Government To Cut Size of US Military

03 Mar

Fighting for your freedoms?  Or for your currency? [courtesy Google Images]

Fighting for our freedoms? Or for our currency?
[courtesy Google Images]

Prior to A.D. 1933, the paper dollar was backed by both gold and silver.  That meant that if you had a paper dollar in your pocket, you could trade it for a silver dollar.  If you had twenty paper dollars in your pocket, you could trade them in for an ounce of gold.

In A.D. 1933, President Roosevelt removed gold coins from domestic circulation and the domestic paper dollar was backed only by silver.  Foreign-held paper dollars could still be redeemed with gold.

The government stopped redeeming domestic paper dollars with silver in A.D. 1968 and stopped redeeming foreign-held paper dollars with gold in A.D. 1971.  At that point the dollar became pure fiat without any intrinsic value.  We could’ve expected significant inflation (devaluation of the paper dollar) at that time, but the Nixon administration cut extraordinary deals with Saudi Arabia and then OPEC whereby both of those entities guaranteed to sell their crude oil for U.S. dollars only.

Net result?  If any nation wanted to purchase crude oil on the international market, they had to use US dollars to do so.   Given that most nations needed to purchase crude oil, most nations therefore needed fiat dollars. The resulting demand created the “petro-dollar”—US dollars that were no longer backed by gold or silver, but were implicitly backed by crude oil.

The petro-dollar scheme worked well for nearly 30 years.  But in A.D. 2000, Saddam Hussein announced plans to start selling Iraqi crude for euros rather than fiat dollars.   If Saddam’s plan were allowed to succeed, it would strip away some, most or even all, of the dollar’s standing as the world’s only petro-currency and “World Reserve Currency”.

The US government cooked up some cock-and-bull story about Weapons of Mass Destruction and invaded Iraq in A.D. 2003. The Iraqis received a big dose of “Shock and Awe” and the war was over in just weeks.  Our attack was intended to serve as a warning to any other oil-producing nation.  If they dared to sell their crude for anything other than petro-dollars, they could also expect a big dose of “Shock and Awe”.

Unfortunately, the “Shock” wasn’t quite shocking enough.  The “Awe” wasn’t really awesome.  The Iraqis and soldiers from foreign countries weren’t actually defeated in the first few weeks of our invasion and continued to resist for another eight years.  The US military was shocked to discover that it was trapped in Iraq and awed by the enemy’s persistent refusal to surrender.

It became clear to the rest of the world that we were so bogged down in Iraq that we couldn’t start another war.  Slowly, other oil-producing nations began to sell their crude for currencies other dollars.  The value of the US dollar as measured on the US Dollar Index fell from 125 in A.D. 2000 to 80, today (a loss of nearly 40%).  The US dollar’s standing as “World Reserve Currency” was also diminished.

The point to this stroll down memory lane is that the value and predominance of the “petro-dollar” was enforced by the threat of military invasion.  If any nation dared sell crude oil for a currency other than dollars, we’d send in the US military and subject it to “Shock and Awe”.

Today, that military threat is no longer viable.   We are therefore left to wonder what will support the perceived value of the fiat dollar that is no longer backed by gold, silver, petroleum or even the US military?


•  Since WWII, the US has had the world’s mightiest military.  In recent years, America has spent more on military power than all the rest of the world combined.  Our military has been a source of international power and national pride.   The military has become such a “sacred cow” that it’s been almost inconceivable that government would reduce its size.

Therefore it was surprising, even shocking, when The New York Times recently reported (“Pentagon Plans to Shrink Army to Pre-World War II Level”) that,

“Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel plans to shrink the United States Army to its smallest force since before the World War II buildup and eliminate an entire class of Air Force attack jets in a new spending proposal that officials describe as the first Pentagon budget to aggressively push the military off the war footing adopted after the terror attacks of 2001.”


The national government is going broke.  It can no longer afford to invade foreign countries like Iraq or Afghanistan.   We may still be able to bomb the stuffing out of them with drones and bombers, but we probably won’t see another, “boots-on-the-ground” invasion of another foreign country for the next generation.

