Who’s The Boss of Me?

29 Jan

If you’re wondering who rules over you, here’s a test recommended by Voltaire in the 18th Century:


I presume that those I can’t criticize would include those empowered to act in secrecy (so I can’t find evidence to support my criticism) and those who are empowered to keep me from photographing them (so I can’t create evidence to support my criticism).


Do you suppose that today’s would-be rulers include those protected from criticism by laws that prohibit “hate speech“?

Do you suppose that our would-be rulers include those who classify dissidents (those who criticize government as an exercise of “Freedom of Speech) as as “terrorists”?


Do suppose that our would-be rulers have granted themselves official immunity for acts that would get you or me thrown in jail?  Are these “officially immune” individuals thereby shielded from the “criticism” that’s inherent in any criminal or civil court case?

What about those who collect payments on mortgages after they’ve sold the mortgages to third parties?  Does their immunity from prosecution for fraud suggest that they should be regarded as among my “rulers”?

How ’bout the financial institutions that are deemed “too big to fail”–does their immunity from financial failure equate to a shield against the criticism that’s inherent in bankruptcy?

And whatever happened to the presumption that We the People rule this country and our government was our public servant rather than our ruler?


18 responses to “Who’s The Boss of Me?

  1. Charles

    January 30, 2013 at 3:21 AM

    At the risk of being provacative, slavery is not concerned with picking cotton. Slavery is owning the fruits of another man’s labor. As long as we allow the banks to own and operate that which we euphamistically call “our government,” we will all be slaves of both the banks and the mafia-government.

  2. shupec

    January 30, 2013 at 5:02 AM

    Not to leave out I.R.S. which is said to NOT be ‘government’ but instead a ‘third party collection company’ for the I.M.F. which is a ‘pass through’ ‘money laundering’ company for UNITED NATIONS, however, the ‘Core’ of the ‘problem’ is that the ‘legal’ ‘currency’ technically is a ‘debt note’ AND technically internal PRIVATE FEDERAL RESERVE ‘note’, NOT ‘pay-ment’. I know this because it was expressed at a court on “Mary’s Land” (Mary Queen of Scott’s Land) apx. within the past year that ‘legal’ is not ‘lawful’ and ONE of the ways to make ‘true payment’ was to create either ‘money order’ or ‘promissory note’ and sign it, for the JUDGE or COMPANY (claimed to be ‘creditor’) to then either securitize upon or turn into U.S. TREASURY (again not ‘government’ but rather private) to ‘set-off’ and ‘dis-charge’ – This was “accepted” and she was free to go.

    So, not only are ‘we’ the ‘common man’, NOT to be confused with “We the People” NOT being ‘paid’ but many ALSO are blindly accepting the presumption that ‘we’ also have to ‘pay taxes’ upon that technically in fact non-pay-ment…. All I can say is, sad, very sad….

    Though glad to say that more and more Are “Waking Up” and not only ‘refusing to consent’ but also winning in “Court” (also not a true ‘court’ but rather yet another private corporation quasi ‘society’ of the B.A.R.) when ‘charged’ by I.R.S. “agent”s which have financial conflict of interest with said “case” along with judge, prosecutor, et al.

    • homelessholocaust

      January 30, 2013 at 7:01 AM

      So, not only are ‘we’ the ‘common man’, NOT to be confused with “We the People” NOT being ‘paid’ but many ALSO are blindly accepting the presumption that ‘we’ also have to ‘pay taxes’ upon that technically in fact non-pay-ment…. All I can say is, sad, very sad….
      Actually, We are Monsters, in their Law, and Ineligible of Rights,Not allowed ownership of Land [not Real Estate- LAND] not a Human, but a human “being” , however, the Constitution was actually Written by Jesuits, the Reason the Signing was Kept Secret.

      • homelessholocaust

        January 30, 2013 at 7:06 AM

        Alloidal Land Ownership is the Kingship Right, under the Corporation, UNITED STATES of AMERICA, the corporation OWNS the Land, All The Land, & The Shy, And All Minerals, Water, Fish, Plants, et al, ad infinitumn , Otherwise They Could Not Levy Taxes, in the Form of Extortion of Payments through Terrorist Threats [of Eviction from your Imaginary Property!]

      • shupec

        January 30, 2013 at 10:43 PM

        You ‘hit the nail on the head’… In March I am going to start at least attempting to ‘wake up’ a few of our local homeless and try to help them ‘regain’ their true ‘living man’ non-‘STRAWMAN’ ‘status…. You can lead a man to water… but you can not make him\her drink…

      • Adask

        January 31, 2013 at 12:54 AM

        Mix a little bourbon with that water, and you’ll probably see a lot more drinkers.

