Silent Conquest

by Ed Lewis
[email protected]

October 9, 2001

�Find out just what the people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.�

-- Frederick Douglass, Aug. 4, 1857

So, you want to know where your rights are going.

The answer is simple. Your rights are going whichever way the courts decide to take them. To be more specific, your rights are being destroyed by the legal profession, those people who are acting knowingly and unknowingly as agents for a foreign power, the BAR attorneys.

TITLES OF NOBILITY

CRIMES AGAINST THE SOVEREIGN

• Conspiracy
• Extortion
• Fraud
• Sovereign v Person � False Documents
• Mail Fraud

TREASON

BAR ATTORNEYS AND TREASON

• Allegiance to the Constitution (the People) or Not
• Crime, Power of the Court, and BAR attorneys
• Bar Judges/Attorneys v Interpretation of Law
  (includes Laws concerning arms)

RIGHTS v THE SUPREME COURT (BAR attorneys)

CURRENT STATE OF THE UNION

SUMMARY

TITLES OF NOBILITY

Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution states: 

�No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States; And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.�

Then, in Article I, Section X, Clause 1, States are prohibited to �... grant any Title of Nobility.�

So what is �nobility�? According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, it is 

�A class of persons distinguished by high birth or rank��; �noble rank or status�; �The state or quality of being exalted in character�

Now, let�s see. Judges and legislators want only lawyers in courts. In fact, they only want BAR attorneys in court since no person may practice law without being a BAR attorney. 

What are BAR attorneys? Why, they are people who have studied law, taken the BAR exam and, if passing, are accepted (certified) as a BAR attorney. But, you say, the American Studies Institute (Mr. David M. Dodge specifically) has stated that BAR stands for British Accreditation Registry. Whether this is fact or not is not relevant. What is relevant is that lawyers are treated as if they have nobility rank and honor bestowed upon them. Many even use a term of English nobility, Esquire, following their name. 

So, what does this have to do with courts here? And, well you should ask this. It should have absolutely nothing to do with courts here. Because the �BAR� sets off a segment of society from the rest of us, we must ask: 

1. Why do citizens have to pass the Bar exam to practice law in constitutional Article III common law courts since it is not an organization authorized as lawful by the people of the united States of America? 

2. Why are members of the Bar even permitted in courts that are of the people, by the people, and for the people in this union of Republics based on the rights of Man, the United States of America? In other words, what is a member of an �honored� or �nobility status� organization doing in our common law courts?

3. If titles of nobility and honor are prohibited, shouldn�t any who are part of such an organization be prohibited from running for office and being judges, prosecutors, and filling other offices in the governments established by We, the People? After all, haven�t they by their acceptance into the Bar also declared themselves to NOT be of the people? 

History tells us that �Esquire� is a term given to people who have been certified as lawyers by the International Bar Association (IBA) headquartered in London, England. Furthermore, the American Bar Association is aligned with the IBA. Actually, all �Bar� associations worldwide seem to be linked to the IBA. Additionally, many attorneys even in this nation follow their names with �Esquire�, a �title of nobility� given only by the English IBA.

Of particular importance is that Bar associations did not show up in this country until the end of the Civil War, which may be related to the squelching of the true 13th Amendment. This amendment essentially took citizenship from any American citizen who became a member of the Bar and prevented them from holding any public office. This may or may not be factual as the controversy over the missing 13th Amendment rages on. 

But, it does make sense. Originally, lawyers did not have to be certified or pass any test of any nature. Counsel does not necessarily mean �attorney� or �lawyer�. Although attorneys or lawyers giving legal advice and conducting court cases is one meaning, �counsel� also means exchanging ideals and opinions, or consultation; and, advice or guidance, especially from a knowledgeable person (American Heritage Dictionary, 4th Edition, 2000). Our Constitution was written with the latter in mind, that the parties involved had the right to advice and guidance from a knowledgeable person. Thus, a person could study law and declare himself a �lawyer�.

We must remember that our new nation had broken away from England forcibly. After doing so, is it logical they would have permitted only Bar attorneys to practice law and be in courts since the only Bar was the London based International Bar Association? Keep in mind that at that time, Bar certified lawyers were members of or were made members of the English nobility. 

Add to this the above prohibitions against titles of nobility and honor. These had to be written into the Constitution with intent of purpose, the purpose being that no American citizen could hold a title of nobility or honor given either by the US Government, a State government, or a foreign source, such as by kings and queens. It is logical since preventing titles of nobility and honor are necessary to maintain equality in law. Our forefathers were well aware of this.