The implications are considerable.

Reducing the Army to a size smaller that existed in the 1940s, is an enormous reduction.  We’re not talking about cutting the Army back to pre-911 size or pre-Viet Nam size.  We’re talking about reducing the actual number of Army personnel to less than that of pre-WWII 1940s—when the nation was still caught in the Great Depression.

Based on that proposed reduction, the US will be less able to invade foreign countries.  Thus, the US will be less able to enforce or even support the fiat dollar’s status as petro-dollar and World Reserve Currency.

The Pentagon’s plans to reduce the size of the military should encourage other countries to trade in currencies other than dollars.  Knowing they won’t get a dose of “shock and awe,” foreign countries will feel free to conduct business without US dollars.

As foreign countries increasingly trade in currencies other than dollars, the perceived value of the dollar should decline and we may increased and rising gold prices.


“The Pentagon’s proposal . . . takes into account the fiscal reality of government austerity [higher taxes and less benefits] and the political reality of a president who pledged to end two costly and exhausting land wars. A result, the officials argue, will be a military capable of defeating any adversary, but too small for protracted foreign occupations.”

Translation:  No more “boots on the ground.”

“The officials acknowledge that budget cuts will impose greater risk on the armed forces if they are again ordered to carry out two large-scale military actions at the same time: Success would take longer, they say, and there would be a larger number of casualties. Officials also say that a smaller military could invite adventurism by adversaries.”

“Success would take longer”?  Longer than what?  What “success” are they talking about?  The “success” in Iraq and Afghanistan?  The “success” in Viet Nam?

The last time the U.S. military had a “success” (outright victory) was when we invaded Grenada in A.D. 1983.   Our repeated failures win an outright victory in most of our conflicts since WWII are largely based on the fact that the U.S. military no longer fights wars, but instead fights “police actions”—which some believe are instigated on behalf of the UN rather than the American people.

“[O]fficials said that despite budget reductions, the military would have the money to remain the most capable in the world and that Mr. Hagel’s proposals have the endorsement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  Money saved by reducing the number of personnel, they said, would assure that those remaining in uniform would be well trained and supplied with the best weaponry.”

“Budget reductions”?  “Money saved”?

It’s all about the money.  The government is broke.  We can’t afford such a large military.

“Most capable [military] in the worlds”?

Probably true, since America currently spends more on military expenses than all the rest of the world combined.  Thus, we can cut our military by half, and still have more military than any other nation on earth.

Nevertheless, reducing Army personnel to a pre-WWII level may result in a military that’s more efficient but it will also be less powerful.

Inevitably, if we have fewer soldiers, we’ll also have less soldiers to deploy into foreign countries.  We currently have US military stationed in nearly 150 foreign countries.  Some of those countries may only have a few dozen or a few hundred soldiers.  Nevertheless, if the Pentagon succeeds in reducing total Army personnel to pre-WWII levels, it seems certain that the number of countries that have US military personnel might fall from 150 to less than 100, perhaps less than 75.

Result #1?  The Pax Americana imposed upon the post-WWII world by the US military is ending.

Result #2?  Reduced US military presence in foreign countries will certainly expose those countries to higher probabilities of civil wars or foreign invasions.  The number of small, foreign wars will increase.  The world will become less stable.

Result #3? Without the US to impose order and provide security for many of those foreign countries, their governments will seek the protection of other major powers.  International power and influence will shift away from the US to foreign governments like those of China and Russia.  Islamic revolutionary power may increase.

“The new American way of war will be underscored in Mr. Hagel’s budget, which protects money for Special Operations forces and cyberwarfare.  And in an indication of the priority given to overseas military presence that does not require a land force, the proposal will—at least for one year—maintain the current number of aircraft carriers at 11.

“Over all, Mr. Hagel’s proposal, the officials said, is designed to allow the American military to fulfill President Obama’s national security directives: to defend American territory [but not defend the States of the Union against an invasion by illegal aliens, right?] and the nation’s interests overseas and to deter aggression — and to win decisively if again ordered to war.”

