district court judge did not have the authority to order me to go to Old Mexico & so on & so forth but they also said the contempt citation for not obeying the made without authority invalid order is valid.

    Today, & for quite a few years, in fact I think the very next year after this/above decision, what the court of appeals deemed made without authority is now made with authority,as they say, due to the merger of law & equity & the “DEVELOPMENT” of the “LAW”. New Legislation was passed giving judges authority to issue orders that previously they did not have authority to issue.

    • palani

      June 28, 2011 at 7:33 PM

      You control your own contracts. Otherwise there are others who will control your contracts for you. Dennis Craig has stated that to control your contracts you must control five (5) elements: time, place, space, plane and lawform.

      You identify your place Old Mexico. I suspect you cannot find a document that identifies the creation date of Old Mexico because I have never heard of the existence of this entity. That does not mean it doesn’t exist.

      Whenever I have a problem with a definition I feel is correct but cannot find or a document that eludes me I generally post a legal notice giving my definition and asking anyone who objects to contact me at the address I give. Then I get a notarized statement from the publisher and an affidavit from my notary assistant (where the letters of response should have been sent). Then I take these papers to the county recorder and pay to have them placed on the public record.

      For example, you need to show that Old Mexico exists and want a drivers license from them. Post a legal notice CREATING Old Mexico with you as the Alcalde in charge and request anyone who objects to notify you. Then you do the procedure I suggested. Now that you are the chief honcho of Old Mexico you appoint a Director of Drivers License Examiners for Old Mexico and ask that he give you a license. Had you done this would you have committed a contempt?

      • pop de adam

        June 29, 2011 at 2:15 AM


        By filing notices, are you not recognizing(and perhaps “understanding”) a jurisdiction?

        I only point this out because if you are familiar with the UCC/commercial redemption devices and/or schemes, it would seem someone is utilizing the very jurisdiction they originally were attempting to divest or divorce from themselves. I’m thinking administrators, if someone is of sound mind there would be no need and thus not be nesessary.

      • Donald Blaine-Bailey

        June 29, 2011 at 2:57 AM

        To palani:
        I cannot say yes or no as to whether or not I would have committed a contempt in gov-co’s warped mind IF I could have done as you say.The problem was The Eddy County New Mexico Recorder Karen Davis, & her associates refused to file any paperwork for me, when things began to heat up.But in all honesty what you say I should have done, I would not have done, even if I could have filed papers at the clerk’s office because what you are saying to do is new to me. I wanted & tried to file an affidavit of Positive Identification but NO DICE, I was finally arrested at the courthouse & charged with criminal trespass,put in a torture chamber for 30 days as I was told to get my mind right. The recorder’s office is located at/in the courthouse, Anyway 9 years later I was assured & on the Record by the THEN Chief Judge of the fifth judicial district,Jay Forbes,that I never had to be concerned about being arrested again for criminal trespass at that courthouse as long as he was on the bench.

      • palani

        June 29, 2011 at 6:12 AM

        Sua sponte seems to be the way the system operates but itself is dishonorable. I prefer to give notice (the first stage of due process) and provide others the opportunity to respond before relying upon my notices. The opportunity to inquire is contained in the notice. Then anytime raises an objection to the subject of the notice after the period of inquiry is complete can be directed to the public notice on the record and informed that laches and estoppel prevents them from now taking issue with the subject.

        This SHOULD work with a rational entity. I doubt if the method is effective with a CRIMINAL entity but might make them feel bad for a millisecond or two.

        As to recorder refusing to file if your state has an omnisbusman you can have him call the recorder and tell him/her what his job is and what the penalties are for failure to perform. The recorder works for the secretary of state and you might take your filing in the state office and ask him to record it. If all else fails go down to the federal court and open up a miscellaneous case jacket and file all your documents with this court (I believe the cost is $35 per jacket). This then becomes an evidence repository from which the feds should be able to give you certified copies of your documents. While this is not the same as public notice you have already given that by the newspaper filing and when the federal connection is brought up people just naturally come to attention and I suppose the evidence repository could become an active case later.

        A paper might be used within a jurisdiction if it comes from that jurisdiction. Isn’t that the point, to use the paper to prevent an action within that jurisdiction? If you are going in as a plaintiff then you have already acknowledge the jurisdiction (as well as creating a person there). If being drug in as a defendant against your will then legal notices can be difficult for the jurisdiction to overlook as you gave due process and now expect it in return.

