RSS

Robert “Boomer” Steed Addresses Connecticut Legislature on Gun Control

06 Mar

The Connecticut state legislature is considering bills to outlaw the possession of “assault rifles” and large capacity magazines.  Here’s a video of one man’s testimony to the legislature on that subject. Boomer Steed makes some nice points, but so does at least one State Legislator who makes clear that people like Mr. Steed are not only being heard, but they’re also making a difference.

The point is that resistance is not futile and, in fact, may even be effective.

My points are that 1) we have both the opportunity and an obligation to resist and 2) we can expect to make a positive difference if we will stand up in a persistent and public manner.

video  00:06:42

 
123 Comments

Posted by on March 6, 2014 in 2nd Amendment, Dissidents, Resistance, Video

 

Tags: , ,

123 responses to “Robert “Boomer” Steed Addresses Connecticut Legislature on Gun Control

  1. Cody

    March 6, 2014 at 8:04 PM

    The NRA has done a lot for gun safety. But it’s just the type of legislators the NRA helps to elect that wind up enacting this kind of legislation.

     
  2. Gary Lee

    March 6, 2014 at 8:28 PM

    Difficult to believe that the STATE OF CONNECTICUT (federal territory CT)is really dumb enough to try to pull off this NAZI confiscation crap. They will be responsible for starting the next Revolutionary War, a rather dubious honor, as I suspect it will NOT go well for those legislators who have ALL now had their home addresses posted on line, for purposes of rounding up the treasonous bastards and executing them.

    Apparently, even though they live in “America” (although, technically, as they work for the federal government subdivision CT, thus exist “within the United States, located in the District of Columbia), they didn’t pay attention to what happened to the last tyrants (ok, at least the last ones who were recognized for what they were) , way back in 1776. Too bad. Their current path will lead to their ultimate demise.

    A lot more Americans besides those ‘allegedly’ within the federal territory of CT (as opposed to Connecticut state, one of the original 13 colonies) will be taking a position contrary to the legislators thinking and rising to the aid of those Americans in Connecticut. ; )

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!
    Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis: thus ever death to tyrants

     
    • greg

      March 7, 2014 at 7:21 AM

      Are you the famous Gary Lee from the Limekiln

       
      • Gary Lee

        March 7, 2014 at 11:52 AM

        I am not from Linked in, or any other of those types of sites. Seems to me you are just aiding NSA and GovCo when you post all that personal info on a site like that… ; )

         
    • Doug

      March 7, 2014 at 9:22 AM

      @Mr. Lee (You are so correct!)

      Most Americans are living and breathing via the strawman proxy in the STATE of CON-FUSION. They have no con-sti-stupid to protect them, no rights but rather mere privileges and in my opinion are really too stupid to own “arms” !!!

      That being said, when push comes to shove, Americans won’t let the pencil necks con-fiscate their weaponery.

       
    • Sam Kadasky

      March 7, 2014 at 12:18 PM

      Black’s Law Dictionary, 1st ed. (1891), says this in its definition of “ARMS”:

      This term, as it is used in the Constitution, relative to the right of citizens to bear arms, refers to the arms of a militiaman or soldier, and the word is used in its military sense. The arms of the infantry soldier are the musket and bayonet; of the cavalry and dragoons, the sabre, holster pistols, and carbine; of the artillery, the field-piece, siege-gun, and mortar, with side arms. The term, in this connection, cannot be made to cover such weapons as dirks, daggers, slung-shots, sword-canes, brass knuckles, and bowie-knives. These are not military arms.

       
    • J.M.

      March 7, 2014 at 6:37 PM

      Gary Lee
      @ > American Banana Co. v. U.S. Fruit…….”

      Good name ain’t it.

       
  3. John Patterson

    March 6, 2014 at 8:57 PM

    Mr. Steed gave a good showing; however, it bothers me that there is so much confusion regarding where the right of self defense comes from. The right to bear arms for self defense and self preservation comes from our creator and is what the Declaration of Independence succinctly states –

    WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles and organizing its Powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

    The second amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America is not the root of the right to bear arms; it comes from God. The Constitution was allegedly written to create and empower a government; however, it was never adopted because no president including Washington has ever subscribed a written Oath to support this Constitution as required by Art VI. To keep promoting the idea that rights to our guns is protected by constitutional rights is what they who wish to take our guns want us to believe. We must help folks realize rights come from God, privileges from government.

    True statement – The Constitution although hallowed has never been adopted and the federal government is a ruse. The true Organic Law that governs, or should anyway, is the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777; the States are Sovereign.

     
    • palani

      March 7, 2014 at 9:20 AM

      @ John Patterson “The second amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America is not the root of the right to bear arms”

      I take exception to this statement. First understand that the right to bear arms is the right to possess and use a seal, hold a flag or have a coat of arms for your representatives. The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with self defense and your right to preserve yourself is unlimited by any document that man is able to craft and you might take anything in your vicinity into your hands to aid you in your self-preservation.

      I know this is contradictory with everything you have been told about the 2nd amendment but understand that law comes to us from feudal sources and that liars abound who will try to misdirect you for their own profit and gain. The right to self defense is as basic as the right to breath yet this right is not addressed in the federal constitution.

      Here is a source for my view. It is a free download from google books.

      http://books.google.com/books?id=CcQrAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=arms&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IW4pUZGrOsqW2QWCroHICQ&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=arms&f=false

      Should you attempt to do a direct search for this book you will not find it anywhere in google books. This seems odd because this is how I found it, by searching for ‘the right to bear arms’. I don’t know how to interpret this failure of the google search engine other than if you can’t find material then you cannot cite that material.

      Good luck in your endeavours.

       
      • Cody

        March 10, 2014 at 1:38 AM

        Well, why can’t it mean both? The coats of arms and the arms to defend the coats?

         
      • palani

        March 10, 2014 at 3:53 PM

        @ Cody “why can’t it mean both?”

        If the right to bear arms is as described in the book I cited … doesn’t this seem like a rather trivial right? If the right to bear arms is described as most interpret the 2nd amendment … doesn’t this seem like a rather major right? As the 2nd amendment applies to me … then my interpretation is this amendment controls seals, coats of arms and flags. Nothing more. Nothing less. All this rhetoric about controlling devices that might be taken for defensive purposes is nonsense … the babbling of idiots.

         
      • J.M.

        March 10, 2014 at 4:39 PM

        palani
        @ > As the 2nd amendment applies to me … then my interpretation is this amendment controls seals, coats of arms and flags.

        The 9th Amendment covers this, doesn’t it ? IF it was honored, that is. Then again probably not, as I am convinced that “this” Constitution, of 1789, IS purviewed, through the “other” Constitution, via appropriate legislation. Applessence knows about a 1789 Constitution too. I would like to see you, palani, & Applessence exchange comments. You are both honorable. It would be uplifting & refreshing, I believe. I know it is frustrating for you to try to help others, including me, but one big difference in me & some others is, I don’t like to play games. I am grateful for your golden nuggets & diamonds. I think tho, I may have put the cart before the horse, or, started out on 2nd, & not at the home plate. Yes, I’m with you, the Sears pages were better. Had to think back on it. I have an indoor gizmo now.

         
    • J.M.

      March 9, 2014 at 12:10 AM

      March 6, 2014 at 8:57 PM

      @ Mr. Steed gave a good showing;

      How can anyone be so dense to think that words & statements WRITTEN on any documents can protect them from anything. Nobody can be that dense. At least I THOUGHT so.

       
      • J.M.

        March 9, 2014 at 2:09 AM

        It all is a matter of what is in the hearts of men. This is what I am trying to say

         
    • J.M.

      March 9, 2014 at 11:19 AM

      Hello John
      @ .or should anyway…………….”

      Or “should” ?? yes, & IF SOME our Grandpappy’s only WOULD have, & their children WOULD have.just think of what we could have & would have.

      This speech was delivered by Judge Hand, often called the “tenth justice of the Supreme Court”, in Central Park , NYC.

      Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it.

      What then is the spirit of liberty? I cannot define it; I can only tell you my own faith. The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right. In the spirit of that America for which our young men are at this moment fighting and dying; in that spirit of liberty and of America I ask you to rise and with me pledge our faith in the glorious destiny of our beloved country. ”

      EVERYTHING lies & IS IN the hearts of men. Most People are heartless, it seems. An immoral Government for immoral people. John this is not meant for you directly. It’s just food for thought for everyone including me.