Ohh, please.  “Win decisively”?  Where?  When?

Like we “won decisively” in Viet Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan?

The government’s chances of providing a military that’s much smaller but just as powerful, are just about as good as its chances of providing us with free (or even “affordable”) doctors’ visits with ObamaCare.  What the government does, government screws up.

If we’re going to have a much smaller military, we’ll necessarily have a much less powerful military.

This new military may be more efficient but the Pax Americana—and the fiat dollar as World Reserve Currency—are heading for the exits.  That show is over.


“Mr. Hagel’s plan would most significantly reshape America’s land forces—active-duty soldiers as well as those in the National Guard and Reserve.

“The Army, which took on the brunt of the fighting and the casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq, already was scheduled to drop to 490,000 troops from a post-9/11 peak of 570,000. Under Mr. Hagel’s proposals, the Army would drop over the coming years to between 440,000 and 450,000.

“That would be the smallest United States Army since 1940. For years, and especially during the Cold War, the Pentagon argued that it needed a military large enough to fight two wars simultaneously—say, in Europe and Asia. In more recent budget and strategy documents, the military has been ordered to be prepared to decisively win one conflict while holding off an adversary’s aspirations in a second until sufficient forces could be mobilized and redeployed to win there.”

Again, the Pentagon is planning to “decisively win” wars with a smaller Army when we haven’t “decisively won” a meaningful war since WWII.

“The Guard and Reserves, which proved capable in their wartime deployments although costly to train to meet the standards of their full-time counterparts, would face smaller reductions.”


On the face of it, a reduction in the size of the Army, National Guard and Reserve seem positive to those of us who are concerned with a growing police state.  I.e., if the size of the domestic military in this country is reduced, there may be a correlative reduction in the government’s ability to impose a police state.

However, if government cuts the size of the Army, National Guard and Reserves at the same time that it increases the size and military capacity of Homeland Security, then we may have little reason to celebrate.   A bigger, more efficient police state may still be heading our way.

“Mr. Hagel will take some first steps to deal with the controversial issue of pay and compensation, as the proposed budget would impose a one-year salary freeze for general and flag officers; basic pay for military personnel would rise by 1 percent. After the 2015 fiscal year, raises in pay will be similarly restrained, Pentagon officials say.

“The fiscal 2015 budget will also call for slowing the growth of tax-free housing allowances for military personnel and would reduce the $1.4 billion direct subsidy provided to military commissaries, which would most likely make goods purchased at those commissaries more expensive for soldiers.

“The budget also proposes an increase in health insurance deductibles and some co-pays for some military retirees and for some family members of active servicemen. But Mr. Hagel’s proposals do not include any changes to retirement benefits for those currently serving.” [At least, not yet.]

Every word or phrase that highlighted in the previous three paragraphs is all about the money.  Government’s going broke.  Therefore, it must cut costs—and, soon, raise taxes—and perhaps even seize pensions or bank accounts.

In this brave new world of fiscal austerity, who will volunteer for the military?

Maybe lots of people—if the nation is in an economic depression.

By reducing military pay, the government implies that: 1) it’s losing its access to credit and doesn’t expect to regain it anytime soon; and 2) an economic depression may be approaching.

If there’s no coming depression, then by cutting soldier’s pay, government won’t only reduce the number of Army personnel, it’ll also reduce the quality of the soldiers who are recruited.  Who wants to fight for minimum wage?  Only the most desperate and incompetent people.

You can’t run an efficient and effective military on minimum wages—except during a depression when people will take any job they can get—or except by restoring the draft and forcing Americans to serve in the military.


•  On balance, I’m in favor of the proposed military cuts.  They’ll cause problems, but they may also signal an end to the American audacity that pushed us into the invasions and exhausting occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.    With less soldiers, we’ll also see less US meddling in foreign countries.  And that’s a good thing.  We may even see a reduction in the police state in this country—another good thing.

But, good or bad, significant cuts in the U.S. military are coming if only because our economy is depressed and our government can’t sell its bonds because it’s increasingly perceived to be bankrupt.

