 
Government's Achilles Heel or How to Win Any Court Case (We the People & Common Sense). The Reality

### License Notes

The publication is protected under the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976 and all other applicable international, federal, state, and local laws. All rights are reserved, including resale rights. You are not allowed to reproduce, transmit, or sell this eBook in part or in full, in any form, or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise) without the written permission of the author.

This eBook is licensed for your personal use only. This eBook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this eBook with an other person, please, purchase an additional copy for each reader. Thank you for respecting the hard work of the author.

This eBook is for informational use only. Please, consult qualified professionals regarding the investment decisions.

# Table of Contents

Introduction (Right to Property & Association as a base of human rights)

Fundamental laws

Higher law

Terrorism, a government by intimidation

Preface (Government's Achilles heel)

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution: Two different documents

Property rights

Human rights are property rights

A question of ownership

Property rights are clear

Words

Democracy

Freedom

Rights vs. Privileges

Facts vs Opinions & distortion of reality

The thrill of political power

# Introduction

Right to Property & Association is the base of human rights

You must be wondering what this book is all about, and what it entails. Well, if I'm to talk about the purpose of this book, I'd call it a practical guide to the law for the masses, a book that is written to help the general public understand the law, government, and history of this country better.

Reading this book will help you to come to a vital understanding of the setup of the legal system, enabling you to re-establish your existing rights in the court; using their own procedures and language, and thereby allowing you reach your desired outcome whenever you appear in court, either for yourself, or for someone else whom you have decided to help in any court.

Most of the practical applications presented in this book are based on a very simple logic, which is that we are all born free into this world, and so any agreement we make must come from our own free will and without any form of coercion.

Where does this logic come from? We ought to know that this logic isn't based on the Constitution of 1787 surprisingly, but rather, it is derived from the Declaration of Independence of 1776, and why is this so? As a matter of fact, it was in the Declaration of Independence of 1776 where America's Founders set forth the moral principles that would later be used in the creation of the Constitution. Abraham Lincoln said, "Let us revere the Declaration of Independence" while stating that the Declaration of Independence is the foundation of an American Constitution. Therefore, the Declaration's principles, "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" are the principles through which the United States Constitution should be interpreted.

Isn't it rather astonishing to discover that those principles begin with the traditional natural law, or more precisely, with the natural rights strain of that tradition? Its roots go far back into antiquity, with its clearest manifestation being the English common law that had evolved at that time for over 500 years, and in John Locke's Second Treatise of Government, which set forth the theory of rights on which the American government rests and which formed the founders' vision.

In simplest terms, America was founded on the belief that there is a higher law than any law established by any human being. Most founders, when referring to this law, called it either nature or god. In the Declaration of Independence, they even used both "...the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God..." So, in the old American tradition, it was assumed that there was a higher power than any human law or power as stated by Thomas Paine in his book, "The Age of Reason:"

" _To follow God and obey reason is the same thing."_

Now, doesn't this assertion sound rather logical, especially when considering what it would be like if there was no higher law than the government? Especially when you think in these terms: that the government is just a collection of politicians and bureaucrats. What if those people were the top of the line final answer? That would be some terrifyingly scary picture, and it is. Just consider the following:

" _If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?"_

\- Frédéric Bastiat

So, the question is, if you can't trust people with freedom, how can you trust people with power?

That is why we have a situation where

" _The most improper job of any man, even saints, is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity."_

\- J. R. R. Tolkien

"He who is unfit to serve his fellow citizen seeks to rule them."

\- Ludwig Von Mises

Therefore, it is strange that as H. L. Mencken would say,

"People do not expect to find chastity in a whorehouse. Why, then, do they expect to find honesty and humanity in government, a congeries of institutions whose modus operandi consists of lying, cheating, stealing, and if need be, murdering those who resist?"

That's why it's so terrifying to realize that we ended up living in a  "Twilight Zone")

So, America's founders assumed that this higher power declared a higher law that everyone had to both know and obey. Some examples are from the Declaration of Independence, and one which readily comes to mind is the declaration that "all men are created equal." No exception and that's very important. The higher law applies to every human being equal. No one gets any special privileges or exemptions from the law. If something is prohibited or permitted for me or you, it is also prohibited or permitted for kings, dukes, presidents, majorities, minorities, and everyone else. There are no exemptions. That's why the opposite is defined as tyranny.

Tyranny is that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.

For example, Thomas Jefferson said:

"The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society."

And;

"I never believed there was one code of morality for a public and another for a private man."

In another example, one of the Ten Commandments says, "Thou shalt not steal." No exceptions. It doesn't say, "Thou shalt not steal unless the majority votes for it," and it doesn't say, "Thou shalt not steal unless you believe it is necessary." It applies to you, to me, to the president, to the majority and minority, to government and corporation, and any other organizations. In effect, no one individual or group is permitted by the law to steal. Period. There is no exception. Not even one. Because of the basis of their belief that "all men are created equal," this could hold. That,

No man has any natural authority over any other man

Legitimate authority can only be derived by express consent

A majority decision does not nullify the choice of the individual NOT to consent

It was mostly drawn from morals on which the common law was based. The main two fundamental laws are:

**1.** _Do all you have agreed to do_

We call it contract law

and

**2.** _Do not encroach on other persons or their property_

We call it criminal and tort law

We also talk about the positive law, which is a law that is grounded in political will. This is the law that is mostly in use today. This kind of law is actually a law made-up or created out of thin air on the whim of some politician, and to the tune of his or her desires. Whatever some powerholder says, is the law. If he changes his mind, the law will also change. In simple terms, positive law (also known as political law) is an arbitrary law passed by politicians for their own sole benefit. It is always in opposition to the common law, and it's always based on political power (brute force). Rarely does this law dance to the tune of logic or morality - in fact, it almost always goes against logic and morality.

Because **Natural Law** is like rules you make for your own property, but **Positive Law** is like rules you make for other people's property. Just to give you an example, the most important property that you own is your body. The whim of some politician (positive law) tells you that you can't self-medicate even to save your own life (e.g. FDA). They claim ownership over your own body which is impossible to do under natural law because the fundamental principle of natural law is self-ownership.

Positive law is usually arbitrary; you do whatever the powerholder says, or you will be punished - even if the instruction/command/law is morally wrong. Unlike natural laws, the only way to enforce positive laws is by force and coercion. That's why it can be called as our reminder of our pre-civilized society. Because as Ayn Rand explained it, "The precondition of a civilized society is the barring of physical force from social relationships." The reason for this is very simple. To force others into involuntary actions, even with good intentions, is to degrade them as individuals, as adults, and as human beings.

Even "democracy" (majority rule) always grows into mob rule; and good examples would be the reign of terror during the French revolution, the Salem witch trials, Nazi Germany, the Cultural Revolution or the US Government's massive slaughter of Native Americans. That is because the majority is as human as any dictator. And as any dictator, they would vote not for what is right, but for what they want. The founders believed in the principles of the old common law. However, during the last two centuries, these restraints have been broken down, and all that is left is political law. As such, we are now forced to do whatever powerholders want us to do.

Founders claimed that it might be necessary to establish a political system, but in order for this system to be legitimate, the positive law must be derived ultimately, if not directly, from the natural law, grounded in reason.

As Thomas Paine put it, "Every science has, for its basis, a system of principles as fixed and unalterable as those by which the universe is regulated and governed. Man cannot make principles; he can only discover them." As such, we can assert that common law was not created, but rather, it was discovered. First came the courts and then through discovery came the common law, which reflected the natural law; just like in any other science. First came scientists and then came formulas. But formulas are not the laws of physics or chemistry, they are only approximations of them, and with time, scientists keep working on progressively making them more accurate. This is the same with the common law because judges believed there was a higher law than any human law, and they tried to discover as well as to apply that higher law.

And so, this higher law was carefully and logically worked out; case by case and century by century - in the same way as the laws of physics and chemistry. When it comes to political law, however, it behooves us to know that it is an enactment process. Powerholders make changes based on their whim. Something that is right today may become wrong tomorrow and right again the day after. There are no eternal truths, and there is no connection to natural law. We now live in the world where it is assumed that being a politician renders you invincible, giving you the divine power to make up the law and to become a deity. As a matter of fact, in 1788, Patrick Henry, already realizing what it would come to and in the struggle to prevent the creation of the Federal Government, warned that "Congress, from their general powers, may fully go into the business of human legislation."

Imagine if a scientist claims to have made up a law in physics, and to have crafted this law from inception. Sending such a scientist to the madhouse wouldn't be out of place! As is expected, much of the political laws that we have are complete fantasy. Some are sound as if they came straight from the crackpot. For example, a hilarious law in Texas says, "when two trains meet each other at a railroad crossing, each shall come to a full stop, and neither shall proceed until the other has gone." And in Arkansas, it is "illegal to honk your vehicle's horn in a place where cold drinks are served after 9:00 pm," "Arkansas River may not rise higher than the Main Street Bridge in Little Rock." And in Little Rock, "dogs aren't permitted to bark after 6:00 pm." How interesting and unreasonable!

The human legislation is arbitrary, barbaric, and primitive. It takes us back to the Stone Age.

"70 million Americans have a criminal record — that's one in three adults." - Andrew Cuomo

That's why before the 20th century, a law was studied and referred to as science because the old common law was a law that was discovered. But on interjection of political law into the common law, what we come up with is the same as when a physicist declares rightly that E=MC2 is the law of relativity (common law), and this holds as true until we vote to change it (political law), which is indeed a tragedy. That's not very smart. The belief that statutes can override common law came from another belief in majority rule. If the majority or their representatives vote for something, for believers, this made it ethical. And that is the **foundation of our problems today**. We need to return to the common law, where everything is as it ought to be without giving room to favoritism.

However, because of the unsolvable practical problems that are connected even with democratic consent, we can only conclude that the government, unlike private associations, have an integral element of power in this matter. This is a forced association.

All this and much more were captured in a concise form by Thomas Paine in the seminal phrases of the Declaration of Independence, which we all know so well:

"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."

Note that in this famous passage, Paine follows the tradition of the state of nature theory. He first establishes a moral order; and only then does he think about and formulate the political and legal order. Thus, political and legal legitimacy is a function of moral legitimacy. And moral legitimacy is rooted in the idea of "self-evident" truths, truths of reason, based neither on religious faith nor on will. Thus, the Declaration's bow to theology is minimal at most: the argument stands more in the grand tradition of moral rationalism, stemming at least from John Locke's trinity of "life, liberty, and property." However, in 1776, Thomas Paine begged to differ. When he penned the Declaration of Independence, he edited out Locke's right to 'property' and substituted his own more broad-minded concept: the right to 'the pursuit of happiness.'

When it came to casuistry/justification, the Founders realized that all of our rights can effectively be captured in the word property, broadly understood as "Lives, Liberties, and Estates," as Locke put it. By so doing, it becomes relatively easier for us to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate right claims: and in effect, we have rights only to those things that we hold free and clear, things to which we hold title, to which we are "entitled." As between common law strangers, we are entitled just to our personal liberty, as defined by our property, in such a way as to be free from proceeds and from encroachments on the person or property.

" _The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions... (and) when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another."_

John Locke, Second Treatise

However, included in this freedom is the right to associate with those who are willing to associate: thus, the second great font of rights, besides property: contract. These were two key ideas of English common law, and with the development of each, the judges could resolve disputes between people, mostly not by decree or statute, but rather by reason and precedent, as if they were in a state of nature. When we enjoy and exercise these two rights of property and contract, individuals can build everything that we now know to be civil society or civilization.

