Sent: 4/8/2013 5:19:37 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
Subj: About the feds pushing back on Sheriffs, etc., pushing back against "federal" overreach
Subj: About the feds pushing back on Sheriffs, etc., pushing back against "federal" overreach
8 April A.D. 2013
Here's a link to one version of this story.
http://modernsurvivalblog.com/government-gone-wild/federal-framework-being-set-up-to-arrest-sheriffs/
The concept of which to be aware is this. The "feds" are right, and the Sheriffs are wrong.
Why is that?
Because "federal" means "federal".
If we had a "constitution", hence, a governmental system at the national level created by, thus also limited by, such accumulation of thoughts on how an independent people govern themselves, then the vast majority of matters and issues that vex us these days wouldn't exist. Since we do not now have, and have never had a "constitution", it follows that throwing the "constitution" at that which vexes us is a generic waste of time, "money", and energy.
What type of system do we have?
The proper label is "democracy", and since the democratic law-making process has yet to be activated on the national level, since (before) this nation's founding, that which passes as "government" functions "federally".
"Federal" has two generic applications. If we're talking about bodies politic, generically, a "commonwealth", "federal" describes the interactions by and between those "commonwealths". Fundamentally, those are "agreements" made by and between "commonwealths". If we're talking about people within a "commonwealth", "federal" still applies. It's the exact same generic concept, i.e., "agreement". This "federal" system operates "federally", and, for all practical purposes for the appearance of complete obliteration of individual rights, "federal" still means "by agreement".
When it comes to the gun-grab insanity, IF there's a basis for such a pogrom, programme, scam, prelim to dictatorship, THEN it'll be 100% commercial in nature. Why is that? Because "federal" means "federal".
Therefore, since that on which the national system depends for its "authority", for anything (including a significant part of its "book of discipline" (it's penal code)), is this or that "agreement", it follows that a Sheriff's intent to interfere with UNITED STATES's enforcement of those "agreements" is 100% beyond the scope of the authority of any Sheriff, or any STATE official, generally.
In other words, any overreach (via the appearance of rights-violating gun-grab activities) isn't really overreach, at all, given that (1) each individual (who is competent, of age of majority, etc.) has a "right (not) to contract", and (2) as a by-product of the clandestine "agreements" on which this present "federal" system operates, those subjected to a gun-grab have (long since) already agreed to be disarmed.
Since the Supreme Court has already confirmed that the right of self-defense includes the ability to defend one's home with firearms, and everyone and everything in that home, no gun-grab programme is going to leave anyone unable to defend one's home.
It's our exercise of our "right (not) to contract", generically, our "right (not) to agree", that creates that which vexes us, these days. Since, as a people, as a nation, we're not yet thinking in terms of our present reality (which started circa 1965, when the last vestiges of silver were removed from general circulation), we're showing up to a howitzer fight with nothing but a broken butter knife.
Once we, as a people, stop "worshiping" the "constitution", a great idea that was never "admissible evidence of law", and start thinking in terms of our present legal reality, we'll be a lot more efficient with our time, "money", and energy. One of the things that will stop happening, then, for example, is using the "constitution" as a rallying point, concept, platform. Instead, we'll ask ourselves, for example, "Where's the agreement?" To get to the point of asking that question, we've got to go through a rather wicked paradigm shift, involving coming to terms with the reality that we do not now have and have never had a "constitution".
Once we have that perspective in mind, we'll stop thinking that there's anything, at all, in the world that's relevant about any "constitution". To get to that stage of development in our thinking about matters legal, we'll see that all this "circle the wagons around the constitution" activity is laughable, in the eyes of those who, for example, realize that it's perfectly Ok to run the obama-nation as a presidential candidate, for there is no Art. II, hence, no procedural limit or substantive limit on how that particular office is filled.
Since the "bad guys" have long since figured out that we do not now have and have never had a "constitution", it's the first (and only) place to start for the "good guys", as well. To understand that we're dealing with "agreements" is to understand that the problem doesn't really start in Washington, anyway. It starts with the person we find in the mirror.
