Someone told me recently that we had moved out of the Piscean Age and into the Aquarian Age sometime in 2003. They had described the Piscean Age as one where it was understood that people needed to be told what to do, while in the Aquarian Age people need to figure it out for themselves.

I have been seeing something similar in terms of sovereignty. It used to be that sovereignty was seen as being vested in a single person or office. In fact, Random House Dictionary defines it thus: 

Sovereign n.
1) a monarch or other supreme ruler.
2) a person who has sovereign power. 
3) A body of persons or a state having sovereignty.
4) belonging or characteristic of a sovereign or sovereignty; royal.
5) having supreme rank or power.
6) supreme as power.
7) greatest in degree. 
8) being superior to all others.
9) having independent and self-governing power, status, or authority: a sovereign state.

Sovereignty n.
1) the quality or state of being sovereign.
2) the status, dominion, power, or authority of a sovereign; royalty.
3) supreme and independent power or authority in a state.
4) a sovereign state, community, or political state.            

America did something that has changed the world when our Founding Fathers declared that a “government derives it’s just powers from the consent of the governed.” (*** verify quote and notate source) This is the most important distinction between America and any other nation in the world, as it is a statement that declares that in America at least, sovereignty is vested in We The People. It is a declaration that each and every citizen of America is a sovereign in his or her own right. 

What I have been seeing is that as we move from the Piscean Age into the Aquarian Age this notion of individual sovereignty will be more and more generally accepted worldwide. This change in the notion of what sovereignty is will undoubtedly have significant impact on the world as we know it.

Another way of looking at this shift is to say that we are moving from a no-will universe into a free-will universe. In today’s world sovereignty is born out of the fact that each and every person on the planet has dominion over their own reality and the right to create that reality however they wish, without regard to anyone else’s opinion.

Overall, I consider this move to honoring a free-will universe to be a good thing and I want to hurry the process along a bit if I can. Therefore, I am proposing that we make a few changes to the law that are more consistent with a free-will universe, using the American legal system as a foundation to build upon. 

Over the last couple of years that I have been doing this work, I’ve had to spend a substantial amount of time looking into the law. Being body polarized, nothing can exist in form unless I am projecting it into reality. So, to discover what is in fact The Truth with respect to the law, it was only necessary to look inside my Self to see what it is that I am projecting as reality. What I’ve found is that much of what we have been told about the law is either simply not true, or involves some kind of duplicity or deliberate deceit.

What I see when I look at the law is that it consists of three basic parts: jurisdiction, a hierarchical structure of agreements (laws, statutes, or ordinances), and procedures. The real key piece of this has to do with jurisdiction and it took quite some time for me to understand what jurisdiction really is. The Random House Dictionary that I looked at defined jurisdiction as such:

Jurisdiction n.

1. The right, power, or authority to administer justice.
2) authority, control.
3) the extent or range of judicial or other authority.
4. The territory over which the authority of a person, court, etc. is exercised.

It’s interesting to me that while the definition above is accurate as far as it goes, it is not the whole of the truth. What I see is that the very definition is duplicitous. When I look at The Truth with respect to this thing called jurisdiction I see three different and distinct types of jurisdiction; Original Jurisdiction, Legislative Jurisdiction, and Judicial Jurisdiction.

Original Jurisdiction. This is an issue of where and what one sees sovereignty as coming from, on high or on low. In a free-will universe sovereignty is seen as originating with the individual citizen and thus in this country all jurisdiction over We The People originates with We The People. 

Each and every one of us has the right, the power, the authority and the jurisdiction to create our reality as whatever we please. However, there are times when it is for the greatest good of all that we choose of our own free will, to give over some of that authority to a group of people and allow them to define how it is that We The People are going to interact with one another with respect to some aspect of our lives or some scarce resource.

For instance: We all need to interact in a consistent manner with respect driving on the roads or highways of this nation. We need to define how it is that we are going to share commercial lumber or fishing resources. Airspace rules, environmental protection, public land management are all areas of our lives where it makes since to allow someone else to define the rules, and then we just agree to create our reality consistent with those rules.

Legislative Jurisdiction. This is essentially the right to make law with respect to some aspect of our lives or some common resource. And We The People give this authority over to our legislators through our Constitutions, County Charter, City Charters and other such documents that we or our representatives have voted on and agreed to abide.

Judicial Jurisdiction. This is a power and authority that We The People have given over to the Judiciary at both State and Federal levels and is essentially the right to administer the law. It is in fact the permission given at free will choice by each and every citizen of this nation, to allow the Judiciary to administer the law and in the absence of a jury the right to enforce the law.

This is crucially important to the Judiciary, as this permission allows them to avoid Karmic Consequence, which is pretty harsh at forty to one and unto ten generations.

Revoking Jurisdiction

So, if we want to take our power back from any person or institution to whom we or our ancestors have given over that power, the first thing we need to do is simply change our minds with respect to giving this power away. This is a free will Universe and we always retain the right to change our minds about anything. In other words, we have the right, the power and the authority to revoke jurisdiction.

In order to make it possible for us to create for ourselves The Truth with respect to the law we first need to take back the authority to do so from this institution known as The Law. Revoking jurisdiction from our conscious mind doesn’t have a lot of influence with respect to our unconscious mind, or the agreements of our ancestors. So, to effect this changing of the mind fully and completely, and thus freeing ourselves from these agreements to give over that authority, we will need to do the following reframe. The Law is crucially important because our reality is created largely as a function of our agreements, and the Law is nothing other than a hierarchal structure of agreements. So let us revoke jurisdiction. To accomplish this speak the following words out loud.

“The right to determine what is and is not The Truth with respect to the Law is revoked. I do so in my own name and on my own authority. Thank you I love you, I love you thank you.”

Next, create in your mind’s eye a picture of yourself speaking these words and “Click” take a photo of yourself. Put a frame or a border around this picture of whatever colors come to mind. Your unconscious mind knows exactly the proper colors to choose. Then starting at the top of your head, drop this picture frame and all down through your body, letting every cell of your body and all your ancestors come into alignment with this declaration. And finally, imagine a picture of the planet below your feet the size of a beach ball and push this picture through the picture of the planet to anchor it therein.

Having done that, two things occur. First, we can now allow ourselves to see what is actually The Truth with respect to the law since we are no longer agreeing to allow others to do that in our stead. And second, we have given ourselves the right to create The Truth with respect to the law, any damn way we wish.

The Principals

The legislature has gotten pretty creative at obtaining jurisdiction over the years, and I will elaborate on that subject a little later in this book. For now, let us look upon what I propose as appropriate legal principles for the 21st Century and the Aquarian Age.

Principal #1: Free Will Supersedes Rule of Law.

We have actually already canonized this one in our Federal Constitution. It’s called the 13th Amendment which states that “Slaver is abolished.” (***Assure proper quote) It has just not yet been interpreted to mean that free will supersedes rule of law. Slavery is the essence of a no-will universe, if slavery is no more then it follows that free will shall prevail. This is the core issue and the biggest change to occur during this transition between the Piscean Age to the Aquarian Age.

Principal #2: “The Jury has the Right to Judge Both the Facts and the Law in the Case.”

This is actually a quote by the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel L. Skinner. (***Get and reference the case.) So, there is nothing to do to manifest this principal into reality. It’s already there. What’s needed is to inform all potential jurors that they do in fact have the right and the moral responsibility to judge the law during their tenor as a petite jury member.

I mentioned earlier that the most important advancement in civilization manifested by America was the concept of individual sovereignty. This principal is actually the second most important principal. It is the idea that while we give the legislature the right to make law at free will choice, we have reserved unto ourselves the right to enforce the law in the form of the Petite Jury.

So, in this nation We The People have reserved to ourselves the right, the power, and the authority to refuse to enforce any law created by the legislature. When a Petite Jury chooses to exercise this power it’s called Jury Lawlessness by some, but I prefer the term Petite Jury Veto. In my opinion it is the exercising of the power of the Petite Jury Veto that will allow the transition of the law to the Aquarian Age without having to turn to violence.

Principal #3: The witness has the right to repudiate their testimony if forced into a lie of omission.