  3. Anthony Clifton

    January 30, 2013 at 8:00 AM

    and it was Jesus who famously said “Ye make my Fathers LAW of no effect”…although “THEY” were “Legal”…in their “oral tradition”…hmmm

    knowing truth is the cure to believing lies…

  4. palani

    January 30, 2013 at 8:20 AM

    Determining ones status is easy enough. If you actually believe you have any political power then go ahead and try exercising it just once. That is all it takes. Find a government project you don’t like and try to shut it down by issuing a writ of mandamus. Question an officials right to be in office? Issue a writ of quo warranto to the sheriff to have that ‘official’ presented to your court to for the purpose of examining his qualifications.

  5. Yartap

    January 30, 2013 at 11:35 AM

    It’s my WIFE!

  6. Anon4fun

    January 30, 2013 at 12:14 PM

    Americans can criticize anyone and everyone, and often do. Just look at the internet. So it follows that this remains a free country.

    The only giant around here is We the People. What 300 million people want, 300 million people get. Nothing is holding us down but ourselves. The sooner we own up to this fact and take responsibility, the sooner we can fix the situation.

    Constitutional government will be restored when the people of this country find the will to restore it. No sooner or later.

    • Lex Mercatoria

      February 6, 2013 at 1:52 AM

      “Americans can criticize anyone and everyone, and often do. Just look at the internet. So it follows that this remains a free country.”

      Criticizing people on the ‘net doesn’t necessarily count, as there almost no consequences to voicing one’s opinions when cloaked with anonymity. I think it would be better to ask: who is it that we can’t criticize *publicly*? Who is it that controls the media & dis-education system which has bulldozed people with political correctness into not discussing certain people?

      And, no, it isn’t some abstraction or ill-defined ghost group like the Elite or Illuminati. It’s the jews.

      That few are willing to say this even on an anonymous blog site though they think it speaks volumes.

  7. EarlinOregon

    January 30, 2013 at 2:54 PM

    Advanced Civics Research Library

    Structure of the Birth Certificate

    Did the State Pledge Your Body to a Bank?

    Some birth and marriage certificates are now “warehouse receipts,”
    printed on banknote paper,
    which may mark you and yours as ‘chattel’ property of the banks
    that our government borrows from every day.

    By: David Deschesne

    Editor/Publisher, Fort Fairfield Journal

    Read more editorials by David Deschesne, click here

    Fort Fairfield Journal, May 11, 2005

    A certificate is a “paper establishing an ownership claim.”
    – Barron’s Dictionary of Banking Terms.

    Registration of births began in 1915, by the Bureau of Census,
    with all states adopting the practice by 1933.

    Birth and marriage certificates are a form of securities
    called “warehouse receipts.”

    The items included on a warehouse receipt,
    as described at §7-202 of the Uniform Commercial Code,
    the law which governs commercial paper and transactions,
    which parallel a birth or marriage certificate are:

    -the location of the warehouse where the goods are stored…(residence)

    -the date of issue of the receipt…..(“Date issued”)

    -the consecutive number of the receipt…(found on back or front of the certificate, usually in red numbers)

    -a description of the goods or of the packages containing them…(name, sex, date of birth, etc.)

    -the signature of the warehouseman, which may be made by his authorized agent…(municipal clerk or state registrar’s signature)

    Birth/marriage certificates now appear to at least qualify as “warehouse receipts”
    under the Uniform Commercial Code.

    Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th ed. defines:

    warehouse receipt. “…A warehouse receipt, which is considered a document of title,
    may be a negotiable instrument and is often used for financing with inventory as security.”

    Since the U.S. went bankrupt in 1933,
    all new money has to be borrowed into existence.

    All states started issuing serial-numbered, certificated “warehouse receipts”
    for births and marriages
    in order to pledge us as collateral
    against those loans and municipal bonds taken out with the Federal Reserve’s banks.

    The “Full faith and Credit” of the American people
    is said to be that which back the nation’s debt.

    That simply means the American people’s ability to labor and pay back that debt.

    In order to catalog its laborers,
    the government needed an efficient, methodical system of tracking its property
    to that end.

    Humans today are looked upon merely as resources –
    “human resources,” that is.

    Governmental assignment of a dollar value to the heads of citizens began on July 14, 1862 when President Lincoln offered 6 percent interest bearing-bonds
    to states who freed their slaves on a “per head” basis.

    This practice of valuating humans (cattle?) continues today with our current system of debt-based currency reliant upon a steady stream of fresh new chattels to back it.

    Additional Birth Certificate Research

    Federal Children

    by Joyce Rosenwald

    In 1921, the federal Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act
    created the birth “registration” or what we now know as the “birth certificate.”

    It was known as the “Maternity Act”
    and was sold to the American people as a law that would reduce maternal and infant mortality, protect the health of mothers and infants, and for “other purposes.”

    One of those other purposes provided for the establishment of a federal bureau
    designed to cooperate with state agencies
    in the overseeing of its operations and expenditures.

