Sunday, January 22, 2012

What has really happened to ‘State Rights’...?

            State Rights has been at the forefront of the liberty movement for some time now.  With Ron Paul’s campaign in 2007/2008 a great awakening has taken place in the hearts and the minds of many of the people.  A waking up, if you will, to the blatant fact of lawlessness executed by our governments, and an era of the Rule of Men and their monetary system of slavery, here in America – all the way up and all the way down. I am here to do my very best to explain and inform you of what has happened, a point Dr. Paul has touched upon, but one which the people (those who actually care about freedom, liberty, and unalienable rights) have not grasped; the starting point of the overthrow of law (usurpation), the destruction of State rights, and the downward spiral of our great American institutions.
            Most of us who support the rule of law (the fundamental principles of constitutional republics) have come to the realization that we are not being told the whole story, we were and are being taught half truths, and brazen lies about what our governments have and have not done.  We have been spoon-fed revisionist history, told to place our hope in men once every two years to restore to us what has been lost, and to ignore the evils of the past because the ‘ends justify the means’.  The truth is, my country men, comfort and security has reigned supreme in our communities for generations now; we have lost our way and have come to believe that a little freedom is equal to the “Freedom” our forefathers intended for us.  If you are reading this you are the exception, truth is what matters most, and the consequences in pursuit of truth are worth the sacrifice; “..our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.”
             What has inspired me to write this, aside from the obvious passion that “eternal vigilance” requires of us, is the recent ‘hue and cry’ coming from former Bush administration speechwriter Michael Gerson:  that Ron Paul is on a “quest to undo the Party of Lincoln”.[1]  This is where the answer to our question begins, but it is a trick question, because without coming to terms with the answer we will never restore to ourselves and our posterity what has been lost.
            The trend we see today with the Obama administration is nothing new and, in fact, was initiated by the so-called ‘savior of the Union and great emancipator’.  Lincoln and the 37th Congress waged an unjust war for the purpose of consolidating power in Washington City, this is the bottom line.  I am aware of the rhetoric surrounding the ‘necessity’ of the war, but the truth is, if we are reasonable and logical; if we truly take the time to look at the history of the time and what followed, the picture becomes quite clear – the ‘American Civil War’ was a revolution waged by the ‘Radical Republicans’, one which was intended to overthrow the founding principles of our National constitution and the States which granted it power. 
            Lincoln’s war of genocide was the first step in setting the stage for all that we see that is going wrong in our nation today.  The next great breach of trust and power grab by our National government occurred in 1867 and 1868 with the 39th Congress – the Reconstruction Acts.  These Acts forced the ratification of the 14th Amendment and forced the annulment of lawful state governments.  Now, many will say that this amendment was for the purpose of ‘giving civil rights’ to the recently freed slaves, however I would beg to differ – What then was the purpose of the ‘Civil Rights’ movement in the 1960’s?  A closer inspection of the intent of the 14th Article of Amendment is also necessary to draw a clearer picture.  The following is an excerpt from one of the ‘fathers’ of Congressional Reconstruction and the 14th Amendment, and is quite clear, and telling, as to the true purpose:
 “...All were ordained in the spirit of liberty, all prohibited the existence of any form of slavery, and all heartily recognized the supreme sov­ereignty of the National Government as having been indisputably established by the overthrow of the Rebellion which was undertaken to confirm the adverse theory of State-rights...
            ...As the vicious theory of State-rights had been constantly at enmity with the true spirit of Nationality, the Organic Law of the Republic should be so amended that no standing-room for the heresy would be left....      
            ...Its opening section settled all conflicts and contradictions on this question by a comprehensive declaration which defined National citizenship and gave to it precedence of the citizenship of a State. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United /States and of the States wherein they reside."  These pregnant words distinctly reversed the origin and character of American citi­zenship. Instead of a man being a citizen of the United States because he was a citizen of one of the States, he was now made a citizen of any State in which he might choose to reside, because he was antecedently a citizen of the United States.
            The consequences that flowed from this radical change in the basis of citizenship were numerous and weighty...
            ...The first section of the Constitutional amendment which includes these invaluable provisions is in fact a new charter of liberty to the citizens of the United States; is the utter destruction of the pestilent heresy of State-rights, which con­stantly menaced the prosperity and even the existence of the Republic; and is the formal bestowment of Nationality upon the wise Federal system which was the outgrowth of our successful Revolution against Great Britain...” James G. Blaine, Twenty Years of Congress 1861 - 1881
Vol. 2, pp. 300, 303, 312-313 (The Henry Bill
Publishing Company 1886)