       
  4. Toland

    March 6, 2014 at 9:16 PM

    Quite right, Al Adask.

    Also be PROACTIVE with your government. That is, don’t confine yourself to merely reactive measures against the growing tyranny, and then make yelping noises when it brings you the pain (as it inevitably will, if your team is all defense and no offense).

    Rather, take responsibility! The TV-viewing slacker attitude We the People have slipped into is obviously not working. We must re-assert control over our government and the direction it’s headed, before it’s too late!

    This is the WRONG way to address the duties of citizenship:

    “Passive-aggressive behavior is the indirect expression of hostility, such as through procrastination, sarcasm, hostile jokes, stubbornness, resentment, sullenness, or deliberate or repeated failure to accomplish requested tasks for which one is (often explicitly) responsible.” — Wikipedia

    This is the RIGHT way to address the duties of citizenship:

    “Need I infer, that it is the duty of every citizen to use his best and most unremitting endeavours for preserving [the Constitution] pure, healthful, and vigorous? For the accomplishment of this great purpose, the exertions of no one citizen are unimportant.” — Thomas Jefferson

    And

    “Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, judges and governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature.” — Thomas Jefferson

     
    • J.M.

      March 9, 2014 at 12:18 AM

      @ >Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, judges and governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature.” — Thomas Jefferson

      We have absolute PROOF today that he didn’t know what the HELL he was talking about don’t we?
      Apparently, most people thought what Thomas Jefferson said were thoughts coming from A FOOL
      darn I love to be a FOOL, that kind of a FOOL

       
  5. moon

    March 7, 2014 at 2:32 AM

    Toland, are you a citizen or are you one of we, the people? Are you subject to the Constitution or are you above the Constitution? It’s important to know who you are, don’t you think?

     
    • Sam Kadasky

      March 7, 2014 at 4:22 AM

      moon,

      If by “above the Constitution” you mean able to establish or amend the Constitution, the Chisholm v. Georgia decision of 1793 states the “citizens of America” make up that sovereignty.

       
      • Joe

        March 9, 2014 at 10:20 PM

        You did not read Chisholm v. Georgia carefully enough. The “citizens” are mere “joint tenants’ in the sovereignty. The People are those upon whom the sovereignty devolved. You want to be a People, not a citizen.

         
      • Sam Kadasky

        March 9, 2014 at 10:45 PM

        Meanwhile, elsewhere in Chisholm v. Georgia, “citizens” are shown to be sovereign:

        “In one sense, the term sovereign has for its correlative, subject, In this sense, the term can receive no application; for it has no object in the Constitution of the United States. Under that Constitution there are citizens, but no subjects. ‘Citizen of the United States’. ‘Citizens of another State.’ ‘Citizens of different States.’ ‘A State or citizen thereof’.”

        And

        “As a Judge of this Court, I know, and can decide upon the knowledge, that the citizens of Georgia, when they acted upon the large scale of the Union, as a part of the ‘People of the United States,’ did not surrender the Supreme or Sovereign Power to that State; but, as to the purposes of the Union, retained it to themselves.”

         
    • J.M.

      March 10, 2014 at 11:50 PM

      We once had “Trials by a Jury”. Today we have “Jury Trials.” BIG DIFFERENCE. Once again thanks for your help. What’s up? Answer this & I tell you how you dd not understand my question. like you to me that I did not understand you asking me the same thing, moon. How can some people who are of no account, have account numbers?

       
  6. moon

    March 7, 2014 at 3:17 AM

    Al, it’s amazing to me to see this few comments on this thread. First, I would have thought the gun part would have drawn more comments and discussion. Then, it would seem your main point, the importance of resistance, is worth a few comments and some discussion. Maybe it’s a bit too early on this thread or maybe most are busy resisting. Could go either way, I guess.

    Given the wording of the second amendment, should anyone ask permission to have a gun? Any gun? Isn’t the second amendment written clearly enough to illustrate that one’s right to have and use a gun is not determined by another? Is it not a self directed choice or possibly even a responsibility?

    It is rather difficult to control what someone else does. Isn’t it a relief that control of another is not one’s responsibility? However, is it not one’s own responsibility to control, direct, and navigate one’s self?

    Again the question: why would anyone ask permission to have and use a gun?

    You also mentioned being persistent and public with resistance. Thanks for allowing my use of your blog as a platform for persistent and public resistance. It has helped and is helping me to be persistent and public in other areas of resistance.

    Consider this thought: The only thing you can do to a free man is kill him.

     
    • J.M.

      March 7, 2014 at 8:25 AM

      moon,
      @ >Al, it’s amazing to me to see this few comments on this thread.

      This is because I do not give anyone else a chance to comment.

      @ > Again the question: why would anyone ask permission to have and use a gun?

      It’s an appropriate legislation power clause constitutional requirement. To gov-co, you & I are included, & comprise the, WE. Know what I mean?

       
      • J.M.

        March 9, 2014 at 1:59 AM

        moon,

        palani says there are no people. I agree. In the eyes of gov-co we are persons,aka artificial entities, etc.via appropriate legislation. Part of the problem is the IQ range of the “peace officers” etc, & their lust for domination & power. I saw a video sometime back where a state trooper was raping a woman on the hood of his cruiser. All of the state trooper’s equipment was really doin the boogie woogie. It should be easy to find this video if anyone wants to see it. I saw part of it. didn’t need to see anymore.

         
      • J.M.

        March 10, 2014 at 5:06 PM

        @ To gov-co, you & I are included, & comprise the, WE. Know what I mean?

        I SAID TO GOV-CO, HOW GOV-CO THINKS, SEES IT. The “peace officers” do not want to be confused with the facts OR truth. They don’t need ANY “education” from ANY SUBJECT. To try & reason with them is obstructing the “lawful duties” of their JOB. They are just TRYING to do their job. An Affidavit of positive Identification IS NOT the driver license they “need to see.” OTHER Affidavits, e.g. Facts Opposing Foreign Venue, FACTS of TRUE Venue is, to them, our way of trying to obstruct justice to obstruct justice. If we do not have their stamp of approval documents to SHOW them, watch what happens next. This is why I “travel” in old clunkers. Don’t even have what is required to get the clunker out of the pound or whatever it’s called, where the clunker IS TOWED.

         
      • Russell Arms

        June 29, 2015 at 7:02 AM

        Jimmy,
        @ I still say that regardless of what a Constitution says, it will take leaders with integrity & The right kind of “heart” to enforce the meaning of the Constitution, The meaning in the “original” sense. I do not want to mislead anyone, & I will not, at least knowingly. I do care, although it may not seem this way..
        Can’t believe ya James. Yo messages say loud & clear to anyone who has the eyes to see that U R a TROLL. We need to see less of Les & more of something more than Les. D

         
    • Adask

      March 7, 2014 at 10:02 AM

      I think most of us are agreed on the right to keep and bear arms. There’s not much to say other than government wants to eliminate that right and we want to keep it. So, articles on the 2nd Amendment may not inspire too many comments.

      As for whether you need to ask anyone’s permission to have and use a “gun”, the answer may be yes. The second amendment does not protect our right to keep and bear “guns” or even “firearms” but it does protect our right to keep and bear “arms”.

      Our battle with the government is not based on “guns” so much as words. If you want to protect your right to keep and bear “guns,” I suspect that you’d better first be able to define your “gun” as an “arm” and also defeat or overcome any law by government that defines your “arm” as a “gun,” or “firearm” or “assault rifle”.

      I can’t prove it, but I’ll bet that every “arm” that has a serial number applied by its manufacturer is deemed an article in commerce and is therefore subject to government regulation in the TERRITORIES as something other than an “arm”.

      If you read the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, you’ll see that the first ten Amendments are only intended to protect the States of the Union against the federal government. The second amendment has no force within the TERRITORIES. If government can deceive you into accepting your venue as within a TERRITORY such as TX, NY, CA, etc.rather than a State of the Union like “The State of Texas,” “The State of New York” or “The State of California,” then you might have no actual second amendment right to to “keep and bear” “guns,” “firearms” or “assault rifles”.