  20. Donald Blaine-Bailey

    June 29, 2011 at 5:47 PM

    To Palani,
    As for me, I would not touch the “UCC” with a 20 ft. pole.

    • palani

      June 29, 2011 at 8:16 PM

      So point out if you will where I have suggested the UCC as a remedy?

      • Donald Blaine-Bailey

        June 29, 2011 at 11:38 PM

        To Palani,

        I am so sorry dear one. I meant for my comment about the UCC to go to pop de adam. I apologize.

  21. Donald Blaine-Bailey

    June 30, 2011 at 12:34 PM

    To Palani:
    “omnisbusman”. I cannot find this word anywhere.

    • palani

      June 30, 2011 at 4:25 PM

      Pardon my crude attempt at expanding the English language (misspelling that is).

      If you don’t mind flirting with state benefits then this office is available to lend you a sympathetic ear. He also talks to errant county recorders.

  22. Donald Blaine-Bailey

    July 1, 2011 at 3:39 PM

    To palani,

    Your statement of: “words are not persons when they are in the form of a question.”

    Well, dig this.Magistrate Steven Clark “warned” me one time that if I uttered “that word” one more time he would find me in contempt & sentence me to 30 days. I did not know what word he meant so I ask him what word is it that you don’t want me to utter again? He said: CONSTITUTION!!! Palani, I was using two sections of the “Bill of Rights” of the Constitution of the State of New Mexico, but I was so stunned by his remark, I honestly did not think I heard him correctly & so I ASKED, Did you say if I say the word Constitution I did not get to finish. When I did get the word constitution out/uttered it upset him so much he could not even speak,He “threw” both arms up in the air,pointed/threw his right arm towards the baliff, then at me, then pointed/threw both arms with index fingers extended,towards the federally condemned Eddy County Jail. His face was red with rage. The point I am trying to make is,it’s possible to be thrown in the slammer for asking any Question and anything you say to the contrary is not withstanding

    I memorized many excerpts from Courts that resonated with me e.g. “The tyranny in the American system of government very largely rests with the acts & actions of the municipal authorities.” How baut M R appulls. Here are Judges admitting that tyranny does exist in the land of the fee & the home of the slave. Here’s another good one.”Immunity fosters neglect & breeds irresponsibility while liability promotes caution & care & this caution & care is owed to the People.” However due to the merger of law & equity & the development of the law, using the above excerpt(s) is now & for quite a few years deemed frontier gibberish,frivolous,specious,spurious and without foundation & merit. I will close by saying, “Have a wonderful life. A wonderful life consists of many wonderful days” Would you agree that “Love is a many splendored thing?” I thought I would close by asking a question that we both agree on,because I KNOW you would say yes.

    • palani

      July 1, 2011 at 5:22 PM

      In a similar manner I recall a man in serious discussion with a local sheriff. Finally the sheriff made the statement “If you make one step toward that door I will arrest you”. The step was made and so was the arrest. There was nothing violent or threatening to the step. It was just offer and acceptance.

      If you have difficulty with contract negotiations then most likely you will find yourself where you would rather not be. The judge told you he was going to throw you in the pokey if you “uttered” a word (constitution). A counteroffer of “I accept your offer if you will read aloud your oath of office and apply your previous offer equally to everyone present in this court”. This might raise a smile from him because his oath is going to contain the forbidden word and you just tricked him into saying it himself (I presume most oaths of office are to support a constitution). Once he repeats his oath of office YOU point to the bailiff and the judge and let him be subject to his own judgment.

  23. Don

    July 2, 2011 at 3:36 AM

    To palani:

    WOW !!! Wonderful !!! Now I am beginning to see clearly, thanks to you, that I just bit off more than I could chew. I still have a little sense left of knowing what is right & wrong at least in some matters & when I came across cases that said it is an absolute right you have to do this or that, it IS NOT a privilege but an absolute right, etc. this is what I relied on, & the Bill of Rights & trying to get the judges to understand that the State Constitution in State Courts was above all State legislation & had to be subject to the Constitution. When I KNOW that You & I have the absolute right to do ANYTHING that is not injuring ANYONE or could lead into a possible future injury to anyone & I try to live by that belief but am slaughtered unmercifully for doing so until I am hardly nothing more than a shell because I repeated the same thing over & over. In essence, I see, thanks to you, that I have no wisdom. I see also that you can think on your feet which is something else I cannot do. I thought all I needed to do was use the Constitution to let’s say to support & uphold my stand. And I have been doing it over & over thinking there has to be someone who will understand. What you have helped me to see after all these years, IS I was a goat running against thoroughbreds expecting to win the race. I thought, when I was asked, “what is your social security number & my answer of I.m not a card carrying socialist” meant something. No doubt I gave them all good hearty belly laughs. Bless your precious heart dear palani. I see now there is no sense in me submitting anymore comments,etc. else in/on this forum. I wish there was something I could do for you. Saying thank you seems so shallow.