One only needs to look at what has happened since Bar associations showed up following the Civil War to understand the significance of �honored� groups, such as lawyers. Attorneys as we all know have special privileges, one being that it is extremely difficult to successfully sue or criminally prosecute them. Judges for the most are privileged and are extremely difficult to successfully sue or criminally convict. Public officials, including prosecutors, are for the most part privileged and extremely difficult to successfully sue and criminally prosecute. 

The results of Bar affiliations should be clear -� Bar attorneys, whether in fact a member of the IBA or not, essentially form a group set apart from the body politic (us) and work together in order to protect their status �outside� the law of the Constitution while working diligently to circumvent the Constitution in every conceivable way.

If the Constitution is obeyed as the supreme Law of the Land, this means that reason and the rights of Man would prevail -- and not based on some half-witted �legal� interpretations made by lawyers. Admiralty/military courts would be moved back to where they belong �- the high seas and in federal jurisdictional areas. So, what is going on?

back to top

CRIMES AGAINST THE SOVEREIGN

Conspiracy

Conspiracy, as defined in Black�s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, is a confederation of two or more individuals who may not know each other but, by their joint efforts, commit some unlawful or criminal act. The American Heritage Dictionary, 4th Edition adds to this the performing of a �subversive act.� Alexander Hamilton gave an excellent definition in which he described �subvert� as �destroying completely or ruining.� 

In regards to conspiracy against rights of the sovereign, Title 18, section 241 states:

�If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, � They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years or both��

Individuals may also violate protection of the Constitution. For example, if you are unlawfully stopped in your travels by an individual law enforcement agent, such as a highway patrolman, and you inform him of your constitutional rights, and he proceeds with issuing a ticket for no insurance, he has violated Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedures), Chapter 13 (Civil Rights), Section 242 which states:

�Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, �shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not ore than one year, or both��

Thus, either individuals or groups that may or may not be known to one another violate Title 18 provisions anytime the attempt is made to remove rights or to deprive one of rights secured or protected by the Constitution. Add to this the fact that the courts of the sovereign, the citizens of the united States of America, are common law courts not subject to military/Admiralty administrative procedures or laws made by man that hopefully is made clear below. Suffice it to state for now that the Constitution states what is lawful � it is the only law for American citizens of the many States. To deprive a sovereign of his rights, or to deny him his rights is a criminal action. But, does the degree of criminality stop with Chapter 13 provisions?

back to top

Extortion

Most people think of extortion as to how it is used in television shows and the movies. But, what does it mean in fact? In Title 18, Part I, Chapter 95 (Racketeering), Section 1951(a), it is stated that:

�Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce [your property, �money�, etc.], by robbery or extortion, or attempts or conspires so to do�shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.�

Extortion is then defined in Section 1951(b)(2):

��the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.� (My emphasis)

Thus, property taken under color of official right is extorted from the citizen and, if it is long-term, it is racketeering involving a long-term conspiracy to defraud.

back to top

Fraud 

Nearly everyone also has a basic understanding of fraud, particularly as it relates to cons against the people. It is defined as a deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain, a piece of trickery, one that defrauds and/or one who assumes a false pose. Permitting demonstrated acts of fraud and actively participating in a scheming conspiracy of untruths and misrepresentations to deceive those who entrusted themselves in dealing in good faith, while specifically acting in deliberate bad faith when such fraud is shown, clearly are criminal acts defined by Title 18, Section 1001.

Furthermore, Title 18, Section 872 states:

�Any officer or employee of the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or any who represents himself to be or assuming to act as such, acts under color or pretense of office or employment and commits or attempts an act of extortion is subject to fines and imprisonment determined by the amount so extorted or demanded.�

back to top

Sovereign v Person � False Documents

We must also consider the use of false documents. A false document is one that makes statements that are not in complete truth, fact. Even if a document merely misleads one into believing what is not fact, then it is a false document.

For example, the property tax statements received by people are misleading documents. The document shows a number which misleads people into believing it means money when, it fact, no dollar sign is present. The reason for this is that the value of a dollar is still defined in weights of silver or gold and every State is prohibited from using anything but gold or silver as lawful money (Article 1, Section X, Clause 1).