      If you want to keep and bear your “arms,” my suspicions are these:

      1. You must be able to assert that your venue is within the borders of a State of the Union–not a territory;

      2. You must be able to assert that you are one of the People of that State of the Union–not a “citizen,” “inhabitant,” “occupant,” or (God forbid) a “resident” and therefore entitled to make claims on the Second Amendment.

      3. You must be able to assert that your weapon is an “arm” rather than a “gun,” “firearm,” or “assault rifle” in interstate commerce.

      Incidentally, to the best of my knowledge, the word “interstate” does not appear in the Constitution of the the United States. Article 1.8.3 allows Congress the power to “regulate Commerce . . . among the several States” of the UNION. But I suspect that “interstate commerce” may really mean “inter-territorial commerce” under Article 4.3.2 which grants Congress exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the territories. In the territories, each of us and each of our “guns,” “firearms” and “assault rifles” may be subject to the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress. If that’s true, the only reason we still have some semblance of the “right to keep and bear arms” is that government is afraid that if they take our “guns” we might shoot them. But government is still working persistently to persuade us to voluntarily abandon our right to keep and bear “arms” little by little, day after day.

       
      • Gary Lee

        March 7, 2014 at 12:07 PM

        Great explanation, Alfred. Amazing how many people, even allegedly ‘knowledgeable’ people who write about this stuff for a living, don’t understand the simple concept of the territorial nature of GovCo’s ‘authority’, and thus place themselves, or believe themselves to be within the jurisdiction of GovCo and congress (“within the United States” (TITLE 28, §1746). I must post this 10 times a day, and yet, NEVER a single response:

        From the U.S. Supreme Court:
        “All legislation is prima-facie territorial”
        American Banana Co. v. U.S. Fruit, 213 U.S. 347 at 357-358

        “It is a well-established principle of law that all federal regulations applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears”
        [Foley Brothers, Inc. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281 (1949)]

        “The laws of Congress in respect to those matters[outside of Constitutionally delegated powers] do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government”
        [Caha v. U.S. 152 U.S. 211 (1894)

        “There is a canon of legislative construction which teaches Congress that, unless a contrary intent appears, [legislation] is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”
        U.S. v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217 at 222

        The “United States” is a Corporation:
        “A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government …”
        Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383

        CALIFORNIA COMMERCIAL CODE
        SECTION 9301- 9342

        9307. (h) The United States is located in the District of Columbia.

        The following is from the Congressional Record of March 17, 1993:
        “It is an established fact that the United States Federal Government has been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719; declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and insolvent. H.J.R. 192, 73rd Congress session of June 5, 1933 – Joint Resolution to Suspend the Gold Standard and Abrogate the Gold Clause dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official capacities of all United States governmental offices, officers, and departments and is further evidence that the United States Federal Government exists today in name only.”

         
      • J.M.

        March 9, 2014 at 5:43 PM

        Adask
        @> March 9, 2014 at 1:00 PM < Your entire message.

        EXACTLY !!! As for me, I hope I have not posted anything that says or seems to say otherwise or anything different, than what your message says. It's a matter of here a little & there a little. I am only posting this, for others, in case it seems that I have said anything otherwise or is contrary to your message.I still say that regardless of what a Constitution says, it will take leaders with integrity & The right kind of "heart" to enforce the meaning of the Constitution, The meaning in the "original" sense. I do not want to mislead anyone, & I will not, at least knowingly. I do care, although it may not seem this way..

         
  7. Yartap

    March 7, 2014 at 2:01 PM

    Did anybody notice the tyrant at the end of the video?

    His solution is “Targeting gun dealers and gun traffickers…”

    “We can find solutions to this problem …”

    “Open and free Democratic society…”

    He believes the best solution is: “You can get a better handle on it, maybe in a dictatorship, where they just go in and take all your guns and lock down, …, but we don’t what to go down that road (at this time?).”

    He should be removed for his lack of understanding and lack of logic.

     
    • moon

      March 7, 2014 at 4:46 PM

      He struck me as one of those insecure wimps (physically, mentally, intellectually) I’d want to say to: “come out from behind that bench and we’ll talk about it”.

       
      • moon

        March 7, 2014 at 7:53 PM

        Yartap, I just read an archived post from you at the Sheriff link (2012). Sheriffs that know who they are SHOULD be supported. They’re actually in a strained posture between govco and the people. Thought I’d bring your info forward as it seems appropriate in this thread.

         
      • palani

        March 7, 2014 at 10:07 PM

        @ Moon “Sheriffs that know who they are SHOULD be supported. ”
        If you go up a couple posts and look at that book I cited you will find all sheriffs are all Esquires of one degree higher than bar attorneys. The only other difference is they are classed ‘esquire for life’.

         
      • Russell Arms

        June 29, 2015 at 7:05 AM

        moon,
        @ I’d want to say to: “come out from behind that bench and we’ll talk about it”.
        Darn moon !!! Sometimes you make me think you are ALMOST as MEAN as ME !!! D

         
    • J.M.

      March 9, 2014 at 12:33 AM

      @ Did anybody notice the tyrant at the end of the video?

      Apparently not anybody did. Glad you did tho. I’ll watch again for the 4th time, this time, to see if I can notice the tyrant at the end of the video. Thanks for pointing out where it is located. This way I will not have to watch the entire video. Too many other people would have said, did you notice the tyrant in the video rather than being specific as to the location. They do the same thing with court cases in that he/she says so & so case says this or that, but we have to read the whole case to find this or that. And when we read the entire case we cant find anywhere where this or that WAS or IS said. Know what I mean?

       
    • J.M.

      March 9, 2014 at 12:40 AM

      @ > palani is correct on most points

      Not anyone I know of is 100% correct all the time about everything. Oh there are a couple of them here & there, like ADRIAN, & one or two others. It’s sure great to know that palani is correct on most points tho. I agree. It’s just that I’m not smart enough to see the points palani is not correct on

       
  8. J.M.

    March 7, 2014 at 4:33 PM

    Once again this point is being overlooked. > “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams

     
    • moon

      March 8, 2014 at 10:47 AM

      palani, thanks for the headsup concerning sheriffs. I’ll do some reading.

      As for who might help when push comes to shove, other than yourself, who or what would you call on to help you, given the present arrangement of govco?

       
      • palani

        March 8, 2014 at 2:02 PM

        @ moon “who or what would you call on to help you, given the present arrangement of govco”
        Government is a system of checks and balances. Lately it has gotten to the point where these different branches of the government don’t enforce their boundaries very well.

        If you should have a problem with the sheriff the check upon him is the coroner. Now most likely you don’t have a coroner any more as they have been putting college educated ‘medical examiners’ into an office and assuming it is the same office. Well a coroner is a political office rather than a medical one. Fortunately for you in a republic when you find an office vacant you can step into it and start fulfilling that function. You hold that office in a de facto manner but the acts of a de facto officer are still valid. The sheriff MUST respond to all writs. That is his job. Send him a writ and if he don’t return it then the matter must come before the coroner. No coroner? No problem. Step into that office and impeach the sheriff. QED!

         
      • moon

        March 8, 2014 at 2:56 PM

        palani, I went, I read, I considered the book you referenced. Didn’t find a reason to think anything in that book relates directly to me. Also, didn’t find that your comments necessarily pertain to an elected sheriff of a county within my sphere of concern.

        If you think I’ve missed something, please advise.

         
      • Yartap

        March 8, 2014 at 3:04 PM

        Hi moon,

        palani is correct on most points (I do question about the esquire in America, but it may return just like in England.). But, the authority and power of the office of sheriff is under attack in our country. Joe Biden’s son, the governor of Delaware, is removing such authority, right now; and many sheriffs and police chiefs are under attack through out the country. And the sheriffs know this and don’t like it.

        It basically comes down to the laws in your state (territory). What I posted earlier will not work in some states, but it will work in most, right now. The sheriff will accommodate the Fed to a point; but, a possible plain clothed friend (from your sheriff) may warn you that they are coming. As of now, the Fed must inform the local sheriff or police chief of their intentions within their respective jurisdictions (don’t want a shoot out with the locals). But, once a sheriff lets them in, he cannot get them out (remember Waco?).

        But, many sheriffs and police chiefs love the Fed money for their departments. If one hears of such in their home towns, then watch out, they have been bought.