But in Locke's phrase, there are "inconveniences," with life in a natural state, most obviously related to enforcement or securing of our rights, for which the natural remedy, he argues, is the government. And so, Paine finally turns to his second concern, to show how the government can emanate from the moral order that he has just laid out or sketched. Although he, for obvious reasons, does not notice here, the inherent difficulty in getting a legitimate government from personal freedom, it is clear that this is a limited government, which, in his opinion, is in itself justified. For the only end of the said government is "to secure these rights" and that government's "just powers" should be derived "from the consent of the governed." Thus, the government is twice limited, firstly by its goals, and then by its means.

Thus, the vision that follows from the Declaration of Independence is essentially libertarian, as with it, each of us is free to strive for happiness in the way we wish, and to build our own way of life, the clause being that we respect the equal rights of other people to do the same, as well as the government being established to ensure that these rights hold.

As a matter of fact, it is not a requirement for the reader to actually agree with that logic to put it to use; however, it does require him to understand that logic and be able to stand with it and allow it to run its course, even if the government was to try to divert his attention to something else. Basically, for anyone to win any interaction with the government, he must remember and know this stuff, irrespective of his own beliefs.

Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).

\- Ayn Rand

Please bear with me if some of the information herein sounds rather difficult or complicated. Like most subjects, it's really simple when you get a grip on its fundamental principles. Hey, be careful of anyone who tells you a particular subject is above you, or that it's simply better if left to an expert. You might not realize this, but there is a great possibility that that person is trying to shut you out!

Let me tell you this. Most people can understand practically anything and are twice as smart as they think they are. If given enough effort, they can understand anything but may have been frightened into believing that some topics are above their head. If you notice that you gave a subject matter enough effort, but still find it really difficult to understand it, it may be that the source of your information has bad communication skills, or he just doesn't want you to understand it. So, this is what you do: Try to search for another source of information.

As Thomas Edison once stated:

"Genius is one percent inspiration, ninety-nine percent perspiration."

One more thing, you will be presented with some ideas that go against most current mainstream politics and, therefore, may sound unpatriotic to you. I would have you remember whenever you get to this junction that the government is NOT the country. But I'll also remind you of what some of the words you are using mean. For example,

Patriot - On one hand, means "fellow countryman."

Where country is "a land mass controlled by a government."

And the word government means "to control", which is the opposite of the word freedom.

So, if you love your country, you love your government.

Therefore, in most cases when you hear that someone is unpatriotic, what they mean is that someone doesn't love his government and doesn't want to be controlled by it. The question is, why do YOU want to be controlled by anybody?

So, what they are saying will look like this:

Ironically, as was published by the Samuel Johnson dictionary in 1773, a patriot was also described as a "factious disturber of the government."

Founders even joked about being patriots.

So, I'm a patriot, you simply using the wrong definition.

Real patriotism is a willingness to challenge the government when it's wrong.

\- Ron Paul

Please try to remember who those people were BEFORE they formed their own government.

In a later chapter, we will also cover in more detail what the government actually is.

Today's law is written with the assumption that rights can be granted by the government. However, what the government gives, it can also take away.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have."

Therefore, under the political laws, people have no real rights or liberty, they only have privileges. You do not have freedom of speech, press, or trade. You have permission to speak, permission to publish, and permission to trade. Those privileges can be revoked anytime, for any reason and on the whim of powers that be, if they want to. What if you don't like it or disagree with anything?

Slightly paraphrasing but in 1776, it would sound like this:

Courts today do not seek justice. Rather, they enforce the law. The courts today have no concept of justice, no notion of right and wrong, but they are fine with just anything the law dictates. Unfortunately, we already witnessed such an attitude towards the state's political laws. For example, in Nazi Germany, the political leaders claimed that the rule of law is a completely technical, formal idea. Consequently, they said the government can take away its subjects' (citizens) basic freedoms and violate their fundamental rights, as long as it's accomplished through properly used legal apparatus. Finally, in 1946, political law was exposed to the barbaric system that it really is. Originally in Germany, the killing of innocent human beings was classified as murder. However, at a point, political leaders acquired the power to change the law, and judges went along with it (the law is the law). Exceptions crept in. First; it was persons assessed to be mentally incompetent followed by other "undesirables," which proceeded to become exceptions, until finally millions were killed. Wait for it: This was all done LEGALLY!

Actually, morality and the state are two diametrically opposing ideas. Actually, the state is the opposite of liberty.

At the Nuremberg trials, some of the former leaders of Nazi Germany, in a bid to defend their crimes against humanity during World War II, contended that they had not broken any laws during the time when Hitler was in power. After all, they had been following orders, and they were WITHIN THEIR NATION'S LAWS, and as a matter of fact, this is true. It was only after the Allied prosecutors invoked the rule of a higher (natural) law that they were able to defeat such defenses.

You know what the prosecutor's argument was? It was that 'There is a higher duty than anything our governments can impose on us.'

This trial clearly PROVES that:

1. There is a Higher Law than any government's law

and

2. We are all obliged to obey this law

and

3. Courts must seek out and enforce this Higher Law

Please remember this next time.

" _The greatest crimes in the world are not committed by people breaking the rules but by people following the rules."_

\- Banksy

People try to justify their immoral and illegal actions by saying "I'm just doing my job and if you don't like it blame the lawmakers" are the main problem. The truth is, without their compliance with the laws, without them enforcing them, lawmakers wouldn't be an issue, it would just be a group of people in suits jerking around dreaming of taking away our freedom and writing it down on paper. So, actually they are the problem, they are the enablers.

For us to be on the same page, we would all first need to understand what liberty is as well as what the Constitution of the United States is and how it was created. That would be the basis of any and all defense you'll be able to mount in any court. We'll talk about the "social contract" and what its jurisdiction is. We'll also talk about the "fair trial" and many other things. Only after that would you be able to see how the system really works. Not just that, but you'll also be able to understand why those methods have already worked to the benefit of several individuals from traffic courts to drug possession and disputes with the IRS and local tax agencies. Armed with this knowledge as well, you'll also be able to understand and use examples of the documents that I'll provide you with. You'll grasp why it's to everyone's advantage to join hands together as a group to defend our rights to life, liberty, and PROPERTY for us all, as well as for our children.

We all have a tendency towards taking in hook, line, and sinker, all that we have been told, but it is very healthy to be open to new ideas, to objectively weigh our beliefs and to adapt them sometimes so they match the facts on the ground, and not necessarily our system of beliefs.

I tried to find out exactly where all those judges and police officers get their power from; why corruption is so widespread; why it seems like the courts are more of a 'for-profit business for the state' than they are interested in the provision of justice; and how to not only fight back, but to reverse the power structure as well as give the power that they currently have back to its rightful owners - which is us, the people.

Most of us are so frightened that we would never dare to bring any challenge to the court or to any other government agency. Of course, no one wants to go to jail, but on the other hand, can we continue to live in such terror for the rest of our lives? By the way, do you know the meaning of the word "terrorism"? I mean, do you know the full impact of that word?

Definition of the word "TERRORISM" from the Oxford Universal Dictionary 1933 rev. 1964:

Terrorism - A system of terror.

1. Government by intimidation; the system of the "Terror"

2. Gen. A policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adapted; the fact of terrorizing or condition of being terrorized.

I charge us not to allow the threat of jail to keep us from claiming self-ownership of ourselves. We have to eliminate any and all fear of government from ourselves because it is through this fear that they rule us. We can all stand together and show the fraud that is taking place!

Even if they put one in jail, he can view it as a chance to help others. You can teach all those you get in contact with about what you know. Just try to imagine if everyone in jail started to make use of the strategies contained in this book! It would first overload the system, and then it would totally collapse it!!! I can't wait for that to happen!

" _When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law."_

\- Frederic Bastiat

Have you ever mused about just where that "police officer" got so much power from or when it simply became acceptable for them to stop our progress and terrorize us, ask for our papers and intimidate us into letting them search us which, in most cases, turn out to be for no reason or for a manufactured reason? For example, because the department needs to see more arrests and to make money from it. Why do they think that they can treat us in the way that they do? Maybe because most of us just let them do it since it's so much easier?

And maybe also because their older comrades in arms taught them how to correctly handle their slaves (citizens)?

Of course, when it's profitable for them everything can be in reverse. In the recent Parkland shooting incident, we were not able to find out how brave those police officers were as four of those armed men were hiding during the school shooting. Now, you wouldn't expect police officers to risk their own lives now, would you?

We'll talk about the fact that they are NOT required to protect you according to numerous court decisions, including the supreme court of the United States later in the book. But right now, we'll try to emphasize another interesting fact that came out. The fact that the Broward Sheriff's Office (BSO), in partnership with the Broward County School District (BCSD), had directed their deputies not to arrest juveniles for a variety of crimes to artificially reduce their statistics in order to receive lucrative state and federal grants. What I want you to understand is that this police department exists for the benefit of the state, which has nothing to do with your protection. If it's profitable for them, they will manufacture crimes, but on another hand, as in this case, if it's profitable for them to improve their statistics another way, they will do so too. Just remember, they are NOT your friends; it's possible that they will help you if they get something out of it, but otherwise, don't count on them. They are the STATE policy enforcers and an additional profit center, nothing more.

And just think of one cruel joke that the state plays with those Parkland families that lost their children. The Parkland families **still have to pay taxes**. Just think about it. Let it sink in. For the worthless cowards who were hiding and enabling those murders, those parents have to pay for salaries, health care and retirement benefits. And if they miss the payment, they can be put in the cage while those responsible for the death of their kids will go on vacation...Can anything be more cruel and inhumane than that?

So, how do we go about changing it? To understand the answers to these question, we must take a sincere look at our past, scanning through its corners and crevices to come to a full understanding of where we are today, and what direction to go in the future so as to regain our freedom.

I sincerely hope that you can take something away from this book to wield as a tool in your own life as well as for the people around you. Because by sharing these ideas, we can amplify their power for the mutual benefit of all of us, as well as for the benefit of our children.

Happy reading!
PART I

## THE REALITY

Man is free to evade reality, he is free to unfocus his mind and stumble blindly down any road he pleases, but not free to avoid the abyss he refuses to see. - Ayn Rand

#  Preface

Government's Achilles heel

There are a number of different systems or ways by which we can wage war against the court. Sometimes, these methods work while sometimes they don't. Sometimes, even the system that shouldn't work ends up working, simply because at times the court system is so overwhelmed that it may just let you through for the sole reason that you had the courage to challenge the system.

However, the thing we need to do is to find out the method that will always work. Interestingly, there are a number of ways to do it; however, the simplest and most effective way to do so would be to get to the core of the system. That way, you don't have to learn so many different and often complicated laws. Actually, by learning and understanding several natural and common sense rules, you can fight and win any case. But you do have to know your basics.

To find the base of our defense, we need to go back to the very beginning, which is the 4th of July 1776. If you study that period, you will understand one fundamental fact, which is _that the government does not exist in nature._ Governments are created by men only as _fictional entities_. On July 3, 1776, everyone in the Thirteen Colonies were subjects of King George III. But, on the 4th of July 1776, when King George III was ousted, that moment marked an end to the existence of government here. In a place where just a moment before, everyone and everything had been under King George III, at that point, every single individual here became politically equal. There were no more aristocrats, and there were no more commoners. All had gained sole ruler over their own person, without any right to command the submission of any other person. Truly, all had become politically sovereign and equal; and at the same time. For whatever reason, that **most important part of history** is missed by a lot of people. However, something interesting came up AFTER the 4th of July 1776. George Washington and his friends decided that they wanted to create the government. So, they had to ignore reality. To slightly paraphrase Ayn Rand,

We can ignore reality, but we cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.

They had the full right to do that, BUT (now, they had a huge logical problem that they decided to ignore, and it can now be called the "government's Achilles heel;" the problem was that only people who CHOSE to VOLUNTEER into that POLITICAL FICTION would be part of that political fiction. This was because after July 4, 1776, they had no authority whatsoever to command anyone who did not choose to volunteer themselves to be subject to that government.