Then, 31 USC, Section 3124(a) exempts from taxation:

�Stocks and obligations (includes Federal Reserve Notes) of the United States Government are exempt from taxation by a State or political subdivision of a State. The exemption applies to each form of taxation that would require the obligation, the interest on the obligation, or both, to be considered in computing a tax, except � (b) a nondiscriminatory franchise tax or another nonproperty tax instead of a franchise tax, imposed on a corporation, and (2) an estate or inheritance tax.�

Therefore, the dollar sign is left out with the intent of misleading a citizen into reading the numbers on the document as �dollars�. Thus, an attempt to defraud.

In addition to this, names are presented in all capital letters. This is a fictional character and does not represent the actual sovereign whose identity is shown with only the first letter of each name capitalized as per the rules of Proper English, per the Oxford unabridged dictionary under �proper name�. Furthermore, the sovereign (the people) do not live in states with all capital letters. These are fictional federal enclaves created by the Buck Act of 1940, 4 USC, 104-113).

Furthermore, citizens of the many States may be properly classified as �sovereign� or �citizen� but not as �person�, �individual�, or other defining terms used to subject us to under color accusations or liabilities. The reason is that terms such as person, individual, and so on have technical definitions and in law do not include sovereign or citizen of the united States of America. 

These are a few of the cases in which the courts recognized that �sovereignty� remains with the People and resides with the People, and provided the basis for �persons� not applying to the sovereign: 

Chisolm v Georgia, 2 Dall 419; 
Penhallen v Doane v Administration, 3 Dall 54; 
McCullogh v Maryland, 4 Wheat 316; 
Hauenstein v Lynharm, 100 US 483 (1879); 
Yick Wo v Hopkins and Woo Loo v Hopkins, 188 US 356 (1886)

Additionally, in Woo Loo v Hopkins, the court stated in its decision:

�Sovereignty, itself, is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.� (My emphasis)

In Dred Scott v Sanford, 60 US 393 (1856), resided over by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, and delivering the opinion of the court stated:

�The words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens' are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the 'sovereign people,' and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty.� 

The importance of the above rulings is whether a �sovereign� can be named and made subject to a statute, law, ordinance, or policy under the term �person� or �individual� since under color laws are made to affect �person(s) or �individuals�, not �citizen� or �sovereign�, with the definition of �person� most commonly given as being construed to mean an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation or some derivation of this definition.

Furthermore, no definition of �individual� includes the terms �sovereign� or �citizen of the united States of America.� Thus, as stated above in Woo Loo, sovereignty itself is �not subject to law.� Therefore, no under color law applies to the sovereignty, the people who are citizens of the united States of America. 

This will be poo-pooed by attorneys (remember, the frauds perpetrated against the sovereign make attorneys their money) but facts are facts not subject to interpretation by lawyers. In United States v Cooper Corp, 318 US 600 (1941), which used as part of its decision the previous case of United States v Fox, 94 USS 315 in which it was stated: 

�Since in common usage, the term �person� does not include the sovereign, statutes employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it.�

Then, in United States v Mine Workers, 330 US 258 (1947) and in Wilson v Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 US 653 (1979), the decisions found that the term �person� cannot and does not include the �sovereign� were upheld.

More recently, Will v Michigan State Police, 105 L. Ed. 2nd 45 (1988), the decision made it perfectly clear that the term �person� does not include the sovereign and that in order for the sovereign to be bound by the statute, the sovereign must be �specifically� named.

It is well founded that the decisions of the US Supreme Court are binding on all lower courts unless they are overturned. This has not happened to date in regards to the above rulings and, thus, the decisions stand that �sovereign� must be specifically named for any law/statute to apply to the citizens of the united States of America, that �person� or �individual� does not mean the �sovereign� citizen.

We must think, People. If we are subject only to the supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution for the United States of America, and if it does not give permission for government to make laws depriving the sovereign of rights, and if all states in becoming states agreed with the common law established in the Constitution, then it is impossible for any level of government to make a law repugnant to the Constitution, or for any court to uphold such laws (See US Constitution, Article VI, Clauses 2 and 3). Thus, any law that in any manner affects a right by converting it to privilege or deprives a citizen of a right is unconstitutional and DOES NOT apply to the sovereign with the duty of the sovereign being to ignore the law (16 Am Jur, 2nd). 

