[* * * A Former Lawclerk Who No Longer Trusts Judges * *
* establishes context. (All
emboldens, highlights, [] and
underlines are mine, through out this current
sending.) pjr]
12 April A.D. 2005
While this tickles the ears of your regular readers, you're still presuming something into existence that doesn't exist. What this "law clerk" has no clue about, and is trained to have no clue about, is the legal reality that we do not now have, and have never had, a "constitutional Government."
So, to measure ANY "judges" decisions by the Constitution is simply ludicrous. The problem here is not necessarily with the "judges." There may be problems, but those problems are not likely to be problems with legal reality, which legal reality the "judges" very likely know, understand and apply, and which legal reality this "law clerk" is confessedly clueless about.
This is the same generic problem with the popular Court-slamming books that circulate today. Either those authors are clueless, or else they're expecting there to be enough book-buyers who are clueless, to make money off the lies and crap they write and publish. At the end of the day, the problem will prove itself. The problem is NOT with the "judges," where the question that arises has to do with the "Constitution." The problem is with those who have not yet realized that we do not now have, and have never had, a "constitutional Government." The Constitution was and is a "compact." It was never, and is still not, Law. Thus, it was never the Supreme Law of the Land.
And, if you REALLY and TRULY want to make a difference regarding the judiciary, it will help immeasurably to evaluate those opinions from a standpoint of legal reality. This "law clerk" is not yet there. To promote this writing [A Former Lawclerk Who No Longer Trusts Judges] as something competent is to confess the same problem.
While this tickles the ears of your regular readers, you're still presuming something into existence that doesn't exist. What this "law clerk" has no clue about, and is trained to have no clue about, is the legal reality that we do not now have, and have never had, a "constitutional Government."
So, to measure ANY "judges" decisions by the Constitution is simply ludicrous. The problem here is not necessarily with the "judges." There may be problems, but those problems are not likely to be problems with legal reality, which legal reality the "judges" very likely know, understand and apply, and which legal reality this "law clerk" is confessedly clueless about.
This is the same generic problem with the popular Court-slamming books that circulate today. Either those authors are clueless, or else they're expecting there to be enough book-buyers who are clueless, to make money off the lies and crap they write and publish. At the end of the day, the problem will prove itself. The problem is NOT with the "judges," where the question that arises has to do with the "Constitution." The problem is with those who have not yet realized that we do not now have, and have never had, a "constitutional Government." The Constitution was and is a "compact." It was never, and is still not, Law. Thus, it was never the Supreme Law of the Land.
And, if you REALLY and TRULY want to make a difference regarding the judiciary, it will help immeasurably to evaluate those opinions from a standpoint of legal reality. This "law clerk" is not yet there. To promote this writing [A Former Lawclerk Who No Longer Trusts Judges] as something competent is to confess the same problem.
I used to be "there." See http://www.apfn.org/apfn/okc_
I'm no longer living a day dream, and, actually, I'm no longer living a nightmare, either. There's a tremendous peace of mind that accompanies coming to terms with the stark cold essence of our legal reality. We've "been had." The sooner we come to accept that fact, the sooner we make constructive progress. It's possible to win a game where the player doesn't know the rules, but that is all the more difficult where the game is designed by masters to be a game that can't be won by 99.99999% of those who play. Said another way, the only way to win is not to play. And, we can't get to the stage of not playing until such time as we understand, in very good detail, the rules of the game(s) at issue.
We don't get "there" by still thinking that anything about the "federal government" has one stinking thing to do with the "Constitution."
Keep up the good work.
Harmon L. Taylor
holmes221@earthlink.net
(Dallas, Texas)
(Dallas, Texas)
[Source:
*
*The "Legal Reality" Must Be Brought In Line With The Declaration of
Independence* * ] ______________________________
[The below excerpts are pulled
from: http://www.apfn.org/apfn/okc_
Open
Letter to President George W. Bush
Re: Stay of Execution
by Harmon L. Taylorhttp://www.apfn.org/apfn/OKC_
Re: Stay of Execution
by Harmon L. Taylorhttp://www.apfn.org/apfn/OKC_
[...
http://web.archive.org/web/
Welcome to the Official Website of the Oklahoma Bombing Investigation
Committee. Our primary mission is to find the whole truth about the fatal
attack on the Alfred P. Murrah Building on April 19, 1995. We are in the
process of re-developing our website so check back for updates and changes over
the next several weeks.