            My countrymen and women, this is but the tip of the iceberg of what happened to State rights.  For 151 years our system of government has been trying to rationalize and incorporate lawlessness into our system of government – “How can we make it appear that the Constitution for the United States of America is unfettered; that we have not set up a legislative oligarchy?” 
            I realize that this issue is not a simple one, the legal implication are “numerous and weighty”, but how can we expect to repair or remodel our house when we are unwilling to address the foundational problems which have persisted?  Are we a nation of laws, or a nation of men?  Do we truly believe in the fundamental principles of law embraced by our founding fathers or are the political whims and passions of the day superior to Natural Law?  This issue is not unknown to the legal profession; it has just been considered taboo – From the Supreme Court of Utah:

“… In regard to the Fourteenth Amendment, which the present Supreme Court of the United States has by decision chosen as the basis for invading the rights and prerogatives of the sovereign states, it is appropriate to look at the means and methods by which that amendment was foisted upon the Nation in times of emotional stress…
            ...We have spoken in the hope that the Supreme Court of the United States may retreat from some of its recent decisions affecting the rights of a sovereign state to determine for itself what is proper procedure in its own courts as it affects its own citizens. However, we realize that because of that Court's superior power, we must pay homage to it even though we disagree with it; and so we now discuss the merits of this case just the same as though the sword of Damocles did not hang over our heads.” Dyett v. Turner, 20 Utah 2d 403(1968).

            This issue can no longer be ignored; it is ripping our nation apart.  The ‘Civil War’ was a crime, Lincoln a tyrant and usurper, Reconstruction unconstitutional, and the 14th Amendment a nullity, void, in law. Constitutionally-minded people, such as Ron and Rand Paul are not ‘going to save us’; they are there to walk shoulder-to-shoulder with us, to give us aid and support in restoring our republics.  Are you willing to educate yourselves upon this truth we must face?  Are you willing to face the broken heart of our nation, and then do what must be done?   

I will look forward to the discussion.

In liberty,
Isaac Hutchison Birch

You can join in on the conversation here and here



Friday, September 23, 2011

...Frequent recurrence to fundamental principles...

The Declaration of Rights of the State of North-Carolina, de jure, contains a particular section which states the following: Sect. 21. That a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty

What are the fundamental principles absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty? That all men are endowed by the Creator; the Author and Proprietor of All Things with certain rights that are unalienable:

1) UNA'LIENABLE, a. Not alienable; that cannot be alienated; that may not be transferred; as unalienable rights. Webster's 1828
2) A'LIENABLE, a. That may be sold, or transferred to another; as, land is alienable according to the laws of the State. Webster's 1828

Something that is impossible to take away, or to give up. It has been said that liberty falls into this category.


n. [L. libertas, from liber, free.]

1. Freedom from restraint, in a general sense, and applicable to the body, or to the will or mind. The body is at liberty, when not confined; the will or mind is at liberty, when not checked or controlled. A man enjoys liberty, when no physical force operates to restrain his actions or volitions.

2. Natural liberty, consists in the power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature. It is a state of exemption from the control of others, and from positive laws and the institutions of social life. This liberty is abridged by the establishment of government.

3. Civil liberty, is the liberty of men in a state of society, or natural liberty, so far only abridged and restrained, as is necessary and expedient for the safety and interest of the society, state or nation. A restraint of natural liberty, not necessary or expedient for the public, is tyranny or oppression. civil liberty is an exemption from the arbitrary will of others, which exemption is secured by established laws, which restrain every man from injuring or controlling another. Hence the restraints of law are essential to civil liberty.

The liberty of one depends not so much on the removal of all restraint from him, as on the due restraint upon the liberty of others.

In this sentence, the latter word liberty denotes natural liberty.

4. Political liberty, is sometimes used as synonymous with civil liberty. But it more properly designates the liberty of a nation, the freedom of a nation or state from all unjust abridgment of its rights and independence by another nation. Hence we often speak of the political liberties of Europe, or the nations of Europe.

5. Religious liberty, is the free right of adopting and enjoying opinions on religious subjects, and of worshiping the Supreme Being according to the dictates of conscience, without external control.