Several years ago I was listening to NPR and heard a story about a deportation hearing of some Salvadorian people who were seeking political asylum here in America. The person relating the story was very upset in that the Judge in that case had declared certain information to be inadmissible. The information in question was that if they were deported, they would be killed. As a result, they were deported and subsequently killed.

This was a case of a Judge picking and choosing what to allow and what not to allow the jury to hear in order to obtain the most politically desirable verdict. And I take issue with that and see it as an abuse of power.

We have the right, the power and the authority to determine for ourselves what is and is not the whole truth with respect to our testimony in any court of law. And if at the end of our testimony we determine that we have not been allowed to tell the whole truth, but only that part of the truth that the Judge and the Prosecuting Attorney would allow to be heard, we not only have the right to stand up and declare that we repudiate our testimony, but I assert that it is our duty to do so. We are the caretakers of our own integrity, and no one, not even a Judge can take that away from us, We The People.

Now, I realize that this power could very well be abused. It is totally appropriate for a jury to determine that there is reasonable doubt if a witness were to declare that they do not stand behind their testimony because they were forced into a lie of omission. To do that inappropriately however, would invoke a Karmic Consequence against all of those who abuse this power.

Principal #4: Anyone can terminate any contract at any time by simply notifying the counter party of the contract.

We have a few unscrupulous people in the world today who seem to want to use contract law and the corporate structure for the purpose of re-instituting feudalism, a form of slavery, on a worldwide scale. One of the ways of doing that is through the use of contract law and especially term contracts.

If we’re to move into a free will reality then any contract is only valid so long as both parties to the contract are participating of their own free will. When one or the other party changes their mind with respect to the contract they shall have the right to terminate that contract by simply notifying the counter-party that they no longer agree to abide by the terms and conditions of the contract.

This right does not mean, however, that there won’t be consequences for the decision. For instance: If you terminate the contract with your bank for a home loan, you may be required to pay off the loan. This is to be a right in the Aquarian Age, but it’s not a free ride or permission to perpetrate.

Principal #5: No one can be incarcerated for failing to live up to the terms and conditions of a contract.

This principal is simply an extension of the debtor’s prison decision that was made some three hundred years ago. Around that time we as a people decided that we were not going to allow people to be placed into jail for not being able to pay their debts. Another thing that came out of that sometime later was the whole concept of bankruptcy where we wanted to give people who had gotten themselves into trouble with unmanageable debt an opportunity for a new lease on life.

What I’m intending here is to extend that principal to all contracts made with individuals by any person, corporation, organization or government. That is to say, only the government can ever put anyone in jail, and only for breaking a law for which it had legitimate legislative jurisdiction, or the right to make the law in the first place.

Principal #6: Jurisdiction not specifically given over to a governmental authority is reserved to We The People.

This is an issue of how power or authority is seen to be distributed within our society. In the Federal Constitution the Tenth Amendment states that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The Supreme Court has interpreted this to be a non-event as it is just stating the obvious or a truism as was stated in the following cases.

“The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.” . United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716, 733 (1931).

 

“That this provision was not conceived to be a yardstick for measuring the powers granted to the Federal Government or reserved to the States was firmly settled by the refusal of both Houses of Congress to insert the word ''expressly'' before the word ''delegated,” United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941).

I disagree with this last interpretation in the case of Darby, and demand that we use it as a yardstick. Another issue I have with the court’s interpretation is that they consistently choose to relate to this amendment as if it were solely an issue between the Federal Government and the States. They have consistently ignored the final phrase “or to the people.“ My interpretation of the Tenth Amendment is based on that final phrase and the notion that sovereignty is not vested in the States, but rather in We The People.

From my reading of the cases related to the Tenth Amendment it seems clear to me that the Supreme Court has been coming from the assertion that sovereignty was vested at the level of the States. However, the way I see it, this notion is in conflict with the legal principal that says, “a government derives it’s just powers from the consent of the governed,” or the notion of individual sovereignty.

I say that if the Supreme Court will not honor individual sovereignty in this Land of the Free and chooses to interpret this provision in a way that lets the Congress ignore the highest law in the land with respect to We The People, then We The People will simply have to strip them of their power to make the call, and choose on our own authority to enforce the Tenth Amendment from the level of the Petite Jury.

What I assert is that this principal needs to be pushed all the way down to We The People where sovereignty is truly vested. Thus, I choose to create it that:

Any powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government are reserved to the States, and any powers not specifically granted to the State are reserved to the next smaller jurisdictional authority or the County or Borough, and any powers not specifically granted to the County are reserved to the next smaller jurisdictional area, the City or Township and any powers not specifically granted to the City or Township are reserved to We The People.

If you would like to stand with me with respect to this matter, you are invited to do so. Simply speak the words, “I agree,” and click take a photo of yourself speaking these words and you know what to do.

Theft of Jurisdiction
Let Me Count the Ways

In looking at the law that I have been projecting into reality over the last several years, I have noticed several ways in which jurisdiction has been illegitimately acquired. For many years I have felt trapped by what appeared to me to be a spider’s web of different methods of asserting an authority over me. It was only when I committed to facing my fear with respect to the law that I was able to see The Truth.

The way I see it today our Founding Fathers were perhaps a little too restrictive with respect to giving power and authority to our governing bodies. They made it almost impossible for our government to extend its power to regulate aspects of our lives or common resources when it became necessary to do so in an ever-changing world. The requirement of a three-quarters majority of the states to change the Constitution was a big problem for them as the country grew and new technologies evolved. Certain new powers did need to be granted, but the mechanisms in place for doing so were just too laborious.

So, the way I see it, there had to be some bright boys from Harvard or Yale who understood that jurisdiction is essentially permission to perpetrate. And these boys then started looking around for other less arduous ways for obtaining that permission. What follows are some very creative ways that I have seen wherein jurisdiction is being given over unto our government and regulatory bodies in ways that our Founding Fathers never intended. And this is just what I have seen, I’m sure there are many others ways that I have not yet uncovered. You’ve got to give those boys credit though. They were very creative in their theft of jurisdiction.

1) Licensing Agreements

These are things like Driver’s licenses, Hunting Licenses, Fishing Licenses, Pilot’s Licenses, Marriage Licenses and so forth and so on. The list seems to go on almost indefinitely. The problem that I’m seeing here is that before the State or Federal governments can require a person or organization to acquire a license to perform a given activity, they first need to be given permission, authority, or the right to regulate that activity or common resource by We The People. And in all cases that I have seen, they have failed to acquire that permission from us.

What I see happening here is that the license itself is defined as the means of acquiring Legislative Jurisdiction with regard to the indicated activity or resource. The license is in fact a contractual agreement wherein the individual agrees to be bound by the rules and regulations of the governing authority or regulatory body. So, this is a means of acquiring Legislative Jurisdiction by contracting with individuals for the purpose of acquiring the right to make law with respect to those individuals.

I have several problems with this. The first is that there is an inherent intent to be duplicitous and deceitful with regard to how this legislative jurisdiction is being acquired.

The second is that it violates a principal of law which says that all people within this nation shall be treated equal under the law, as any law created under such jurisdiction only applies to people who choose to obtain the license.

The third issue is that the rules and regulations that we are agreeing to are not law They are in fact the terms and conditions of a contractual agreement. And therefore, enforcing this agreement as if it were law is what they call “exercising a contractual agreement under the color of law.” In other words, pretending that the terms and conditions of a contract is law, and that is not legal.

You got to give them credit though, it’s a really cool con.

2) Permits With Individuals

This is just another twist on licensing agreements. And again, in all cases that I have seen the State does not have the legitimate authority to require these permits. They get away with it because people are ignorant and fail to challenge this requirement. And once people obtain the permit it appears that they are trapped into being required to abide by the terms and conditions of the contract.

I assert a different reality. I declare and decree that both permits and licenses are deliberate and premeditated criminal fraud, and since “fraud vitiates (***Check principal) any promise to pay” any and all “laws” created though legislative jurisdiction thusly acquired are unenforceable. That is to say, I’m not going to enforce the law. The legislature does not have the right to contract with individuals for the purpose of acquiring Legislative Jurisdiction. They must come to the Body Politic as a whole.

Though again, it’s a pretty cool con.