No individual has the right to be party to a founding document for a government, just as no individual can sign a document to sell their neighbor's house.

This is the fundamental problem that no one has been able to get around. It is axiomatic. Therefore, since governments do not exist in nature, they could not have more power than the individuals that comprise the government itself. And if the individuals that form the government were men like George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, or James Madison - all of whom are great men, their problem still remains that if they did not have the individual authority to command anyone to participate in the government, then there was no way the government could have that authority. Of course, none of them had that individual authority to command anyone to participate in the government and, therefore, the only way you can be made subject to the government's authority is by your voluntary act. You have to volunteer your submission by yourself. John Jay (one of the Founding Fathers of the United States) and the Chief Justice of the United States at that time in the case of CHISHOLM vs. STATE OF GA., (1793) wrote about the reason for his decision: "...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects (unless the African [2 U.S. 419, 472] slaves among us may be so called) and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty." http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/2/419.html

In 1865, Congress reconfirmed John Jay's opinion by passing the thirteenth amendment with the prohibition of the involuntary servitude where involuntary servitude was banned from existing within the United States, or in any place subject to its jurisdiction.

It means that the individual has supreme reign over his own existence. But even when they are joined together, they have no right to rule each other. So, to become subject to its jurisdiction, you would need to volunteer. In order for it to be a voluntary act, the decision must be knowingly, willingly, and intentionally taken; and this implies that the person who is volunteering would have to be fully informed of everything that he is giving up and what he would be getting himself into.

Someone may say "In light of the recent school shooting (Parkland, FL) and the government's unwillingness or/and inability to prevent such an event or to protect the victims involved, I would like to unsubscribe from its services as they breached the social contract. Now, if I only could remember where I put my copy..."

But that exactly is the paradox! When was anyone ever informed that by claiming to be a citizen of the United States you were in effect, acquiescing to the fact that you would have to give up your personal and individual sovereignty? It never happened!!! Of course, we are NOT going to repeat any part of what I just stated here in court (you just need to keep it in mind). Because if you simply stated to the judge that you are not subject to his jurisdiction, he will simply say that you are; and that would be the end of it. So, we will go about it indirectly. However, to do that, you need to first understand the logic behind it and only then should you think of acquiring the knowledge of how to indirectly force the court to talk about what you want - which is the jurisdictional issue, instead of any of their real or, in most cases, imaginary (statutory) crimes. What is the basis for this? It is because if you don't really understand what you are doing, the prosecutor or most likely the judge will make you lose the case by pushing you away from your goal. Most importantly, you must remember the basics. They will try to complicate things with their rules (real or in most cases imaginary (remember that judges (as well as cops and prosecutors) can lie, but if you don't get distracted by all their BS, you will win each and every time!

But once again, I need to state this fact: You MUST remember the basics.

# The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution; Two Completely Different Documents

In this part, you'll be introduced to the first rather baffling fact, which is that the founders of our beloved constitution were not freedom-loving people as the official propaganda machine portrays them. You'll be introduced to the fact that not only does the constitution of the United States have many defects (we'll talk about the details later), but even the declaration of independence has its own problems. This isn't even the most sickening part - you also need to know that these deficiencies were inserted there intentionally!

As strange as this may sound, most of the people in America have no idea what "Independence Day" commemorates. Pause and think about it. What does "Independence Day" connote to you? Unfortunately, the document that most people associate with that celebration is not the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, but rather, the Constitution of 1787.

Most people seem unaware of the fundamental fact that these two documents aren't identical, but instead, they are documents that express completely different attitudes and were proclaimed 11 years apart in completely different political environments and climes; for two diametrically opposed and incompatible reasons. This is quite a shocker, isn't it?

Apparently, for many Americans, any document written by a nonspecific group of politicians popularly known as "the Founding Fathers" is good enough for Independence Day!

So, let me explain their differences. Contrary to the belief of most, (or what we were taught in school), the document we now call "the Constitution" and the "Declaration of Independence" are not almost the same or even "connected in spirit," neither are they "two sides of the same coin." NO! As a matter of fact, these two documents were written by two different classes of people, at two different times to fulfill two completely different goals. Although there were some coincidences between the people who adopted the Declaration of Independence and those who adopted the Constitution, they were by no means the same group of individuals. And, what's even more important is that many of the people who signed the Declaration of Independence were actually against the Constitution! This should give us an inkling of how different the documents really are. There is simply no similarity between the contents of both documents when checked one page after another. The Declaration of Independence is a strictly libertarian document that explains and justifies the withdrawal and military overthrow of state institutions. On the other hand, the Constitution was basically aimed at increasing the tax power of the government as well as creating a stronger central government as a whole, and this document drew its own support from a hysterical overreaction to the Shays Rebellion by the rich politicians of the United States (that is, George Washington, Robert Morris, Alexander Hamilton, etc.). In other words, the Constitution was supported by individuals who had high hopes that the Constitution would facilitate the arrest and prosecution of people who, like the Revolutionary War veteran Daniel Shays', had grievances, and as a result, had an uprising against aggressive methods of tax and debt collection practices.

Meanwhile, the Declaration, which, in itself, is an act of formal treason lays out the reasons why people should be able to throw off the chains of government. A concise summary is found in its second paragraph, which describes how people have certain rights, and how the government also exists for a singular purpose and that purpose only: which is to protect these rights. When government fails in this critical role, which it is supposed to be geared to perform, "it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish" the government.

The Declaration then explains why, in their particular case, the Americans' act of rebellion is justified by listing 28 causes that their "legitimate" government at that time had abused their rights.

Despite what is usually said by modern "patriots" who oppose secession/resignation, the Declaration does not say that secession is invalid if there is a Congress, if periodic elections are held, or if the government is claiming to be "democratic." Jefferson's formula was very simple: if the government infringes on people's rights, people are entitled to abolish it. Wisdom, of course, can dictate that separation is impractical at many times and in many places, but this rational fact does not deny the moral rightness of secession and rebellion.

Even more important is that many of our so-called founding fathers opposed the new constitution, including Richard Henry Lee, Patrick Henry, George Mason, Elbridge Gerry and Samuel Adams. Thomas Jefferson expressed reservations about the Constitution and wanted a bill of rights added.

Of course, Jefferson did not presume the consent of the average American because there was no reason for such a presumption. Advocates for keeping the present state of affairs often claim that "everyone knew" that the older Constitution had failed, and that there was general consensus that a new constitution would be timely. Of course, such assessments are presumptuous at best, but rebellions prove them wrong. Think about it this way: if there was such a great demand for a new constitution, why was it so important for a new convention to be carried out in secret? Why did Patrick Henry say, "I smell a rat" after evaluating the plan for the new convention? The true happening was that on seeing how tough the ratification of the constitution would be, backers of the new constitution tried to propose a special ratification/endorsement committee to sign off on their new document in order to make an end-run around the more impartial, justifiable, and objective state legislatures.

Many, such as Jefferson and Patrick Henry, would later agree to ratification/ endorsement/ approval if the Bill of Rights was passed. Not long afterward, Jefferson was compelled to conclude that even the Bill of Rights - the only good part of the Constitution – was not enough. By 1798, he felt it was necessary to strongly support the idea that States possess the power to abolish federal laws, which, in their opinion, violated the rights of Americans. And so, this is what Jefferson wrote: if the federal government goes beyond its bounds, States must declare the federal actions mentioned to be "void and of no force."

Nevertheless, this idea contradicted the very spirit of the Constitution, which was mainly put in place to abolish or put an end to this kind of freedom and independence on the part of States. Nullification of federal laws on the States' level was done relatively easily under the old Constitution of 1777. With the specially crafted new constitution, such local privileges were scrapped.

The right to abolish or alter government (secession is just one form of "abolishing or altering") is one of those indisputable rights asserted in the Declaration of Independence. "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 affect their Safety and Happiness."

With this, I would challenge us to make a comparison between the ideal; the principles of government we celebrate, i.e., the principles outlined in the Declaration of Independence; and the government that we are forced to tolerate today. The Declaration of Independence declared four major principles:

1. that individuals were endowed with inalienable/indisputable rights from their Creator, not rights granted to them by the government;

2. that government's role is to secure those rights;

3. that government draws its just powers from the consent of the governed (implying that if the governed have not consented, the government is unjust); and,

4. the people reserve the right (indeed, a duty) to overthrow the government if/when it becomes destructive of the inalienable individual rights.

But what do we see today? These principles have been so watered down that as of now, the government defines our rights and asserts the rights of its own - through pronouncements from the courts and laws that dictate what we may and may not do and what the government may take from us. Government's role extends to every aspect of our lives and well beyond, simply securing our individual inalienable rights.

Today, we have accepted an unaccountable political, judicial, and bureaucratic aristocracy where career politicians, judges, and bureaucrats hold office essentially for life and the governed have little, if any, say (consent) in their selection and retention. We tolerate a political aristocracy that is essentially beyond the laws that apply to the governed! It is such a shame because if Thomas Paine were to walk upon the streets of the United States today, he would not recognize today's government as one that sprung up from the principles of the Declaration of Independence that he authored, and as well, neither would any of the signatories of the Declaration of Independence.

Here are the opening lines of the Declaration of Independence:

"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 affect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly, all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism. It is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Were the eyes of your understanding further opened as you went through those opening lines? If not, I would suggest you go through them again, for in them is so much forlorn power for the masses!

The whole conflict, of course, today was swept under the rug, because we, of course, have been taught to believe that if the holy "founding fathers" were involved in anything, that thing has to be, as a matter of necessity, quite remarkable. One may speculate if the Alien and Sedition Acts, which was part of the legislation to abolish the freedom of speech and the press, is also worthy of the same honor, since "the founding fathers wanted this." Ultimately, the founding father, John Adams, who signed the Declaration of Independence, signed it into law.

Independence Day should not be a universal and all-encompassing celebration of American politicians. In fact, it really shouldn't be a broad celebration of some vague idea of "America." Rather, there needs to be a movement for it to be quite the opposite, that it ought to be recognized for what its day and date signifies: the act of rebellion and secession in the name of independence, which happened on July 4, 1776. What happened afterward is an entirely different matter.

# Property Rights

The change of John Locke's Life, Liberty and PROPERTY in the declaration of independence, to the phrase 'the pursuit of happiness' has to be singled out as the worst evil that would ever befall the former colonies. Most people don't even know that this was changed and have no idea that this new phrase is simply a meaningless abstract and a complete DESTRUCTION of John Locke's original principle by the removal of the single most important word in the entire declaration. The reason for my making this assertion is that the right to life and liberty falls under the umbrella of PROPERTY, as does every other right and freedom that a human being has. Self-Ownership is the principle by which freedom is understood and applied. Ownership of PROPERTY... our bodies are our PROPERTY. The fruits of our labor and time are our PROPERTY. All freedom springs from property rights.

By removing this phrase, it destroyed that principle in the document and forever alienates us from direct self-ownership. That is why shortly afterward, the Constitution came alive with laws such as "Congress has the right to tax." Hear me clearly: Taxation is theft of PROPERTY. So, in effect, the attempt at a free place on Earth was already destroyed before the constitution ever saw daylight. Anyone who spouts propaganda to you that PROPERTY RIGHTS are not the most important thing on Earth with regards to your freedom is either:

1. lying to you, OR

2. does not know what they are talking about; as I have clearly demonstrated above.

Consider what Murray N. Rothbard wrote about the connection between Property Rights and Human Rights.

# Human Rights are Property Rights

Much is heard these days of the distinction between human rights and property rights, and many who claim to champion the one turn with utter scorn upon any defender of the other. They fail to see that property rights, far from being in conflict with, are in fact the most basic of all human rights.

