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?