6. Liberty, in metaphysics, as opposed to necessity, is the power of an agent to do or forbear any particular action, according to the determination or thought of the mind, by which either is preferred to the other.

Freedom of the will; exemption from compulsion or restraint in willing or volition.

7. Privilege; exemption; immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant; with a plural. Thus we speak of the liberties of the commercial cities of Europe.

8. Leave; permission granted. The witness obtained liberty to leave the court.

9. A space in which one is permitted to pass without restraint, and beyond which he may not lawfully pass; with a plural; as the liberties of a prison.

10. Freedom of action or speech beyond the ordinary bounds of civility or decorum. Females should repel all improper liberties.

To take the liberty to do or say any thing, to use freedom not specially granted.

To set at liberty, to deliver from confinement; to release from restraint.

To be at liberty, to be free from restraint.

Liberty of the press, is freedom from any restriction on the power to publish books; the free power of publishing what one pleases, subject only to punishment for abusing the privilege, or publishing what is mischievous to the public or injurious to individuals.

Do we truly possess such a thing any longer? This is not a question of relativity, or one of comparison.  Besides, most of us have limited to no first-hand knowledge regarding the 'level of liberty' in other parts of the world. So, are we free from restraint? I say we are not, but that we are lead to believe the restraints upon us are "expedient for the public". 

Is it "expedient for the public" to have a monetary system in which debt is money; that in order to pay off debt you must pay with more debt? Is it "expedient for the public" to conduct false flag operations, such as Tonkin Gulf, to sway the public into engaging in an unjust wars costing 10's of thousands of lives and billion of dollars, which equate to Wall Street profits?  Is it "expedient for the public" to make corporate profits the number one priority; to ensure that antiquated technologies and market shares hold and maintain their social economic prominence for the continued profit of a handful of individuals? Is it "expedient for the public" that the constitutional balance between the National Government and the States is in a condition of usurpation, that the very fabric of the constitutional principles of federalism are compromised? 

On 31 August 2011, THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT, de facto, demonstrated that the usurpation and overthrow of fundamental principles is "expedient for the public" having granted the STATE'S MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF APPEAL. Based upon 'claimed' procedural errors. Once again the de facto STATE has demonstrated its willingness to ignore Law and the fundamental principles of American Jurisprudence and to take up the mantel of AVOIDANCE and the CHILLING EFFECT. They have boldly held up a sign stating, "YOU WILL GET NO JUSTICE HERE, WE CARE NOT FOR DUE PROCESS OF LAW".  The highest court in the de facto STATE has chosen to give aid and support to the overthrow of law by ignoring a case of significant public interest; a case upon which rests the most substantial constitutional question in the history of this American union: Does the United States Congress have the enumerated powers to annul states in times of peace; does Congress have absolute power; unrestrained and autocratic; is Congress superior to the People, and the States which created it? Is that what was intended by the founders??? No, absolutely not!!! 

I have exhausted my remedies within the 'State' level and now my only recourse is to seek the shelter of the judicial bulwark which is the United States Supreme Court. I will be filing a petition for a Writ of Certiorari with that Court. The United States Supreme Court takes up approximately 1.2% of the 8k+ petitions filed, however it is my hope that, in light of the recent BOND v. US decision, the Court will recognize the significance of the questions presented and take on the case. This will be no simple task, but I must try, and even if I fail with this attempt, I will not relent, for we cannot, and must not, surrender the birthright granted us by the Self-Existing Creator and our fathers before us.


Tuesday, September 6, 2011

More judicial tyranny...

It is extremely important that the issues are understood - when the jurisdiction of the de facto State is challenged they produce absolutely no evidence nor argument to the contrary, they just pretend the question was not asked and turn to the 'chilling effect doctrine'; "Oh you are going to try and assert your rights, well we can't have that, let me dissuade you by punishing you for doing so." Threat, duress, and coercion.

It is time people to wake up to what is going on around us and educate ourselves to what is true and what is false. Give whatever support you can, none of this is free nor is it cheap, but most of all educate yourselves on the facts, learn what it is that we have lost by understanding what natural law is. Ask yourself where did these ideals of unalienable rights come from, what does it mean, how is it that the of the united States of America sought to secure these things first with the constitutions of the respective republics and then the formation of the union.