3) Licensing of Attorneys

When I saw The truth about this one, I was completely floored. This has got to be the greatest con job ever pulled on a Body Politic, ever!

When an Attorney accepts a license from the state to practice law two things happen. The first of these is that he agrees to abide all the laws of that state and the laws of the United States of America. Now, that sounds perfectly fine on the surface except that it does not exclude laws for which Legislative Jurisdiction was illegitimately acquired. The second thing that happens is that the Attorney becomes an Officer of the Court and places himself or herself under the authority of the court.

So, when a person hires an Attorney they are giving the Attorney the right to represent them and enter into a Client/Attorney relationship giving the Court jurisdiction over the client through locus parentus (***Check spelling). The Attorney has agreed to abide all the laws of the land and by hiring them, so must you.

The bottom line here is that if you hire an Attorney you are giving the Legislature cart blanche authority to make any damn law they want with respect to you, and the Judiciary the right to enforce that law, whether or not the Legislature had the right to make the law in the first place. So, if you cannot afford an Attorney, the Court will be happy to appoint one for you. Isn’t that nice of them?

Of course, this is just another form of fraudulent acquisition of Legislative Jurisdiction and I, for one, am not going to stand for it. Neither the Legislature nor the Judiciary possesses the authority to contract with individuals for the purpose of acquiring Legislative Jurisdiction.

But you’ve got to admit, it’s a really cool con. There are several layers of fraud with this one.

4) Contracting with Jurors

Once I saw the issues with contracting with attorneys, I looked at the issue of Jurors. And it appears to me that there are similar problems there. While I’ve never served on Jury Duty, I was able to question a friend who had recently been called to service. It seems that the potential jurors in a case in Hawaii are asked two initial questions. “Is there any reason that you could not find the defendant guilty in this case?” and “Is there any reason that you could not find the defendant not guilty in this case?” Another friend who was practicing law there indicated when asked that the intent was to assure a “fair and impartial” jury.

That all looks fine on the surface, but in looking deeper I see the same problems here that I see with the licensing of Attorneys. Actually I have three specific issues.

First is an attempt to defraud We The People of our right to judge the law in the case. While I have no issue with regard to seeking a fair and impartial jury with respect to the defendant in the case, given what I’m seeing with respect to the rampant theft of jurisdictional authority, I cannot abide and will not support the right of the judiciary to seek a fair and impartial jury with respect to the law. The court must respect the right of the jury to judge the law in the case. Failure to do so in my mind shall constitute criminal fraud.

A second issue I have is related to the first. I assert that requiring the jury enforce the law, when so many laws today are obviously unjust and preparative in nature, in my mind constitutes jury tampering. That is because in this case, the judge is seeking out specific jurors who will exercise the franchise and vote to support the law in all cases irrespective of whether justice is served, or whether the state has legitimate jurisdiction.

The final issue I have here has to do with theft of Legislative Jurisdiction. Asking these particular questions for the purpose of assuring that the jurors will support the law, is seen by me to be a means of contracting with those jurors to again allow the Legislature cart blanch authority to make any law they wish.

I think we need to take a long hard look at the process of jury selection to assure that we are not inadvertently stripping the jury of the power of the Petite Jury Veto. For without this power, this nation will almost certainly become a tyranny.

To summarize, under the guise of seeking a fair and impartial jury the jury, the jury selection process is actually defrauding We The People of the power of the Petite Jury Veto and granting the Legislature the right to make any damn law they wish.

A pretty good scam, don’t you think?

5) Contracting With States

One of the ways that I see the Federal Government extending its power beyond that which we have legitimately given it, is by the means of contracting with the various states. It’s become one of the favorite ways of enhancing Federal Jurisdiction with respect to our lives. The premise here is that if the States have certain Legislative Jurisdiction that the Federal Government wishes to acquire. And they assert the right to buy it, or otherwise contract for such Jurisdiction from the level of the State.

You can see this happening all over the place but one place where it is obvious is the “No Child Left Behind Act,” or the Federalization of the school systems nationwide. It often works like this. The Federal Government offers certain funds for the improvement of education within the state, but the funds come with a requirement that the state honor any rules and regulations set up by the Federal Government, as a part of the contract.

I have the same problems with allowing the Federal Government to contract for Legislative Authority that I have with contracting with individuals. It’s duplicitous and deceitful, potentially not all citizens of all states are treated equal under the law, we are exercising a contractual agreement under the color of law, and additionally that the state does not possess original jurisdiction and therefore cannot transfer jurisdiction to the Federal Government without the express consent of We The People.

Anyway, this is just another example of fraudulent acquisition of Legislative Jurisdiction, only this time at the Federal level. With this in mind let us add another legal principal for the 21st Century. And let it read as follows:

Principal #7: Once Granted by We The People, Legislative Jurisdiction is Non-Transferable.

6) The Voter Registration Form

This is a particularly interesting example of jurisdictional theft that I learned about some ten years ago when I went to a few untaxing seminars. What appears to have happened is that long ago, I don’t know when but maybe the fifties or sixties years, some brilliant Attorney working in Washington came up with an incredible way to expand the Legislative Jurisdiction of the Federal Government. It was so simple and so brilliant, that even I am truly impressed.

You see, back then American citizens would refer to themselves, especially overseas as either or both as American Citizens or a Citizen of the United States. Back then the two terms were pretty much interchangeable and I don’t think anyone ever considered that there might be a difference, and indeed, back then there was no difference. It was simply two different ways of expressing the same thing.

Then in walks this brilliant Attorney with the long term approach to the theft of jurisdiction. What happened next changed the entire underpinning of the Federal Government. The Legislators of the time passed a bill that created a legal definition for the term “Citizen of the United States.” (***Verify and get actual legal definition.) The term was defined to be the equivalent of a Citizen of Washington D.C and therefore under Federal Jurisdiction.

Subsequently, slowly over time the voter registration forms were changed to an affidavit or sworn statement, that the potential voter in order to vote in their own state must first declare and decree that they are a Citizen of the United States and therefore under Federal Jurisdiction. The important thing to notice is that Federal Jurisdiction over Washington D.C. has no limits. The Federal Government can make any law they wish with respect to these pseudo-citizens of Washington D.C and the American Territories they administer, like American Samoa, Guam and so forth.

Now, obviously, that was deliberate premeditated fraudulent acquisition of Legislative jurisdiction. But I have to say, of all the ways of stealing Jurisdiction this one is the coolest and most brilliant. It’s bullshit, but brilliant.

Theft of Judicial Jurisdiction

1) Family Court

Family Court is an interesting and relatively recent development in the structure of the Judiciary. As I see it this was created out of a desire to protect children from harmful situations at home which on the surface seems laudable. This court was provided to enforce laws relating to the family and deal with cases brought by Child Protective Services.

The problem I’m seeing is that nowhere in any constitution that I have read have I seen a line that read something like “The state of --- is granted the right to make law regulating marital and/or familial matters.” In other words, we never gave the legislators the right to make the law, or did we? From the point of view of the legislature, we did, and the method they used is called the Civil Marriage License.

I was appalled when I found out during an seminar many years back that the marriage licensing agreements used today in all fifty states is a contractual agreement, wherein the state becomes a party to the contract. No one ever tells the young couple that by signing this licensing agreement, the couple has just given the state the right to take away their children if the state decides that the couple are not raising that child “properly,” whatever the hell that means. Actually, it gets worse, because as a party to the contract the state becomes a de facto parent to our children with full parental rights. In addition to that the ignorant couple gives over unto the legislature the right to make any law they wish with respect to marital or familial matters.

It didn’t used to be that way. A hundred years ago the preacher would do the ceremony and the marriage might be logged into the Family Bible and that would be the end of it. Later when this country grew up a little bit, we had the Common Law Marital Certificate which was signed by the couple, the preacher, and a few witnesses. And people would go down to the County Registrar and simply register their marriage. You can still do the Common Law Marital Certificate today, and the state is not a party to the contract. There is no need to register your marriage or to obtain a license.

So, along come some smart boys who wanted to be able to force you to raise your kids the way they told you to, and they came up with this scheme. And when the young couple went to register their marriage they were told that the way that’s done today is that they needed to obtain a license. And the poor stupid young love birds said, “Okay” flying blindly into the trap.