...]
[next, from the Legal Reality site addendum, on the
page of the Open Letter to GWB:]
Oh, Really?!
Is that so?!
We've received some prompt and wonderful feedback to the advance release of the text of this letter. Some of it focuses on this one concept. This note now includes some of that feedback, and should more of the same come in, it also will be included. We do appreciate the two-way communications. There is still plenty to cover.
When thoughts as easy to verify as this are stated, and the statement raises an idea rather different from what one might first think, there are basically two perspectives available. Either the author/spokesperson is just lost in a fog somewhere, or there's a point to be made. All that will be mentioned here is that if this perspective doesn't yet make sense, consider again the case in point in this very discussion. Why would a trial judge of the experience of the U.S. District Court in Oklahoma be so bold as to transfer every single criminal case involving the two primary suspects [McVeigh & Nichols] across the State line? Lost in a fog, or making a point? In a different scenario, picture the trial judge getting up out of his chair, practically leaping over the bench into the front of the courtroom, and all but screaming in the face of the litigants, who were heard to complain about this or that "constitutional" issue (see "constitutional" in the Dissertations on Definitions page, accessible from the Home Page) as it was argued to apply in an "income tax" matter, "The Constitution does not apply in this courtroom!!" Is that jurist lost in a fog, or making a point? [Quick jump to the point of focus.] [i.e., back to the beginning [top] of the open letter]
We've received some prompt and wonderful feedback to the advance release of the text of this letter. Some of it focuses on this one concept. This note now includes some of that feedback, and should more of the same come in, it also will be included. We do appreciate the two-way communications. There is still plenty to cover.
When thoughts as easy to verify as this are stated, and the statement raises an idea rather different from what one might first think, there are basically two perspectives available. Either the author/spokesperson is just lost in a fog somewhere, or there's a point to be made. All that will be mentioned here is that if this perspective doesn't yet make sense, consider again the case in point in this very discussion. Why would a trial judge of the experience of the U.S. District Court in Oklahoma be so bold as to transfer every single criminal case involving the two primary suspects [McVeigh & Nichols] across the State line? Lost in a fog, or making a point? In a different scenario, picture the trial judge getting up out of his chair, practically leaping over the bench into the front of the courtroom, and all but screaming in the face of the litigants, who were heard to complain about this or that "constitutional" issue (see "constitutional" in the Dissertations on Definitions page, accessible from the Home Page) as it was argued to apply in an "income tax" matter, "The Constitution does not apply in this courtroom!!" Is that jurist lost in a fog, or making a point? [Quick jump to the point of focus.] [i.e., back to the beginning [top] of the open letter]
[...]
______________________________
O.J. SIMPSON: DIVERSION FROM WACO/SUMMER OF 1993O.J. Simpson
was never indicted!! by Harmon L. Taylor, TX Attorneyhttp://www.apfn.org/apfn/OJ.
______________________________
The following .pdf documents were sent to APFN to upload for Public
viewing, Compliments of
MR. HARMON L. TAYLOR
P O BOX 516104
DALLAS, TX 75251
Phone: (214) 361-0401
Fax: (214) 361-0306
State Bar of Texas
Appellate Section [Taylor has, long since, resigned from the BoT.]
http://www.tex-app.org/bylast.
MR. HARMON L. TAYLOR
P O BOX 516104
DALLAS, TX 75251
Phone: (214) 361-0401
Fax: (214) 361-0306
State Bar of Texas
Appellate Section [Taylor has, long since, resigned from the BoT.]
http://www.tex-app.org/bylast.
####
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/brief.
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/
Notation for the following document:
It may make perfect, intuitive sense why Lappin is the
Defendant.
It may not be quite so clear why the State AG is also named, and as a Necessary Party. It's in the pleadings, but let me address that here, briefly.