If we want to secure our future, one of liberty and freedom, we cannot forget our past - the reality is most have bought the lie and have not a clue that they have been enslaved. They are imprisoned with their own minds, by tools of deceit and the enticements of comfort and false peace. Are you willing to take up the animated contest of freedom? Or are you going to cower, licking the hand that feeds you, and holds you enslaved? 

Friday, July 15, 2011

The Mighty Oak Was Once a Nut Who Stood His Ground

"It always seems impossible until it’s done."~Nelson Mandela

     First, let me apologize to you all for the time that has passed since my last update. It has been very busy here.
     On 17 June 2011, the de facto ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA filed its response brief, contemporaneously, with a second motion to dismiss the appeal. The response brief was weak to say the least, and made absolutely no attempt whatsoever to demonstrate a lawful jurisdiction being exercised by the STATE, or any lawful chain of custody. I invite you to read the response brief, and leave comments - of course, I would strongly encourage you to read my brief first, so you can understand the issues raised and see the ridiculous points raised by the de facto ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL. 
        Unfortunately, on 28 June 2011, the APPEAL COURT granted the STATE’s motion to dismiss the appeal, which was entirely based upon a technicality (however this is not the end of the case). Supposedly an error in the Record on Appeal which I now know was no error at all. I was not aware there was no error, as the STATE claimed, at the time I filed my response to the motion. It is strange how justice has become a game of ‘Simon Says’, likened to the game show ‘Jeopardy’ – “Oooppppssss you screwed up, I didn’t say Simon says… Sorry Mr. Birch you didn’t give the answer framed as a question…yes, you’re absolutely right, but that is just too bad”-Justice has become a mockery, with the lives of people in the balance.
        28 June 2011 was the day my response to the State’s brief was due. So, to bring some clarity to the situation, and to demonstrate how desperate this de facto political venue is to maintain power, I will share with you my rebuttals to the new issues raised by the de facto STATE in their feigned attempt to demonstrate the legal argument of the constitutionality of the Reconstruction Acts as ‘frivolous’ and ‘lacking any legal authority’.
        First, the STATE asserted that State v. Sullivan, __ N.C. App. __, 687 S.E.2d 504 (2009), appeal denied, 364 N.C. 247, 699 S.E.2d 921 (2010), cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 178 L. Ed. 2d 754 (2011), and the argument in my brief are substantively identical. In Mr. Sullivan’s brief there is a single paragraph expressing the concept of a 12th and 39th State of North-Carolina. Mr. Sullivan does not offer any additional information, such as an Affidavit of Citizenship and Domicile demonstrating he is in fact a lawful claimant/freeman of the de jure[1] State (see RR. 88 & 89), nor does he offer any additional argument, or authority in law. The STATE’s assertion in this instance is wholly without foundation or merit.
        Second, the State asserted the question being brought forth  is an question which falls under the Political Question Doctrine, citing  Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. (7 How.) 1, 12 L. Ed. 581 (1849) as an example. Nowhere in my brief am I requesting the Court to make a determination of North-Carolina’s ratification of the 14th Amendment, as that is a political question. Nor am I asking this Court to rule upon the validity of the de facto[2] 39th State of which it is a part, See Federalist Papers #80: “No man ought certainly to be a judge in his own cause, or in any cause in respect to which he has the least interest or bias.  This principle has no inconsiderable weight in designating the federal courts as the proper tribunals for the determination of controversies between different States and their citizens.  And it ought to have the same operation in regard to some cases between citizens of the same State.”
        In Luther v. Borden, the question ultimately answered was, how is a State deemed lawful and legitimate? The answer demonstrated is this – the political body recognized by Congress as having adopted the Constitution for the United States of America. The political body encompassed in the Chartered Government of Rhode Island was the legitimate government of Rhode Island, as it had represented the free people of Rhode Island, at the time of its’ ratification of the Constitution for the United States of America. The Charted Government had called for no referendum to draw up a new constitution for Rhode Island, therefore Luther had given aid and comfort to treason against Rhode Island. The Federal Government had a duty and obligation to defend the Chartered Government from this rebellion.
        This is the essence of my brief: the de jure government of North-Carolina had called for no referendum to amend its’ constitution, in this instance it was the Federal Government itself that was rebelling against the de jure government of North-Carolina. In 1868 the U.S. Congress deemed that there was no republican form of government within the territorial boundaries of North-Carolina, when within the previous two years it had submitted two constitutional amendments to it for its consideration. See Appellant’s Brief  pp. 10-37.
        In this instance, the 12th State of North-Carolina is the lawful ‘Chartered Government of Rhode Island’ and the 39th State of North-Carolina is the government put in place by the ‘Dorr Rebellion’. Only this time it was Congress, not Dorr, who is declaring the de jure State annulled, with no acknowledgement of the ratifying government. See Appellant’s Brief  Appen. pp. 135-134; the 12th State of North-Carolina. This annulment was carried out by the Reconstruction Acts and Bills of Attainder, executed by the U.S. Military who drove one group of people to the polls, and another from them, under the orders of the United States Congress.
        Third, in the Response Brief for the STATE is cited Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700, 726, 19 L. Ed.227, 237 (1868). In this case it is quoted that the “The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States.” The STATE seems to be under the impression that the weight of the argument is lawfulness of succession, and while this question is one which may need to be revisited at some instance in the future; it is not the focus of this authoritative legal argument. However, the question rises from this cite - if the Union is indestructible and the States are indestructible then why did Congress believe it had the authority to destroy the States which had entered and formed the Union? Where did Congress get its lawful authority to annul the Republic of Texas admitted into the Union 27 December 1845? Once again Congress had legislated it be done through the Reconstruction Acts for the purpose of reconstructing the founding principles of the Constitution for the United States of America by the nationalization of citizenship.
        Forth, in the Response Brief for the STATE, it is asserted that I have somehow inadvertently accepted and consented to the jurisdiction of the de facto STATE by being in possession of a de facto issued ‘Driver’s License’, and that the people of North-Carolina have somehow accepted this unconstitutional act and the new constitution. This assertion is also without foundation or merit, since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it... See 16 Am. Jur. 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256. Consent does not cure and unconstitutional act.
        Friends, those of you who do not prefer “the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom”, it is apparent that the STATE is avoiding the question. The argument I presented is not frivolous, and it is not in the nature of a political question, it is the single most important constitutional question that these united States have ever been faced with – does Congress have the power to annul States in times of peace, for the purpose of nationalizing citizenship, without the consent of a free people, by threat of military rule? Is Congress’s power absolute, is that what our founders intended? Do you wonder what happened to the States, to the powers reserved to the ‘People’? They were taken by Congress unconstitutionally.
        On 12 July 2011, I filed a Notice of Appeal to the NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT, as this is a constitutional issue. On 14 July 2011 the de facto STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA filed a motion to dismiss the notice of appeal. My response will soon be following. Once again, the STATE is making no effort whatsoever to answer the jurisdictional or the constitutional questions; they are using procedure as a defense. In the minds and hearts of the de facto attorney general’s office it is safe to assume that justice is of little interest and the rule of tyranny and usurpation is tantamount. Perhaps, just perhaps, there are honorable men and women seated in the de facto state supreme court, we shall see. If it is proven there is no honor among them, then a special writ shall be sent to the United States Supreme Court. Friends, I need your support, if you believe in me, if you believe in what I am doing. Freedom isn't free, it comes with the highest of costs and filing fees are not a cheap expense, not to mention the time and research that has been required by myself and others who are helping. There is no such thing as a little freedom. Either you are all free, or you are not free.


