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.

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Constitutionality of the Reconstruction Acts back before the Judiciary

     Since my last post, I appealed the verdict from the Macon county Superior Court. On 17 May 2011 I served my Appellant Brief to the NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS and the ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE. The brief is a "237-page historical and ontological argument" against the legitimacy of the present STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA.  I am challenging the constitutionality of the Reconstruction Acts, which were put into force by the U.S. Congress.
      This question in law has been evaded and obstructed for one hundred and forty-four (144) years. The Acts in question are the cornerstone of the current state of corruption and depravity that exists within the operation of government here in the united States of America, in both the federal and state levels. These corruptions and depravities I am referencing are every breach of the fundamental principles of law that each and everyone of us, who is paying attention, can identify as unconstitutional - as our founding Fathers intended. All I am asking for from the STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA is an answer; a good faith response, so that the facts can be scrutinized, discussed, and resolved, so that we can get this nation back on track and beyond tragedies of the past that are still having a negative impact upon this greatest of nations; the United States of America.
     As it stands now, I served the Appellant Brief sixty-one minutes late, at 1:01 A.M. after making vital corrections to the form of the brief, discovered in the last day of its preparation and required by the rules of the Court. The ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE filed a motion to strike the brief and dismiss the appeal on account of this sixty-one minutes. I have served a response to the this motion and now await the decision of the Court. I see no reason for the Court to grant the STATE's motion in light of my response, however, after one hundred and forty-four years of obstruction and evasion it is possible that the Court will choose the historical course of action.
     I humbly ask that you all put forward your intentions and prayers that this appeal will be heard.

Link to brief:
Brief PDF