Land ownership in the "constitutional Government" depends upon a couple of things, both of which are found in Article I, section 8, clause 17. First, there must be evidence of transfer of title to the property, such as by a Deed, and secondly, there must be Consent by the State Legislature of the State in which the property is found.
For the Murrah Building, neither of these forms of evidence of ownership in the "constitutional Government" have ever shown up; not in the deed records, not in the legislative records, not in either trial (McVeigh or Nichols). Therefore, it is safe to conclude that these documents don't exist regarding the Murrah Building.
Conclusion: The land on which stood the Murrah Building was never owned by the "constitutional Government."
If the distinction between the "federal government" and the "constitutional Government" is a topic for which additional information would be helpful, I can also send my "Dissertations on Definitions" page from legalreality.com, which explores, in some detail, what the term "federal" means. In sum, "federal" means "federal." It doesn't mean "national." It most certainly doesn't mean "constitutional." "Federal" has everything to do with private obligations and nothing to do with the Constitution. The "federal government" does not arise from the Constitution, which also means that the Constitution is not the language by which we can limit the "federal government."
The fact that the Murrah Building and that property are characterized, and properly so, as a "federal enclave" is the confession that it is, in fact, private property.
Apply this line of thought one more time. As it turns out, the property on which sits the "United States" Penitentiary in Terre Haute also has a flagrant problem with title, from the point of view of the Constitution. Thanks to excellent and very much appreciated assistance in Indiana, we were able to locate a deed transferring title "to the United States of America, or its successors," for that property. However, and also thanks to excellent and very much appreciated assistance in Indiana, in particular through the Notre Dame School of Law library, we were completely unable to locate any act by the State Legislature in Indiana "consenting" to that transfer of title. Therefore, we know that the "constitutional Government" never owned that property, either. And, again, the proper characterization of that property's being a "federal enclave" is the confession that it, too, is private property.
Here's the legal consequence of these conclusions. Since this property is not owned by the "constitutional Government," that makes it property that is subject to the authority of the "state." And, since we cannot find any formal business organizational documents telling us that the "United States" Penitentiary in Terre Haute is a "for profit" business enterprise, we must presume the possibility that it is a "not for profit" business enterprise.
When a "not for profit" business entity gets sued, it is the traditional rule that the AG of the "state" must be included as a Necessary Party, especially in matters sounding in equity, which this one most certainly did. The reason is that the "state" AG is a necessary party to all suits involving public charitable trusts, and if the "state" AG is not included, then the entire matter can be dismissed at the whim of the AG, at practically any stage, including post-judgment, based solely on failure of proper notice to the "state" AG. Some "states" may have rules that vary some from this, but this is the traditional gist of the matter.
In sum, because, through a "no evidence" line of proof, we CAN establish that the "United States" Penitentiary in Terre Haute is not sitting on property owned by the "constitutional Government," we know that it is a business entity subject to the authority of the State of Indiana. That being the case, and not having affirmative proof that it is, in fact, a "for profit" business enterprise, of some organizational structure or other, the question arises that it very well may be a public charitable trust, and if that's the case, then the Indiana AG is a necessary party to the suit.
The Indiana AG's Office never provided proof, one way or the other, as to any Consent by the Indiana Legislature or of the "for profit," or "not for profit," character of that Penitentiary. So, we still don't know, for certain, but the series of reasonable and still unanswered questions continues to give us a clue, per the above article: http://www.apfn.org/pdf/
It may not be quite so clear why the State AG is also named, and as a Necessary Party. It's in the pleadings, but let me address that here, briefly.
Land ownership in the "constitutional Government" depends upon a couple of things, both of which are found in Article I, section 8, clause 17. First, there must be evidence of transfer of title to the property, such as by a Deed, and secondly, there must be Consent by the State Legislature of the State in which the property is found.
For the Murrah Building, neither of these forms of evidence of ownership in the "constitutional Government" have ever shown up; not in the deed records, not in the legislative records, not in either trial (McVeigh or Nichols). Therefore, it is safe to conclude that these documents don't exist regarding the Murrah Building.