The human right of every man to his own life implies the right to find and transform resources: to produce that which sustains and advances life. That product is a man's property. That is why property rights are foremost among human rights and why any loss of one endangers the others. A very valid example is this: how can the human right of freedom of the press be preserved if the government owns all the newsprints and has the power to decide who may use it and how much? The human right of a free press obviously depends on the human right of private property in newsprint and in the other essentials for newspaper production. In short, there is no conflict of rights here because property rights are themselves human rights. What is more, human rights are also property rights!

There are several aspects of this important truth. In the first place, each individual, according to our understanding of the natural order of things, is the owner of himself, the ruler of his own person. Preservation of this self-ownership is essential for the proper development and well-being of man. The human rights of the person are, in effect, a recognition of each man's inalienable property right over his own being; and from this property right stems his right to the material goods that he has produced. A man's right to personal freedom, then, is his property right in himself.

But there is another sense in which human rights are really property rights, a sense that is much obscured in our time. Take, for example, the human right of freedom of assembly. Suppose that a certain group wants to demonstrate for a particular idea or bill in a street meeting. This is an expression of the right of assembly.

On the other hand, supposing the police breaks up that meeting on the grounds of disruption of traffic. Now, it is not simply sufficient to say that the police have abridged the right of assembly for political reasons. Possibly, this was the case. But there is a real bone of contention here, which is that it is indeed a possibility that traffic had been disrupted. In that case, how is one to decide between the human right of free assembly and the "public policy" or "public good" of clear and unobstructed traffic?

In the face of this apparent conflict, many people reason out, and quite logically (which doesn't make it the right reasoning still) that rights would have to be relative rather than absolute and thus, sometimes, personal rights would have to be subservient to the rights of the common good.

# A Question of Ownership

However, what we really have to tackle head-on is the issue of the government being owners of the streets, which actually is a more subtle way of simply saying that the streets are in a virtual state of no-ownership. This causes not only traffic jams, but also confusion and conflict over who should use the streets at any given time. The taxpayers? In the last analysis, we are all taxpayers.

These are the questions to be addressed: should the taxpayers who want to demonstrate be allowed to make use of the street for that purpose and at the time they choose, or should it be reserved for use by other groups of taxpayers such as motorists or pedestrians? Who is to make this decision? When assayed critically, we discover that the decision can only be made by one group of individuals: those who form the government. Whatever the government decides is bound to be a wholly arbitrary decision, which would, instead of resolving the conflict between the opposing forces, only aggravate it.

Consider, for a brief moment, a situation where the streets are owned by private individuals. In this case, we see clearly that the whole question is one of property rights. If Jones owns a street and the Citizens United want to use it for a demonstration, they may offer to hire the street for that purpose. This gives Jones the power to decide whether he will rent it out and at what price he will agree to the deal. This illustration helps us to see clearly that rather than this being a question of the human right of the Citizens United to freedom of assembly; it is essentially a matter of their property right to use money to offer to hire the street for the demonstration.

However, in a free society, Jones cannot be forced to agree; and the ultimate decision is Jones' alone, in accordance with his property right to dispose of the street as he sees fit. Thus, we see how government ownership obscures the real issue—how it creates vague and spurious "human rights" that seemingly conflict with each other and with the "public good." In situations where all the factors involved are owned privately, it is clear that there is no problem or conflict of human rights; but on the contrary, only property rights are involved, and there is no vagueness or conflict in deciding who owns what or what is permissible in any particular case.

# Property Rights Are Clear

In short, there are no human rights that are separable from property rights. The human right of free speech is only the property right to hire an assembly hall from the owners, to speak to those who are willing to listen, to buy materials and then print leaflets or books and sell them only to those who are eager to buy. It's not as if there is an extra right of free speech beyond the property rights that can be enumerated in any given case. In all seeming instances of human rights, then, the proper way to go about things is to find and identify the property rights that are involved. The benefit of going about it this way is that any apparent conflicts of rights are resolved; seeing as property rights are always precise and legally recognizable.

Consider the classic case where "freedom of speech" is supposed to be curbed in "the public interest:" Justice Holmes' famous dictum that there is no right to cry "fire" in a crowded theater. Holmes and his followers have used this illustration over and over to proclaim the supposed necessity for rights to be relative and tentative instead of being absolute and eternal. However, I would suggest that we further analyze this problem. The fellow who brings on a riot by falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is, necessarily, either the owner of the theater or a paying patron. If he is the owner, then he has committed fraud on his customers. He has taken their money in exchange for a promise to put on a movie; and now, instead of fulfilling his promise, he disrupts the movie by falsely shouting "fire" and breaking up the performance. He has thus welshed on this contractual obligation, in violation of the property rights of his patrons.

Supposing, on the other hand, the shouter is a patron and not the owner. In that case, he is violating the owner's property right. As a guest, his access to the property is based on certain terms, including an obligation not to violate the owner's property or disrupt the performance that the owner is putting on for his guests. His malicious act, therefore, violates the property rights of the theater owner and of all other patrons.

If we consider the problem in terms of property rights instead of the vague and wholly human right of free speech, we see that there is no conflict and no necessity of limiting, reducing, or abridging rights in any way. We, therefore, can conclude that the rights of the individual are still eternal and absolute; but they are property rights. The fellow who maliciously cries "fire" in a crowded theater is a criminal, not because his so-called right of free speech must be pragmatically restricted on behalf of the "public good," but rather because he has clearly and obviously violated the property right of another person."

I hope we have been able to see the true essence of property rights and how they are the essential ingredients that allow the rest of the expression to hold as true. Doesn't the fact that it was removed show us that the writers may have had some ulterior motives? In future chapters, I will talk about additional proof of this assertion.

# Words

You don't need to take drugs to hallucinate; improper language can fill your world with phantoms and spooks of many kinds.

-Robert A. Wilson

As was stated by the President of the United States, Bill Clinton: "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is." So, let's start with some word definitions and then we will look at what some other definitions of those words could be. Bill Clinton, while being questioned about Monica Lewinsky, had brilliantly deflected that question and instead, made us ponder on the real meaning of the word "is." Bill Clinton really showed us that if you think really carefully about "what the meaning of the word 'is' is," you can do anything.

" _When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change."_

\- Albert Einstein

Let's try to define some of the commonly used words and see why prosecutors would prefer to lose a case instead of providing straightforward answers to simple questions, such as what do you mean by the word "state" or what do you mean by the word "government?"

Let's see how those words are defined by some dictionaries:

Government

– From Wikipedia: The system by which a state or community is controlled;

– From Oxford Dictionaries: A group of people with authority to govern a country or state;

– From Merriam-Webster: The body of persons that constitutes the governing authority of a political unit or organization; the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions.

State

– From Wikipedia: A state is a type of polity that is an organized political community living under a single system of government.

– From Oxford Dictionaries: A nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government.

– From Merriam-Webster: A politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory

– From President of the United States, Barack Obama: "What essentially sets a nation state apart, which is the monopoly on violence."

Polity

– From Wikipedia: A polity is any kind of political entity. It is a group of people who are collectively united by a self-reflected cohesive force, such as identity, who have a capacity to mobilize resources, and are organized by some form of institutionalized hierarchy.

– From Oxford Dictionaries: An organized society; a state as a political entity.

– From Merriam-Webster: Political organization.

Constitution

– From Wikipedia: A constitution is a set of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is governed.

– From Oxford Dictionaries: A body of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is acknowledged to be governed.

– From Merriam-Webster: A written instrument embodying the rules of a political or social organization.

Contract

A contract is a voluntary arrangement (agreement) between two or more parties. Formation of a contract generally requires an offer, acceptance, mutual intent to be bound, and considered.

Corporation

A corporation is a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity.

A body formed and authorized by law to act as a single person although constituted by one or more persons and legally endowed with various rights and duties, including the capacity of succession.

A large company or group of companies authorized to act as a single entity and recognized as such in law.

State

Sovereign and independent body of politics. It can be said that the state is the concept and DBA.

As can be deduced from the above definitions, there is relative consistency in defining what the corporation is, but no consistency with the definition of the government or state. Why would it be? It's all because of the origin of the state and government. Who and how it is organized.

Now that we know these official definitions, let's try to understand why the prosecution would try to avoid providing answers to such questions. There are a number of reasons for this, but one gets to the very heart of the system.

**Governments** (additional explanation from above) do not exist in nature. Factually, the government is a political fiction made to exist by intellectual power of the men. It's only a **concept** that makes it acceptable to kill people so as to provide the services. To continue to exist, it needs its believers to doggedly believe that it exists. People who believe in the existence of the state are called statists. Like in any other religion, if believers (statists) were to question their religion, in this case, the state (like any other imaginary, make belief thing (such as Santa Claus)), the state will disappear.

Like in any religion, indoctrination starts from a very young age. In schools, you are taught of

1. "Public servants"

2. About "social contract" that you've never seen or signed

3. About taxes that are "your contribution to civilized society"

4. That truth comes from authority

5. Not to question authority

6. That intelligence is the ability of remember and repeat

7. That accurate memory and repetition is rewarded

8. Non-compliance is punished

9. To conform: intellectually and socially

10. Imaginary lines matter

11. Constitution + Voting = Freedom, and as long as Constitution and Voting exist, they are by definition, FREE

12. And don't forget we must pray to the flag

Fundamentally, the public school system is set up as a training ground for obedient future employees. It's structured to reward kids for sitting still, doing what they are told and memorizing and repeating facts they are not going to use outside the school.

The funny part is that if kids started to go to school from the age of six months and their teacher gave them some walking lessons, then within just one generation, people would believe that without school, humans would not learn how to walk.

As any other religion, it also has temples for worship.

As any other religion, they also have their own religious euphemisms.

As in any religion, it requires sacrifices. For example, different governments during the 20th century murdered about 262,000,000 people.

Another religious ritual is called voting. Even though it produces bad results all the time, believers continue to believe in it and vote even harder next time.

On its face, it gives an illusion of some control.

But voting only legitimizes theft and coercion, and since voters actually choose the lesser of two evils, it actually leads to acceptance of evil and immoral action. As if somehow having a voice or taking part in a false collectivist ritual makes all the lies violence to be acceptable. Voting by itself is not a required process since the system is designed to work even without the voter influence.

Some die hard statists even believe that government can be changed and made better by using... the government.

Voting is the farce. By voting, the people decide only which of the oligarchs preselected for them as viable candidates will wield the whip used to flog them and will command the legion of willing accomplices and anointed lickspittles who perpetrate the countless violations of the people's natural rights. Meanwhile, the masters soothe the masses by assuring them night and day that they — the plundered and bullied multitudes who compose the electorate — are themselves the government.

\- Robert Higgs

What is unbelievable are masses when they see the democratic party's true color get angry and elect republicans. When they see republicans true color they get angry and.... elect democrats. When someone suggests that both parties are corrupt and neither side is going to look out for them, they act like this is crazy.

But what is crazy is doing this over and over again and expect a different result.

VOTING IS a sick mental game that is similar to the Russian roulette of choosing a specific list of people who will have a right to kidnap, imprison, harass, steal from and kill people, but trying to choose the one who is less likely to do anything from that list to that voter.

As with any other religion, when most believers hear an alternative view, they become angry at anyone who even tries to question their religion. Most will call anyone with an opposing view names and angrily suggest they leave "their country." As with any religion, there is a high intolerance level when someone even tries to question their "god." Here's some of their "logic" why we need slavery (government).

Additional arguments when you question them:

Of course, statism like any other religion, has its own punishment system.

Statism is the utopian ideal that just the right amount of violence used by just the right people in just the right way can perfect society. Fundamentally, it is a willful slavery of oneself and advocacy of the enslavement of others. It is despicable, cowardly human behavior, and the permission for a great evil to have dominion over the minds of men and women.