If government is forced to reduce the size of the Army, what else is government prepared to reduce? Payments on the national debt?  Pensions?  So-So Security?  Bank accounts?  The value of the fiat dollar?  Insofar as government is unable to borrow from legitimate creditors and the Federal Reserve has become the “printer of last resort,” we can expect more monetary inflation.

Our government can no longer use military power to force foreign countries to trade only by means of fiat dollars.  That means the value of the fiat dollar must fall.

Insofar as the U.S. Army is growing smaller, so will the perceived value of U.S. fiat dollars.  Those of you who choose to save your wealth in paper, dollar-denominated investment vehicles may want to rethink that choice.  I suggest that you seek to preserve your wealth a medium of exchange like physical silver or physical gold.


Tags: , , ,

23 responses to “Government To Cut Size of US Military

  1. Larry newman

    March 3, 2014 at 1:27 PM

    The size of the military may be in reduction but I don’t think there will be a reduction in the police state, to the contrary O’bama said that he wanted a civilian force however large we don’t know, but the money will be there because they can finance any program they want with the fiat, green stamps we use as money. They can put an agent behind every tree and under every rock, the money will be available because congress has no balls to curtail the spending .DLN

    • moon

      March 3, 2014 at 4:37 PM

      If 3% of “traffic ticket” recipients would refuse to pay, be dragged into court, if necessary, or in some way take up more “court” time than merely paying the “ticket”, the “police state” would experience a major kink in the cash flow. No more room in jails/prisons for a “no seat belt” “charge/infraction/violation”. Plus, stop asking permission by buying tags, registrations, and licenses. You must pay to play…STOP PLAYING.

      More than sixty million of us don’t pay the so called “income” tax and we’re trying to help the rest of you comprehend that there is no law that requires it. Stop funding whatever is funded by that cash flow.

      When a few more tell “their” banks to go to hell and stop participating in that scam, a better way WILL be found to trade.

      As for the so called “social security” welfare scam, I haven’t participated in the putting in and I’m not participating in the taking out. ‘Nuff said.

      Since the shit is going to hit the fan anyway, might as well go ahead and get through it and past it.

      • Mike

        March 3, 2014 at 5:00 PM

        Of course you are right but please keep in mind we have been trained for so long that freedom is frightening for most. Once you have trained a horse to live in the stables, leaving the door open and even a swift swat on the rear won’t make him/her run free.

        Keep educating everyone you see but keep in mind there are so many that won’t run until the barn is on fire. And yes we are fairly close to that as is.

      • Larry newman

        March 3, 2014 at 7:05 PM

        I don’t participate ,have not since early 80’s and traveled w/no paper work since early 90’s. been in their motel a time or two ,we all have to separate. Took a traffic case to state supreme ct trying to be a non-res non U.S. Citizen but screwed up somewhere along the line. Plan to get a passport soon.LN

  2. moon

    March 3, 2014 at 8:24 PM

    Screwed up? Larry, taking a “traffic case” to supreme IS NOT screwing up. They certainly know you were there and they don’t appreciate you taking up their time. Think of all you learned from that experience. You now know some things first hand that you’ll use later, correct?

    Keep on with the non participation. Just say, no!

    • J.M.

      March 3, 2014 at 8:44 PM


      What happened with your case on I, think it was Feb 22, or Feb.28 ? Did you use the “example” Alfred gave you? Remember? That time you, moon, asked for help on the traffic tickets thread. What happened? Inquiring minds want to know? Ohh yes,what occurred about the All caps name?

      • moon

        March 4, 2014 at 12:05 AM

        Actually, J.M., I didn’t want to say anything about my approach just now, as it’s probably too soon to know how it will go. In brief, though, I had already used a Demand for Bill of Particulars as described by JOLLY on another thread. I considered the right of inquiry questions, then looked at my paperwork and decided I wanted to test the validity of what they may think they have. As of now, I’m not in jail, haven’t been arrested. If I’m arrested, they’ll most likely become very tired of me challenging jurisdiction, both of “court” as well as jurisdiction to keep me in jail. I also want to challenge their possible assumption that I gave bond originally. Then, there’s the Universal Bonding Code rules that we’ll address concerning one who is in jail without trial. The UBC offers several appealing adventures to explore.