    What it really did was create a federal birth registry
    which exists today, creating “federal children.”

    This government, under the doctrine of “Parens Patriae,”
    now legislates for American children
    as if they are owned by the federal government.

    Through the public school enrollment process
    and continuing license requirements for most aspects of daily life,
    these children grow up to be adults indoctrinated
    into the process of asking for “permission” from Daddy government
    to do all those things necessary to carry out daily activities
    that exist in what is called a “free country.”

    Before 1921 the records of births and names of children were entered into family bibles,
    as were the records of marriages and deaths.

    These records were readily accepted by both the family and the law as “official” records.

    Since 1921
    the American people have been registering the births and names of their children
    with the government of the state in which they are born,
    even though there is no federal law requiring it.

    The state tells you that registering your child’s birth through the birth certificate
    serves as proof that he/she was born in the united States ,
    thereby making him/her a United States Citizen.

    For the past several years
    a social security number has been mandated by the federal government to be issued at birth.

    In 1933, bankruptcy was declared by President Roosevelt.

    The governors of the then 48 States pledged the “full faith and credit” of their states,
    ncluding the citizenry, as collateral
    for loans of credit from the Federal Reserve system.

    To wit:”Full faith and credit” clause of Const. U.S. article 4. sec. 1,
    requires that foreign judgement be given such faith and credit
    as it had by law or usage of state of it’s origin.

    That foreign statutes are to have force and effect to which they are entitled in home state.

    And that a judgement or record shall have the same faith, credit, conclusive effect, and obligatory force in other states as it has by law or usage in the state from whence taken.

    Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed. cites omitted.

    The state claims an interest in every child within it’s jurisdiction.

    The state will, if it deems it necessary, nullify your parental rights
    and appoint a guardian (trustee) over your children.

    The subject of every birth certificate is a child.

    The child is a valuable asset,
    which if properly trained, can contribute valuable assets
    provided by its labor
    for many years.

    It is presumed by those who have researched this issue,
    that the child itself is the asset of the trust
    established by the birth certificate,
    and the social security number is the numbering or registration of the trust,
    allowing for the assets of the trust to be tracked.

    If this information is true, your child is now owned by the state.

    Each one of us, including our children,
    are considered assets of the bankrupt united states.

    We are now designated by this government as
    with a new crop born every year.”

    In 1923,
    a suit was brought against federal officials charged with the administration of the maternity act, who were citizens of another state, to enjoin them from enforcing it,
    wherein the plaintiff averred that the act was unconstitutional,
    and that it’s purpose was to induce the States to yield sovereign rights
    reserved by them through the federal Constitution’s 10th amendment
    and not granted to the federal government,
    and that the burden of the appropriations falls unequally upon the several States,
    held, that, as the statute does not require the plaintiff to do or yield anything,
    and as no burden is imposed by it other than that of taxation,
    which falls, not on the State but on her inhabitants,
    who are within the federal as well as the state taxing power,
    the complaint resolves down to the naked contention
    that Congress has usurped reserved powers of the States
    by the mere enactment of the statute,
    though nothing has been, or is to be, done under it without their consent

    (Commonwealth of Massachusetts vs. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury, et al.;
    Frothingham v. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury
    Mr. Alexander Lincoln, Assistant Attorney General,
    argued for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts .

    To wit:

    I. The act is unconstitutional.

    It purports to vest in agencies of the Federal Government powers
    which are almost wholly undefined, in matters relating to maternity and infancy,
    and to authorize appropriations of federal funds for the purposes of the act.

    Many examples may be given and were stated in the debates on the bill in Congress
    of regulations which may be imposed under the act.

    are measures to which the people of those States which accept its provisions
    may be subjected.

    There is nothing which prohibits the payment of subsidies out of federal appropriations.


    By section 4 of the act,
    the Children’s Bureau is given all necessary powers
    to cooperate with the state agencies in the administration of the act.

    Hence it is given the power to assist in the enforcement of the plans submitted to it,
    and for that purpose by its agents to go into the several States
    and to do those acts for which the plans submitted may provide.

    As to what those plans shall provide, the final arbiters are the Bureau and the Board.


    (1) The act is invalid
    because it assumes powers not granted to Congress
    and usurps the local police power.
    McCulloch v. Maryland , 4 Wheat. 316, 405;
    United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 549-551.

    In more recent cases, however,
    the Court has shown that there are limits to the power of Congress to pass legislation purporting to be based on one of the powers expressly granted to Congress
    which in fact usurps the reserved powers of the States,
    and that laws showing on their face
    detailed regulation of a matter wholly within the police power of the States
    will be held to be unconstitutional
    although they purport to be passed in the exercise of some constitutional power.

    Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251;
    Child Labor Tax Case, 259 U.S. 20;
    Hill v. Wallace, 259 U.S. 44.