         
      • palani

        March 8, 2014 at 3:36 PM

        @moon “If you think I’ve missed something, please advise.”

        Counties are creations of legislature. There are no people in any county. The body politic of a county includes villages, cities and townships. See … NO PEOPLE. The sheriff might be the highest elected official in a county but so what? A county is still just a legal fiction as is a state. Just as a village, city or township is a legal fiction. Each of these entities are simply represented by the officers appointed for that purpose. No people in any of them.

         
      • Adask

        March 9, 2014 at 1:00 PM

        I’d say this country is (or at least can be) populated by “People” because our State and federal constitutions repeatedly refer to “We the People” or “the People,” etc. If you can expressly identify yourself as one of the “People” of your State of the Union and/or of The United States of America, I think you are one of the “People”.

        However, the government presumes you are not one of the “People” of a State of the Union and/or of the United States because you carry things like So-So Security Numbers, Drivers Licenses or because you use things like Federal Reserve Notes or appear to inhabit a territory like TX, OK or CA. But the government’s presumption is rebuttable. Arguments can be devised to claim that you have certain rights as one of the “People” that are not available to those who are presumed to be something other than “People”. Once those arguments are advanced under oath and introduced as evidence in court, what is the government going to do? Put a man on the witness stand to testify that you (and by implication, all of the jurors) are not members of the “People”?

        The primary reason any of us are presumed to be something other than members of the “People” is that most of us are too apathetic, ignorant or unintelligent to properly assert our status as one of the “People”. We haven’t lost the status of being one of the “People” because we’ve been beaten down by the government. We’ve abandoned that status because we haven’t fought for it. We haven’t studied for it. We haven’t made a claim under oath of that status. That status is right there, easily at hand, available to anyone has the brains and the guts to claim it. For those who lack both sufficient intelligence and sufficient courage to claim to be one of the “People”–perhaps gov-co is right. Maybe those who lack the intelligence and courage to claim to be members of the “People” deserve to classified as “persons” and other fictional beings.

        Claiming to be one of the “People” isn’t easy. You’ll either have to give up your SSN, DL bank account, etc. or devise compelling arguments by means of which you can escape the implications and presumptions of those pledges. But it’s all possible. In the end, the government can’t admit in public and on the record that by virtue or taking its various “ID devices,” that you (and all the jurors) can be legally presumed to have knowingly and voluntarily forfeit the God-given, unalienable Rights that are available to the “People”.

        Choose this day who you will serve (identify with): God (if you are one of the “People”) or mammon (the government that presumes you to be something other than and less than one of the “People”).

         
      • Toland

        March 9, 2014 at 1:39 PM

        Hear, hear, Adask. I’ll quote the Good Book in agreement.

        “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.” (Matthew 6:24)

        As to being one of the “people”, the precise meaning of words is instructive and, for some, enjoyable. Here’s how Black’s 2nd edition (1910) defines it.

        PEOPLE. A state; as the people of the state of New York. A nation in its collective and political capacity. In a more restricted sense, and as generally used in constitutional law, the entire body of those citizens of a state or nation who are invested with political power for political purposes, that is, the qualified voters or electors.

         
      • palani

        March 9, 2014 at 6:15 PM

        @ Adask “Claiming to be one of the “People” isn’t easy. ”

        Al. I am just saying if you are looking for a people you won’t find any in any city, village, township, county or even state. For sure you won’t find any in any federal organization. You will likely find people in hundreds. As far as I know Delaware is the only state that retains some semblance of this organization.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hundreds_of_Delaware
        Seems funny that Delaware is also the preferred go to state for corporations.

         
      • Sam Kadasky

        March 9, 2014 at 9:34 PM

        Hi, Toland.

        I post the definition of “people” you posted plus two later versions for the sake of comparison, differences in bold type.

        Black’s 2nd edition (1910)

        People. A state; as the people of the state of New York. A nation in its collective and political capacity. In a more restricted sense, and as generally used in constitutional law, the entire body of those citizens of a state or nation who are invested with political power for political purposes, that is, the qualified voters or electors.

        Black’s 6th edition (1990)

        People. A state; as the people of the state of New York. A nation in its collective and political capacity. The aggregate or mass of the individuals who constitute the state. In a more restricted sense, and as generally used in constitutional law, the entire body of those citizens of a state or nation who are invested with political power for political purposes.

        Black’s 7th edition (1999)

        people. (usu. cap.) The citizens of a state as represented by the prosecution in a criminal case. People v. Snyder

         
    • J.M.

      March 9, 2014 at 12:46 AM

      @ >Once again this point is being overlooked.

      I should have said again, like I did before, Once again, this point is being overlooked by some if not most people. This was / is on another thread. No offense meant

       
  9. moon

    March 7, 2014 at 4:40 PM

    Gary Lee, NEVER say NEVER…it’s way yonder too general a term to be accurate in most situations. This is a single response to your post.

    Al, I’m also responding to your post.

    Thank you both for your thoughts.

    To whom it may concern:

    As empires throughout history have come to an end, including the present ending, once the guns/weapons are no longer available to the masses, it’s all over but the shooting (slaughter, elimination, voiding, etc. of the masses). Agreement so far?

    Concerning the present “ending”, there’s one thing available that’s never (oops, got to be careful here) been available to the masses, people before. The internet. It’s a fact that the masses, the people, have more power (physical, mental, intellectual) than “government”. Focusing that power is and has been the challenge. Will the internet and guns help to change the outcome this time? Too soon to tell. I’m cheering for those of you who use the internet, while it’s available, to aid in focusing the power of men and women.

    Al, you and Gary Lee have a common theme in your responses. It’s the necessity of one to know who that one is. Know who you are. I have a responsibility to know who I am.

    Knowing who one is, apparently, is important to “government” as well. How many times have you been asked, “are you a U.S. citizen?” If a “government” already knew the answer, why would the question need to be asked? If it’s a one time yes or no answer, why the need to repeatedly ask the question? If I answer that question “yes”, apparently, it’s accepted that I’m a U.S. citizen…AND, vice versa. Does that mean I have the ability, right, option, choice to be or not to be? Apparently. Does that mean I get to call my own shots? Apparently. Is it my responsibility to know who I am? Apparently. Wow…awesome responsibility! So, who am I? To be, or not to be…hmmmmm, where have I heard that before? Uh-oh, research may be involved in order to comprehend who I am. It truly has required research, thought, and spiritual connection to discern who I am.

    Some others have done extensive research concerning the question, who am I, and the concept of knowing who you are.

    Just in case you don’t already know this: as you’re reading these words (this post, in the present, the here and now), if you’ll move the focus of your eyes one to about eight inches to the right, you’ll see a column of words and phrases. Some of those words and phrases, if clicked, will reveal much research others have done concerning knowing who you are. I haven’t read all of every link over there, but I suspect that if you know who you are, you’ll be in a much better frame of mind to explore all of the links over there.

    Mary Croft has written a book (free to read and, I think, download) that helps to comprehend the concept of knowing who you are. She also has a website that reveals her current research and continuing thoughts (free to read). I’ll post the links to both if there is interest on this blog.

     
    • J.M.

      March 7, 2014 at 7:13 PM

      @ > Just in case you don’t already know this: as you’re reading these words (this post, in the present, the here and now), if you’ll move the focus of your eyes one to about eight inches to the right, you’ll see a column of words and phrases. Some of those words and phrases, if clicked, will reveal much research others have done concerning knowing who you are. I haven’t read all of every link over there, but I suspect that if you know who you are, you’ll be in a much better frame of mind to explore all of the links over there.

      True & it seems to me Alfred could take a vacation for the rest of his life but if he retires, it shortens life. We wither away faster. There is much much much more than enough to keep people busy for the remainder of his/her life by delving into what is already posted >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
      It’s obvious Alfred loves his work & enjoys it. Everything from A 2 Z has already been posted except for the next event, i.e. future event & maybe it’s transpiring right now.

      .

       
  10. Tony

    March 8, 2014 at 3:25 AM

    Just a thought on registered firearms. Does not registration generally split title of an asset? Does it follow that the act of registering a firearm is tantamount to acquiescing that the government has legal title to the firearm and therefore submitting to one’s use of it as based on government granted privilege?

    Seems to me in order to claim one has a right to bear an arm, one must not register it.