Once they had the laws in place, the case loads overburdened the court system. And so, the Family court was created to relieve this burden. Another disturbing trend is that there is often no jury in a Family Court. This has the purpose of stripping We The People of the power of the Petite Jury Veto and handing all power in that court unto the judge. And I have a big problem with that.

2) Tax Court

This one is particularly fun, way out there beyond Pluto. In one of the untaxing seminars I attended in the 80’s it was pointed out to me that the Tax Court gets its authority to exist and enforce Tax Law from the signature card at the bank where you declare and decree through this signature card, also known, as an affidavit or sworn statement, that you are a U.S. Person. What the hell is a U.S. Person? Someone under the jurisdiction of the Federal Reserve. Way cool scam, eh?

The problem with the Federal Reserve is that it has no more to do with the Federal Government, than does Federal Express. This organization is in point of fact a privately held Corporation. I’ve seen a copy of their Letters of Incorporation. The Federal Reserve is a Delaware Corporation, privately owned and operated by six different International Banks.

Now, someone please explain to me how a privately owned corporation has the authority to create a court through the terms and conditions of a contractual agreement and then gets to have to power to imprison We The People for failing to live up to the terms and conditions of that contract?

Answer: They don’t. They cannot do these things any more than Microsoft, GM, or Kodack. Corporations do not get to create law and corporations do not get to have punitive powers. Therefore, I’m not going to enforce any law in a Tax Court until someone can show me in the U.S. Constitution where We The People granted the Tax Court the right to exist. Frankly I think we ought to just nationalize the Federal Reserve and place it under the Treasury where it belongs. Mr. Legislator? Got balls?

Now, it might be asserted that we granted the Government the right to create the Tax Court when we added the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. But alas, that has been proven not to be the case. You see, there was this man Bill Benson, who in the 70’s got a list of all the states who were reputed to have ratified the 16th Amendment from the National archives. Then he went around to each of those states and dug into the state archives for each of those states to see how they actually voted on the matter. What he found was that only four states, Arizona, New Mexico, North Dakota and Tennessee had properly ratified the Income Tax Amendment. Then he published a book of his findings called The Law That Never Was. Today, you can find many references to this book on the Internet. Folks, they needed thirty-seven states to ratify this amendment, they got four. Mr. Legislator, that’s not good enough. And people, you do not have to pay Income, Social Security or Medicare Taxes. Though, that said, as an individual, I would not recommend going up against the IRS.

In the last twenty-five or thirty years since this information has been known, every attempt to get this information before what’s known as a “Court of Competent Jurisdiction” has failed, as no such Judge will hear the case.

What I recently realized is that it doesn’t take a Court of Competent Jurisdiction; all it takes is a legislative body, any legislative body. Any county, any city, or any state has the power to convene an Investigating Committee and hear the evidence with respect to the ratification of the 16th Amendment, officially and for the record. And if it turns out, as we know it will, that it was only properly ratified by four states? Well, then they have to power to legislate, to create a law, a statute, or an ordinance requiring all employers operating within their jurisdiction to immediately cease and desist collecting these taxes from their employees.

I’m sure that there are some people who will hear this and get all freaked out about it. But, you know, I don’t care what The Truth is with respect to this matter. But I do demand to know The Truth and to hold the Federal Government to it. This government is a legitimate legislative body, I’m sure they can find ways to fund themselves without Income Taxes. However, the stock market might not like The Truth in the interim, and it might be a peachy time to short defense and aerospace, and perhaps go long bullion.

Perhaps, just perhaps, we could find a way to fund our own schools at the state level without Federal aid, and perhaps we could fix our own roads, if we weren’t being so thoroughly raped by the Feds. And maybe, just maybe, we don’t need fourteen Carrier Task Force Groups or eighteen Nuclear Attack Submarines with twenty-four Trident eight-headed 350-megaton MRV Missiles each. And maybe we don’t need to be policemen to the world with 720 military bases in other people’s countries all around this planet.

Realistically, those boys and girls in Washington D.C. are getting just a little too big for their britches. And you know what? I can’t think of any better way of reigning them in a little bit than to tug on the purse strings.

However, it would be best if a State Legislature were to take on this task. So, how about it Massachusetts State Senator? Would you be willing to convene a Senatorial Investigating Committee and throw us another Tea Party? Or perhaps a good old fashioned Irish Wake for the 16th Amendment?

3) Drug Court

This is one of the newest of the tertiary Courts. It was a concept that had been pioneered in some other state and in 2003 in Maui they decided to institute such a court system in Maui County to relieve the regular court system of the burden of having to deal with all the drug offense cases.

The strategy of the county was to lower the potential penalty for having partaken of recreational drugs, if the defendant would give up the right to a trial by jury and accept the Judges verdict in this matter at free will choice. And so, because they are likely to receive a less painful punishment the defendants will usually take this out.

And I can see the point of view of the State or in this case, the County of Maui. The caseloads are too high, people are in the criminal justice system are all overworked, and they’re just really trying to find a way out of a very difficult situation. At least that’s what it looks like on the surface.

And you know how I see this ladies and gentlemen? This is contracting with the defendant for the right to make law. It’s just another way of stealing legislative jurisdiction. Additionally, since there is now no jury, this is a means by which the judiciary usurps the power of the Petite Jury Veto from We The People.

Besides that the Federal Government was never given legitimate Legislative Jurisdiction to make the law that created the FDA. I see nothing in Article one section eight where We The People granted unto the Federal Government the right to regulate recreational and medicinal drugs, an no Sir, you don’t get to stretch the Commerce Clause that far. I won’t stand for that.

Removing the jury from the courtroom and denying We The People the right to a trial by a jury of our peers is a very disturbing trend taken by our government in recent times. It’s not just disturbing from the point of view of We The People, but it really ought to be considered very disturbing from the point of view of the Judges in those courtrooms.

You see, this is an issue of karmic consequence. Karmic consequence is God’s Law, a decree by God on High that you agreed to as a condition of existence on planet Earth. The point of having a jury is to distribute this karmic consequence over the twelve members of the jury in the event that the jury makes a wrong choice and finds an innocent person guilty thus perpetrating an injustice against the defendant. In that case, instead of times forty for ten generations it’s only time three for ten generations for a juror, if they get it wrong.

This is why it’s so important to have a jury and why jury duty is so serious, if the jury gets it wrong his kids will pay the price. So for instance, if the defendant is unjustly incarcerated for ten years, the juror will assume a karmic consequence and over the next ten generations the children of the juror will spend thirty years in jail.

When you take the jury out of the equation, the judge now has to assume one hundred percent of the Karmic Consequence against himself and his family, for all cases wherein an innocent person is found guilty by the judge, or where the enforcement of this law in this case is an injustice with respect to the defendant.

This is because while the Judge is God, the defendant is also God, and perpetrations are always personal. The Judge does not get to hide behind the law and say it’s not personal. If the Judge perverts rule of law and uses it to perpetrate an injustice upon the defendant, or if he enforces a law that was founded upon illegitimate legislative jurisdiction, then Karmic Consequence applies and the Judges kids are going to take it on the chin. Honorable Sir, are you sure you want to do that?

I would recommend that in all cases where a defendant is facing either jail time or probation, that you Sir, assure that a jury is present to assume the Karmic Consequence in your stead.

So, this is where I choose to stand on this issue of courts without juries. If you would like to stand with me on this issue, you are invited to do so. Read the words below, put a frame around them of whatever colors come to mind and run them through your body and a picture of the planet, letting the whole of your Self come into alignment with Creating this as The Truth.

I choose of my own free will, to stand for that Karmic Consequence shall apply whenever a law is used to perpetrate an injustice, an innocent person is incarcerated, or a law founded upon illegitimate jurisdiction is enforced. I do so in my own name and on my own authority. Thank you, I love you. I love you, thank you.