    • pal

      July 2, 2011 at 7:54 AM

      To Don:

      Thank you for your praise and accolades. I wish I could think quickly enough to come up with these gems on the spur of the moment but one reason those who occupy seats of power frequently win is that they have prepared their offers in advance and many people refuse to recognize that they are merely in contract negotiations rather than rights enforcement. These same people then go in as lambs to the slaughter or to be shorn completely unprepared for the simple negotiations required. Instead they choose to argue (babble) and the path is one of dishonor. The dishonor is punishable just as honor is praised.

      As the article that introduced these comments is about “persons” it should be pointed out that there are no rights without persons to attach these rights to or persons to attach the dipole of duties to. Rights (the way the system is presently run) do not attach to men or women or man or woman but to the person. The person is created by the action of protecting perceived rights and there actually were no rights at all until the person is created. Similarly there are no duties (and no persons to attach these duties to) until the action of enforcing a right creates a person of right.

      If you choose to create a person then you are doing so to protect a right. The government creates a person when they haul you into court in the role of defendant You will find it difficult to win anything when cast in this role that person only has duties rather than rights. Your person is cast in the role of debtor (criminal) and is attempting to extricate itself from the situation by the argument that it is a creditor instead.

      I hope it comes as no shock to you that amendments can alter the operation of the constitution. In the case of the 14th amendment the alteration was so complete as to throw out everything that came before it. The U.S. of A. has been operating for the past 150 years with a virtually unwritten constitution very similar to what the British have had since the beginning of their reign in England. I say virtually unwritten because there are several principles written into the 14th amendment that are written. One is that your person cannot question the national debt as long as this person reaps the benefits of this amendment. Another is that due process is guaranteed (for 14th amendment created “persons”). There is no bill of rights for a 14th amendment “person”. They have chosen to grant this “person” civil rights as a substitute.

      Thank you for the opportunity to expound briefly on these topics and I wish you well in your future battles.

  24. Don

    July 4, 2011 at 6:00 PM

    To Palani:
    Per your 4th paragraph beginning with:” I hope it comes as no shock to you that amendments can alter the operation of the constitution.” Tell me about it!!! I’m convinced that, beginning with the 13 so called amendment on & the power clause in each one slowly altered/reversed everything in the Constitution for the united States, of 1787. Ironically I believe gov-co IS upholding, supporting & defending the “1787 Constitution” AS UNLAWFULLY AMENDED. A thought occurred, one time here in the 5th Judicial District Court. I was reading the 23rd section of the declaration of rights to judge Fred Watson and told him it was my understanding that he took an oath to UPHOLD, etc what I just read. He said give that(pocket size edition) to(I forget exactly who he said to give it to) & let him bring it up here. Whoever it was, handed it to the judge, & he put it in the palm of his hand, lifted his hand up in the air & said: I’m UPHOLDING this document, Palani, This made me so angry I would have loved to have shook him until his teeth started rattling. I mean I was MAD !!!. I said: “MR Watson, my Mom & Dad taught me that if I could not say anything good about someone, then don’t say anything. MR Watson, you are a self made reprobate traitorous BASTARD, and those are some of your GOOD points”. I KNOW you know what happened next, but that was one time I DID NOT CARE.
    Palani, do you have any kind of connection to the Country/Nation of India? The reason I’m asking is because I looked up “Palani” on the internet & everything that came up had something to do with India.

    • pal

      July 8, 2011 at 6:34 AM

      When you actually acknowledge the complete constitution AS AMENDED and consider that oaths of “so called” public officials is to the entire document AS AMENDED and the 14th amendment requires insurgent status to vote then you certainly have de facto people in office who have no fear of staying within the confines of their oath while consistently violating the organic sections of the same document … for they have been superseded.

      The username I selected is Hawaiian for “freeman”. Not that I consider myself Hawaiian but the English language has proven to be the preferred language of slave-masters.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s