     
  11. Adask

    March 8, 2014 at 9:56 AM

    It seems to me that in order to claim perfect title to an arm, and therefore a right to “keep and bear” that arm, one needs to recognize that: 1) any “firearm” bearing a serial number is in commerce and therefore subject to ATF regulation; but 2) the “firearm” is not the complete “firearm” (including lower receiver, upper receiver, stock, barrel, magazine, bolt and firing pin, etc.). Instead, by law, the “firearm” is only the lower receiver.

    Therefore, it’s possible to make your own lower receivers for some rifles and handguns by legally purchasing an “80% complete lower” and finishing the remaining 20% yourself. If you can build the lower receiver for your current weapon and use it to replace the existing lower receiver (which carries a serial serial number), you will have a legal weapon that is not subject to some or all ATF regulation.

    As I understand it, the fundamental ideas are: 1) according to ATF regs, the “firearm” is only the lower receiver; 2) the lower receive does not become a “firearm” until it’s over 80% complete; 3) the creator owns perfect title to his creation; 4) if you purchase an 80%-complete lower receiver and finish the remaining 20% on your own, you are deemed to have “created” the resulting weapon rather than having purchased it in commerce; and 5) as the weapon’s “creator,” you own perfect title to that weapon and are therefore free from ATF regulations.

     
    • moon

      March 8, 2014 at 11:46 AM

      Al, I’ve considered the creation idea with automobiles, but hadn’t transposed it to guns (I tend to like to call them guns, 1) because it’s a well known term, 2) because I dislike word games, 3) because the term tends to piss off the right ones). Thanks.

      In keeping with the creation idea, how would you consider that in connection with clothing, textiles? To follow the line of thought, wouldn’t most anything not created (or, possibly, assembled) by me be in commerce?

       
      • Adask

        March 8, 2014 at 3:01 PM

        The concept that the creator owns the creation is enshrined in our copyright and patent laws. But it began with Genesis 1:1: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” That’s not just an introductory sentence like “It was a dark and rainy night.” That’s a profound expression of LAW. The Creator has perfect title to whatever He creates. He can sell, rent, lease, consume, employ or destroy whatever He has created. The same principle applies to you and me.

        If we create a car, gun or apple pie, by virtue of the act of creation, we own whatever we’ve created and can do with it as we please.

         
      • J.M.

        March 9, 2014 at 1:18 AM

        Have had my gun seized a few times. Each time, in their written documents the “seizer” wrote, “I “secured” or, We “secured” the Subject’s weapon. However each time my gun was “secured” it was a pistol, aka a handgun. gov-co calls it a weapon & what I call stealing it, they call it, securing it. Great to know all this stuff ain’t it. The Sheriff ONCE WAS the Chief law enforcement Officer of the County. I think it’s the D.A., today.

         
    • J.M.

      March 9, 2014 at 8:34 PM

      In the “meantime” the Holy Bible says a little something about the “end times.”

      2 Timothy 3:2-5 > ALL of what is showing below IS because of being disobedient to, YHWH ha Elohiym. E.g.,Children are disobedient to their parents because the parents are disobedient to YHWH ha Elohiym a.k.a. “God.”

      2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

      3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

      4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

      5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

      Sad to say this, but they are everywhere, no exceptions.

       
    • Cody

      March 10, 2014 at 1:45 AM

      http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/03114.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS

      13-3114. Arizona manufactured firearms; regulation; definitions

      “A. Beginning October 1, 2010, a personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in this state and that remains within the borders of this state is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce and is not considered to have traveled in interstate commerce.”

       
  12. palani

    March 8, 2014 at 2:08 PM

    The birth certificate for an automobile is called a Manufacturers certificate of origin. If they are born so they must die and this calls for a junking certificate. As resurrection is known to be factual then driving a car that has been resurrected from the dead is no stretch of the imagination. People who practice the art of resurrecting cars have been known by several names: junkers, rebuilders, mechanics. Automobile death certificates are issued by the state. They are even negotiable as they frequently include the original cost as shown on the state’s books.

     
    • moon

      March 8, 2014 at 3:26 PM

      palani, I’m considering how your comments pertain to my question about clothing, etc. Cars, I know about. Do you think you and all you think you have is actually owned by the monster…govco?

      As for sheriffs and coroners, I comprehend the relationship and the duties of each, as you described above. However, how does ancient English law or procedure pertain to me OTHER THAN that those laws were used as examples, AND that fraudulent entities, collectively called govco, may think their rules apply to me?

      Thanks for taking the time to respond to my questions. Your efforts are appreciated.

       
      • palani

        March 8, 2014 at 3:40 PM

        @ moon “Do you think you and all you think you have is actually owned by the monster.”

        I don’t live in a state and own no property in any state. Consequently I pay no taxes to any state. Should I actually live in a state and possess property in that state I expect I would be required to pay tribute in the form of taxes to that state.

         
    • J.M.

      March 10, 2014 at 1:49 PM

      palani
      @ >Seems funny that Delaware is also the preferred go to state for corporations.

      Yes. This IS rather odd, isn’t it.

       
    • J.M.

      March 11, 2014 at 12:13 AM

      Shalom palani,

      @ The birth certificate for an automobile is called a Manufacturers certificate of origin.

      You are right. I “buy” old clunkers. How do I get a McoO for one of those?. Maybe the next time one is towed, if I have a Manufacturers certificate of origin, it may be accepted for the towing company to “release” my clunker. Had a “peace officer” to “drop by” where I am staying, & to make a long story short he asked to see my driver license, i.e. he said, ‘let me see your driver license.” How can I let him see something I don’t have? He only wanted to know if I had seen a certain individual in the area.I told him, not that I can recall. Must have been something suspicious about me for him to ask to see “your” driver license. My point is, look at how they are trained.

       
      • J.M.

        March 11, 2014 at 12:21 AM

        Believe it or not I happened to be sitting in a wheelchair when the law enforcement officer asked to see the driver license.

         
      • palani

        March 11, 2014 at 7:13 AM

        @ J.M. “How do I get a McoO for one of those?”

        When your vehicle gets towed and impounded until a large enough bill is created to make it worthwhile for your clunker to be junked the towing company will apply to the state for a ‘death certificate’ .. a junking certificate. They won’t be able to get this if you have already done it. Once your vehicle is certified dead why not wait for three days and resurrect it? Get a couple witnesses to testify by affidavit to the ‘miracle’ that your engine came alive again and while you are at it donate it to your local ministry and only use it for daily religious activities? See the state is done with the vehicle when the death certificate is issued and if you have this doc the towing company can pound sand on their impound fee … they won’t get a second ‘death certificate’ issued. This suggestion is for educational and entertainment purposes only as I am not licensed to argue.

         
    • J.M.

      March 12, 2014 at 2:29 PM

      palani,
      @ …………. that your engine…………..”

      Engine, Hmmm, I LIKE THAT word. Engine. Do you think I might be found in “contempt of court” for insisting that I travel in an engine vehicle? Actually, I could care less if I would be because Standing on principle of something is important to me. Thanks again. Anything I may do for you, other than telling me to shut up, or, leave you alone ?

       
  13. moon

    March 8, 2014 at 3:45 PM

    Al, creator, as in “creator given rights”, I comprehend. The “god” concept is not certain to me.

    Maybe a better question from me might help. Do you think you and what you have is owned by govco, unless you created it?

     
    • J.M.

      March 11, 2014 at 12:28 AM

      @ >The “god” concept is not certain to me.

      It’s not? I certainly believe it is. Notice the IT?

       
  14. Toland

    March 8, 2014 at 5:21 PM

    Tony > “Does it follow that the act of registering a firearm is tantamount to acquiescing that the government has legal title to the firearm and therefore submitting to one’s use of it as based on government granted privilege?”

    Probably, for the same reason that registering your car causes these problems. Even if the gun owner had perfect title to begin with, he no longer does once he registers the gun.

     
  15. moon

    March 8, 2014 at 6:35 PM

    Getting back to the original point of this thread: (paraphrased) resistance is not only honorable, but also a responsibility that seems to be working. (Al, if my perception of your point isn’t on target, please advise.)

    Thanks to ALL who have responded to my questions and comments.

    As I watched the video of Boomer pleading, as he described it, my thought was of knowing who one is. Not knowing who one is leaves one in a floundering existence, seems to me.

