[* * * A Former Lawclerk Who No Longer Trusts Judges * * * establishes context. (All emboldens, highlights, [] and underlines are mine, through out this current sending.) pjr]

The "Legal Reality" Must Be Brought

In Line with The Declaration of Independence

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.

I used to be "there." See http://www.apfn.org/apfn/okc_coverup.htm

and search that page for "Taylor." You'll zoom to the top of The Terre Haute Litigation materials. The "pure Constitution" argument was characterized on appeal as (1) frivolous, (2) without merit, (3) of no authority, and (4) ludicrous. My life forever changed the instant I read their opinion, for it finally was "OK" for me to accept the legal reality that the Constitution doesn't even qualify to be the lining in the bottom of most bird cages.
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)

[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_coverup.htm .]

Open Letter to President George W. Bush
Re: Stay of Execution
by Harmon L. Taylorhttp://www.apfn.org/apfn/OKC_execution.htm

[...

Home Page of the Official Website of the Oklahoma Bombing Investigation Committee

http://web.archive.org/web/20000815055853/http:/www.okcbombing.org/ [link in letter]

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]

[...]

_____________________________________________________________________

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.htm [or, go to this next link - it's his own site:

http://web.archive.org/web/20010613220359/http://www.legalreality.com/action/ojsimpson/ojsimpson.html#labelsgen ]

_____________________________________________________________________

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.php?firstletter=T

####

http://www.apfn.org/pdf/brief.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/whywebother.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/letter.html
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/ohreally.html
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/CoverSheet.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/SummonsLappin.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/SummonsINAG.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-1.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/mrehringtro-1.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/mtro-1.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/mrehringtro-1.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/AFFIDHLT-1.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/Opinion03.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/Opinion04.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/THlitovervw.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_execution.htm

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:

FBI Still Keeping the Lid on Eyewitness Reports
http://www.apfn.org/thewinds/archive/government/okc_secrets01-98.html

See Pictures from film: No Large Crater - Debris out, rather than IN - Shaking BEFORE Explosion

There Was MORE Than One Bomb - A Classic Cover Up!

Download Acrobat Reader here

Refusal of Jane C Graham's (witness/survivor) Testimony to the Grand Jury
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/graham.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.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/ok.html

What Really Happened in the Oklahoma City Bombing? Many Victims' Families Believe FBI Knew Bombing Was Being Planned;
http://www.comeandtakeit.com/okc1.html

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_20010206.html

THE RYDER TRUCK IN THE SECRET ARMY COMPOUND.

[There's much more information @ http://www.apfn.org/apfn/okc_coverup.htm . pjr]

Well blow me down! Real life Popeye is arm-wrestling contest champion with 19 INCH forearms

Jeff Dabe from Stacy, Minnesota, travels the country taking part in the World Armwrestling League
Competed with his right arm until he was injured in 1986 and then started using his left in 2012
His massive forearms and hands give him a huge advantage over others
He was born with oversized limbs but scientists found he had no disorders

An armwrestler with 19 inch (49cm) forearms has earned himself the nickname Popeye from fans as he travels America competing to become the world champion.

Jeff Dabe's monster forearms measure 19 inches (49cm) in circumference, with the strongman's hands big enough to fit a basketball in each hand.

Tests have been conducted to discover what makes Jeff's arms so large, as family photographs show he was born with over-sized limbs.

Scroll down for video

+17

Popeye: Jeff Dabe's monster forearms measure 19 inches (49cm) in circumference, earning him the nickname Popeye

+17

Competitive edge: The arm wrestler, from Stacy, Minnesota, has been competing in arm wrestling tournaments since the 1980s, with his giant paws giving him a natural advantage

Jeff discusses his life with HUGE hands

Tests have been conducted to discover what makes Jeff's arms so large, as family photographs show he was born with over-sized limbs

+17

Having looked for signs of gigantism and elephantiasis, the University of Minnesota concluded that there were no signs of the disease or abnormalities. Jeff's wife, Gina, said he was simply born that way

Having looked for signs of gigantism and elephantiasis, the University of Minnesota concluded that there were no signs of the disease or abnormalities

Jeff's wife, Gina, said he was simply born that way.