So, the prosecutor (like the priest) will never get himself into discussions or definitions of what the state or the government is. That's why they created all this make-believe dictionary so people wouldn't see the reality. That's why he knows that he should not touch that subject!

For example, it may very well veer off course and touch a subject of what the state is (who are you representing? What is the state (city, county, etc.?) Are you getting your orders from the landmass called the United States? (That's spooky)). Then he would be pushed into a tight corner and have to admit that he actually works for a fictional ellDistrict-Map.jpg

Owing to these assertions, would you then imply or infer from these that I'm now a Catholic or in the military? And by the way, if I'm in the military, then do you have a jurisdiction or not? So, then again, we are back to the question of how a fictitious entity got jurisdiction over me; who is a real person with flesh and blood! And without my consent at that, and which claims to NOT be a breach of the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution. That would also eventually bring us to the question of who a citizen is. That may also touch the definition of the word citizen – as for a state to exist, it needs subjects (citizens).

We have two definitions of the word **citizen**. One is from the 14th Amendment of the constitution (see Part V, Fourteenth proof "what is the citizen" later in the book, and the second definition is by courts (see Part VII, Nineteenths proof "myth of the social contract" also late in the book where, in both cases, we can clearly see that citizens either do not exist (based on the court definition or, based on the constitutional definition of the citizenship, we can establish that citizens may exist, but they need to be reconfirmed and established first. **Therefore, if we do NOT have any real citizens at the moment, we do not have a body politic. If we do not have a body politic, there is NO STATE. If there is no state, then there is definitely no government.** Now, we all understand why this is something that no prosecutor wants to go through! He already knows that he cannot logically win such an argument, and so will try by all means possible to deflect answering the question of what the state, the government, or the constitution is. If he tries to answer, it would only show him for what he really is; a regular mugger with a gun, and nothing more. Individual men and women calling themselves the government pretend to protect life, liberty, and property by threatening to take away your life, liberty, and property.

**Government** is one man controlling another man without the latter's freely given consent and providing for the man being controlled, services on a compulsory basis.

**Citizen** is a person who has fully surrendered all his Rights, including unalienable Rights (such as life, liberty, and property) to the state and is willing to be in a subservient relationship with the state in exchange for some promised privileges.

**Concept of citizenship -** creates hierarchy (the pecking order), which helps such an individual to lose empathy and causes a general sense of resentment to outsiders.

**Law** is a "written will" (an opinion) of the legislative department (individual men and women) backed by a gun. New laws translate to the fact that men with guns have a new pretext to kill you or to steal from you.

**A law-abiding citizen** is a person who is submissive to the whims of politicians without any personal discretion.

**Constitution** (additional explanation) – In the case of South Carolina vs. United States 199 U.S. 437 (1905)

<https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/199/437/case.html>

The opinion of the court was that "The Constitution is a written instrument" (in other words, contract), but factually, it's a document consisting of 4 (four) papers, which NO ONE bothered to sign. Right before all those signatures on the document, you can read the following text, "In witness whereof, we have hereunto subscribed our Names" as we all know witnesses are observers, not parties to the contract. It is also self-evident that those people had no Natural authority (in other words had ZERO authority) to command anyone to submit themselves to obey their individual command, so how can it possibly be reasonable for such impotent men to instill, permeate, or imbue their artificial entity with more authority than they themselves are naturally imbued or instilled with?

That is why the prosecutor does not want to talk about the definitions of words that he is using to justify his armed robbery of you and is unable to explain to you what he means by the state, the government, or even the constitution. "You claim to represent the state. What is factually the state?"

# Democracy

The Democracy is when the majority make slaves out of the minority

Do you think any of the founding fathers were interested in democracy? If you read the literature from 1776, can you find any mention of it? NO! What you will find is an insistent demand for liberty and a lot of it, but next to nothing about the subject matter of democracy. The Constitution also says nothing about democracy. Therefore, we are bold to assert that no one in the American colonies was interested in democracy.

The Founders didn't like democracy and certainly didn't trust it. What did they simply want? Liberty; plain and simple.

As British citizens, the early Americans already had more democracy than they could handle; and certainly more than in any other nation. Actually, this was the major reason for the war for independence. The colonies had a MINORITY of the British population, which was already governed by majority rule. So, even if every one of the colonists could have voted, they probably would have been unable to stop the parliament from passing the Stamp Act, the Intolerable Acts and other offensive legislation against them. You see; if you are in the minority, then living under majority rule isn't all that fun. Having your representative at the legislature can only be of help if you can persuade the majority to protect you; otherwise, you are toast.

James Madison, Federalist No. 10, wrote about the democracies of ancient Greece and others: "Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property, and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

 http://thefederalistpapers.org/federalist-papers/federalist-10-democracies-have-ever-been-spectacles-of-turbulence-and-contention

Thomas Jefferson had stated: "It is strangely absurd to suppose that a million of human beings, collected together, are not under the same moral laws that bind each of them separately."

You see, not many people were eligible to vote at that time. You had to be light skinned, own specified amount of property, have specific religious beliefs, and be male over a specific age range.

But again, none was interested in the democracy at that time, but were all fighting for liberty, which was totally different

As Thomas Jefferson stated:

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.

Democracy was described as "two wolves and a sheep voting to decide what's for lunch." James Madison wrote about democratically elected lawmakers: "It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. One hundred and seventy-three despots would surely be as oppressive as one."

There are two general models of how political change unfolds; the American Revolution and the French Revolution. Americans went for liberty based on the British common law (symbol: Liberty Bell) while the French Revolution was founded on democracy that was centered around the majority rule (symbol: guillotine). The resultant effect? America went on to become a free and prosperous nation while the French sped towards a reign of terror and Napoleonic Wars.

The same mistake was also repeated by Simon Bolivar, a big admirer of the American Revolution. He was able to organize and free not one, but six countries, namely: Venezuela, Columbia, Ecuador, Panama, Peru, and Bolivia. However, as a non-Briton, he had no background in British common law, so instead of choosing liberty, he budged in favor of democracy. Like the French model, they went to democracy and war. Chile went against Peru and Bolivia, Paraguay against Argentina, and from then on, uprisings and assassinations became the norm in Latin America. Since they had never adopted a rational legal system, they didn't even know what Natural Law is, and every few years, they swing from dictatorship to democracy and back.

# Freedom

So, let's go back to July 4, 1776.

Before this date, all the thirteen colonies were under the rule of King George III.

But, when on July 4, 1776, King George III was ousted; that moment marked the end of government here; where just a moment before everything had been under King George III. From that moment on, everyone here became politically equal. There were no more aristocrats or commoners. They all became individually sovereign over their own person, however, without any right or power to command subordination of any other person.

It helps if we think of this concept mathematically. Just think of each person having exactly ZERO authority over any other person. If each individual authority over anyone else is equal to ZERO, then how many ZEROs would be needed to add up to have a sum that will total more than ZERO?

This settles and proves with mathematical evidence that, although the Founding Fathers can surely assemble and establish any organization that they have agreed to, there was absolutely zero (0) feasibility of the founders to have any power or inherent ability to instill their creation, or possess any authority to command the submission of any person who individually did not voluntarily offer to submit himself to a government created in accordance with their Constitution. Zero plus zero will always be equal to zero, and in 1865, by the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment by Congress, this was instilled in acceptance of this mathematical certainty into their own Constitution.

If all humankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.

\- J S Mill

This information is very easy and not at all difficult; it is actually very simple and does not require any significant amount of learning or researching to be able to comprehend it! In addition, it is not required that someone files any document to any government agency.

Consider this (even if offensive) question: "How many men will it take to fairly and democratically vote panties off from an unwilling woman; off your wife, mother, or daughter?" For the benefit and out of concern, they say, of the emotional health of the voting men.

But what about the emotional health of a woman in the minority? How is it acceptable to argue that the claims of men to maintain their emotional health overrides that of the women?

Moreover, the very important issue raised by the above is the following: "Where does the power come from that allows the majority to command the minority? Why is this even a possibility?"

This is a very serious matter that no one seems to be ready to examine, even as their life is increasingly restrained and micromanaged by an artificial entity that does not exist in Nature.

Governments are created by people who, as individuals, do not have any natural powers to force anyone at all to submit to their authority - so how is it even considered reasonable that such impotent people can instill their artificially created entity with more power than they themselves are naturally instilled with? We ought to really ponder on this.

Many people will retort by explaining that additional powers are allowed through the voting process, but the same question arises: how can voters who do not have an individual naturally instilled authority to force someone to submit himself to their rule, create such authority simply by their agreement, that such power, in their collective opinion, is "for the benefit of all?" But this brings us back to the original question, "How many men will it take to fairly and democratically vote panties off from an unwilling woman?"

How can any community in which such voting is used possibly allege to be a community where freedom reigns? Who can determine what degree of freedom will or will not be permitted? If every single man or woman is not completely free, how then can anyone be accurately qualified as being free? How can you be partially free? How can freedom be partitioned?

Who can determine which element of freedom should be suspended and when it ought to be suspended? Where does the power come from to allow those who make decisions to make those decisions? What reinforces the strength of powers that be?

The Government of Free People cannot conceivably/imaginably be instilled with any more authoritative powers than the power naturally implanted within any one specific individual man!

Just try to think about it!

# Rights vs. Privileges

Most people confuse the word right with the word privilege. They may look similar, yet they are altogether two different concepts.

A **privilege** is a special entitlement granted to a specific group of people or to a person, either by birth or on a conditional basis, and **can be revoked**. However, a **right is irrevocable** and inherently holds entitlement.

The State holds your rights (you do not have any) and can grant you some temporary privileges.

So, what could qualify as a Right? Let's look at the American Declaration of Independence. It states that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights such as Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness ("the Pursuit of Happiness," was originally stated as "the property").

So, it states that everyone is entitled to live once they are created; that everyone is entitled to do as they please, so long as it does not conflict with the first right; and that everyone is entitled to own all they create or gain through gifting or trade so long as it does not conflict with the first two rights. For in order to pursue happiness, one must be able to live how they choose and determine how best to sustain themselves and their families. Property usually starts from self-ownership and goes down to other possessions, such as land and housing as the primary and most basic way of sustaining one's self as well as a family. Happiness and property cannot be experienced or owned without life, or rather if one is not living. And life cannot be experienced to its fullest measure if others keep intruding upon or interfering with it; which is why life, property, and happiness are greatly dependent upon Liberty.

Right is the power to decide for thyself; to make one's own choice. Using a right is always a choice. Even if choosing not to use it is still a choice because that decision was based on thought. No man, woman, or child has to ask for approval to use their rights. That is the heart of all inalienable rights. This is a fundamental difference between Rights and Privileges. While a right is something that can be done because it originates within a person, a privilege is something that cannot be done without the approval of someone else.

Do Americans have any of those rights?

Do people have their rights to their property? Let's look at President Franklin D. Roosevelt's (FDR) Executive Order 6102, which, in 1933, required Americans to surrender much of their gold to the government; a completely preposterous idea I must say!

Do people have the rights to freedom? Let's look at President Franklin D. Roosevelt Executive Order 9066, which was issued on February 19, 1942. It authorized the disheartening deportation and incarceration of Japanese American citizens. Based on that order, more than 110,000 Japanese American citizens were forced into concentration camps for no other reason than because they were of Japanese ancestry. That's all they did wrong. Their parents or even grandparents were born in the wrong country. No lawyers, trials, or anything like that; just the right to take them straight to the internment camp. Oh, and in 1944, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of that by ruling against Fred Korematsu's appeal for violating that order. What kind of right is it if someone can take it away, especially when you need it the most? Those are not rights, but would be better captured under the term "privileges."