[1] Government de jure /gə́vərnmənt dìy júriy/. A government of right; the true and lawful government; a government established according to the constitution of the nation, and lawfully entitled to recognition and supremacy and the administration of the nation, but which is actually cut off from power or control. A government deemed lawful, or deemed rightful or just, which, nevertheless, has been supplanted or displaced; that is to say, which receives not presently (although it received formerly) habitual obedience from the bulk of the community. Black’s Law Dictionary 5th Edition

[2] Government de facto. A government of fact. A government actually exercising power and control, as opposed to the true and lawful government; a government not established according to the constitution of the nation, or not lawfully entitled to recognition or supremacy, but which has nevertheless supplanted or displaced the government de jure. A government deemed unlawful, or deemed wrongful or unjust, which, nevertheless, receives presently habitual obedience from the bulk of the community. There are several degrees of what is called "de facto government." Such a government, in its highest degree, assumes a character very closely resembling that of a lawful government. This is when the usurping government expels the regular authorities from their customary seats and functions, and establishes itself in their place, and so becomes the actual government of a country. The distinguishing characteristic of such a government is that adherents to it in
war against the government de jure do not incur the penalties of treason; and, under certain limitations, obligations assumed by it in behalf of the country or otherwise will, in general, be respected by the government de jure when restored. Such a government might be more aptly denominated a "government of paramount force," being maintained by active military power against the rightful authority of an established and lawful government; and obeyed in civil matters by private citizens. They are usually administered directly by military authority, but they may be administered, also, by civil authority, supported more or less by military force. Thorington v. Smith, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) I, 19 L.Ed. 361. Black’s Law Dictionary 5th Edition

Friday, May 27, 2011

...Why Challenge Reconstruction?