The arm wrestler from Stacy, Minnesota, has been competing in arm wrestling tournaments since the 1980s, with his giant paws giving him a natural advantage.

He said: 'I arm wrestled as a senior in high school.

'The fans way back then were the ones that named me Popeye.'

Having made a promising start in the sport, Jeff, 52, popped his right arm during a contest in 1986, causing him to stop competing.

+17

Massive: Jeff Dabe's monster forearms measure 19 inches (49cm) in circumference and he is capable of holding a basketball in each hand

+17

Spot the difference: Jeff was given the nickname Popeye after the spinach-eating sailor, pictured, with big muscles

+17

Setback: Having made a promising start in the sport, Jeff, 52, popped his right arm during a contest in 1986, causing him to stop competing

+17

High hopes: Jeff is now training and hopes to become the champion in the World Armwrestling League

+17

Starting again: It wasn't until 2012, when Minnesota armwrestling champ Josh Handelland came to town, that Jeff decided to start competing seriously again - this time using his left arm

+17

Shocking size: Jeff says that people 'freak out' when they see the size of his hands

It wasn't until 2012, when Minnesota armwrestling champ Josh Handelland came to town, that Jeff decided to start competing seriously again - this time using his left arm.

He would then go on to become the State Champion himself, which would see him invited to compete on the World Armwrestling League (WAL) circuit.

Jeff said: 'Thanks to the World Armwrestling League I am now competing with people from all over America.

'It's so fun to travel to places we wouldn't normally go.

'I was always good at arm wrestling, but the size of my hands did shock people at first - I had the strength to back it up.

'People freak out when they see my hands in real life.'

+17

Sporting past: Initially, Jeff did not focus purely on armwrestling-based training

+17

Farm hand: Jeff would build up strength carrying out farm chores such as chopping wood, shovelling and working with heavy equipment

+17

Focus: Recently Jeff has begun taking arm wrestling more seriously, welding his own practice table and hitting the weights

+17

New hobby: The WAL sees Jeff and Gina, 53, travel across the country to compete in tournaments

The WAL sees Jeff and Gina, 53, travel across the country to compete in tournaments in the likes of Las Vegas.

Initially, Jeff did not focus purely on arm wrestling-based training - he would build up strength carrying out farm chores: chopping wood, shovelling and working with heavy equipment.

Recently, though, Jeff has begun taking arm wrestling more seriously, welding his own practice table and hitting the weights.

Gina said: 'I always encourage Jeff no matter what he does - and it's so fun.

'Everyone thinks Jeff is really funny and we do lots of goofy things together.

'This is just the next phase.

'I love the tournaments, and he gets me on aeroplanes to nice hotels and beautiful places.

'We are so proud of him.'

+17

Fans favorite: The crowd love to see Jeff armwrestle and his family are extremely proud of him

+17

Digits: Jeff's mobile phone looks tiny when he is holding it showing the true scale of his huge hands

Inspiration: Loving wife Gina says she likes to encourage Jeff in whatever he does

+17

Epic proportions: This photo shows just how big Jeff's hands a

NESARA- REPUBLIC NOW - GALACTIC NEWS

Thursday, August 6, 2015

HOT EXPLOSIVE Breaking News : Bush Crime Family 9/11 TREASON Totally Fingered

The "Legal Reality" Must Be Brought In Line With The Declaration of Independence

Video: The Pope Of Lucifer And Other Strange Stuff...Uniting All Religions Under Rome...

This is for you Popeye: Real life Popeye is arm-wrestling contest champion with 19 INCH forearms

Well blow me down! Real life Popeye is arm-wrestling contest champion with 19 INCH forearms

The Legitimate Real DeJure Republic Exists

Search This Blog "if this search box is working"

Donation to assist in efforts to restore our republic

The DUKE - Patriot!

National Assembly of the people returning to self governance

The True American Peacetime Civil Flag!

U.S. Military Flag

No money involved here!!! This Operating System is a FREE solution to crappy Windows

De Jure Original Jurisdiction Republic 1861 circa 2010 document links

Total Pageviews

Blog Archive

Nesaranews Mission Statement

Followers