        Then, if they want to drag me into “court” with the questionable paperwork they have, I’ll have more questions there. As I said, we’re filmmakers. Don’t you think I’d show up better on camera in an orange jumpsuit?

        Another item I’d like to challenge is the procedure that says no jury trials for “traffic court”. In the original “ticket”, in the notice section, the part appropriated for “pleading” guilty and waiving rights, it says that one of the rights one would waive by pleading guilty is a trial by jury. If one chose not to “plead guilty” wouldn’t that one still retain the right to trial by jury?

        So many questions to ask and I have more time than they think they do.

        We’ll see how it goes. Thanks for your interest.

      • moon

        March 4, 2014 at 12:13 AM

        If you’ll go back and read the traffic tickets thread, you’ll see that you’re the only one that responded. By private email, dejure did help me a bit.

      • moon

        March 4, 2014 at 12:39 AM

        Correction: Alfred did respond to questions I asked him. However, we never did clarify, that I recall, the appropriateness of sending Alfred’s right of inquiry questions to the judge who /s/ signed a paper showing a court clerk record of hearing date.

    • J.M.

      March 4, 2014 at 2:08 AM

      dejure knows his stuff. He is a kind man too, isn’t he? Well I do care for people, for the most part, that is, there are a few I don’t care for tho & I have good reasons, well no, they are just BAD people. as you said it is difficult at times to communicate this way. You are in good hands with dejure, Alfred too. Just can’t beatumm. So don’t Anyway I was not trying to be nosy. I was concerned for you. Maybe this is because of what I have gone through. HEY I just got a brilliant original thought. Put me in the movies. if it’s about a FOOL, I’m your man Got years of experience too. Fact is, I won’t even have to ACT I’ll just be myself !!!. Satisfaction guaranteed. When you sell tickets you can tellumm that Satisfaction guaranteed on your money back if you want to see the biggest fool EVER, besides King Solomon, Alfred knows who I am speaking of.

    • J.M.

      March 4, 2014 at 2:33 AM

      moon, p.s,
      I may be missing something, but I cannot see any reason. for sending papers to the judge at the first level unless it is a notice of objection to venue & affidavit of positive Identification/status, & even then, I think it is your “alleged adversary” the prosecuting attorney who should get the paperwork.Then again, the way things are, they are ALL in the same racket including the Judge. I have found that the Court of appeals, the court right under the State Supreme Court honors at least to some degree the common law, BUT THEN, it had to have been argued correctly in the lower court. Can’t object to anything in the court of appeals if it was not objected to in the lower court. My problems always started out in a court of no record. They thrive on, PAY or STAY & they sho due have CONTEMPT POWER.Then, after you choose to stay, & you start a case in the first stage court of record for the wrongs, etc, done in the no record, the court of record finds you WERE guilty as charged but gives you credit for time served. Great world great great world, next step, court of appeals. I’m just speaking of my experiences.

      • moon

        March 4, 2014 at 11:16 AM

        The complainant (state trooper) and prosecuting attorney were both sent the Demand for Bill of Particulars. The judge, sheriff, and court clerk were all put on notice of the Demand for Bill of Particulars. Those questions only dealt with clarification concerning the “ticket” and “complaint”. The questions already reveal negligence, if not fraud, on the part of the trooper. So, all concerned know the kinds of questions I’ll likely ask if coerced into proceeding. Some areas I would want to explore, however, may be surprising to them. Those surprises, in my opinion, may be too mysterious to be worth the small amount they might be able to extract from me. The other issue is the time it would take to get to the small extraction (my speculation). Further proceeding could also call the trooper’s actions into serious question.

        What I’d like right now is feedback on ANY commercial lien process that has been successful in holding officials responsible for their actions. This trooper needs to occupy his time another way. I’ve read a few approaches and have found no conclusive positive results.