Conclusion: The land on which stood the Murrah Building was never owned by the "constitutional Government."
If the distinction between the "federal government" and the "constitutional Government" is a topic for which additional information would be helpful, I can also send my "Dissertations on Definitions" page from legalreality.com, which explores, in some detail, what the term "federal" means. In sum, "federal" means "federal." It doesn't mean "national." It most certainly doesn't mean "constitutional." "Federal" has everything to do with private obligations and nothing to do with the Constitution. The "federal government" does not arise from the Constitution, which also means that the Constitution is not the language by which we can limit the "federal government."
The fact that the Murrah Building and that property are characterized, and properly so, as a "federal enclave" is the confession that it is, in fact, private property.
Apply this line of thought one more time. As it turns out, the property on which sits the "United States" Penitentiary in Terre Haute also has a flagrant problem with title, from the point of view of the Constitution. Thanks to excellent and very much appreciated assistance in Indiana, we were able to locate a deed transferring title "to the United States of America, or its successors," for that property. However, and also thanks to excellent and very much appreciated assistance in Indiana, in particular through the Notre Dame School of Law library, we were completely unable to locate any act by the State Legislature in Indiana "consenting" to that transfer of title. Therefore, we know that the "constitutional Government" never owned that property, either. And, again, the proper characterization of that property's being a "federal enclave" is the confession that it, too, is private property.
Here's the legal consequence of these conclusions. Since this property is not owned by the "constitutional Government," that makes it property that is subject to the authority of the "state." And, since we cannot find any formal business organizational documents telling us that the "United States" Penitentiary in Terre Haute is a "for profit" business enterprise, we must presume the possibility that it is a "not for profit" business enterprise.
When a "not for profit" business entity gets sued, it is the traditional rule that the AG of the "state" must be included as a Necessary Party, especially in matters sounding in equity, which this one most certainly did. The reason is that the "state" AG is a necessary party to all suits involving public charitable trusts, and if the "state" AG is not included, then the entire matter can be dismissed at the whim of the AG, at practically any stage, including post-judgment, based solely on failure of proper notice to the "state" AG. Some "states" may have rules that vary some from this, but this is the traditional gist of the matter.
In sum, because, through a "no evidence" line of proof, we CAN establish that the "United States" Penitentiary in Terre Haute is not sitting on property owned by the "constitutional Government," we know that it is a business entity subject to the authority of the State of Indiana. That being the case, and not having affirmative proof that it is, in fact, a "for profit" business enterprise, of some organizational structure or other, the question arises that it very well may be a public charitable trust, and if that's the case, then the Indiana AG is a necessary party to the suit.
The Indiana AG's Office never provided proof, one way or the other, as to any Consent by the Indiana Legislature or of the "for profit," or "not for profit," character of that Penitentiary. So, we still don't know, for certain, but the series of reasonable and still unanswered questions continues to give us a clue, per the above article: http://www.apfn.org/pdf/
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/mphv.
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/mti.
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/brief.
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/mphv.
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/mti.
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/brief.
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/
Notation On the Notice of Appeal:
This is an interesting part of the story. That weekend was a wild one. I think I traveled close to 1200 miles, all within Texas. To make a long story short, I was enroute from Dallas to Houston to pick up my Sister and Niece, so that we could go to a High School Reunion function in Austin, and, in the rain, on I-45 South, about the Woodlands, I pulled over, hand wrote out the Notice of Appeal, and faxed it to Indiana from a truck stop. Rather than rushing into the appeal, it took me until about 3:30 or so, to get in touch with one more valuable opinion on this issue. He heard what I could tell him in 10 minutes, on two different phone calls of about that length, and he found value in the position. That's when I filed the appeal, and it was literally about 10 minutes prior to "closing" in Indiana when the Notice arrived. Turns out they'd been expecting it pretty much all day. VERY helpful clerk and staff on this one. VERY helpful. The best way to appreciate this one is probably by our getting a certified copy of the one on record with the court. I've got the "original" around here, somewhere, but I'm thinking that with the "stamps" and all on it, it'll at least look like a Notice of Appeal!