      Since I have started speaking and writing on the topic of restoring our Republics, I have been finding that people are not seeing the significance in seeking adjudication upon the unconstitutionality of the Reconstruction Acts, and what exactly a success in this arena means. Nor are people grasping the concept and importance of participating in lawful government.  Simply put:  If the Reconstruction Acts were a good, a Constitutionally acceptable thing, then let them be declared so by a court of law, once and for all.  It has never been done, and has been artfully and illegally avoided by all levels of government for 143 years!  I do not believe that they are Constitutional, therefore, I am pursuing and participating in the Constitutional government of the 12th State of North-Carolina that was established in 1776, not the 39th Federal State of North Carolina that was unconstitutionally created through the Reconstruction Acts.
     Again and again, people are shocked about the truth of what happened, they are intrigued or made indignant by the history that has been hidden from them; they struggle with the realization that they have believed a lie, but they fail to realize the significance and power that will be restored to "We the People" when these Acts are overturned.
     I know that people are missing this because they are continuing to waste their time and energy upon governmental issues that have absolutely no force or effect in law. My meaning is not that the unconstitutional actions taken by the governments (local, state, federal) have no affect upon people's lives - the 'People' are suffering under the burden of them.  However, most believe there is only so much that we can do and our avenues for remedy are limited or non-existent.  They are trapped in the endless cycle of 2 more years, 4 more years, 2 more years, 4 more years (or don't participate at all) and tell each other, "Next election we will get the 'right people' in office to cure these problems...'they' will fix what has been broken."
      The issue with believing that 'something is broken' and we just need to 'fix' it, is that no subsequent action taken after an unconstitutional act or fraud is in place can be cured.  Nothing can be done besides redress and recession(check out the actual definition of this word).  Meaning this:  when an unconstitutional act is in place there is nothing that can be done, no one you can elect,  no passage of time, and no amount of ignorant obeisance by the people that will make the act, or the actions based upon it, constitutional. It makes no difference how many people are willing to participate in it, it makes no difference that it is popularly supported. Thomas McIntyre Cooley's book A treatise on the constitutional limitations which rest upon the legislative... goes into detail and explanation of this fundamental principle of jurisprudence.
     In my post, A Question of Intent, the idea of overturning every Supreme Court decision made over the last one hundred (100) years (that has had a negative impact upon the original intent of the Constitution) can be accomplished in the overturning of this single Congressional Act.  Patriot Act:  gone, National Health Care:  gone, NAFTA:  gone, U.N. Agenda 21: gone, By the Reconstruction Acts being declared unconstitutional we can truly begin the process of restoring what was lost - a constitutional Union, constitutional state republics, a federal government bound, once again, in the chains of the Constitution for the United States of America(emphasis mine). Each state will, once again, have what was always intended:  self-determination. The federal government will be confined to its' enumerated powers. 

     We must comprehend the importance of participating in lawful government.  The de jure has been re-established in the State of North-Carolina.  There are thousands of public offices to be filled, for example:  Wardens of the Poor, Justices of the Peace, Sheriffs, Rangers, the Militia rank and file, etc...   These offices no longer exist under the de facto government, or are so fundamentally changed, that they no longer serve their intended purpose. There are de facto laws on the books that are constitutional, that are useful and applicable to our post-modern world.  There are de jure laws that have not been touched or changed in 143 years and need to be brought up to date.  All of this must be done. 
     A daunting task? Yes.  But it can be done; it must be done if we truly and honestly desire freedom and liberty; if we truly desire to see the insanity stop. 
     Nationalized citizenship is void as an operation of law and every office and position held or created, by or through this nonexistent citizenship, is as if it never existed. How can something that does not exist in law, bring about lawful change? It cannot. 
     There are men and women who are holding these de facto offices that would, and could, help and aid this transition:  Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Glen Bradley, and others who are constitutionally-minded men and women.  However, they are still holding non-existent offices, held by an unconstitutional body politic; national citizenship (Federalist Papers #39 expounds upon this concept).
     I have most likely raised even more questions in your minds, but this is good! When you walk away from reading this, and contemplate the questions that have formed, remember this:

With the Reconstruction Acts declared void, every other act that followed it, and was built upon it, is as if it never existed! Clean slate, Constitution restored.