        Alfred? Anyone else? Is there a commercial lien process you know of that has proven successful results?

  3. J.M.

    March 3, 2014 at 8:47 PM

    @ >“Shock and Awe”

    Just wait. We have not seen anything yet. AND, the most shocking & awesome event ever to take place is at the door.

  4. J.M.

    March 4, 2014 at 2:46 PM


    @ >The questions already reveal negligence, if not fraud, on the part of the trooper.

    If the fraud disappears, so do they. They exist on/by fraud, Anyway, ask dejure, what your next move, IF ANY should be. If we were together, a better plan could be arrived at. IF I am understanding, what is going on, & I don’t think I am, but if you are not getting any answers to your Bill of particulars, have you considered, a Mandamus petition to the highest possible court in Alabama, < I think this is where you said you are. I thought you said previously that the court appearance date was set for one day in the last week of February. This is why I asked you, as best as I knew how, what happened or transpired. Also, messages appear apparently on some ends before others receive them. Your response above, may be meant for someone else. I loved your funny comment about the little puppy subjected to animal cruelty. I said to Alfred, the funniest people have the deepest hearts & have been hurt the most. But, this is only my opinion

    • moon

      March 4, 2014 at 8:34 PM

      There was a rumor that a “hearing” date had been set. My name wasn’t on any paperwork, so I didn’t attend.

      Animal cruelty is something I wouldn’t consider funny. If you’re referring to the man (pup) who wouldn’t give his name, that’s what I saw.

      What to do next? I have several creative projects going and won’t volunteer my time to schemes that aren’t my responsibility. As for a tyrannical trooper, I’d rather go the commercial lien route. If I could get some feedback concerning a commercial lien process that has been successful, I’ll consider using it. I’ll even consider a process that has a good chance of being successful. Want to try out a particular commercial lien process? Let me know. Chances are I can test it.

      Alfred? Anyone?

      • J.M.

        March 4, 2014 at 11:54 PM

        @ My statement of, I loved your funny comment about the little puppy subjected to animal cruelty

        moon, I said, on that thread, any puppy that had to go through whatever he had to go through, to wind up looking like that, had to be subjected to animal cruelty, or this was/is what I meant. I thought that comment would bring on a chuckle but sometimes our best isn’t quite good enough If I have said anything to offend you, I did not mean to.Please don’t respond by asking me, how do I know the puppy was a he? I’m getting a lot of answers like “this” lately

        @ >commercial lien process

        Don’t know the first thing about commercial lien process.

        @ If you’re referring to the man (pup) who wouldn’t give his name, that’s what I saw.

        I’m totally lost. Who is the man (pup) ? I guess I did not see what you saw, moon. Also, it does not appear that anyone is seeing what I do see coming around the bend or, right at or near the door.

  5. moon

    March 5, 2014 at 12:26 AM

    J.M., how do you know it’s a puppy? Oops, couldn’t resist.

    Let’s set our minds at ease and consider that the picture was Photo Shopped.

    Hang in there, J.M. !

    • J.M.

      March 5, 2014 at 2:16 AM

      Don’t we get tired of moon, we need to laugh every now & then. I have never laughed so hard in my life, I don’t think, as I have by things I have come across on this blog, Jethro, a poster ( I hope I’m using the right words) but mostly by Alfred’s postings & his exhaustive complete thorough explanation on how an undertaker builds a coffin, & on & on & on. I guess I have experienced every emotion possible by my experience on this blog. But, if you get a chance, go back to that “How to tell if your dog has been involved in a sex scandal thread” & read the comments again. You will see what I said to you, maybe in a different light. Also, I tried, but apparently failed to explain a different “viewpoint’ to Joan of Arc. That too was probably taken in a way other than what I meant. Per your case, Phone conversations, to me, are better & faster to understand something than via e mails.But, this is just my opinion.

      • moon

        March 5, 2014 at 9:13 PM

        Yes, I thought Joan of Arc’s question was very profound, honest, and on a need to know basis…she (assumption) needs to know.