Freedom of speech? The Sedition Act of 1798 signed by the founding father speaks for itself. It was repeated many times later on. In one of the most notable cases by Abraham Lincoln who curbed freedom of speech and the press, imprisoned thousands of people for disagreeing with him and let's not forget that he valued human life so much that he sacrificed 660,000 of his own countrymen just so he would be able to impose his taxes on those people who were unwilling to pay them.

So, you see the government (or precisely those people who are acting in the name of that fictitious entity) don't really care about you or your so-called "rights;" your welfare, children, safety, or anything else that concerns you. They only care about their own power; how it can be kept and expended whenever possible. Nothing else is the concern of those people. Doubt it? Then consider the case of Riss vs. City of New York (and many more similar cases throughout the country) where courts had declared time and time again that the government and specifically the police is NOT required to be concerned with your life or your safety. Not only that, but like in the case of Riss vs. City of New York, you don't have the right even to protect yourself against an attacker!

The government's claim that we have specific rights is bogus. It sounds similar to being partially pregnant. There's no confusion about it; you can either be pregnant or not pregnant, but you certainly can't be partially pregnant. Same here. We can either have unlimited rights or no rights at all. What we do have is privileges. Do you have a doubt? Ask a cop when you get pulled over about your precious right to travel freely, and he will inform you about those "privileges."

Also, if you have rights, then how is it possible that you must do the following and it makes no difference if you personally agreed to doing it or not? Basically, even if you disagree, you must still do it or risk being thrown into a cage or killed:

1. You must be obedient and must do and not do (be compliant with) whatever the government wants or be punished, including slave labor or even death for any and all noncompliance or resistance to government's domination.

2. You have no property rights. You do not own yourself. You can't do anything with your own body that the government doesn't approve of. The government decides and tells you what you can and can't do with your own body.

3. You can't own real estate. You are only allowed to rent it from the government. If you don't pay rent to the government, you would lose your home!

4. You own only part of your labor; you must first surrender whatever the government demands to the government and can only keep what is left over.

5. You can't structure your business dealings with other persons with the use of a medium of exchange of your choosing and you can only use the government approved medium of exchange.

6. While travelling, you must carry with you, your permission issued by the state together with any other requirements established by the state. You may not travel without such pass.

7. You can be punished arbitrarily.

8. You can't withdraw from this one-sided contract that you neither initiated nor had anything to do with. A contract that was simply forced upon you. A contract that has your responsibilities clearly stated on one side and no corresponding responsibilities from the other side.

What is the bottom line? It is that the ONLY entity that has rights in the United States is the fictitious entity called government and people who claim to act in its name. They have unrestricted, unlimited rights to do anything and to anyone. Anyone who tries to limit the government's rights will be punished, and such punishment can be as grave as being locked up in a cage or even killing him.

There is no law too small that the government will not kill you over.

People have no rights, only temporary privileges that can be taken away arbitrarily at any moment by a whim of some autocrat acting in the name of the government.

Unlike Natural law, political law is not neutral; its main goal is to create a system of privileges. Most of the legislation is devoted to robbing Peter to subsidize Paul.

People today, instead of trying to re-establish common law, spend their efforts competing to control political law, competing for privileges and not even rights so that they can become Paul and not Peter. This is the way we have been conditioned to think and so, instead of having a system of justice, what we now have is a system of "do unto others before they do it to you."

# Facts vs. Opinions & distortion of reality

Words are, of course, the most powerful drug used by mankind.

\- Rudyard Kipling

From Wikipedia

" **Reality** is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined. A thing that is actually experienced or seen. A thing that exists in actual fact.

**Reality is often contrasted** with what is imaginary, illusory, delusional, (only) in the mind, dreams, what is false, what is fictional, or what is abstract. The truth refers to what is real, while falsity refers to what is not. Fictions are considered not real."

" **Fact** is something that is postulated to have occurred or to be correct. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability—that is, whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement (by experiments or other means). Fact is sometimes used synonymously with truth, as distinct from opinions, falsehoods, or matters of taste. Fact may also indicate findings derived through a process of evaluation, including a review of testimony, direct observation, or otherwise; as distinguishable from matters of inference or speculation. Facts may be checked by reason, experiment, and personal experience. The truth about events as opposed to interpretation."

" **An opinion** is a judgment, viewpoint, or statement that is not conclusive. It may deal with subjective matters in which there is no conclusive finding. An opinion is a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. What distinguishes fact from opinion is that facts are more likely to be verifiable, i.e., can be agreed to by the consensus of experts. An opinion is opposed to positive analysis, which is based on scientific observation (what materially is or is empirically demonstrable)."

Based on the above, we can simplify it to be the following:

reality = facts

and

opinions = fantasy, distortions, additions, and deletions also known as hallucinations

So, not to fall victim to someone else's hallucinations, we are going to question everything that is stated to us by people who call themselves "government." If for no other reason, because they are clearly profiting from their actions at the expense of productive members of society. So, at the minimum, we have a clear conflict of interest in their actions. Also, if you add opinions or accept presumptions, you free bureaucrats of their burden of proof and make stealing from you that much easier for them. They have to make robbery look fair and legitimate; otherwise, if they show their true face for what they really are, they run a risk of losing the support of more people, and this will result in more people evading payment of "taxes." Without that money, how do you think they'll be able to afford to pay men to wear blue costumes and use their guns to force people to pay those taxes?

So, let's look at the facts without adding any opinions to them.

**Legal** \- Relating to the law; recognized by common or statute law, as distinct from equity. (Equity: a branch of law that developed alongside common law and is concerned with fairness and justice).

And;

**Law** is a system of rules.

But why would rules have such an effect on most people? Maybe because it's not a full definition. The full definition is:

**Law** is a system of rules backed by a gun.

Laws, codes, statutes, and even judge's opinions are all called laws. So, so-called laws are made by either collective legislature or by a single legislator. To simplify this, laws are basically just the "written will of the legislative department." And factually, by simple observation, "legislative department" is simply a group of some men and women. No more, no less. It, therefore, follows that this "written will" of those men and women may differ from the will of any other man or woman, but other men or women don't get to force other people to abide by their will.

Law is a written will of the legislative department backed by a gun.

In other words;

Law is a written will of one or several individuals backed by a gun.

It's also an acknowledged fact made by observation that no judge would ever acknowledge that the law is only the "written will" of some specific group of men and women, because by acknowledging that singular fact, there would be a revoking of the divine power of the law, which then loses its status and becomes simply known as the "written will" of some group of men and women. Just imagine if the judge acknowledged the fact that the law is nothing more than the "written will," then the prosecutor would now have to prove how that "written will" by some group of people had created an obligation on the accused to either do something or not to do so.

To simplify this problem, even more, let's change the word "law" to widget. The accusation goes like this:

The prosecutor: "You broke the widget."

Defendant: "Oh, but what is a widget? I'm not familiar with that."

The prosecutor: "I don't know what it is either. But you broke it."

Defendant: "But how can I break something if we both didn't see it or even know what it is?"

The prosecutor: "It doesn't matter. You broke it anyway."

How silly is that?

So, the decisions are based on "law," "codes," "statutes," and even "constitutions," but what they all literarily are, for some reason, are not explained. And this is because if you start to present before them real facts and not opinions, then it will be obvious to all that they will not be able to explain how their "laws" and "constitution" creates an obligation on anyone. How do you explain to anyone how a 250-year-old unsigned "written instrument" creates any obligation on anyone living today?

They don't like it when you ask them how and why what they call "law" (which, in simple terms, is a written will of some group of men and women) allegedly created the binding obligations they are accusing you of "breaking." If they admit that it's not binding on you, it follows that it's not binding on anyone else. Maybe even some "cops" will be less enthusiastic to kill in the name of the "written will." Maybe that's why most cops can't even answer what the law is. If they knew that what they defend so tirelessly is simply an opinion of some politicians, they would kill people with less enthusiasm. Just ask him: "What facts are you currently relying on to prove where, when, why, and how the "written will" of individuals, also known as "legislators," became obligatory on me?"

Why would you just assume that their laws are binding on you? For example, the "Congress" is just a group of individual men and women. If that is so, then what **facts** are there that would make you subject to the will of these individuals?

Try answering the following questions: except for coercion, exactly when, where, why, and how was control over your life established by the state?

The question we now have for them is, do they think that intimidation backed by violence is the same as good faith backed by justice?

Please remember that paper does not authorize anything that people do. Paper is only a record of their will.

The truth of the matter is, the "law" binds no one.

Now, please compare two of their opinions and draw your own conclusions.

Yick Wo vs. Hopkins 118 U.S. 356

<https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/118/356/case.html>

"For the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life at the **mere will of another** seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself."

Please compare it to:

JOHN P. KING MFG. CO. vs. CITY COUNCIL OF AUGUSTA 277 U.S. 100, 101

<http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/277/100.html>

"'Statute. A law established by the act of the legislative power. An act of the Legislature. The **written will of the Legislature..."**

Property rights? Any rights? What came first, property rights, or the "government"?

"The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called "ownership" is only by virtue of Government, i.e., law, amounting to any other person being a mere user rather than an owner; and that use must be in accordance with law, and subordinate to the necessities of the State."

\- SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 62, April 1933

So, what is the city or a state?

**City** is a municipal corporation. A municipal corporation is a city, town, village, or borough that has governmental powers. Municipal corporations are established by charters under a general municipal corporation law.

So, as we can see, cities are created simply by law as municipal corporations.

What is the corporation?

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF UTAH vs. ALDRICH 316 U.S. 174, 187

<http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/316/174.html>

"Today's new rule emphasizes the dominance of the corporation, a creature of the legal imagination."

"...state that charters a corporation, even though it amounts to no more than giving 'to airy nothing a local habitation and a name..."

And

Trustees of Dartmouth Coll. vs. Woodward 17 U.S. 518

<https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/17/518/case.html>

"A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law..."

And

<https://casetext.com/case/people-v-knapp-30>

PEOPLE vs. KNAPP 206 N.Y. 373 381

A corporation, however, is a mere conception of the legislative mind. It exists only on paper through the command of the legislature that its mental conception shall be clothed with power.

So, what do we have? The **city** is a corporation and a **corporation** is "a creature of the legal imagination" and "an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law" and "conception of the legislative mind."

City and state are both mental conceptions and hallucinations

It doesn't appear to be in any physical shape, form, or location. When some "cop" claims that you are in some "city" or "state," he not only contradicts the reality, but also contradicts his own laws. Because as we have established, his so-called city is a mental conception also known as a corporation and they exist only in the minds of the believers in such mental conceptions! In other words, they aren't even real!

It means that his "reality" is all in his head. The same as it was with Alice in her wonderland adventures. The problem, however, lays not with that, but with the fact that he is using his gun to force other people to conform to his political dream (and a lot of times, the gun is super scary!). It's a problem when Alice takes a gun and forces other people to accept her Wonderland. Not only that, but she claims to be "honorable" while going about it. If Alice would put a gun to your head, wouldn't you act as if you were in her Wonderland also?

Just ask them, "except for physical violence, how was your alleged jurisdiction over me acquired?" Is the only reason people in Miami ignore or pretend the "laws" of Fidel Castro are non-existent because they are out of the range of his guns? Is that the very same reason why people in Florida don't have to pay taxes of Georgia?

What we have is a group of individuals who are forcing other people to accept a mental conception or hallucination with laws that are described as identical to propaganda according to Alfred McLung Lee & Elizabeth Bryant Lee in their book " _The Fine Art of Propaganda_." "As generally understood, propaganda is an opinion expressed for the purpose of influencing actions of individuals or groups... Propaganda thus differs fundamentally from scientific analysis. The propagandist tries to "put something across," good or bad. The scientist does not try to put anything across; he devotes his life to the discovery of new facts and principles. The propagandist seldom wants careful scrutiny and criticism; his object is to bring about a specific action. The scientist, on the other hand, is always prepared for and wants the most careful scrutiny and criticism of his facts and ideas. Science flourishes on criticism. Dangerous propaganda crumbles before it."