In taking the above fully into account, any form (document) received by a sovereign that is based on an under color of law violation or liability creation is a false document. This, of course, includes traffic tickets based on converting right to privilege, tax statements (at least in reference to private property with ownership not granted through privilege such as franchises or government created corporations), seizures of property based on unconstitutional drug and tax �laws�, firearm alleged violations (excepting tax on imports), and all other laws made by lawmakers and enforced under color of authority.

back to top

Mail Fraud

But, there are additional charges to be made against officials violating citizens� rights in specific manners. If false, misleading, or fictional documents are delivered by the US Postal Service, Mail Fraud as described by Title 18, Chapter 63, section 1341, is committed, with mail fraud described as:

�Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses...any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service...or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail or such carrier... any such matter or thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.�

Then, in Title 18, Chapter 41, Mailing threatening communications (as in extortion), Section 876 states this:

�Whoever, with intent to extort from any person any money or other thing of value, knowingly so deposits or causes to be delivered, as aforesaid, any communication, with or without a name or designating mark subscribed thereto, addressed to any other person and containing any threat to inure the property or reputation of the addressee or of another, or the reputation of a deceased person, or any threat to accuse the addressee or any other person of a crime, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.�

Since no citizen can be taxed nor penalized in any manner for exercising a right, then all statements sent through the mail are commissions of mail fraud. If any threatening statement is sent, such as the threatened sale of the property for taxes that are not lawful, then Section 876 is violated. Penalties, another form of extortion based on under color provisions, added on for late payment of taxes that are not lawfully due and sent through the mail also constitute mail fraud. 

If a summons is sent through the mail in attempt to force a person to attend a court hearing for an alleged crime of violating a law that is not constitutional, then it is mail fraud. If handed to the sovereign by a law enforcement officer, then it is merely attempted extortion, violating the Constitution and Title 18 provisions, including a high potential of acting as part of a �conspiracy� and as an act of racketeering.

back to top

TREASON

What the above means so far is that if a sovereign is accused by any level of government of a �crime� that has been established under color of authority, that he only needs for his defense proof that he is a by birthright citizen of the united States of America. If proved, such as by a valid birth certificate (whether registered with the state or not), the 'under color of law' does not apply to him and charges must be dismissed.

If the judge does not do so, or deprives the sovereign of additional rights, then he is guilty of most of the crimes described above and a most important violation that we sovereign have ignored for generations. This violation is of such extreme importance it cannot be overstated. Had violators been treated properly by the people of this nation, it is highly unlikely the tragic deaths of thousands of Americans would have occurred, not only those of the recent mass murder of thousands (WTC) but also those in past wars, other nations� conflicts and, for certain, none due to raids on people�s homes, businesses, and person by law enforcement and federal agents of various bureaus, including the IRS, FBI, DEA, BATF, Customs, and agencies, such as the CIA and NSA.

Treason, the most important concept in keeping officials in line, is defined as the violation of allegiance to one�s country or sovereign and a betrayal of trust or confidence, or the assault against the authority (the sovereign) to which one owes allegiance (the sovereign). In this Republic the sovereign is the only authority to which government must never violate the trust and confidence given it by the people. 

Treason is of such import that is one of the three specific crimes named in the Constitution. Article II, Section 4 states that:

�The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.�

We must once again understand and teach our children that the people of the many States are sovereign, that government is only an established tool to protect rights either secured or protected by the Constitution. We must also understand and teach our children that any official who supports unconstitutional laws is guilty of treason, that he has misplaced his allegiance to other than the sovereign. By his act of treason, he should be promptly impeached, convicted, and duly punished for his transgressions against the people. 

back to top

BAR ATTORNEYS AND TREASON

Allegiance to the Constitution (the People) or Not

We have in this nation around 80,000 BAR attorneys. According to one source, this is 80 percent of all the attorneys on the planet. Aren�t we lucky to have so many. By being accepted into the BAR, people are given special privileges and are set as above the ordinary citizen. By accepting privileged titles and honor, does their allegiance still lie with the people or does it lie with another authority?

Since the Constitution prohibits titles of nobility (Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 and Section 10, Clause 1: US Constitution), then it stands to reason that any individual who has been given a title of nobility is no longer of the body politic but is treated as a higher separate authority. But, the Constitution also establishes the body politic, the sovereign, as the highest authority. Therefore, BAR attorneys cannot be classed higher than the sovereign and are, in fact, removed as a sovereign since they have accepted allegiance with other than the people.