Harmon
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/MSTAY-
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/mtro-
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/
This is an interesting part of the story. That weekend was a wild one. I think I traveled close to 1200 miles, all within Texas. To make a long story short, I was enroute from Dallas to Houston to pick up my Sister and Niece, so that we could go to a High School Reunion function in Austin, and, in the rain, on I-45 South, about the Woodlands, I pulled over, hand wrote out the Notice of Appeal, and faxed it to Indiana from a truck stop. Rather than rushing into the appeal, it took me until about 3:30 or so, to get in touch with one more valuable opinion on this issue. He heard what I could tell him in 10 minutes, on two different phone calls of about that length, and he found value in the position. That's when I filed the appeal, and it was literally about 10 minutes prior to "closing" in Indiana when the Notice arrived. Turns out they'd been expecting it pretty much all day. VERY helpful clerk and staff on this one. VERY helpful. The best way to appreciate this one is probably by our getting a certified copy of the one on record with the court. I've got the "original" around here, somewhere, but I'm thinking that with the "stamps" and all on it, it'll at least look like a Notice of Appeal!
Harmon
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/MSTAY-
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/mtro-
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/
Notation: for the following document
Key to the appellate court opinions is the characterization
that the claims made were "without authority," and that the claims have "no
merit." While the rest of the court's discussion is interesting, this part of
the opinion tells us everything we need to know. The appellate court went beyond
addressing the issues raised and addressed the question asked, which is along
the lines of, "How in the world can this be happening, legally speaking?" Since
the essence of these claims comes straight out of the Constitution, the
lesson is that the Constitution is "without authority," and that the
Constitution has "no merit," in the "United States" "court" system.
Said another way, the
Constitution is not "admissible evidence of Law," and, that being the case, the
Constitution is not the Supreme Law of the Land. From that point of view, given
that the "federal government" arises from private obligations, not the
Constitution, it makes sense that the Constitution is completely irrelevant, and
that is provides absolutely no limitations on the "federal government,"
whatsoever. THAT's how the "feds" do what they do, legally
speaking.
Thus, in sum, to solve any problem, it helps greatly to identify it correctly, first. Here, not only do we need to learn to distinguish between the "federal government" and the "constitutional Government," but also we need to learn that there is presently no "constitutional Government" in operation, but only the "federal government."
The cite to Devvy's web page that contains the indictment language is still a good link to that.
Since the Constitution was not "admissible evidence of Law" for this case, that got me started trying to find when it stopped being the Supreme Law of the Land. Right now, I'm satisfied that it had to have occurred prior to 1850. In the early 1850's, Lysander Spooner witnessed the "court's" giving the "jury" the instructions to follow the "law" given by the "court." This is a complete abrogation of the Law stated in Brailsford v.
Georgia, meaning, telling us, giving us "notice," that the "United States District Court" in Massachusetts was no longer bound to the Constitution or to the prior opinions of the Supreme Court. In other words, the Constitution, and the "constitutional Government" it created, got deep-sixed at or before those cases came on for trial in the early 1850's.
Another interesting indicia of the non-existence of the "constitutional Government" is the "popular vote" of 1824. Five Presidents, four of them for two terms each, were elected per Article II, section 1. That's nine elections before the thought ever existed of any "popular vote," a concept found nowhere in the Constitution for choosing a President.
And, even with the 12th Amendment (1804), there were still 20 years before the "popular vote" made its entrance. How fitting is it that John Quincy Adams, the sixth President, won neither the "popular vote" nor the Electoral Vote? It definitely earmarks that event for our study.
The legal reality of the non-existence of the "constitutional Government" just didn't sink in until I read the 7th Circuit's opinion in this case. Now, it's as clear as day. Since it took the padded 2x4 of the 7th Circuit to get me "over" that barrier, I don't realistically expect anything short of personal experience to persuade anyone else, either. But, then, there's always hope!
To combine the attached notes with these, here's one perspective, with which I'll close this note.
The State is the sine qua non regarding the "constitutional Government." Without States, there is no "constitutional Government." Starting with Article I, if there are no States, then there are no Representatives, for Representatives represent People in the States.