With this avid description of the true aim of a propaganda, we can conclude that it's not only the particular "mental conception" which they are bent on forcing us to accept, but the general idea that they are forcing us to accept a "mental conception" and that is the real problem here.

Do they actually have the power to force some religion on us also? Would you force anyone to believe in any chosen religion? Can your neighbor force you to believe in some religion? It really makes no difference if it's a city, state, Santa Claus, Zeus, the Easter Bunny or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster; no one should be forced or coerced into believing anything. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monste>

The reason any idea or religion would have to be forced on people is that it's the only way for rational people to accept the idea and also act on it as if they actually believed it.

What would have happened if the mental conception called Flying Spaghetti Monster was not something that I had to accept? Then, what would happen? I would be OK. No one would kill me for that. However, if I start acting as if I don't believe in the mental conception of the "city," people called "cops" would simply murder me for my refusal to accept or participate in their "mental conception;" and it's that simple. This is because bureaucrats believe they have the right to kill anyone for refusing to accept their mental conception, whatever it may be; something as important to them as the "city" or as trivial as Santa Claus.

Representative rights and how the prosecutor proves that he has a client.

Will the judge let anyone represent you in court who is not a member of the BAR association? Just try it and you'll find out about his passion if someone other than the member of the mafia (sorry BAR) is representing you. So, let's turn it around and look at the cop or IRS agent who, at the same time, represents the "state." You would have to challenge the right for the plaintiff to appear in the representative capacity.

"Is there evidence of the complaining party? Yes or No."

The name only symbolizes the alleged party. But in reality, what does it really symbolize? If there were evidence of the complaining party, then the prosecutor would have complied with the law and produced the evidence.

You can ask the judge, "You think there is evidence of the complaining party. Are you concealing that evidence from me?"

One of the most important challenges, usually kept as a secret, is that the **prosecutor can't prove that he has a client**. There is no complaining party other than some cop or "agent." And those people don't know or even if they do know, are not qualified to answer questions, such as what the "statute," "state," "taxpayer," or "license" is, etc. Not only that but the judge will not permit him to answer a simple question such as "What is the "statute?"

Still, there is no complaining party other than the "cop!"

Just imagine being sued by a party whom you never ever heard of. All you have is just the name of that party. Would you need more information to find out if they have a right to even sue you in the first place or would you just assume that they have a right to sue you anyway? I would like to presume that you'd be bent on finding out if they actually possess the right to sue you.

The problem for them is that they are acting on BEHALF OF THEMSELVES under the collective "brand" or "alter ego" known as "the state." All of this is just an idea or a mental conception, a fantasy that has no real or tangible connection with reality. It is the same with Santa Claus. On the one hand, you see people who dress as Santa Claus, but does that make them Santa Claus? Also, that idea is very real to a lot of people, but when they grow up, it stops being real and for a very good reason. The same principle can be applied to the issue in front of us, since there is no "state;" the judges and prosecutors must break their own rules to force people into accepting their fantasy. So, unlike with Santa Claus where no one is forcing anyone to believe in him, judges and cops would force people to acquiesce to their fantasy by guns and, if necessary, by murder.

They may say that the state was an act of congress, assembly, legislature, or anything else. The question would be, how is "the act of Congress" a complaining party? Why would I have an obligation to obey or how did I damage the "act of Congress?" Exactly when, where, why, and how was I "within" or "subject to" an "act of Congress?"

If I can't be within "an act of Congress," then why is the cop testifying that I was within the state?

For example, there is a lot of talk about the Palestinian "state." They have some land there, and they have some people there. But we need to address the real issue without having any hallucinations. If they start believing that they are within the state, then this fluffy state will magically appear to them, just like in the story of "Alice in Wonderland." In effect, the existence of State is just an illusion in someone's head. You simply associate State with the land.

Just try to look at the situation like a traffic cop without any legal opinion and costumes. Just look at the facts of what is really happening. Like in the story of "Alice in Wonderland" when she stopped accepting the "Queen" as the queen, but looked at her for what she really was: someone who was just a playing card. In other words, Alice immediately stopped accepting that "mental conception" of the "Queen" as the queen, and the playing card lost its power over Alice right away! So, what we really have here is the guy dressed up in a costume of a "cop," who is committing several real crimes (under natural law and in the eyes of the ordinary person) against his victim. Like false imprisonment, extortion, etc. That is the reality. You have a man with a gun dressed in a costume called "cop uniform," who is taking control of your life and property without your freely given consent. From his actions, we can conclude that he has no respect for human life and he is a generally antisocial human being; at least when he is acting as a "cop." We know from Benjamin Ferencz, who was one of the prosecutors during the Nuremberg trials, that Nazis were mostly good, decent people while they were not performing their so-called "patriotic duties," and here he was referring to people whom he had prosecuted for the murder of millions of innocent civilians and, by the way, these people were all legally murdered under German law.

Do you find this comparison to the cops offensive? Why? He is willing to kill men, women, and children for not "following orders." He is willing to take orders from his superiors and kill men, women, and children on the basic premise of following orders. He does it right now; otherwise, he wouldn't be a cop. So, what's the difference between those SS troops prosecuted by Benjamin Ferencz for legally killing one million people under German law, and cops who are willing to do the same? Otherwise, why are they doing the things that they are doing? So, if you don't distort reality, that is the situation that we have on our hands.

As a matter of fact, who are they to force anyone to do anything? What is the difference between a mobster "convincing" a businessman that he needs his "protection" by making an offer he can't refuse, by threatening him with "contempt," and the people in the DBA government who are doing precisely the same thing? The question is not about the service, even though people in the DBA government do not provide any services; the question is not about that, but rather, about the nature of our relationship, which is only based on coercion.

The sad fact is that they are doing business with violence. Our relationship with the mobsters (sorry, I meant the government) is only through violence. By threatening with violence, their real intention is to keep people from questioning what is really going on. If questioned, people may start to see the reality for what it is and withdraw their support; and they know that their survival is dependent upon our support. Victims must help them, or their system will collapse momentarily.

The "government" is a group of individuals doing business by using physical violence and threat of such violence and differentiating itself from other organized criminal enterprises by assigning itself a status of "necessary evil."

Try asking the judge about the jurisdiction, and he will assure you that he has it. A judge would never turn to the cop or the prosecutor and ask, "What facts do you rely on to prove jurisdiction?" To make it clearer for them, just change the name "State of New Jersey" to "Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster," and if I challenge the jurisdiction of that, what would the judge do in that case? Do you see that the judge represents the state? Do you see our relationship is based singularly on HIS violence only? Ask them, "Do you consider intimidation backed by violence to be the same as good faith backed by justice?"

Judges don't like questions like, "Is there evidence of a cause of action against the defendant?" Just ask them what facts his "legal" opinion is based on. Basically, we take the "cop" to ask him questions where the judge would disqualify him for making the "legal" conclusion. For example, the question can be, "Did you witness him commit a "crime" or a "civil" violation? Basically, the cause of this whole mess in the first place. We can even show him a ticket, just to help him. You can ask him if that was an "arbitrary" opinion. If not, then what facts did he rely on to come to his conclusion? When the judge stops the cop from answering and disqualifies him from being able to testify against the defendant, we can then ask the judge to disqualify all the "cop's" testimony since he made the legal conclusion by writing the ticket in the first place. Judges do get upset because their much loved "cop" can't testify because there are no facts. Since the cop isn't permitted to make legal determinations, then should we strike the ticket that he wrote based on his distracted, traumatized, or stricken legal determination? **Because this ticket is valid enough to represent an arbitrary "legal" opinion, which in simple terms, means that it's just fantasy.**

Fantasyland may include the following accusations:

"within a state," "resident of the state," "violated a law," "subject to the jurisdiction of..."

Because even the word like "state" represents a fantasy; there is no "STATE."

Actually, words like "legal" and "lawful" not only have no meaning in the real world, but have a sinister purpose. By using those words, men and women have been able to, and are still able to justify some of the most horrifying deeds ever imagined. When people assume to be the "state" through any human moral qualities and ethical convictions together with the word "legal," it infuses in them a kind of unusual boldness to try out things which they otherwise would never do. Some examples that readily come to mind are slavery or Nazi crimes. Nazi war crimes prosecutor, Ben Ferencz, who prosecuted 22 SS officers after the war had this to say, "The Nazi soldiers who committed atrocities were not "savages," but "intelligent, patriotic human being[s]" acting in the interest of his country in his mind." No different than the man who dropped the nuclear bomb. "Do you think the man who dropped the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima was a savage?" he asked. The opposite is also true. Just as people who buy and sell specific drugs today are called criminals. If tomorrow, those laws were to be revoked, those same people would be transformed into so-called "law-abiding citizens."

What is our inference? It is that being classified as either a criminal or a law-abiding citizen is but a mere opinion. An opinion is generally considered to be a label that someone attaches to facts. Someone smoking a joint can be called either a "criminal" or a "law-abiding citizen," and the fact that different people attach different labels to the action doesn't change the fact that this individual is smoking a joint. When you deal with facts, then no amount of human mind intervention (distortions/hallucinations) will change those facts. They are sacrosanct.

For example, what is the difference between what the people who do business as "IRS" do and what a regular thief does? Just the label attached to it: either "legal" or "not legal." If you pose this question to the victim whose property was taken by force, it's all the same thing.

" **Legal" and "not legal" are labels assigned by political opinion.**

They are not factual or real.

So, when a "cop" comes to the "legal" opinion that you are within the "State" and subject to his "jurisdiction," you can ask him what facts his opinions are based on. You see, it's no different than if he told you that he believes he is Alice and you are in his wonderland and, therefore, you are under his jurisdiction and should pay the man behind the curtain $50. See, that accusation has no more basis in reality than what the "cop" will tell you. Like in Alice's wonderland, human distortions to reality are not real. And just because someone wears a costume and a nice-looking badge and threatens you with violence, it still does not change the reality. Most "cops" don't know what the State or jurisdiction is, but they will kill you if need be to make YOU act on these hallucinations.

What is the factual difference between a state and protection racket? We already know that the appellations "legal" or "illegal" are just labels or tags. The only real difference is that violence is not used as openly in the "legal" system because of the pretense of fairness, which is the only difference that separates them from their "illegal" competitors. The reason they can do that is the public relations that they have with their victims starting from childhood. Starting from indoctrination centers funded by theft.

Can you imagine your opinion about the mob if you went to a school run by the mob from the age of five?

**The idea of the State** is based on the idea of **socialism** or redistribution of wealth from productive members of society to unproductive.

As Hans-Hermann Hoppe put it correctly: **"There can be no socialism without a state, and as long as there is a state there is socialism. The state, then, is the very institution that puts socialism into action; and as socialism rests on aggressive violence directed against innocent victims, aggressive violence is the nature of any state."**

The short version describing the state (also known as socialism) would look like this:

As Oppenheim nicely put it, "looting" is the business of the state.
This is how the longer version of the idea of the state looks like:

As Benito Mussolini once stated: **The keystone of the Fascist doctrine is its conception of the State, of its essence, its functions, and its aims. For Fascism the State is absolute, individuals and groups relative.**

So, as a result:

" _We now live in a nation where doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, governments destroy freedom, the press destroys information, religion destroys morals, and our banks destroy the economy."_

\- Chris Hedges

# The Thrill of Political Power

" _Our power placed us above the rest."_

\- Winston Churchill

**Political power** is the legal privilege of using force on people who have not harmed anyone.

" _The one means that_ _wins the easiest victory over reason: terror and force."_

- Adolph Hitler

Unlike the right that we all have to use force in self-defense, political power is the use of force against the peaceful. Let's take taxes as an important example. When the government collects taxes from someone, it is saying in effect, give me your money or a man with guns will come and either throw you in a cage or kill you in the process. That person didn't do anything wrong, didn't harm anyone, but still gets threatened with violence and extortion for no reason.