    Boomer was resisting in his own way, making it public, and, I’m guessing, he’s persistent with it. The pleading part always strikes me as odd: when Boomer said it, when a “judge” asks, “how do you plead?”, when a thug might say, “plead for your life and I might let you live”. It may be true, as Al said, that the basis for battle with government is not guns (or seat belts) as much as words.

    We all resist in our own ways. Boomer may not be resisting as I would, I may not be resisting as others would. Regardless of the method, a good platform for resisting, in my opinion, is knowing who I am.

    If I’m not subject to a fraudulent arrangement, collectively referred to as govco, why would I plead to it? If I’m not in the jurisdiction of a “court” why would I participate in it? If statutes don’t apply to me, why should I be concerned with organizing my life in accordance with them?

    Am I not the one who chooses who I am? If I’m not the one who chooses, why does govco keep offering me opportunities to proclaim persistently and publicly who I am?

     
    • J.M.

      March 9, 2014 at 2:27 AM

      @ > As I watched the video of Boomer pleading
      @ >The pleading part

      Do you mean like in, massuh plee doan beets me no mo? I tries hauduhh massuh to bees a good slave pleees doan B beetin me no mo.< Do you mean pleading like that? I did not see Robert Sneed "pleading" like that at all I saw & heard him trying to REASON with the reps.

      @ a good platform for resisting, in my opinion, is knowing who I am.

      Most of us find out sooner or later who they think we are regardless of who we think we are.

       
  16. palani

    March 8, 2014 at 7:12 PM

    No need to resist. Bone up on the rules of IGNORANCE. There are two sorts: of fact and of law. Ignorance of a foreign law is ignorance of a fact and is not ever criminal. Ignorance of law, consists in the want of knowledge of those laws which it is our duty to understand, and which every man is presumed to know. The ignorance of law that you mostly hear of are the domestic sort where you have established some form of duty to understand etc. Mostly these are officers of the corporation rather than the run of the mill citizen/subject. If you read between the lines being an alien is preferable to being held accountable to know and follow thousands of pages of statutes that would perform a more reasonable duty when used to heat a house.

     
    • moon

      March 8, 2014 at 8:23 PM

      Wouldn’t it be prudent for an alien to first comprehend the nature of being an alien? Then, wouldn’t communicating the fact of being an alien to a “judge”, for instance, be resisting the effort of coercion into the govco fold?

       
      • palani

        March 8, 2014 at 9:22 PM

        @ moon “Wouldn’t it be prudent for an alien to first comprehend the nature of being an alien? ”

        By all means check out your status before making any statements. There are a couple simple tests you might perform. They involve instructing your ‘servants’ of your will and then observing the outcome. The outcome of these tests will then tell you whether you have any political capacity for authority. I even have a judicial ‘order’ instructing me that I lack the authority to appoint a fiduciary. Invaluable!!!! The judge knew I lacked citizen status.

         
      • J.M.

        March 9, 2014 at 11:34 AM

        @ By all means check out your status before making any statements. < palani

        Absolutely, by all means, moon, do this. Just put out the open sign to the Bone up for IGNORANCE store.

         
    • J.M.

      March 9, 2014 at 2:48 AM

      @ >I even have a judicial ‘order’ instructing me that I lack the authority to appoint a fiduciary. Invaluable!!!! The judge knew I lacked citizen status.

      I certainly would like to see responses to what you just said. I’m probably wrong, but I see in my mind’s eye, people scratching their heads & saying, huh. Then maybe there might be some to show you the “error” of your ways as not being one the “most things you are correct about.” I need to start laughing again. Alfred has let me have a day of rest. In fact he has been merciful to me & extended that day. I wonder if there will be ANY response. Would anyone be humble enough to tell you,palani, to explain it a little more? Or, on the other hand, correct you? Let’s see.

       
    • J.M.

      March 9, 2014 at 3:49 AM

      @ >Bone up on the rules of IGNORANCE.

      This will have to wait until tomorrow. I just hung up “closed” sign. Will hang up the open sign sometime tomorrow.

       
  17. Sam Kadasky

    March 8, 2014 at 7:36 PM

    Toland wrote: “Even if the gun owner had perfect title to begin with, he no longer does once he registers the gun.”

    Note that when you register a gun, and thus transfer legal title (apparently), this happens at the state level.

    In regards to an earlier conversation, note that according to federal law a “person” (whatever that is) cannot legally receive or possess firearms if he or she:

    “having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his or her citizenship.”

     
    • palani

      March 8, 2014 at 9:26 PM

      @ Sam Kadasky “having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his or her citizenship.”

      I would certainly think twice before renouncing something so valuable. That is, if I ever had that status to begin with. Having been through my papers many times I fail to recall finding any naturalization papers that assigned me the status of U.S. citizen. How might something be renounced when the status was never there to begin with?

       
  18. moon

    March 8, 2014 at 9:46 PM

    palani, no authority to appoint a fiduciary? Bless your heart…I know you feel left out. What I’ll probably communicate at some point is the fact that I don’t exist. According to your post on another thread, since I have no account number, poof, I don’t exist.

    I’ve enjoyed reading your comments.

     
    • J.M.

      March 9, 2014 at 11:52 AM

      @ > I’ve enjoyed reading your comments.

      I still “enjoy” reading palani’s comments. It’s a matter of understanding palani’s comments. This only means a deeper study into “seeing” what palani said or is saying. But, sometimes I too do not understand what palani is saying, for sure. This is why I said I am a student of palani. But not like Martens/Jetlag who elevated Alfred Adask to the lofty position of “Professor” so they as students could tell the Professor how inept the Professor IS, excuse me, WAS. Then when the Professor shows who IS inept, all of a sudden, the Professor IS now, MISTER Adask. Well, that’s the way it WAS. It IS over now, at least for a while.

       
  19. Sam Kadasky

    March 8, 2014 at 10:14 PM

    palani,

    If you were never naturalized, then hopefully you are not “an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa”, because they can’t legally possess firearms either, according to the feds.

    If, in addition to the above, you are also “an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance”, that’s two ways you’re on the outs with the federal government in this regard.

    https://www.atf.gov/content/are-there-certain-persons-who-cannot-legally-receive-or-possess-firearms-andor-ammunition

     
    • palani

      March 8, 2014 at 10:29 PM

      @ Sam Kadasky “hopefully you are not “an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States”

      Nope. Born west of the Mississippi on land that once was French. I even have an original Acts of Congress circa 1803 that sets forth the following provisions:

      ” Art: III

      The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States and admitted as soon as possible according to the principles of the federal Constitution to the enjoyment of all these rights, advantages and immunities of citizens of the United States, and in the mean time they shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property and the Religion which they profess.”

      This provision can have no way of anticipating the concept of a 14th amendment state so from my perspective the ‘mean time’ is right now. The Louisiana Purchase is a conveyance. Art III is a condition annexed to a conveyance and as such is non-expiring. The land could change hands 1,000 times and this condition will run with the land. Notice the use of the word ‘free’ in the above? Even though the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was to have been modeled on the Louisiana Purchase they seem to have forgotten to include the ‘free’ word. Just an interesting note.

       
      • Sam Kadasky

        March 8, 2014 at 11:07 PM

        palani: “This provision can have no way of anticipating the concept of a 14th amendment state so from my perspective the ‘mean time’ is right now.”

        I don’t get this part. Exactly what language in the provision has not been met, so that now is still the mean time?

         
      • J.M.

        March 9, 2014 at 3:00 AM

        @ >so from my perspective the ‘mean time’ is right now.

        Boy, wow, you got that right in more ways than one.

         
      • palani

        March 9, 2014 at 8:18 AM

        @ Sam Kadasky “Exactly what language in the provision has not been met, so that now is still the mean time?”

        The U.S. and the French set themselves up as fiduciaries in a trust for a group called ‘all inhabitants of the ceded territory’. I am a part of this group. The act promised was ‘incorporation in the union of the United States’ ACCORDING TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. Now the principles at the time (1803) was not a 14th amended diluted union but a union of independent nation-states. The current states are administrative subdivisions rather than members of a union and the promise made is not currently being kept. Rather than complain about this apparent lie I prefer to believe that this promise is merely in the act of being kept rather than being ignored entirely and hence we are in a period identified by this conveyance as ‘the mean time’. In said period of time we French inhabitants are to be ‘maintained’. The word seems to have a particular meaning according to Bouvier

        MAINTAINED, pleadings. This is a technical word, indispensable in an indict- ment for maintenance, which no other word or circumlocution will supply. 1 Wils. 325.