And, if there are no States, then there are no Senators, for Senators represent the States, directly, in that legislative process. (You're right, of course, to look to the so-called 17th Amendment (1913). However, I've already traced the non-existence of the "constitutional Government back to 1850, so this particular "notice" to us, in 1913, that the States no longer exist, and, therefore, that the States have no more need of representation in Congress, is about 60 years "late.") The entire purpose of the Senate is to have the States, as such, participate in the legislative process. If there are no States, then not only is there no Congress, but also there is no need even for a Senate.
Thus, where there are no States, there is no Congress.
Continuing with Article II, where there are no States, there is no President. From where come the Electors? Right, the States. The Electors hold an Office in the "constitutional Government," which exists for the sole purpose of choosing the President. If there are no States, then there are no Electors. Where there are no Electors, there is no President.
Thus, where there are no States, there is no President.
Continuing with Article III, where there are no States, there are no Judges. From where come the Judges? Right, the President nominates and appoints, and the Senate gives Advice and Consent. Thus, where there is no President, there is no nomination or appointment, and where there is no Senate, there is no Advice or Consent.
Thus, where there are no States, there are no Judges.
In sum, where there are no States, there is no "constitutional Government," for not one Office can be filled.
Thus, it behooves us to learn the difference between the "federal government" and the "constitutional Government," and, even more importantly, the present non-existence of the "constitutional Government."
The "federal government" is the "government" "of the banks, by the banks, for the banks." For it to be curbed, we start by ceasing to "trade with the enemy."
Harmon
per the article above http://www.apfn.org/pdf/
Thus, in sum, to solve any problem, it helps greatly to identify it correctly, first. Here, not only do we need to learn to distinguish between the "federal government" and the "constitutional Government," but also we need to learn that there is presently no "constitutional Government" in operation, but only the "federal government."
The cite to Devvy's web page that contains the indictment language is still a good link to that.
Since the Constitution was not "admissible evidence of Law" for this case, that got me started trying to find when it stopped being the Supreme Law of the Land. Right now, I'm satisfied that it had to have occurred prior to 1850. In the early 1850's, Lysander Spooner witnessed the "court's" giving the "jury" the instructions to follow the "law" given by the "court." This is a complete abrogation of the Law stated in Brailsford v.
Georgia, meaning, telling us, giving us "notice," that the "United States District Court" in Massachusetts was no longer bound to the Constitution or to the prior opinions of the Supreme Court. In other words, the Constitution, and the "constitutional Government" it created, got deep-sixed at or before those cases came on for trial in the early 1850's.
Another interesting indicia of the non-existence of the "constitutional Government" is the "popular vote" of 1824. Five Presidents, four of them for two terms each, were elected per Article II, section 1. That's nine elections before the thought ever existed of any "popular vote," a concept found nowhere in the Constitution for choosing a President.
And, even with the 12th Amendment (1804), there were still 20 years before the "popular vote" made its entrance. How fitting is it that John Quincy Adams, the sixth President, won neither the "popular vote" nor the Electoral Vote? It definitely earmarks that event for our study.
The legal reality of the non-existence of the "constitutional Government" just didn't sink in until I read the 7th Circuit's opinion in this case. Now, it's as clear as day. Since it took the padded 2x4 of the 7th Circuit to get me "over" that barrier, I don't realistically expect anything short of personal experience to persuade anyone else, either. But, then, there's always hope!
To combine the attached notes with these, here's one perspective, with which I'll close this note.
The State is the sine qua non regarding the "constitutional Government." Without States, there is no "constitutional Government." Starting with Article I, if there are no States, then there are no Representatives, for Representatives represent People in the States.
And, if there are no States, then there are no Senators, for Senators represent the States, directly, in that legislative process. (You're right, of course, to look to the so-called 17th Amendment (1913). However, I've already traced the non-existence of the "constitutional Government back to 1850, so this particular "notice" to us, in 1913, that the States no longer exist, and, therefore, that the States have no more need of representation in Congress, is about 60 years "late.") The entire purpose of the Senate is to have the States, as such, participate in the legislative process. If there are no States, then not only is there no Congress, but also there is no need even for a Senate.