How do we curb the abuses coming out of Washington? We stop exercising our "right to agree" and start exercising our "right not to agree". This is not a political statement. Taking 'Speaker's Corner' and declaring before God [YAHUWAH] and all witnesses assembled is 100% irrelevant. What we're talking about is commercial behavior.
Where's the gun-grab gotcha agreement? There may be several. One may be in the context of war veterans obtaining medical treatment/benefits from the VA. One may be in the content of the "licensing" agreement(s) with the ATF. If there's one that's broader in scope, surely it'll be found in some "income tax" legislation or other.
Key to the solution, then, is starting with a correct identification of the problem. Down that path, "federal" means "federal".
For this reason, the ("constitutional") Sheriffs are staring in the face of "obstruction" charges by interfering with "anything" regarding that the "feds" have an "agreement".
THEREFORE, instead of saying, "The 'constitution' doesn't allow you (feds) to do that", far, far better is learning the "law" well enough to know what, if any, basis for agreement may exist, and then for those Sheriffs to say, to their constituents, "Here are the 'agreements' that the ATF intends to enforce". Do what you can to complete them and terminate them. Then, there can't be a (legitimate) gun grab.
Once there's not a legitimate gun grab, there's nothing but war, and for that, the Sheriffs will be on the front line, of course. However, for so long as there's a legitimate "agreement" for the feds to enforce, the thing that the target of such enforcement will want to do is surrender the offending weapons.
Those who are sick and tired of this present "federal" system, will do well to find ways to stop using the "federal" "funny money".
Thus, if the Sheriffs really want to do something constructive, what they'll do is teach the reality of the "choice of law" problems that accompany the use of "funny money". Then, they'll set up "funny money free zones". Where there genuinely and truly is no commercial activity, of any type (including "taxes", including "income taxes"), using "funny money" within the scope of that Sheriff's jurisdiction, THEN the Sheriffs have the best reason under the heavens to stop the feds at the county line!
However, for so long as "funny money" runs rampantly throughout that Sheriff's jurisdiction (including the medium of exchange by which that particular public servant gets paid), the feds are going to have all the authority they need to enforce whatever it is that they're enforcing (presuming there's also an enforceable "gotcha agreement" formed with the "choice of law" that the "funny money" always brings with it).
The reality is a difficult concept to the hard-core "constitution-ists", as this author was prior to The Terre Haute Litigation. If we really have choices, then we can learn our present reality, so as to learn how to defend ourselves (which involves changing the commercial FACTS (which FACTS are 100% within our control) on which the tyrannical system depends) or we can continue to do the same thing, the same way, while expecting different results. One of these is competent and prudent (and sane); the other, a total waste of time, "money", and energy (and clinically insane). One of these provides solutions; the other, a (much) wider and deeper hole out of which to try to climb.
Since the feds are throwing "agreements", not power, not authority, not tyranny, but "agreements", at us, the way to "push back" is to stop agreeing to being regulated by them.
"Federal" means "federal". This "federal" system operates "federally", i.e., "by agreement". That's how all levels work, not just the national level but also the STATEs, and the counties, and the municipalities. This nation stands a chance of surviving, if those interested in doing something, start thinking in terms of commerce, in terms of Monte Hall's "Let's Make A Deal!" It's not about "law", in the traditional sense. It's about commerce. Is there a "gotcha agreement" to be enforced? If so, those who don't appreciate the (rest of the) consequences of such "agreements" need to stop agreeing to being regulated by them.
In the exact same way that the obama-nation, or any other office holder, STATE or national, cannot compel anyone into any "gotcha agreement", no Sheriff, by being Sheriff, can get anyone out of such agreement, once it's entered into.
Those Sheriffs that find a way to get all "funny money" out of their counties, are the Sheriffs that are serious about putting an end to the insanity of "gun grab", in particular, and to the insanity of what comes out of Washington, generally. Those who continue to allow "funny money" to flourish in their counties, are the last ones on the face of the planet in a position to tell the feds what the feds can or can't do.
To "push back", then, we've got to "walk away", which is 100% commercial activity.
Harmon L. Taylor
Legal Reality
Dallas, Texas
Subscribe / unsubscribe : legal_reality@earthlink.net
Here's a link to one version of this story.
http://modernsurvivalblog.com/government-gone-wild/federal-framework-being-set-up-to-arrest-sheriffs/
The concept of which to be aware is this. The "feds" are right, and the Sheriffs are wrong.