        Imagine someone asking: “are you really Joan of Arc?” Response: “do you think I just left a nineteenth century strip club in a hurry?”

        Imagine someone asking, “are you really moon?” Response: “some nights I shine brighter than other nights”.

        J.M., do you have any extra of what you’ve been smoking?

  6. J.M.

    March 5, 2014 at 10:38 PM

    J.M., do you have any extra of what you’ve been smoking?

    It’s an Ethereal Spirit. Comes & goes.

    The mandamus is an order from a higher court ordering not only a lower court but any adversary of yours to do as you request or at least it once was. Of course it must be a reasonable request. A Demand for Your Bill of particulars to be answered IS a reasonable request. In fact, I don’t see why the Judge in the court you are in could not order your B.o. P. to be answered. I’m stabbing at this because I do not have the information you do on where you stand. I believe the whole system is executive anyway. It has been a few years since I have been “confronted.” I am inclined to think we will either be divinely helped or we won’t. But this divine help is only for those who are aware of the divine helper & are trying to obey what is “ordered” from same.

    • moon

      March 5, 2014 at 11:24 PM

      J.M., We’re close, it seems, in some of our perceptions. I’m a spirit navigating this physical plane. For the receiving, one must be prepared and open to guidance, then have the trust and courage to move in concert with the guidance.

      Concerning what you refer to as my “case”, here’s the latest as of just this morning:

      I’m aware that there may be a warrant issued that could prompt a police officer (or other) to feel it necessary to arrest me. By the way, when there’s a warrant out for your arrest, it’s tough to find a good donut. As I sat down to eat breakfast at a local restaurant, the sheriff walked in. We spoke and since he was there alone, I invited him to sit with us…we’re acquaintances. As we ate, the conversation went to and through several topics, but never directly to my “case”. If you’ll recall, he has been put on notice of the B.o.P. It’s election year for him and I’m sure he doesn’t want any unknowns to arise between now and election day.

      You’re up to speed, now, and I appreciate your interest. Thanks for your thoughts concerning mandamus.

      • J.M.

        March 6, 2014 at 1:04 PM

        @ Yes, I thought Joan of Arc’s question was very profound, honest, and on a need to know basis…she (assumption) needs to know.

        You’re funny.

        What “statutory authority” did you include in your B.o.P. for your adversary(s) to “respond” to your B.o.P.? If there was ANY honor or integrity in the “system” a per rule this or that would not be necessary anyway. All the bases must be covered & it is “set up” this way. They get out their magnifying glass & look for any loophole they can find to disregard your “request” e.g. > BoP
        I do not mean to confuse the issue by mixing apples with oranges but at at least allow me try to explain something.We know all the “law” being “enforced” today is statutory law. I have tried to “get around” this by using “common law” documents. This is something apparently most people are not aware of BUT rather than get into what needs to be done “in advance” BEFORE anything happens, e.g. you are charged, accused of an infraction, misdemeanor, etc. What I’m trying to say is, I am not up anymore on statutory law. I “opted out” as you, moon call it. As far as I can tell, I left someone “out” that my Common Law documents (“your”< arrest,& regardless if it's "you" this tells me that a "hearing" etc. date WAS set. They are HELLBENT on telling you, moon, It's YOU, regardless of what you say OR do, UNLESS you did "something" affidavit wise to show, "No it's not me" & BEFORE you are charged, accused, etc. Let's call this message part 1 of maybe 2 or 3 parts to be continued. BUT, I would like to know, whether it's "you or not you" if you, moon were aware of a hearing date for "whoever."
        IF SO, I tried to explain on the traffic thread that this would happen & why. Keep me posted.
        Your friend,Jim

  7. J.M.

    March 6, 2014 at 1:13 PM

    Boy, if this ain’t something. All of my message did not post.
    I left someone “out” that my Common Law documents needed to be sent to.< needed to be sent to did not post. If there is a warrant out for "an arrest" a date WAS set & "whoever" did not show up
    I want to TRY & get this in because as it IS my message above is out of order & confusing.


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