Thus, where there are no States, there is no Congress.
Continuing with Article II, where there are no States, there is no President. From where come the Electors? Right, the States. The Electors hold an Office in the "constitutional Government," which exists for the sole purpose of choosing the President. If there are no States, then there are no Electors. Where there are no Electors, there is no President.
Thus, where there are no States, there is no President.
Continuing with Article III, where there are no States, there are no Judges. From where come the Judges? Right, the President nominates and appoints, and the Senate gives Advice and Consent. Thus, where there is no President, there is no nomination or appointment, and where there is no Senate, there is no Advice or Consent.
Thus, where there are no States, there are no Judges.
In sum, where there are no States, there is no "constitutional Government," for not one Office can be filled.
Thus, it behooves us to learn the difference between the "federal government" and the "constitutional Government," and, even more importantly, the present non-existence of the "constitutional Government."
The "federal government" is the "government" "of the banks, by the banks, for the banks." For it to be curbed, we start by ceasing to "trade with the enemy."
Harmon
per the article above http://www.apfn.org/pdf/
[this picture @ site, as are all pictures]
Open Letter to President George W. Bush
Re: Stay of Execution
by Harmon L. Taylor
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/OKC_
Re: Stay of Execution
by Harmon L. Taylor
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/OKC_
WHO had access to the Murrah Building?
Who were the Two Men Jane Graham saw? Click Here
for pictures & clip
"There was a waving motion....like an earthquake...then seconds
later an explosion came from BENEATH straight UP through the floor" according to
Jane C, Graham, who was on the nineth floor of the Murrah Building at 9 am on
April 19, 1995.
Video Affidavit of Murrah Federal Building Bombing witness/survivor Jane C. Graham:
Video Affidavit of Murrah Federal Building Bombing witness/survivor Jane C. Graham:
FBI Still Keeping the Lid on Eyewitness Reports
http://www.apfn.org/thewinds/
http://www.apfn.org/thewinds/
See Pictures from film: No Large Crater - Debris
out, rather than IN - Shaking BEFORE Explosion
Refusal of Jane C Graham's (witness/survivor) Testimony to the
Grand Jury
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/
Although the FBI interviewed Graham, they never showed her any pictures or brought her before a sketch artist. "They only wanted to know if I could identify McVeigh or Nichols," she said. "I said it was neither of these two gentlemen.
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/
Although the FBI interviewed Graham, they never showed her any pictures or brought her before a sketch artist. "They only wanted to know if I could identify McVeigh or Nichols," she said. "I said it was neither of these two gentlemen.
The Oklahoma City Bombing- Were there additional explosive charges
and additional bombers?
http://www.whatreallyhappened.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.
What Really Happened in the Oklahoma City Bombing? Many Victims'
Families Believe FBI Knew Bombing Was Being Planned;
http://www.comeandtakeit.com/
http://www.comeandtakeit.com/
Who were the Two Men Jane Graham saw? Filed last Friday
afternoon (05/11/01) by a Dallas lawyer representing Jane
Graham and V.Z. Lawton, two bombing victims who were in the destroyed
federal building at the time, the lawsuit asks the federal court
governing Terre Haute prison to stay McVeigh's execution pending a civil
suit the victims have filed - claiming that McVeigh is an indispensable witness
in that lawsuit, which is now in the discovery phase.
JOHN ASHCROFT AND THE OKC BOMBING
Devvy Kidd
February 8, 2001
The new Attorney General, John Ashcroft, has a reputation as being very religious with an abundance of personal integrity. Having said that, now that he is confirmed, I would ask you to join me in burying his office with a demand that he re-open the Oklahoma City bombing. Why? http://www.devvy.com/ashcroft_
Devvy Kidd
February 8, 2001
The new Attorney General, John Ashcroft, has a reputation as being very religious with an abundance of personal integrity. Having said that, now that he is confirmed, I would ask you to join me in burying his office with a demand that he re-open the Oklahoma City bombing. Why? http://www.devvy.com/ashcroft_
[There's much more information @ http://www.apfn.org/apfn/okc_
No comments:
Post a Comment