Why is that?
Because "federal" means "federal".
If we had a "constitution", hence, a governmental system at the national level created by, thus also limited by, such accumulation of thoughts on how an independent people govern themselves, then the vast majority of matters and issues that vex us these days wouldn't exist. Since we do not now have, and have never had a "constitution", it follows that throwing the "constitution" at that which vexes us is a generic waste of time, "money", and energy.
What type of system do we have?
The proper label is "democracy", and since the democratic law-making process has yet to be activated on the national level, since (before) this nation's founding, that which passes as "government" functions "federally".
"Federal" has two generic applications. If we're talking about bodies politic, generically, a "commonwealth", "federal" describes the interactions by and between those "commonwealths". Fundamentally, those are "agreements" made by and between "commonwealths". If we're talking about people within a "commonwealth", "federal" still applies. It's the exact same generic concept, i.e., "agreement". This "federal" system operates "federally", and, for all practical purposes for the appearance of complete obliteration of individual rights, "federal" still means "by agreement".
When it comes to the gun-grab insanity, IF there's a basis for such a pogrom, programme, scam, prelim to dictatorship, THEN it'll be 100% commercial in nature. Why is that? Because "federal" means "federal".
Therefore, since that on which the national system depends for its "authority", for anything (including a significant part of its "book of discipline" (it's penal code)), is this or that "agreement", it follows that a Sheriff's intent to interfere with UNITED STATES's enforcement of those "agreements" is 100% beyond the scope of the authority of any Sheriff, or any STATE official, generally.
In other words, any overreach (via the appearance of rights-violating gun-grab activities) isn't really overreach, at all, given that (1) each individual (who is competent, of age of majority, etc.) has a "right (not) to contract", and (2) as a by-product of the clandestine "agreements" on which this present "federal" system operates, those subjected to a gun-grab have (long since) already agreed to be disarmed.
Since the Supreme Court has already confirmed that the right of self-defense includes the ability to defend one's home with firearms, and everyone and everything in that home, no gun-grab programme is going to leave anyone unable to defend one's home.
It's our exercise of our "right (not) to contract", generically, our "right (not) to agree", that creates that which vexes us, these days. Since, as a people, as a nation, we're not yet thinking in terms of our present reality (which started circa 1965, when the last vestiges of silver were removed from general circulation), we're showing up to a howitzer fight with nothing but a broken butter knife.
Once we, as a people, stop "worshiping" the "constitution", a great idea that was never "admissible evidence of law", and start thinking in terms of our present legal reality, we'll be a lot more efficient with our time, "money", and energy. One of the things that will stop happening, then, for example, is using the "constitution" as a rallying point, concept, platform. Instead, we'll ask ourselves, for example, "Where's the agreement?" To get to the point of asking that question, we've got to go through a rather wicked paradigm shift, involving coming to terms with the reality that we do not now have and have never had a "constitution".
Once we have that perspective in mind, we'll stop thinking that there's anything, at all, in the world that's relevant about any "constitution". To get to that stage of development in our thinking about matters legal, we'll see that all this "circle the wagons around the constitution" activity is laughable, in the eyes of those who, for example, realize that it's perfectly Ok to run the obama-nation as a presidential candidate, for there is no Art. II, hence, no procedural limit or substantive limit on how that particular office is filled.
Since the "bad guys" have long since figured out that we do not now have and have never had a "constitution", it's the first (and only) place to start for the "good guys", as well. To understand that we're dealing with "agreements" is to understand that the problem doesn't really start in Washington, anyway. It starts with the person we find in the mirror.
How do we curb the abuses coming out of Washington? We stop exercising our "right to agree" and start exercising our "right not to agree". This is not a political statement. Taking 'Speaker's Corner' and declaring before God [YAHUWAH] and all witnesses assembled is 100% irrelevant. What we're talking about is commercial behavior.
Where's the gun-grab gotcha agreement? There may be several. One may be in the context of war veterans obtaining medical treatment/benefits from the VA. One may be in the content of the "licensing" agreement(s) with the ATF. If there's one that's broader in scope, surely it'll be found in some "income tax" legislation or other.