    The act is not made valid by the circumstance that federal powers are to be exercised only with respect to those States which accept the act, for Congress cannot assume, and state legislatures cannot yield, the powers reserved to the States by the Constitution.

    Message of President Monroe, May 4, 1822 ;
    4 Elliot’s Debates, p. 525;
    Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, 3 How. 212;
    Escanaba Co. v. Chicago , 107 U.S. 678; Coyle v. Oklahoma , 221 U.S. 559;
    Cincinnati v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 223 U.S. 390.

    (2) The act is invalid
    because it imposes on each State an illegal option
    either to yield a part of its powers reserved by the Tenth Amendment
    or to give up its share of appropriations under the act.

    A statute attempting, by imposing conditions upon a general privilege,
    to exact a waiver of a constitutional right, is null and void.

    Harrison v. St. Louis & San Francisco R.R. Co., 232 U.S. 318;
    Terral v. Burke Construction Co., 257 U.S. 529.

    (3) The act is invalid
    because it sets up a system of government
    by cooperation between the Federal Government and certain of the States,
    not provided by the Constitution.

    Congress cannot make laws for the States,
    and it cannot delegate to the States the power to make laws for the United States .

    In re Rahrer, 140 U.S. 545;
    Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 U.S. 149;
    Opinion of the Justices, 239 Mass. 606.

    The Maternity Act was eventually repealed,
    but parts of it have been found in other legislative acts.

    What this act attempted to do
    was set up government by appointment,
    run by bureaucrats with re-delegated authority to tax,
    which is in itself unconstitutional.

    What was once declared as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of this nation in the past should be upheld in a court challenge today.

    The constitution hasn’t changed.

    What has changed is the way this government views human life.
    Today we are defined as human resources,
    believed to be owned by government.

    The government now wants us, as individuals, to be tagged and tracked.
    Government mandated or legislated National I.D. is unconstitutional anyway you look at it.

    Federal jurisdiction to legislate for the several states
    does not exist
    and could never survive a court challenge as shown above.

    Writing letters to elected public servants won’t save us
    when we all know their agenda
    does not include serving those who placed them in power.

    Perhaps the 10th amendment of the federal constitution guaranteeing states rights will,
    if challenged, when making it known that we as individuals of the several states will not be treated as chattel of the U.S. government.

    If the federal government believes they own us,
    and as such have the right to demand national I.D. cards, and health I.D. cards,
    which will in truth tag us as we tag our animals,
    then let them bring forth the documents to prove their authority to legislate for it.

    If our G-D given rights to liberty and freedom,
    which were the foundation upon which this nation was created
    do not exist,
    and liberty and freedom is only an illusion under which the American people suffer,
    then let the governments of this nation come forward and tell the people.

    But…if we are indeed free,
    then we should not have to plead or beg before our elected public servants
    to be treated as such.
    If, in truth we are not free,
    then perhaps it’s time to let the final chapter of the Great American Revolution be written……….

    • Lex Mercatoria

      February 6, 2013 at 1:57 AM

      Which constitution does it violate? Even if it is invalid, what does that have to do with you? Who/what are you?

  8. EarlinOregon

    January 30, 2013 at 5:04 PM

    The Judge’s Book

    A publication of the National Conference of State Trial Judges
    of the Judicial Administration Division
    of the American Bar Association
    and the National Judicial College.

    Contents include:
    I. The Life of a Judge
    II. The Work of a Judge
    III. The Techniques of Judging
    IV. The Profession of Judging
    V. Help and Resources for Judges

  9. EarlinOregon

    January 30, 2013 at 5:50 PM

    The Problem is
    there is No Penalty when the public Servants are Wrong.

    Mandatory and Automatic Recall process,
    when a Statute/regulation is found Unconstitutional,
    by a Grand Jury or a supreme court,
    is a good idea to make happen.

  10. palani

    January 31, 2013 at 8:26 AM

    There you go …. …. That is the form used by the writ of quo warranto. Want to test your political power? Why not direct the sheriff of your county to summons one of your county elected officials to see whether he/she has lawful authority to hold that office.

    Suggest you might start small at first until you get the hang of it. Then you might get more ambitious and even question the holder of the office of president.

    Form taken from A Digest of the Laws of Pennsylvania available for free download from Google books.

  11. palani

    January 31, 2013 at 8:30 AM

    If the sheriff is the one who you want checked out you would direct this writ of quo warranto to the coroner of the county. Chances are your county has no coroner as they like to call them ‘medical examiner’ now. If this is the case you really ought to find someone to fill the office of coroner else the sheriff will have no check on his authority.

  12. palani

    January 31, 2013 at 8:52 AM

    From ‘The Practice of the office of sheriff and under sheriff’


    The sheriff has no discretion when it comes to executing writs. He must return them one way or another.


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