         
      • J.M.

        March 9, 2014 at 5:12 PM

        @ > Nope.

        Today, nope means, probably, don’t know for sure, maybe, could be, possibly so, more than likely, etc. Dopes understand this. Probably because of dope 2.

         
    • J.M.

      March 9, 2014 at 2:57 AM

      Sammy
      @ I don’t get this part.

      And you may never. GET THE PICTURE

       
    • J.M.

      March 9, 2014 at 3:40 AM

      Samuel,

      @ >that’s two ways you’re on the outs with the federal government in this regard.

      Tell me some more ways to be on the outs with the federal government. Tell me as many as you can. I want to be ALL OUT. Two ways are not enough.

       
  20. moon

    March 9, 2014 at 1:05 AM

    Yartap, concerning your sheriffs comment earlier:

    A sheriff I talked with recently expressed a bit of concern that “state”, not “feds”, are getting too aggressive with “tickets”. The small stuff is usually where aggression begins. If “feds” are controlling “state” police, imagine the tremendous added strain on a sheriff who is trying to keep tyrannical aggression out of his area of concern.

    Once the small stuff tyranny is generally tolerated, if not accepted, then it’s easier to go for the guns.

    Connecticut seems to be the hot spot right now.

     
    • J.M.

      March 9, 2014 at 3:06 AM

      @ >If “feds” are controlling “state” police……….”

      Ain’t no IF about it. I’m beginning to think that you & the sheriff you had breakfast or lunch with are closer than I thought.

       
      • J.M.

        March 9, 2014 at 12:09 PM

        @ >A sheriff I talked with recently expressed a bit of concern that “state”, not “feds”, are getting too aggressive with “tickets”.

        This is awful. too aggressive with tickets?? ONLY TICKETS ??? What shallowness. Or, how clever.

         
    • Yartap

      March 9, 2014 at 5:14 PM

      Hi moon,

      Notice which states are having the media covered gun shootings, Col., Conn, Ill., Calf., etc.

      They are Democratic controlled states (liberal natured). This is where it starts by the state governments with open media coverage. But, most states, if not all, have this liberal slant to most degrees, just hidden. The gun grabbers are everywhere.

       
      • moon

        March 9, 2014 at 6:08 PM

        Yartap, you certainly spelled out what seems to be the game plan. A bit of media coverage concerning Alabama has been with the idea of a “Constitutional convention”. Are we going to see a student burn a representation of a constitution? Yea…that may be a bit of a stretch to consider my cc thought as a conversational follow through of your thought. I’m a filmmaker and think, sometimes, in images that would play well to the greatest audience.

        During the 60s and early 70s, flag burning drew attention. A cc at this time, in my opinion, would be similar to a last straw situation concerning any notion of Constitutionality. It’s like once the “feds” get into a county, they don’t seem to leave unless they go out in a “blaze of glory”, so to speak.

        Not sure I like where this response has gone…just my thoughts.

        Oh, wait…the solution has just hit me: ban all fire everywhere!

         
    • J.M.

      March 11, 2014 at 12:37 AM

      @ > It’s like once the “feds” get into a county, they don’t seem to leave unless they go out in a “blaze of glory”, so to speak.

      You mean like in Waco,TX where the Branch Davidians were SLAUGHTERED? It could not have been, Waco, (county here) Texas..

       
  21. Sam Kadasky

    March 9, 2014 at 11:12 AM

    palani, “The act promised was ‘incorporation in the union of the United States’ ACCORDING TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. Now the principles at the time (1803) was not a 14th amended diluted union but a union of independent nation-states.”

    So? The act does not say “at the time”. That’s an addition by you. No such qualification exists in the language of the act.

    That the “principles of the federal constitution” are subject to amendment is now, and was then, one of the “principles of the federal constitution”.

    If the authors of the act specifically meant “at the time” – thus overstepping their authority by preempting future amendments, but that’s another subject – they could have said “at the time”, but they didn’t. Only palani is saying “at the time”.

    But whatever. This is off topic, so I’ll leave you to your beliefs.

     
    • J.M.

      March 9, 2014 at 12:02 PM

      @ >So I’ll leave you to your beliefs.

      Well gohhh-lee THANKS.

       
    • J.M.

      March 9, 2014 at 12:19 PM

      @ >The act does not say “at the time”.

      True the “act” does not say “at the time.”. palani was only trying to explain it in a simple way, even to to the extent that 60 IQ level people could understand.

       
    • palani

      March 9, 2014 at 1:11 PM

      @ Sam Kadasky “No such qualification exists in the language of the act.”

      The ‘qualification’ exists in what is called a meeting of the minds. What is promised is certain principles that existed at the time based upon a federal constitution and not as modified in 1868. I am willing to keep an open mind though if you can show me a writing that envisioned the 14th amendment in 1803.

       
      • J.M.

        March 9, 2014 at 2:11 PM

        @ >The ‘qualification’ exists in what is called a meeting of the minds.

        Sammy is saying you mind your own business I’ll (sammy) mind mine.Right Sammy? Samuel sees your golden nuggets as “fools gold.” Like in understanding bitter will be called sweet & what is really sweet will be called bitter. It’s a “sign” of the “times.” It’s not in the “meantime” it’s NOW, TODAY.

         
      • moon

        March 9, 2014 at 9:12 PM

        palani, the “judge” who knew you lacked citizen status, knew because he was aware of this Art III, “mean time” situation?

        Even if the 14th “amendment” was envisioned in some way in another writing circa 1803, it wouldn’t necessarily have any bearing on Art III, and the wording in Art III makes no mention of envisionment, according to the way I comprehend the wording in Art III.

        Did the 14th “amendment” actually go into the federal Constitution (from the viewpoint of dual constitutions)?

        Suppose I chose to become an inhabitant of the ceded territory. How would I be any different from any other inhabitant waiting to be admitted, in the mean time being maintained and protected in the free enjoyment…?

         
      • J.M.

        March 10, 2014 at 5:18 PM

        @ It’s not in the “meantime” it’s NOW, TODAY.

        Sorry, it IS the “meantime” too, in addition to yesterday, today & tomorrow, at least a few more tomorrows..

         
  22. palani

    March 9, 2014 at 9:33 PM

    @ moon ” he was aware of this Art III, “mean time” situation?”
    I have no speculation upon what synapses moved him to an action.

    “Even if the 14th “amendment” was envisioned …”
    What was specified in art III was based upon the circumstances and language of the time. Words have specifications called definitions. The constitution specified in the context of “United States” and “the Union” might only be referring to the political system that was then in power and not that political system that was born in 1868.

    “Did the 14th “amendment” actually go into the federal Constitution”
    The debt of the organic (pre-1868) government is fixed at 346,681,016 dollars. This debt has not changed since 1878. Does the present government have any obligation to pay this debt? I don’t believe they do as they are NOT the government that owes this sum. Does the present government have any obligation to honor the commitments of the organic government? Let’s put it this way: If they don’t then there is an awful lot of abandoned property west of the Mississippi. Not being one to be late to a land rush I have already staked my claim to 1,600 square miles m/l of this vacant land to abate the nuisance of abandoned property.

    “Suppose I chose to become an inhabitant of the ceded territory … ”
    Doesn’t this depend upon your circumstances. I, for instance, didn’t choose to become an inhabitant. The facts revolve around an accident of birth.

     
    • moon

      March 9, 2014 at 10:43 PM

      @ palani – “I even have a judicial ‘order’ instructing me that I lack the authority to appoint a fiduciary. Invaluable!!!! The judge knew I lacked citizen status.”

      I’m not asking about the action or what moved him. How did the judge know you lacked citizen status? Art III “mean time”?

      I see no reason to think Art III reference could be the 1868 political system.

      After checking a few definitions of the word inhabitant, apparently I could choose to be one regardless of geographical location of birth. Seems to me all that would be necessary would be my choosing. Any disagreement?

       
      • palani

        March 10, 2014 at 8:09 AM

        @ moon “How did the judge know you lacked citizen status?”
        Because my response to his alleged order was silence. I lacked authority because I didn’t prove that I did have said authority.