Attorneys will no doubt argue that Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 gives Congress the power to allow titles of nobility from a King, Prince, or foreign State. But, since States cannot grant any title of nobility, then it matters not whether Congress has approved a nobility title for any person. If it is not in the Constitution, nor its amendments, then special treatment of any group (such as members of Congress not being subject to arrest while Congress is in session -- Alaska Constitution, Article II, Section 6 being a good example of this being done) is prohibited. If it has, it is well hidden, as it would mean unequal application of the law. How often we hear � �No one is above the Law.�

Furthermore, there is not an amendment limiting the practice of law in the people's courts to BAR attorneys. In fact, one must presume the contrary since Article III of the Constitution has never been modified or amended. Constitutional courts are still of the people, by the people, and for the people and not under any BAR authority, whether it is a prosecutor or judge. The BAR and those associated with it are non-entities as far as the Constitution and the authority of the sovereign are concerned.

Since it is against the Constitution to grant titles of nobility by both the states and the federal government, why is it that about 80,000 people have been set out as superior to the rest of the people? What is to be gained by this?

For the people, nothing is gained. But, for the government and BAR attorneys, trillions of dollars have been gained. How? By lying to the people and distorting or doing away with what is lawful (meaning what is constitutional) and replacing it with military/equity man-made laws and courts.

We have lawyers filling roughly 40 percent of Congress writing laws, a high percentage filling state legislatures, all the Supreme Court justices, 19 of the last 28 presidents were members of the BAR, most judges in lower courts (lower than the US Supreme Court), and every government level is being advised by members of the BAR. 

The majority of BAR attorneys practice law to make money. The majority of BAR attorneys do not practice law to defend a person�s constitutional rights. In fact, few bring up constitutional rights, as there isn�t any money in it and upholding the Constitution does not serve their purpose. After all, any case involving unconstitutional under color laws would be thrown out simply by a citizen proving he is a sovereign and that he has not harmed another citizen. And, when lawyers do bring it up, it is usually in a most unsatisfactory manner in which they bow down to the judge bent on ignoring the Constitution. Rather than bringing up the first 150 years or so of rulings (up to about 1940) made by the Supreme Court in which the Constitution was upheld, the BAR attorney succumbs to unlawful interpretations of law, unlawful authority of a judge, and essentially relegates the citizen to a military/equity court.

Thus, we may conclude that the allegiance of BAR attorneys is not to the law established by the Constitution and, therefore, not to the sovereign.

back to top

Crime, Power of the Court, and BAR attorneys

�Crime� must be discussed briefly. In order for there to be a crime in this Republic, a citizen must be harmed by another; i.e. there must be a victim. The victim must have been damaged or injured in some manner. There must also be intent established in order to not have un-intentional acts classed as a crime. Thus, without a sovereign establishing a claim of damage or injury against another sovereign, there is no crime. What it essentially boils down to is whether one person interfered with the rights of another and whether redress is due.

We don�t even need judges for this. All we need is a jury of our peers to hear both sides and the jury decides whether or not redress is due the person carrying out the action he has accused the defendant of. In fact, Article III, Section 2, Clause 3 states that the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury. Therefore, a sovereign must always be judged by his peers. He may, if he wishes to remove his constitutional rights, stupidly waive this and allow �justice� to be determined solely by a judge.

Since unconstitutional defenses are so simple that it relieves all sovereign of under color laws, common law courts do not produce money. So, lawyers, lawmakers, private practice attorneys, judges who are attorneys, prosecutors, and attorneys for the defense had to complicate things. To complicate the simple common law procedure, attorneys wrote unconstitutional laws. They knew it but they also knew that judges, being attorneys, would rule in favor of the under color laws.

Thus, the introduction of BAR attorneys as being the only individuals allowed to practice law and hold positions in the Supreme Court and other inferior courts. This is not a constitutional requirement, but with this concept the complete defrauding of the people of the united States of America was put into place. Enter under color of authority laws. 

With the advent of under color of authority laws, the government could make crimes out of exercising rights. No victims; No damages; No injuries -- but finable �offenses�. The federal government in essence began making laws as if a sovereign could violate the rights of the government. 

Fines and imprisonments began being administered as if in redress for damages to the government. This is, of course, impossible since the federal government hasn�t any rights established by the Constitution. It is an entity created by the sovereign to meet only two duties �- upholding the Constitution against those who would infringe upon it and defending the shores of the many States. No more, no less.