And Would You Believe It?
Theft of Original Jurisdiction

1) General Powers

I was fortunate to have been able to live in Hawaii recently while I was gestating this book and looking into the law. As a part of that process I took the time to read the Constitution for the State of Hawaii, which is something you should always do when you move to a new state, read the constitution for that state. There is a provision stated therein that I don’t think you will find in any other Constitution for any other state in America. It is provision called General Powers and it reads: (***Look it up and place it here). It is in effect granting unto the State of Hawaii the official right to make any law they wish.

Now, I have two issues with this provision. The first is that it violates the American principal of law that says “A government derives it’s just powers from the consent of the governed.” This provision asserts that sovereignty is vested at the level of the state in complete disregard to the consent of the governed. The second issue I have with this provision is that it violates the 13th Amendment to the Federal Constitution by placing all authority and original jurisdiction in the hands of the state and regulating We The People to the role of serfs or slaves.

Mr. Hawaiian Legislator, you do not get to have General Powers over me. I, for one, am not going to enforce any law wherein the right to make the law is attributed to or derived from this General Powers clause. You can go to hell.

Actually this isn’t even what I would call a good scam. It’s too obviously unlawful and blatant in its deliberate attempt to enslave We The People to the whims of the Legislature.

2) Gold-Fringed Flags

You’ve seen them. Anytime the President gets on TV and makes a speech, somewhere behind the podium you will see a United States flag, Old Glory adorned in golden tassels. Have you ever asked yourself why some American flags have that golden fringe and some don’t? You should, because that golden fringe is a declaration and a decree that Military Jurisdiction shall apply with respect to these proceedings.

Once you know that, you may just open your eyes and see these golden-fringed flags in every courtroom in America, and every Legislative body. In point of fact the assertion here is that the Civil Authorities in America exist at the bequest of the Military. It is a statement that America is surreptitiously and duplicitously under Martial Law.

So, how in the Hell did this happen? Well, what I’m seeing is that Pres. Eisenhower, who was previously a General, got a little too accustomed to that extra power that was granted to the presidency during times of war, as Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces of these United States.

What I’m remembering from high school history is that the negotiations that finally produced a truce with the North Korean government were rocky at best, and they went on for a long time. As I’m now seeing it, Pres. Eisenhower, never wanted an end to the Korean War and so was not negotiating in good faith. What he wanted was exactly what he got, a truce, but not an end to the war. By doing it that way the Office of the President of the United States was able to assert Military Jurisdiction over the populous by maintaining a perpetual state of war with North Korea.

As an aside, do you remember when Mr. Bush declared the Axis of Evil to consist of North Korea, Iraq, and Iran? What that did was to assert that these three countries are allies of one another. And since we are already at war with North Korea, he has the right to invade these other countries without having to ask the permission of Congress. Cool, eh? I thought that was an innovative use of logic.

But that’s not the end of it. You see, Military Jurisdiction gives the President the power to issue Executive Orders as Commander and Chief. He can simply order any military person to do pretty much anything he wants as their Commander.

That authority has seldom been used with respect to civilians in America. But that’s just what Roosevelt did when he ordered all people of Japanese decent into the internment camps and nobody balked. However, it’s time to put an end to that complacency. The idea that the civilian authorities exist at the bequest of the military authorities in America, the Land of the Free, is absolutely unacceptable and I am not going to stand for it.

This was all done duplicitously, and deceitfully, and therefore fraudulently, and on that basis I declare and decree on my own authority, that the assertion of Military Jurisdiction is illegitimate and that Karmic Consequence shall apply every time such authority is asserted over civilians in America. The President does not get to use executive orders to usurp the authority of the Congress. Period.

I for one, want this one dealt with. We need a better solution to this problem. Mr. Legislator I ask that you declare an end to the Korean War and assure that the President must obtain permission from Congress before deploying our forces into a combat situation. Then get those golden-fringed flags out of the offices of all the civilian authorities. There are only fifty-one civilians in this nation who have the legitimate right to portray that flag, the Governors and the President. And finally, give the Executive Branch the line item veto while you’re at it. Mr. Legislator, I ask that you to do your job, and legislate.

Authentic Jurisdiction

During the Piscean Age the law has been perverted and used as a mechanism with which to persecute the people of this planet. Here in America our Founding Fathers attempted to derail that kind of historical use of the law by creating Individual Sovereignty, and withholding the right to enforce the law to themselves in the form of the Petite Jury. Even so, some overzealous legislators have attempted to undermine these principals and assume all power unto themselves.

There is clearly a Right Place for law. And that is to define or regulate how it is that we are going to interrelate with one another with respect to various aspects of our lives or public resources. For instance, how we will relate to one another with respect to commercial fishing resources, we relate to one another on the roadways, how we manage education, and so forth and so on.

However, the authority to create these laws needs to be transparent, up front and above board for everyone to clearly see. The bottom line here is that there is only one way to legitimately obtain Legislative Jurisdiction or the right to make the law. The Lawmakers must go to the Body Politic as a whole or a group, hat in hand on bended knee, and get at least 51% of We the People or 67% of our representatives, to give them the right to make the law. And this must then be recorded in the Federal Constitution, the State Constitution, or a County, City or Town Charter.

Now, it is not necessary to destroy the current system in order to replace it with a system more appropriate to the Aquarian Age and more inline with what our Founding Fathers intended. If We The People simply assert these principals that I have outlined here, as The Truth with respect to the law, then it is my firm belief that the Judicial System in America is sufficiently resilient and flexible that it will correct itself automatically and bring itself into integrity in the light of love.

That for Which to Stand

Reality is created as a function of agreements made at free will choice, and it does not matter how that agreement is obtained. In the Piscean Age it was often obtained though fear and intimidation, often on pain of death. That’s not my style, and it wouldn’t fit into this Aquarian Age universe anyway. Nope. I require a conscious free will choice on the part of you, the reader. I’ve made what I consider to be a good case for all of these seven principals, and propose them as a foundation for bringing peace to planet Earth.

1. Free will supersedes rule of law.
2. The jury has the right to judge both the facts and the law in the case.
3. The witness has the right to repudiate their testimony if forced into a lie of omission.
4. Anyone can terminate any contract by simply notifying the counter party to that contract.
5. No one can be incarcerated for failing to live up to the terms and conditions of a contract.
6. Jurisdiction not specifically given over to a governmental authority is reserved to We The People.
7. Once granted legislative jurisdiction is non-transferable.

If you agree that these are valid and desirable legal principles for the 21st century and would like to stand with me to create this as The Truth with respect to the law from this day forward in time, then read them all again aloud. Click, take a photograph of yourself choosing of your own free will to create this to be your truth. Place a frame or a border of whatever colors come to mind around the picture, and run the picture through your body letting every cell of your being come into alignment with this as The Truth. And finally run it through a picture of the planet below your feet to align all fragments, ancestors, and past life bodies. Thank you, I love you. I love you, thank you.

Judging The Law

I spent a lot of time attempting to find the balance point with respect to judging the law. It could be pretty easy to go overboard, given where we currently stand and I didn‘t want to do that. In the end I came up with the following three principals. First off, the government does not get to pervert Rule of Law and use it to perpetrate injustices upon We the People. Secondly, the legislators need to have legitimate Legislative Jurisdiction. The third principal has to do with the complexity of the law as written. My view is that these lawmakers are deliberately making the law overly complex in order to baffle us with bullshit, and I’m not going to stand for that either. Mr. Legislator, you need to make these laws simple and clean and clear enough for a fifteen year old to clearly understand, because I’m not going to enforce any law that I cannot comprehend.

It is my belief that if We The People agree to enforce these three principals as a Petite Juror, then in time, the judicial system in America will correct itself.

I am not going to enforce any law, wherein the enforcement of that law in this case with respect to this defendant would be seen by me to be a preparative act against another of We The People.
I am not going to enforce any law wherein, as seen by me, the Legislative Jurisdiction or the right to make the law was illegitimately acquired.
I am not going to enforce any law where upon reading the law myself, I cannot clearly understand the law in my own right.

My feeling is that the above is a clean, clear, and appropriate yardstick with which to judge the law as a petite juror. If you would like to stand with me on this, the speak the words above out loud. Then take a picture of yourself speaking those words, put a frame or a border around the picture. Your unconscious mind knows exactly what colors to use. And starting from the top of your head drop the picture down through your body letting every cell of your body come into alignment with this stance. And finally run it through a picture of the planet below your feet to align all fragments, ancestors, and past life bodies. Thank you, I love you. I love you, thank you.