        “I see no reason to think Art III reference could be the 1868 political system.”
        Then we are in agreement that a 14th amendment political system is not performance at a level requisite with Art III.

        “Seems to me all that would be necessary would be my choosing.”
        You might make the attempt but don’t you believe being able to articulate a right might be handy? I could point to a right called jus soli and a domicile of origin while you would be deported to a place where you might claim the same or just be returned to where you originated your journey.

         
  23. J.M.

    March 10, 2014 at 1:15 AM

    Joe,
    @ > You want to be a People, not a citizen.

    Joe do you mean a people as is described below??

    But I spell a P, a little bitty E.
    Sweet bop, bop, bop, sh-shoo, shoobie doobie doh,
    In a little round O.
    Now you add another P, a big skinny L,
    There’s a-one more E,
    An’ you got a people that looks like, me.

    Now if I was a monkey, a-workin’ for a livin’,
    I’d be a-gettin’ instead of a-givin’.
    A-hangin’ by my tail, a-waitin’ for the dinner bell,
    & I’d be a Puttin’ people on.

    Now a monkey don’t have to go down town,
    An’ ask for a job an’ gettin’ turned down.
    I’m mad at me, I could smash me,
    ‘Cause I am a people.

    Now, a monkey don’t have to shoot an’ speak,
    All he do is scratch his fleas
    Oh, me, what luxury.
    But I’m a people.

    Now I spell a P, a little bitty E.
    Sweet bop, bop, bop, a-shoo, shoobie doobie doh,
    In a little round O.
    Now you add another P, a big skinny L,
    There’s a-one more E,
    An’ you got a creature that looks like, me.

    Now if anyone knocked on my door today,
    There’d be a little sign says: Gone away.
    Down to the zoo, diggin’ you know who,
    ‘Cause I’m a people.

    Now I spell a P, next a little bitty E.
    Sweet bop, bop, bop, sh-shoo, shoobie doobie doh,
    In a little round O.
    Now you add another P, a big skinny L,
    There’s a-one more E,
    An’ you got a people that looks like, me.

     
  24. moon

    March 10, 2014 at 9:02 PM

    @ palani: “Seems to me all that would be necessary would be my choosing.”
    You might make the attempt but don’t you believe being able to articulate a right might be handy? I could point to a right called jus soli and a domicile of origin while you would be deported to a place where you might claim the same or just be returned to where you originated your journey.

    The door is wide open for possibility that I may not be considering extenuating circumstances. However, please advise as to the necessity of a right in light of the art III word “inhabitant”, apparently (to me), being the only prerequisite for one “in the mean time being maintained and protected in the free enjoyment…”.

     
    • J.M.

      March 11, 2014 at 12:52 AM

      The Apostle Peter fished for a living. Later he became a Fisherman of Men. He went to Prison for criminal activity. He refused to QUIT being a Fisherman of Men so He suffered the death penalty. He was crucified upside down. Said he was not worthy to die as his “Savior” did. They do have ways of accommodating things. Know what I mean, moon?

       
    • palani

      March 11, 2014 at 7:30 AM

      @ moon “advise as to the necessity of a right in light of the art III word “inhabitant””

      I am not licensed to advise and anything posted is for educational and entertainment purposes. If the passport to the promises contained in the Louisiana Purchase conveyance is a right then that right has a source. The entity guaranteeing that right could be the United States or it could be the French. The conveyance contract created a trust and any right you derive from that trust had a start date. You could claim ‘levant et couchant’ as your right but (as one wise prophet wrote) if you wish in one hand and shit in the other which hand will be filled first?

      Should you be so intent upon being an inhabitant you might consider being one where you are currently located. If that happened to be one of the original thirteen states then the Articles of Confederation could be for you.

      “Art IV The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States”

      If you were born outside one of the original thirteen but east of the Mississippi river then maybe the Northwest Ordinance is your path to contentment in regards to inhabitation:

      “Art. 2. The inhabitants of the said territory shall always be entitled to the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus, and of the trial by jury; of a proportionate representation of the people in the legislature; and of judicial proceedings according to the course of the common law. ”

      I think that maybe when you become other than an inhabitant then you will lose all of these important rights. Just for your information the NW Ordinance does apply west of the Mississippi as a result of the Territory of Michigan transferring ‘all laws currently in effect’ in a newly created county of Iowa (now located in Wisconsin) to the counties they created west of the Mississippi (in what is now Iowa). I doubt if the NW Ordinance applies in Missouri though.

       
      • palani

        March 11, 2014 at 9:49 AM

        Moon

        If you are excited about the prospect of being an inhabitant then possibly you would be interested in the position of aghenhine as well?

         
      • J.M.

        March 11, 2014 at 1:35 PM

        palani
        @ ! am not licensed to advise and anything posted is for educational and entertainment purposes

        YOU’RE FUNNY !!! and, you are precious. You light up my life. Yes U do 2.

         
      • J.M.

        March 11, 2014 at 5:16 PM

        palani,

        Will you consider calling in tonight for the upcoming Radio program & sharing your knowledge about the subject matter? If so, please go one step further or farther & call & discuss with Alfred, your opinion, knowledge, etc., or, whatever you think is best. Can’t think of the right word. Thanks

         
      • moon

        March 11, 2014 at 7:34 PM

        Where I am is where I like. Thanks for the research ideas that pertain more to me.

        I did check out “aghenhine”. Along the way, I read some info about “gentleman”. It seems I’m neither, nor want to be. Thanks.

         
      • J.M.

        March 12, 2014 at 3:50 AM

        @ Moon

        @ If you are excited about the prospect of being an inhabitant then possibly you would be interested in the position of aghenhine as well?

        STOP IT !!! Some individuals, aka persons do not like to be confused with any organic truth.

         
      • J.M.

        March 12, 2014 at 2:12 PM

        Moon
        If you are excited ……………………..”

        moon does get excited reading your comments, I can tell. What’s up moon?

         
    • J.M.

      March 11, 2014 at 3:46 PM

      palani, your suggestion to moon

      @ >You might make the attempt but don’t you believe being able to articulate a right might be handy?

      Huh? A right? What’s that? That’s ok. Some of us know & some “others” don’t & some love to fish.

       
    • J.M.

      March 12, 2014 at 7:13 PM

      Moonie, the Bean Bagger,
      @ jus soli

      Jus sanguinis, too. Do you qualify? Whazzup, BLOOD? How’s the arrest warrant coming along? Are you in hiding? Naw, Can’t hide from Big Bro Bro We boaf no dat, Not wid today’s advanced & advancing technology. Know what I mean, moon?

      @ > domicile

      Abode, 2. What yo zip bro? Is yo Beanies in zip baggies?

       
  25. Charleston Voice

    March 11, 2014 at 9:29 PM

     
  26. palani

    March 13, 2014 at 9:10 AM

    @ moon

    To inhabit is of a higher class of society than to reside and to live is a lower class yet. To abide and to sojourn relate to the wandering habits of men and the primitive state of the society they move in. From English Synonyms Explained … http://books.google.com/books?id=E3oSAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA754&dq=privacy&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qLUhU7K4OKSU2QWe3oG4BQ&ved=0CFoQ6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=privacy&f=false

     
    • J.M.

      March 14, 2014 at 3:18 PM

      palani, you do light up my life, but, I am a sojourner. I have been forced to be & I have been forewarned I will be persecuted from city to city if I choose to live or try to live a certain way. Some people do not have to go through this. Well actually, nobody has to. Nobody is forced to unless he/she chooses to try & live their life a certain way. Please don’t throw me away because I say I AM a sojourner.

       
      • J.M.

        March 14, 2014 at 3:28 PM

        When they persecute you in this city, flee to another. Matthew 10:23. I am one of the you. This advice from the Messiah does not apply to most people, only a very few. They are also known as, The little flock. This does not mean, palani, that you will not someday be a part of this group. Only those who are incorrigible will be left out.

         
  27. moon

    March 14, 2014 at 5:43 PM

    Al, there’s an interesting source for 80% lowers on the West Coast I just ran across. The ATF, I think, is also interested in this source. The owner has refused to give up his list of buyers and is ready to do battle. If you or anyone else would like to know more, I can help you get in touch. Just let me know.

    This may be a very revealing story as it plays out.

     

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s