As the federal government began raking in the money and property by thoroughly ignoring the rights of the people and the Constitution, the State legislators and political subdivisions saw the prosecution of people charged with victimless crimes as a revenue gold mine for them also. They began making laws as if the state, cities, or counties had rights that could be violated. False, of course, but the people let it happen. This started in the State of Missouri in the 40�s, particularly by the Missouri Constitution of 1945 (It has had four: 1820 (for statehood), 1864, 1875, and 1945). 

As the laws became more complex, the people were convinced they needed attorneys -- to understand the complicated laws being created, and to defend them. Then, defense attorneys, along with prosecutors, began arguing cases producing case law not in compliance with the Constitution. In fact, most case law derived from victimless �crimes� violates the Constitution on several counts. 

But the people, in becoming increasingly ignorant (dummying down of the American public), became convinced that only attorneys could know and practice law and that whatever any attorney said was right. Case law and laws derived from it are thusly treated as being the only law. People either never knew or forgot the simplicity of common law and God -- that the only law to obey was to not interfere with the rights of others.

back to top

Bar Judges/Attorneys v Interpretation of Law
(includes Laws concerning arms)

Judges and attorneys began interpreting the law. They have NOT the authority to interpret law, particularly in the case of common law. Our system of justice is based on the common law of self-evident rights, the rights that are God-given and unalienable. These laws are not subject to interpretation. And, one must seriously doubt that God sits in on the Supreme Court, let alone a local municipal court, and exercises his authority to change laws at will. He might be there but, if He is, He surely hangs his head in shame observing the travesties committed against the rights He gave his people. 

After convincing people they needed attorneys to defend themselves or sue another, the attorneys then had control over decisions �- providing they could bias juries, do away with juries or get juries to believe they had to obey the judge and prosecutor. In other words, the last defense the sovereign has against being railroaded by the system of injustice that has been established is by a jury that knows its rights and is not afraid to put a judge/prosecutor in his/her proper place.

Anyway, after decades of this fraud, the people believe that judges have plenary power, and they allow judges to interpret law and to order them as to how they must rule if they are part of a jury. Ideally for judges and prosecutors, though, is to not have a jury. Thus, many prosecutors and judges tell people they may not have a jury except upon appeal. This is a load of crap.

In the case of flagrantly unconstitutional laws, such as those dealing with arms, the government and its New World Order dictators knew that the success of establishing a world government depended on disarming all people on Earth. Unless this could be done, plenary control over the people could never be assured 100 percent. Thus, Congress -- led by its BAR attorneys -- began making laws concerning firearms and relating them to interstate commerce. And, never mind for a moment that Congress has nothing to do with interstate commerce (Article I, Section 8, US Constitution).

In regards to firearms, the Constitution is so clear that only a complete idiot could misinterpret the 2nd Amendment. It states clearly that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn�t say it applies only to the military, the cops, the National Guard, or just for the bodyguards of the rich and infamous. It says the right of the people to keep and bear arms will not be infringed. 

Furthermore, the �militia� is the people, not any military under the control of the US Government. The reason for this is clear to even a dim-witted buffoon. The founders were worried about giving power to a few. They knew that corruption would occur and that the people�s defense against government corruption is the people always being able to be armed.

They also knew that defeating a foreign power invading the nation of states would depend on the people being armed. The military -- along with all its law enforcers -- could not be everywhere at once across the land. But, the people were. Thus, the repelling of an actual invasion of this union of states would depend largely on the people.

But BAR attorneys as lawmakers or counsel for lawmakers went ahead and made laws concerning firearms. Then, the judges (always BAR attorneys) ruled in favor of the laws (especially after 1940) even though it is treasonous for them to do so. So, both the lawmakers and judges have committed treason in enforcing unconstitutional laws concerning firearms and any type of arms that the people want and could afford.

back to top

RIGHTS v THE SUPREME COURT (BAR attorneys)

Then, we have the Supreme Court. Lord, what have we done to deserve the type of people we now have in the Supreme Court. These people believe they ARE the law, that they can say and do anything they want. Well, they can in the District of Columbia and geographic areas in US Government jurisdiction. But, they cannot in the many States, as the States are not in their jurisdiction. (See Article I, Sections 17 and 18)

The Supreme Court�s only job concerning the sovereign people of this country is to determine whether a law made by Congress and put to the President is constitutional. The rule they must follow is simple. If a law infringes upon the rights of even one citizen of the many States, then it is not constitutional and must be thrown out. 