Key to the solution, then, is starting with a correct identification of the problem. Down that path, "federal" means "federal".
For this reason, the ("constitutional") Sheriffs are staring in the face of "obstruction" charges by interfering with "anything" regarding that the "feds" have an "agreement".
THEREFORE, instead of saying, "The 'constitution' doesn't allow you (feds) to do that", far, far better is learning the "law" well enough to know what, if any, basis for agreement may exist, and then for those Sheriffs to say, to their constituents, "Here are the 'agreements' that the ATF intends to enforce". Do what you can to complete them and terminate them. Then, there can't be a (legitimate) gun grab.
Once there's not a legitimate gun grab, there's nothing but war, and for that, the Sheriffs will be on the front line, of course. However, for so long as there's a legitimate "agreement" for the feds to enforce, the thing that the target of such enforcement will want to do is surrender the offending weapons.
Those who are sick and tired of this present "federal" system, will do well to find ways to stop using the "federal" "funny money".
Thus, if the Sheriffs really want to do something constructive, what they'll do is teach the reality of the "choice of law" problems that accompany the use of "funny money". Then, they'll set up "funny money free zones". Where there genuinely and truly is no commercial activity, of any type (including "taxes", including "income taxes"), using "funny money" within the scope of that Sheriff's jurisdiction, THEN the Sheriffs have the best reason under the heavens to stop the feds at the county line!
However, for so long as "funny money" runs rampantly throughout that Sheriff's jurisdiction (including the medium of exchange by which that particular public servant gets paid), the feds are going to have all the authority they need to enforce whatever it is that they're enforcing (presuming there's also an enforceable "gotcha agreement" formed with the "choice of law" that the "funny money" always brings with it).
The reality is a difficult concept to the hard-core "constitution-ists", as this author was prior to The Terre Haute Litigation. If we really have choices, then we can learn our present reality, so as to learn how to defend ourselves (which involves changing the commercial FACTS (which FACTS are 100% within our control) on which the tyrannical system depends) or we can continue to do the same thing, the same way, while expecting different results. One of these is competent and prudent (and sane); the other, a total waste of time, "money", and energy (and clinically insane). One of these provides solutions; the other, a (much) wider and deeper hole out of which to try to climb.
Since the feds are throwing "agreements", not power, not authority, not tyranny, but "agreements", at us, the way to "push back" is to stop agreeing to being regulated by them.
"Federal" means "federal". This "federal" system operates "federally", i.e., "by agreement". That's how all levels work, not just the national level but also the STATEs, and the counties, and the municipalities. This nation stands a chance of surviving, if those interested in doing something, start thinking in terms of commerce, in terms of Monte Hall's "Let's Make A Deal!" It's not about "law", in the traditional sense. It's about commerce. Is there a "gotcha agreement" to be enforced? If so, those who don't appreciate the (rest of the) consequences of such "agreements" need to stop agreeing to being regulated by them.
In the exact same way that the obama-nation, or any other office holder, STATE or national, cannot compel anyone into any "gotcha agreement", no Sheriff, by being Sheriff, can get anyone out of such agreement, once it's entered into.
Those Sheriffs that find a way to get all "funny money" out of their counties, are the Sheriffs that are serious about putting an end to the insanity of "gun grab", in particular, and to the insanity of what comes out of Washington, generally. Those who continue to allow "funny money" to flourish in their counties, are the last ones on the face of the planet in a position to tell the feds what the feds can or can't do.
To "push back", then, we've got to "walk away", which is 100% commercial activity.
Harmon L. Taylor
Legal Reality
Dallas, Texas
Subscribe / unsubscribe : legal_reality@earthlink.net
3 comments:
only one prob bro; 90% of sheriffs are brain dead. other than that great article.
The 50.10% that put communist Obama back into office are the brain dead ones. I will stand with the sheriffs long before I stand with the criminal Obama regime. Impeach now and remove.
There is NO commercial agreement because there can be no legally enforceable agreement based on coercion, force (real or implied) or fraud.
Those who signed papers to get firearms did so under the implied force of tyranny. A attempts to grab those guns will show to have been a reasonable fear.
Post a Comment