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

A Question of Intent - North Carolina John Locke Foundation

     I recently attended the later half of a John Locke Foundation seminar on the U.S. Constitution, I only heard Dr. Michael Sanera speak.  What I heard - from the perspective of the founders intent - was absolutely correct. Dr. Sanera's explanation of the enumerated powers, of the 'General Welfare' clause, the fact that each of the states was a independent country, and even his idea of what needs to happen to take back our nation (with the exception of how far back we need to go to achieve it) - an overturning of Supreme Court Case Law. 
     Where Dr. Sanera, the John Locke Foundation, and myself part ways is in how to achieve this goal of restoring what has been lost, and in the origin of the problem. 
     The John Locke Foundation, and Dr. Sanera are of the opinion that the origin of the unconstitutionality that exists in government today is a result of the 'Progressive' movement - who's origins begin about 100 years ago. Well, they are correct that the instigator of all that ails us is progressive ideology, however, this ideology was brought to fruition by Abraham Lincoln and the Radical Republican Party of the mid-1800's. 
     Today, just as back then, the progressive ideology is smoothly and beautifully glazed on the outside of their agenda with valid humanitarian and environmental concepts, such as:  medical attention for the poor, environmental consciousness; stewardship, free public education, the abolition of slavery, However, when we peer into this progressive cup of compassion and ministration, we find corruption; a new progressive form of slavery, servitude, and usurpation of the fundamental truths of liberty and freedom; unalienable concepts of the self-evident endowments of mankind. The Radical Republican Party, took the military defeat of the South as an opportunity to not simply abolish slavery in the United States of America, but to put down once and for all the heresy of 'state's rights' by and through the Reconstruction Acts and the coerced 14th Amendment (part of the supporting historical documentation for this can be found in the Brief pp. -36-;Appen.85-91).  
     Dr. Senera and the John Locke Foundation do not wish to gaze upon this vital aspect of American history and jurisprudence. As of yet, I do not believe I am correctly discerning the reason for this avoidance by these reasonable, intelligent, educated, and rational men. When, I spoke with Dr. Senera after the seminar, he stated that:  1) He was unfamiliar with the Reconstruction Acts or the details of the14th Amendment, and 2) That the amount of energy needed to bring a constitutional challenge upon an act of Congress was to great, versus politically re-seating the United States Supreme Court with constitutional intent minded justices (Such as Justice Thomas and Saclia)?
     The constitutionality of the Reconstruction Acts has not been before the United States Supreme Court in one hundred and forty-two (142) years, and has never been ruled upon. In the case of Norton v. Shelby County, the Court stated, "An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." This concept is huge, because the United States Congress is acting through a new political body that it created by an unconstitutional act. 
     So, the question stands, which is the more 'ergonomically feasible' course of action? To re-seat the United States Supreme Court, over the course of the next 30 years, or to seek a judicial ruling over the constitutionality of an Act of Congress, perhaps 5 to 7 years? 
     Another question to ponder is: Why is the John Locke Foundation not giving the people all the information? Why are they continuing to present their own revisionist history and withholding vital facts, when this bit of history has been brought to their attention?   
     Friends, I want my nation and my country back. I do not want my children to have to fight this battle. I do not want to see this union and its countries (States) utterly destroyed by the machinations of tyrants and evil men. Is this a nation of laws, or is justice just a fantasy of philosophical stimulation? If someone stole, through fraud, 5000 acres of land from your great-great-great-grandfather one hundred and sixty years ago, and you can prove it, do you not have a rightful claim to it; should you not seek to recover it?  
     If you remove the foundation, the house comes down. Pause and calmly think upon it.

Thursday, May 19, 2011

Judiciary Update*

Thank you all for following, for your intentions and prayers. The STATE's motion to strike and dismiss has been denied! The appeal goes forward to the merits.