Enforcing These Principals

With respect to the issue of respectfully refusing to enforce a law that is perpetrative in nature, I see this as an issue of integrity. Each of us is the caretaker of our own integrity, and no one has the power to order us to sell out our integrity in favor of the law. I personally believe that the Supreme Court would uphold the right of We The People to take this stance. If not, we need better Supreme Court Judges.

With respect to respectfully refusing to enforce a law wherein Legislative Jurisdiction was illegitimately obtained, I think we have to start from a position of ignorance and keep an open mind. After hearing the case and retiring to jury deliberations the first order of business is to establish legitimate Legislative Jurisdiction, or the right to make the law for which the defendant is accused of violating. This can be done easily by challenging jurisdiction, since the law states that if jurisdiction is ever challenged, it must be proven. And while I don’t believe that any jury in America has ever challenged jurisdiction, probably due to ignorance, they have the perfect right to do so.

So, the first thing I would do here is to ask the Judge, how is it that the State or Federal Government came to have the right to make the law that we as the jury are being asked to enforce. And if Legislative Jurisdiction cannot be traced to a Constitution or a Charter, or back to We The People in some obviously legitimate way, or if there is some kind of deceit or duplicity, or if the Judge refuses to comply then I say we have to hold fast to principal and respectfully refuse to enforce the law. Not Guilty.

 

Case Law and The Judges Instrustions to the Jury

First off, Case Law is not law. It is the opinion of some other Judge in some other case that is, hopefully, similar and relevant to the case that is currently being heard. The thing to remember here is that Judges are not empowered to make law, that’s the role the Legislature.

As I’m looking at it Case Law came about out of a desire of the Judiciary to enforce the law similarly in all cases in the pursuit of justice. The idea here being that the law should be congruent unto itself. The problem with this is that times change and the law often needs to be reinterpreted against the backdrop of today‘s reality. So the Case law of twenty years ago may or may not be appropriate to apply today.

Case Law is not bad, it’s just that it’s not law, it is an opinion with respect to the law. The thing to note here is that it’s not is binding upon the jury. The jury is under no obligation to honor Case Law. That does not mean that we should just ignore it however, if it makes sense in today’s reality, the proper attitude is to take it under advisement during deliberations.

The same is true with respect to the Judge’s instructions to the jury. These are the opinion of the present Judge with respect to the case at hand, and the jury is under no obligation to abide those instructions. Placing any such obligation upon the jury would constitute Jury Tampering. But again, if they make sense, take it under advisement in the deliberations. They shouldn’t necessarily be ignored.

The overriding principal for a member of the Petite Jury is the pursuit of justice under legitimate jurisdiction.

A Bit of a Quagmire

You can probably see that according to this standard as to what does and does not constitute legitimate Legislative Jurisdiction, the vast majority of the laws passed by our State and especially Federal Legislatures are founded upon illegitimate Legislative Authority. That presents a bit of a problem. How are we going to get ourselves out of this mess?

The answer is voluntary compliance while revoking punitive powers. Which is to say, you don’t get to put anyone in jail for breaking these laws, but that We The People should just go along and comply for the time being. Realistically, most of these laws are valid and needed in today’s society. We need the FAA to define how we are going to relate with each other with respect to airspace. We don’t want the airplanes to run into each other in the air.

Ultimately, we’re going to have to give over legitimate jurisdictional authority in the form of a Constitutional Amendment, because in most cases it is, in fact, for the greatest good of all of us. With these principals in place, if we just give it time, the system will fix itself. And, yes, it might take twenty or thirty years.

Auother Important Reframe

I found this one to be more important than I had thought it would be in the beginning. But what I have since realized is that the majority of my ancestors have agreed to this and I needed to break with that agreement in order to create a free-will reality for myself. Therefore, if you would like to stand with me in this matter you are invited to do so. Simply speak the words out loud, click, take a photo of yourself speaking those words and you know what to do.

I Pledge

I do not agree, I do not agree, I do not agree,
To necessarily abide the will of the majority,
When they choose to wax despotic upon me,
I stand for that all shall be granted justice and liberty,
Here in the home of the brave and the land of the free,
That free will shall supersede rule of law, so says me,
And I do so in my own name, and on my own authority.

 

Contract Law and Regulatory Bodies

Contract Law is inherently subordinate to criminal law, and these are two completely different things.

Criminal Law gets its jurisdiction of validity from the victim. The way I view it the victim is God, but the perpetrator is also God, albeit Mini-Mighty Gods. So, in the act of perpetrating an injustice against God, the perpetrator gives over unto the victim the right to seek justice with respect to the perpetrator. It is the role of criminal law to determine what is justice in the matter, and to administer that justice. The objective of criminal law is to pursue justice for the victim while not overriding the perpetrator’s rights.

Contract Law is completely different. A contract is an agreement between two or more parties and contract law was developed as a means of dealing with any ambiguity with respect to the contract as laid out between the parties. The objective with respect to Contract Law is the pursuit of fairness and equitability with respect to the enforcement of the contract.

Next, we need to look much more closely into the nature of regulatory bodies, be they boards, commissions, or departments. The title doesn’t really matter, they’re all the same. They get created by constitutional law when we give over to the government at either the State or Federal level the right to regulate some aspect of our lives or some resource, like education, water, public lands, etc.

Once we give over the right for the commission to exist, they then determine the rules, or how it is that we are going to relate to one another with respect to this resource. Then in order to access or make use of the resource, the regulatory body will often require a license or a permit, which is a contract where you agree to abide the rules and regulations of the commission in this matter. Constitutional Law or even Statutory Law may be used to create the commission, board or department, but the rules that they create are not law, they are the terms and conditions of a contractual agreement, which is all perfectly fine. The point is that regulatory bodies operate not at the level of Criminal Law, but rather at the level of Contract Law.

So, I’m sure you have seen those signs along the side of the road that say: Buckle Up, It’s The Law. Well, it’s not really The Law. It’s the terms and conditions of a contractual agreement that you made with the Department of Motor Vehicles that is being exercised under the color of law, which is to say illegally.

I think we are going to have to take a long hard look at every aspect of the law over a long period of time and decide for ourselves whether or not we are going to support, abide and enforce the law. Many laws have been enacted by the legislators that when I look at them I see that they are detrimental to my own wellbeing. And I for one am not going to enforce such laws, any law that hurts me or others of the Body Polarity.

So, when it comes to regulatory bodies, what I say is that the authority of any and all regulatory bodies to contract with We The People, shall not exceed the authority of any citizen, or corporation in this nation. In other words, regulatory bodies do not get to create crime, since Contract Law is inherently subordinate to Criminal Law, and regulatory bodies do not get to incarcerate We The People for failing to get with their program or failing to live up to the terms and conditions of the contract. For there to be a “crime” there must be a clearly defined victim. If you want to grant unto there regulatory bodies the power to incarcerate We The People for failing to abide the rules, well Mr. Legislator, I for one will happily look you strait in the eye and say: “Mr. Legislator, you go to hell, I’m not going to enforce your law.”

That said, I will give you, or the regulatory body, the right to levy fines for non-compliance, not to be excessive, of course. But, hey, if someone runs a red light, a fine is perfectly appropriate. However, the right to incarcerate We The People for victimless crimes, is pretty much revoked. The only situation I can think of where I might support such laws is when you can prove that there would have been a victim if the authorities had not intervened.

DUI and The War on Drugs

Let us talk about DUI for a moment. In recent years our legislators have been increasing the penalties for driving while intoxicated, as well as a lowering the alcohol blood content levels until they have become ridicules. This has, of course, been due to the lobbying of the MADD Mama’s, or to be clear the organization known as the Mothers Against Drunk Drivers. They have been pretty much successful in their lobbying efforts due to the fact that most of us have agreed that drinking and driving was wrong, and we were “bad boys” and “bad girls” for doing that, which is to say we have been shame inducted. There was also the guilt induction that we and our ancestors have been carrying for breaking the laws that we and our ancestors had agreed to abide. So, in a real sense we were buggered by our own guilt and shame and by the MADD Mama’s.