But, Justice Sandra Day O�Connor following the September 11 attacks on the WTC and Pentagon stated that lawyers [BAR only, of course] have a special duty to work to maintain the rule of law in the face of terrorism. She further said the attacks 

"�will cause us to re-examine some of our laws pertaining to criminal surveillance, wiretapping, immigration and so on."

If she knew what she was saying, maintaining the �rule of law� would mean examining all existing laws in light of the Constitution. This means all surveillance, wiretapping, and so on as they are now being done would have to be done away with. This refers to not having probable cause (watching a suspect in which there is enough evidence that a crime is being planned or did commit a crime), a requirement of the 4th Amendment that has been neglected thousands of times with innocent people suffering at the hands of government agents.

She also said that lawyers would play an important role in striking the right balance and added: 

"Lawyers and academics will help define how to maintain a fair and a just society with a strong rule of law at a time when many are more concerned with safety and a measure of vengeance."

Just who the hell are lawyers to determine the rights of the people and what is or is not a fair and just society? A fair and just society rests on the rule of the Constitution as it reflects what is fair and just by God. Lawyers, academics, and judges have nothing to do with it, other to assure their own unalienable rights are protected.

Get this. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. If it is to be changed, it is not within the authority of Congress, lawyers, nor the Supreme Court justices to do so.

It is a function of the people of this union of States through their elected state legislators -- no one can remove God-given rights. They exist whether any document says so or not. Understand this. God-given rights exist regardless of any man-made law, statute, ordinance, or public policy to the contrary.

Apparently, Justice O�Connor has forgotten Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution which states that 

��all executive and judicial Officers [includes Supreme Court justices], both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this Constitution��

Furthermore, officers of courts, including prosecuting attorneys, must take an oath to support the Constitution. In fact, anyone who has anything to do with representing the people and what is lawful must take an oath. The oath must establish the allegiance of the official to the Constitution which is to say to the God-given self-evident rights, whether enumerated or not, of the people.

Therefore, the only laws that may be lawfully enacted are those within the limits of the Constitution so as to not affect the rights of the people, not what some BAR lawyer, lawmaker, judge, academic, or justice of the Supreme Court deems is necessary. Any law made and supported that is unconstitutional is therefore proof of treason against the people of this nation.

But, expect it to go as gun and anti-drug laws have gone. For example, we now have over 20,000 laws affecting the 2nd Amendment on the books. All are unconstitutional. All who support them are committing treason. Any additional laws concerning firearms will be done as an act of treason. Any official participating in making and enforcing such laws and any new laws should be impeached for treason, whether the official is a congressman, state legislator, lower court judge, justice of the Supreme Court, city cop, federal agents (for the most part � thugs) carrying weapons, military, or President, governor, or mayor. 

Summed up, any persons in government under oath to uphold the Constitution commit treason when they fail to do so. 

back to top

CURRENT STATE OF THE UNION

The current State of the Union is not rosy even if looked at through rose-colored glasses. With BAR attorneys largely making laws and advising legislators who are not attorneys, BAR attorneys serving as judges and ruling in cases concerning violations of under color laws, and the use of armed federal agents and other law enforcement in enforcing under color laws, it is highly likely that the additional laws made by these treasonous people will remain in force just as the others have that were made during emergency situations. And, they will remain in effect for the same reason �- that is, the unconstitutional, criminal, coercive measures used against the people of this nation.

Justice O�Connor also posed this question: 

�Second, at what point does the cost to civil liberties from legislation designed to prevent terrorism outweigh the added security that that legislation provides?"

Someone should remind her and the balance of the Supreme Court, all lawmakers, and the sovereign of these facts: 

1. Nothing they have done prevented September 11th. 

2. Nothing they have done has curbed crime. 

3. Nothing they have done has fulfilled their duty of upholding the Constitution. 

4. In other words, nothing that has been done by government has increased or even maintained security of the sovereign of this nation. 

It therefore appears they know not what they are doing. Or, they do know and enact measures for other reasons than those stated. Regardless, unconstitutionality reigns when lawmakers, BAR attorneys, and BAR judges go to work.

back to top

SUMMARY

back to top

Ed Lewis is a student of Constitutional and common law and a liberty advocate in their defense.  You can read other articles from Mr. Lewis at http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com/Lewis. He may be contacted at [email protected].