Therefore, a seeker of political power is a person who wants the legal privilege of using guns, chains, and prisons to make other people do as he wants. He wants that political power to get what he wants.

Political power is not the capacity to build a better world. On the contrary, it is a force used on human beings. It is something that is done to someone else. It is a force, sometimes carefully disguised, but it's always there in the background waiting to be used if you do not obey or comply with laid down regulations. Political power is pure violence.

Once a power seeker has been into his addiction for a few months, he begins to lose his moral sense (if he ever had one). He becomes amoral, and he'll say or do anything necessary to feel that rush. He is a junkie. If you read medical reports describing the cocaine rush, you will see a similarity to the political power junkie. One of the theories is that drugs produce artificial substitutes for body chemicals that came naturally to the cave man when he speared the mammoth and, nowadays, this happens to those in political power from the regular police officer to the president of the United States.

What is it that makes so many, even law-abiding people scared of police officers? Why are there no such feelings when surrounded by peace officers? Because the goal of the peace officer is to keep the peace. He fights encroachment and fraud. He protects people. The police officer, on another hand, enforces the laws of the state. He does whatever politicians tell him, even if it means breaking the peace, encroaching on others, and even killing innocent people.

In return for the willingness to do **anything** for the politicians, police officers then get an almost unlimited form of power over the public. Many of them, drunk with that power and an attitude of us vs. them could then easily begin to commit all that violence that we see on the TV and the internet.

As was written by William Hazlitt, "Power is pleasure." Some people complain about police violence by claiming that this is an abuse of power. But how can there be an abuse of power when **the power** in itself is an abuse? Everything they see is the result of that power.

Part of the problem is the pure excitement of exerting the power of domination, of conquest. The biochemical high. It's the same for the mob demanding a new law or a police officer intimidating an innocent person for mentioning his "rights," or even an 8-year-old girl who was silenced for "acting out." It all goes right back to the feeling of the caveman when he speared the mammoth.

Let us run through some of the questions asked before a cop is qualified. "Are you willing to kick the snot out of someone who questions your authority?" "Do you believe that a teaser is a good substitution for your poor communication skills?" "Do you have a need to control others?" "Do you think other people are just your slaves and must do what you want when you order them?" "If you answered yes to those questions, then become a police officer today!"

Just think about it. Based on official statistics in an average day, police in America MURDER at least three people.

Political power is like any other drug. It causes people to behave in predictable ways. For instance, if you are told that someone is a heroin addict, you would expect that person to act in a certain predictable way. The same can be said for political power.

Sometimes, police like politicians go way overboard and show us their TRUE faces which is what happened in Philadelphia on May 13, 1985.

Do you know what happened here? Any guesses?

It was a military assault by...the Philadelphia police department that killed 11 people, including 5 children, and destroyed 65 homes. Do you know what they did? They bombed the place. It was a simple barbaric police bombing of that place!!! On that day, the government and police decided to bomb the Osage neighborhood in West Philadelphia, causing the deaths of 11 people (five of them children).

Power seekers enact laws, collect taxes, start wars; and just for the thrill of power. That thrill comes from the use of power, but the end result is not all that important to them. They may get you into war, even if they know they will lose it because playing and losing is preferable to not playing at all. Political power corrupts the mind. Humans are not made to be gods; they can't handle it.

Just as cocaine addicts don't like needles, but have to use them; power seekers don't like insane laws, taxes, or wars, but they can't help it because that is the only way to feel the thrill.

A political power seeker only has three priorities: to keep the power at any cost; to use the power on someone so he can feel the excitement and rush that comes from 'killing the mammoth;' and the third is to get more power. As Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, "The only prize much cared for by the powerful is power."

As a very good example, consider Donald Trump, the new President of the United States. It was quite amazing to hear from many people, even from those who claimed they'd never voted in their entire lives, to suddenly turn around and advocate voting for Donald Trump. What valid arguments were there for doing that, even if we drop the question that the voting act is in itself a criminal thing to do because you are forcing unwilling people to do something that they are not willing to do? The only valid argument was that either he or Hillary Clinton would win and that she is an incarnation of evil on earth. Of course, she is, she is a politician!!!

But why would anyone think that Donald Trump is any different? OK, just a few months after he became the president, everyone can see that he is not much better than Hillary. Just like her, he is bombing Syrians and Afghans, and he is making the American public believe that North Koreans pose a serious threat to the Almighty United States.

He is everything that he promised NOT to be, just like any other politician.

But let's look back to the time before he became the president and see if there was actually any reason to believe that it would be any different. By all accounts, he enjoyed his power while building his business empire. He used the **power of his own celebrity status** (please pay attention to that!!!) during the time that his holding company was filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy a whole FOUR times. So that Trump himself personally was able to avoid it. For example, Trump's casino venture was a failure, cost thousands of people their jobs and left a lot of small businesses without payment for the work they did in building or servicing the casinos. However, Trump, who extracted millions of dollars by paying himself millions in salary and bonuses, was able to declare: "I made a lot of money in Atlantic City, and I'm very proud of it."

After his failure in Atlantic City, banks became increasingly averse to lend him money (maybe they knew something about his business acumen?). So, Trump changed his focus to monetization of **his personal brand** (again, please pay attention to that!!!). Instead of building his own hotels and housing, Trump started licensing out his own name to other developers. We now have Trump Towers and Trump Plazas all over including Florida, Panama, Vancouver, and Istanbul but the truth is, Trump only owns a few of them.

Trump has put his name on a lot of businesses and merchandise. Actually, he has put it almost on anything. Although some of the ventures, like the Donald J. Trump Signature Collection of shirts and ties, have been somewhat successful, most of it like Trump magazine, Trump Steaks, Trump Airlines and even Trump Vodka went down the drain. Also in the list of failures must be included the now-defunct Trump University which was sued by thousands of former students for outright fraud.

Bloomberg estimates Trump's current fortune at $3 billion, but Trump himself claims he is worth $10 billion, but he adds that this figure "goes up and down with markets and with attitudes and with feelings, even my own feelings." His refusal to release his tax returns prompted speculation that he is worth much less than expected. Also, his companies are carrying at least $650 million in debt, some of which is owned by the Bank of China. _Can this be the reason he changed his mind and stated that "They're [China] not currency manipulators?"_ while during the campaign he promised to declare the opposite. Is it possible that with such behavior, Trump's worth may actually be a **negative number!!!???**

Trump **enjoys bullying others**. His record of ruthlessness and unprincipled behavior is well known. Donald Trump's love for bullying Ordinary Citizens is well illustrated in one case of his harassment of a five-foot-three-inch-tall Atlantic City widow, Vera Coking.

In the early '80s, the founder of Penthouse magazine, Bob Guccione, presented Coking with an offer of a cool million dollars for her property as he wanted to raze it to make way for a casino. But she refused his offer.

But then, Donald Trump moved in and offered to buy her property while he was in the middle of the building of Trump Plaza casino. He wanted to turn it into limousine parking. But the tough woman said no to him also. Her house was simply not for sale.

But Donald Trump is not Bob Guccione, and nothing could be permitted to stand between him and what he wants. Trump began attacking the **widow**. But, Coking held on, even as Trump Plaza towered outside her windows. The house was deteriorating, but Coking's will definitely wasn't. Even when Trump's demolition crews had set fire to her roof which broke her windows, and smashing up much of the third floor, she still didn't move.

In May 1994, she received a letter from the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority with an offer of $250,000; that was 25% of what Bob Guccione offered her a decade earlier. In addition to an offer, the letter was also threatening her to use eminent domain to take away her property if she didn't agree to the deal. Of course, Trump wanted to use the government's eminent-domain power, a power that was intended to (as a last resort) allow the government to forcibly acquire property from private owners for "public use." But even with such a law in place, there seemed to be no reasonable interpretation that could result in Trump's limousine parking lot been characterized as "public use;" it was the opposite, it was for Trump's use and Trump's use only. It could only be summed up as follows: Trump has a track record of using the government thugs to take over other people's property.

But Coking wasn't at the end of her wits yet, and chose not to give up fighting Trump and his thugs from the development authority in court, until, finally, the New Jersey Superior Court had to finally throw out the case. "The court ruled that the casino and Trump were wrong, the government couldn't take Coking's house and let Trump have it."

Please remember that all of that happened well **before Trump became president** , as, at this time, he was already trying to get himself up higher than anyone else. In effect, he was already preparing himself for the role of the President of the United States.

Unfortunately, he wasn't above **scamming people; just like** in the case of the "Trump University." In that case, we can clearly see that if there is one thing that Donald Trump knows how to sell, it's his reputation as a real-estate mogul.

Now, he wants to throw out millions of illegal immigrants? Let's talk about his use of **illegals!** Trump used illegal immigrants to build his Trump Tower and on various other projects over the years.

Donald Trump has always bullied his way through life. To Trump, the livelihood, property rights, or expectations of fairness of the "little people" had no bearing on his dogged pursuit of wealth and power. Mr. Trump is the typical power junky, and even before assuming his role as president, he was actually a typical politician. He already had an obvious obsession with his own image and clearly had a thing or two for narcissism. And, of course, he already was super thirsty for more power. This was why he could win the US election. He did whatever he had to, to get to that seat of power. So, now, we have a power junky that would obviously do anything necessary to keep that power. Now, he does everything Hillary Clinton would have done, including bombing the Syrians and Afghans, threatening North Koreans as well as a lot of other "necessary" things.

During the election, Trump implied that his record of ruthlessness was the exact thing the American people needed: Voters chose the man who didn't hesitate in trying to muscle a little old lady out of the way for a limousine parking lot; someone scammed thousands of people in his "Trump University" affair. How low could he possibly go? And that was even before he got all the pure power of the federal government. Do we have any evidence that Trump is finished being a bully? Not really, just the opposite. Sure, he says he's acting in the interests of most Americans; sure, he says he will only push our enemies around; but how? By bombing Syrians? By threatening North Koreans?

As horrible as the tragedy that happened in Parkland is, please consider the following question. Why feeling of power, excitement of exerting the power of domination, feeling that high is wrong for that shooter but is OK for Donald Trump since it is acceptable for him to murder 674 civilians in just ONE month by bombing them in Syria?

He also says that his less-than-ethical business practices will be used in going forward, and for the sole purpose of making America rich. Let's take a step back and be objective: Can he really prove to us that he himself is still very rich? Why not? Why did he say that he "might release them [tax returns] after I'm out of office?" With a record like that, Donald Trump was successful in persuading the gullible population to elect him as President, and sadly, they took his word for it.

The reason I wrote all this specifically about Donald Trump is not to vilify him, but simply to show you that ALL, and I mean ALL politicians are the same. It would be unreasonable to gobble down such an unreasonable thought that there really can be a good politician somewhere, because to get to such a position in the first place, you have to go through the election process and win the election against another politician who is himself a power seeker that's ready and willing to do anything for his own victory. It follows that you must be willing to do the same.

So, even if someone is claiming to be an outsider like Donald Trump, for instance, someone who even looks and talks differently, don't be surprised if all your hopes are shattered in the long run. From any political arguments, the only argument that would be correct would be "my opponent is a very bad person" and "he will make you suffer one way or another." It's the same thing with Donald Trump, there was an argument that Hillary Clinton is a reincarnation of evil and that she would have made people suffer if she became the president. But did that make Donald Trump any better? Of course not. He was already a politician (selling himself as a brand, which is the same thing done by any other politician), with the only difference being that he had a much better public relations department than Hillary Clinton. That was the ONLY difference.

**An** **honest or good politician is like god. Many people talk about and believe in but no one has ever seen or heard from one yet.**