However, as far as I’m concerned they’ve taken things a little too far and have waxed way too despotic on my ass, and I’m not going to stand for this shit anymore. MADD Mama’s, please understand that I can see your fear and your grief over the loss of your child and I feel your pain because I am the receptacle where you store that pain and suffering. But that does not mean that I’m going to put up with this bullshit anymore. Woman, life is cheap here on planet Earth, and you do not have a right to life, life is a gift from God.

Babe, I suggest that you might want to lay back on your bed, grab your ankles and make a new one. Get over it. You do not get to sell out my liberty and my freedom, because you Woman, are too damn cowardly to face your grief and your fear. I’m sorry, if what I have to say might seem a little callus, but I stand with Thomas Jefferson when he said, “Give me liberty, or give me death.” My freedom is more important than life itself.

You know, realistically, Babe, maybe it’s a good thing that your child died, at least for the rest of us on this planet who value freedom. Terminating the genetic line of anyone who would wax despotic upon We The People out of their cowardice in this the land of the free, well, maybe, just maybe, that’s a good thing.

So, Mr. Legislator, let it be known that as far as I am concerned, you have just lost the right to make the law. First off, it’s not a law anyway, but rather the terms and conditions of the contractual agreement with the DMV, known as a Driver’s License. And I’m not going to allow the DMV to incarcerate anyone for anything. Mr. Legislator, if you were to change the rules back to something reasonable like 2.5 percent blood-alcohol content, or whatever it was before these cowardly MADD Mama’s got involved, I would support this, in that I will give you the right to fine, suspend or revoke a license or even require public service, though I will never give you the right to incarcerate for a DUI. It’s true and I agree, that we don’t want someone who is sloppy down drunk getting behind the wheel. But that .08 blood alcohol level is basically two beers, and that is total frigging bullshit, and I for one will not support that. And if you don’t like it, you can go to hell.

Until you raise the blood-alcohol level to something reasonable, I’m going to respectfully refuse to enforce this law. The right to make the law is revoked. This is where I choose to stand and if you, Gentle Reader, would like to stand with me, you are invited to do so.

And those MADD Mama’s who worked so hard to reinstitute prohibition and bring despotism to America so that they can avoid they‘re fear and they‘re grief, well, I say they can just go out and do ninety meetings in ninety days, ninety Al’Anon meetings.

You know what’s really cool about the respectful refusal to enforce the law? It’s that while it takes 51% of We The People to create a law, it only takes 8.3% of We The People in the form of Petite Jurors to Veto the law, any law created at the Local, State or Federal levels. It only takes one juror to challenge legislative jurisdiction, one out of twelve. One person is all it takes to manifest a reasonable doubt in the minds of the other jurors. And that, Boys and Girls, is real power.

Now as to the War on Drugs, Mr. Legislator, you don’t get to have one. This is obviously an abysmal failure and I, for one, am not going to enforce this law as is.

What I see as really happening is that these people in power, the Legislators, the Judges, the Board members, the CEO’s and Officers of the Corporations are pushing out of themselves all the stuff that they are too damn cowardly to face about themselves into we of the Body Polarity and then choosing to punish us for holding that very same stuff, or for being what they hate about themselves. Then when we medicate with drugs or alcohol, because we are having to hold the pain and suffering that they refuse to feel and have broken off from, they say we are weak and punish us for not being able to carry their burden without the support of drugs or alcohol. Today, in my more enlightened state, I’m seeing these people as a bunch of greedy, cowardly fucks.

You have to understand, that you do not get to have any say about that which you are unwilling to love and accept exactly and precisely the way that it really is. So, if you’re wanting to tell these boys and girls that they are bad and wrong (which is shame and guilt induction), they’re just going to spit in your face and tell you to go to hell, and probably with prejudice. No, if you want to produce a change in behavior, you have to love and accept them exactly the way they really are.

Warner Erhard put it very nicely when he said, “That which you resist, persists.” So, the point is that guilt and shame induction has never worked and never will. Punishment only creates mean people and thus perpetuates the problem. There ain’t no cheese down that hole. Mr. Legislator, I say it’s time you pulled your head out of your ass, and realized that what you are doing is not working.

What I’m seeing about this is that the whole situation has nothing to do with drugs. It has everything to do with power. You see, the Spirit Polarized people on this planet cannot manifest anything into physical form unless they can get one or more of we of the Body Polarity to agree at free-will choice to stand for that such and such shall be The Truth. We have an inherent Veto power over anything that gets made manifest into this Creation because we are the holographic plate for the whole of Creation. So, the War on Drugs, is a war on we of the Body Polarity. It is a war of guilt and shame induction designed to make us feel small and weak and therefore willing to create The Truth the way they tell us to. A truth that they have created and was specifically designed to be for their betterment, and to our detriment. That’s what I’m seeing that I am projecting into reality as The Truth with respect to this War on Drugs.

Okay, Mr. Legislator, if you really want retain the right to regulate medicinal and recreational drugs, I have a few suggestions, a few ideas to change or morph the law into something that would be acceptable to me and we of the Body Polarity. First off, the reason to regulate has to be changed from guilt and shame induction as it is today, to that which is for the greatest good for all of We The People.

So, what I suggest is that you decriminalize a subset of these recreational drugs. The idea here is to make the rather harmless drugs available, while leaving the super-addictive drugs like crack-cocaine and heroin on a restrictive list. I can see several drugs that could be made generally available. Certainly Marijuana, hash and all other such derivatives fit the bill, then Benzedrine for the truck drivers, XTC for the lovers, and a couple of hallucinogens just for the fun of it, perhaps peyote and mescaline would be sufficient.

The problem is that the people who would be into doing these drugs are likely to be Will and Body Polarized people. This means they’re going to be holding a lot of the pain and suffering for the world, which is why they want the drugs in the first place, to medicate so as not to have to be in constant contact with the pain. These people need someone to talk to, and that means a psychologist, psychiatrist, or a naturopath. So what I suggest is that you license these care-givers to provide these recreational drugs. Anyone wishing these drugs would then at least be in some form of therapy where they could have someone to talk to about why they’re needing these drugs in the first place.

There are many benefits to decriminalization. The first that I can see is that the production of the product can then be monitored by the FDA thus assuring a high level of quality. A second benefit is that the revenue from these drugs can be easily taxed, bringing is a significant revenue stream to the State and Federal Governments. A third benefit is that we will stop putting our children in jail for medicating themselves, relieving a huge burden that currently exists within the criminal justice system, due to this totally failed War on Drugs.

It’s also likely to reduce overall crime by putting the illegal drug lords out of business and replacing them with MERC and Phifer. And finally, the stock prices of the drug companies will certainly rise, helping the economy to expand. Win-win, folks, it’s the only way out of this bad situation.

So, if you think this is a good idea and would like to stand with me to create The Truth this way at some point in the future, then picture yourself listening to the news on the radio and hearing the news anchor say, “The Senate today passed the Drug Decriminalization Act by a bipartisan vote of 63 to 37, clearing the way for the bill to be sent to the President for signature. The President is widely expected to sign this bill into law early next week.” Click, put a border around that picture and you know what to do.

Lawyers, Judges, and Other Evil Spirits

 What I’ve done here is to shine a bit of the Light of the Truth upon this institution called the law, but this is just the beginning.  We need to shine the brightest spotlight that we can upon this institution, if we are going to evolve it into integrity. 

And it is going to have to be us, or We of the Body Polarity that does it, because these Spirit Polarized people have been running the show and are creating a reality or a truth with respect to the law that is to their betterment and our detriment. They’re living high on the hog, while we’re rotting in the prisons of the world, and living out our lives all doped up on Prozac. So, they’re not going to do anything, because they’re on top and they like the status quo.

What we need to do is to study the law, learn what it really says and see for ourselves what we are projecting into reality. Then we can choose to use the law to our own advantage by creating a truth that is more acceptable to we of the Body Polarity, and we won’t need lawyers to do it. And it’s not that difficult, this is not rocket science.

You begin by reading the Federal Constitution, and the Constitution for your state. You will need to study these documents as they are the very foundation of the law. Next, you’ll need to find yourself a law library. Your local library may have all the books you need, if not you should always be able to find a Law Library at the County Courthouse.

What you start with is the United States Code, and the Code for your state which will likely be called the California State Code, or the Texas State Code or whatever. Anyway, these are the laws or the statutes that our lawmakers have created and there will be volumes of them.

For this part you’re not going to actually read the books. Instead, because you are Body Polarized, you become the books. What you do is to open each book, one at a time, draw your hand over each column in turn, not reading the words, but simply bringing every words into focus, taking about one second per column to do that. You turn the page and move through the entire book, bringing every word in that book into full focus. Next, you hold the book in your hands in front of you, and click, take a photograph of it. Put a frame or border around it of whatever colors come to mind, and move the picture through your body letting every cell of your body be imprinted with the words in this book.

You do that for the books of the United States Code, and all the books for the Code for your state, and since we still have those bloody gold-fringed flags in our courtrooms, you might want to absorb the UCMJ also, or the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

After absorbing these volumes you will begin to have questions about the Law that will surface in your mind. You might want to get a notebook to write them down as they come up, so that when you get the time you can do some more directed research. You will likely find that you will know exactly where you need to go to find the answers to your questions. In time you will know the law as well or better than most attorneys in this country, and will be fully competent to represent yourself with respect to the law.

What I would like to see is several million people who know the law as well or better than the judges on the bench, but who are not officers of the court, and therefore not under the jurisdiction of the court. And it would be nice to have a few hundred thousand youngsters under the age of fifteen who have done this process. Wouldn’t that throw a wrench into the works?

You cannot trust the lawmakers or the teachers of the law to tell you the truth with respect to the law. If you give them that authority, they will have you creating a truth that is to their betterment and to your detriment. So, you’re going to have to figure it out for yourself, by looking inside at what you are projecting into reality and simply telling the truth about what you see there. These lawyers and legislators and judges are all a bunch of lying crocks of crap, and I for one do not trust them as far as I can piss.

You’ve got to love them though, because love for All That Is, is love for All That Is, and All That Is includes the lawyers. However, that doesn’t mean we have to put up with their bullshit.

Jurisdiction and Regulatory Bodies

My understanding with respect to these matters keeps evolving as I heal more and more of my unconscious mind. The more I write, the more I see, and with deeper perceptions comes deeper understandings. The way I’m seeing it now is that there are two different basic types of law, criminal law and contract law, and these are two very different things.

With criminal law jurisdiction comes from or originates with the victim. This is because the perpetrator is God and the victim is God and the incident or crime is just one piece of God trying to find balance with another piece of God. So, in the act of perpetrating an injustice against another person, the perpetrator automatically grants unto the victim the right to seek justice (or balance) with respect to the perpetrator.

In this country we routinely turn over that right to the courts and allow the courts to administer justice in what is hopefully a fair and consistent manner. This is actually a good thing because if the victim were to seek justice in their own right they could easily go overboard and set up a feuding situation or a pendulum swing where the perpetrator becomes the victim, who becomes the perpetrator, ad infinitum, and that would not be good for society as a whole. So, as a general rule when the system works, this is a good thing.

The thing to note with criminal law is that since jurisdiction originates with the victim, there can be no legitimate crime where there is no victim. Anyway, that’s what I see as right place for Criminal Law, everything else is contract law.

Now, Contract Law is distinctly different than Criminal Law because jurisdiction with respect to a contract originates from the counter-parties to that contract and is essentially the permission of the counter-parties to enforce the terms and conditions of that contract with respect to one another.

Today there is this whole branch of law called Constitutional Law which consists of the Federal Constitution plus all the Supreme Court Opinions that have been handed down over the last couple of hundred years. It’s become a rather complex quagmire. But when you look at the Constitution it’s pretty easy to see that this document is essentially a contract where each and every American Citizen is counter-party to this contract.

Regulatory bodies are also founded in Contract Law. We The People give over the right to regulate some aspect of our lives or some public resource. As an example let us assume that we have granted unto the government the right to regulate the roadways. Our government is then empowered to create by law the regulatory body that we call the Department of Motor Vehicles, and to define the limits of this agency to regulate. The agency then defines the rules and regulations by which We the People are expected to operate with respect to the roadways.

Then the DMV can issue licenses to drivers authorizing them to use these roadways, after testing them to assure that they know the rules of the road. And that’s all well and good. My point is that the driver’s license is a licensing agreement wherein you agree to abide the rules and regulations set out by the DMV. This is then a contract between the regulatory body and you, and standard and normal contract law applies.

What I’m seeing with respect to these regulatory bodies at the Federal, State and Local levels is that they seemed to have overstepped their authority in significant ways, by calling the terms and conditions of the contract, law. My view is that our government cannot do anything via contract that any other sovereign citizen in America cannot also do. And no American citizen has the right to incarcerate another American citizen for failing to live up to the terms and conditions of a contract. So, when a regulatory body asserts the authority to incarcerate We The People for failing to abide their rules, they are asserting an authority that they do not legitimately possess.

The FDA, the FAA, and the DMV are all asserting this authority to incarcerate We The People for violations that are essentially victimless crimes. And folks, I’m not going to stand for that. I for one, am not going to enforce these so called “laws.” If you would like to stand with me with respect to this matter, you are invited to do so. Simply speak the words, “I agree!” Then take a photo of you speaking those words, and you know what to do.

Indicting the Judiciary

Dear Judge,

And by that I mean all Judges in America, but most especially the Federal Judges. This letter is to you. Sir, I name you liar and thief. Please understand that this is not an accusation, it’s an observation and a matter of observable fact, there’s a difference.

You Sir, are stealing, and/or conspiring to steal jurisdiction every which way but loose. And that’s called larceny or theft. Another way of looking at it is that you are using duplicity and deceit to expand the powers of the Judiciary and the Legislature over We the People. I call that deliberate and permeated criminal fraud, otherwise known as, a lie.

And you don’t have to look any further than that damnable gold fringed flag in that courtroom. The presence of that flag is an assertion of a jurisdictional authority that you do not have a legitimate right to assert. When was the last time that you told anyone in that court that military jurisdiction shall apply with respect to these proceedings? Judge Sir, I declare that the presence that of flag in that courtroom names you liar and thief. And by the way, it’s not your courtroom, it’s my courtroom, We the People, you rent space.

I also name you coward or traitor, again as a matter of observable fact. It is patently obvious that you are either too damn cowardly to stand up to a Legislature that is waxing despotic upon We The People and say unto them, “You don’t get to do that!” It’s either that Judge Sir, or you are in cahoots with these overzealous legislators and conspiring with them to liberate me from my liberty. And that makes you a bald-faced traitor to We The People who granted you the right to be in that position of power and authority in the first place. Screw the Constitution, your authority over me, originates from me.

The way I see it, is that most of these victimless crimes are either put into place to drum up business for you and your lawyer friends by persecuting We The People, or because the legislators who enacted these laws, are too damn cowardly to face their guilt, fear, shame and doubt. Look Judge, this nation of ours is supposed to be the “Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.” It’s not supposed to be the land of the cowards and slaves.

Judge, you seem to have forgotten something really, really, important. You work for me, We The People, not the other way around. It is your job, your job, to be the Champion of my liberty, to stand up to the legislature on my behalf when they overstep the bounds of their legitimate authority. But instead, I see you using your power and position, to assist these legislators in waxing despotic upon We The People. And Judge, that is absolutely unacceptable. If that’s the tack you choose to take, then you need to get the hell off that bench. Now, can I be any more clear, as to where I choose to strand than that?

So, Judge, I indict you. I stand as your accuser for perpetrating these crimes of larceny, fraud and treason against We the People. And I do so in my own name and on my own authority.

Sincerely,

 

Richard Harper

Gentle Reader, if you would like to stand with me with respect to this matter, you are invited to do so. Simply picture yourself signing your name under the word Sincerely. Then, click, take a photo of this letter with your signature, put a frame or border around it of whatever colors come to mind, and run it through your body and a picture of the planet, letting every cell of your being come into alignment with this indictment. Yes, people, reality itself is created as a function of our agreements made at free will choice, and it does not matter how you obtain that agreement.